Why Do You Trust Muhammad?

[laconicstudent]

This thread about Muhammed has seen a swather of Moslems and other non-Christians try to turn this into a debate about Christianity

Strange how that happens.

 

[humblemuslim]

You can feel that way, but that doesn't make it so. Surely, your religion will get attacked in a unfair manner sometimes, but what do you say about the legitimate issues that we raise? What about all of the misinformation that your coreligionist (you included) make about Christianity on a very regular basis? You don't seem to correct them when they do it. Why not start with correcting your own irrationality first?

But when you say it regarding your own religion, it does make it so? Or am I taking this declaration the wrong way?

I address the ones that I am able, just as any other religious person will. There is nothing unique about my methodology here. I am sure if you look hard enough you will see that we are more alike than you might acknowledge.

If you see a mistake, correct it. That is all you can do.

Calling my views 'irrational' is not going to be grounds on which I am going to change my views. You are going to have to reason with me in understandable terms.

And not that it is relevant, but I have corrected/disagreed with fellow muslims on some issues. One such issue was erased from this forum because according to moderators my explanation was so detailed that it 'promoted' my religion. Not my fault I was censored.

If you insist on following the leader, I suppose I will unwillingly take on the role for the greater good of the discussion on this forum. It does get old seeing the same irrelevant details surfacing in threads.

 

[humblemuslim]

The amount of times Moslems object to me quoting their texts is amazing. Then they're not objecting to context, but simply 'cause I as a non-Moslem are quoting it

This thread about Muhammed has seen a swather of Moslems and other non-Christians try to turn this into a debate about Christianity

Once again, let us not pretend that the offense is not on both sides.

 

[IzzyPop]

Factual error: Islam, and Christianity don't say death is the end.

You have got to be kidding me. No religion does. That was my whole point.

Humans are scared of death. Perfectly natural. Religion helps assuage that fear. Remember 'big bad monster in the closet' I mentioned in the post that kicked this whole derail off? That was death. I specifically mentioned fear of death twice in the ensuing conversation. But I guess you were too busy being offended that I lumped you into the same group as Muslims and trying to prove my statement was a fallacious tu quoque (Which, BTW, are not automatically fallacious. Your friend was wrong about that.) to actually read what I was writing.

 

[Montalban]

You have got to be kidding me. No religion does. That was my whole effing point.

The point is those religions are built on hope for the afterlife

Odd you can argue that religions are built on fear by assuaging fear!

If I didn't point out this absurdity earlier, I apologise.

 

[Montalban]

Once again, let us not pretend that the offense is not on both sides.

Set an example; try discussing Muhammed here

 

[Montalban]

Or have we moved beyond this topic?

I've not seen you on topic for some time

 

[peaceful soul]

But when you say it regarding your own religion, it does make it so? Or am I taking this declaration the wrong way?

I address the ones that I am able, just as any other religious person will. There is nothing unique about my methodology here. I am sure if you look hard enough you will see that we are more alike than you might acknowledge.

If you see a mistake, correct it. That is all you can do.

Calling my views 'irrational' is not going to be grounds on which I am going to change my views. You are going to have to reason with me in understandable terms.

And not that it is relevant, but I have corrected/disagreed with fellow muslims on some issues. One such issue was erased from this forum because according to moderators my explanation was so detailed that it 'promoted' my religion. Not my fault I was censored.

If you insist on following the leader, I suppose I will unwillingly take on the role for the greater good of the discussion on this forum. It does get old seeing the same irrelevant details surfacing in threads.

You brought up the irrationality of people that argue against Islam. I just pointed out that there is plenty of it that you and your coreligionist create here. What about that part? Shall it go unaddressed? Or shall it be addressed? I see a need to cry victim by you. There is plenty to decry about Islam; so, you will have to learn how to deal with the legitimate issues we raise when appropriate. Not all of them are trivial or unwarranted, even if you think that there may be an attack.

 

[Montalban]

Add to that the fact that there are no independent reports that Jesus performed these miracles

What is the significance of saying this? What 'independent' reports show Muhammed performed miracles?

 

[IzzyPop]

The point is those religions are built on hope for the afterlife

And why do people hope that there is an afterlife? Because they fear death.

Odd you can argue that religions are built on fear by assuaging fear!

How so? The fear of death is near universal. Rather than help people accept it as it is, they use it as a bludgeon to swell their ranks.

'Follow my rules and your eternity will be nice for ever and ever. Don't and we will torture you for the same amount of time.'

What part of that is not built on fear?

 

[Montalban]

And why do people hope that there is an afterlife? Because they fear death.

There are martyrs in both Islam and Chrisitanity

 

[IzzyPop]

There are martyrs in both Islam and Chrisitanity

Then that makes it okay? There are martyrs to any -ism. That is the true danger of religion.

Any -ism taken too far ends up with the ends justifying the means. With the materialistic ideologies there comes a time when they have to put up or shut up. But religion deals with the afterlife and nobody is coming back to tell us if God is keeping his promises.

What is it that Voltare said? Something along the lines of before you commit atrocities you must first believe in aburdities? And there are few things more absurd than believing that a man that came back from the dead after 3 days or that a man went to heaven in a chariot of fire.

So it comes down to nearly every religion, yours included, can be and has been twisted around to support some pretty horrific things. And from an unbelievers perspective, it doesn't matter what flavor of crazy you like, you are all a bit crazy in the end.

 

[humblemuslim]

Set an example; try discussing Muhammed here

I already answered the question of the thread, which was why I trust Muhammad. My responses directed towards the OP were concluded in post #15 after which the topic became an excuse to throw stones at Islam and Christianity, back and forth.

Though it appears the topic has gone from a mere question to an all out assault on the character of the prophet and the religion.

What exactly is there to respond to when you are going around making absolute statements like:

"Islam is the religion of fear and terror."

You never substantiated your claim. You just stated it as though it were factual. What then is there to address? I can not bother myself with every unsupported outburst. Once you start supporting your claims then you can expect me and others to respond.

 

[humblemuslim]

You brought up the irrationality of people that argue against Islam. I just pointed out that there is plenty of it that you and your coreligionist create here. What about that part? Shall it go unaddressed? Or shall it be addressed? I see a need to cry victim by you. There is plenty to decry about Islam; so, you will have to learn how to deal with the legitimate issues we raise when appropriate. Not all of them are trivial or unwarranted, even if you think that there may be an attack.

Montalban brought forth the statement of 'irrational' arguments. Refer to the origin in post #93. All I said was I feel likewise. I never said anything in disagreement with his comments regarding 'irrational' attacks on Christianity.

I unfortunately see I am talking with a hypocrite or someone who is confused, unless you wish to address/acknowledge your bother in faith equally so in post #93. If you do not realize the error in your comment here, then there is no further need to discuss this matter any further.

So if a Christian says 'I believe Christianity is true because of all these irrational attacks' that is sound. But if a muslims says likewise, it is a cry of victim? That is simply nonsense. Do not let your bias mock you.

I am just fine with that. Are you equally fine with the 'legitimate issues' raised about Christianity or are we still in a fantasy world of double standards?

 

[Erfan777]

I am not speaking only to you, but I used your post since you used LOL and are responded in a nonchalant manner. It is not really funny at all. You are using a 'you too' argument, which is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. There is no relevance to this topic unless you are simply pointing out a similarity. Even so, you can't use that similarity to justify the topic at hand.

Fine, fine I will try to refrain frm using 'you too' argument. But I found it funny when ppl try to run away from questions such as the one I posted hence I wrote 'lol', what do I care about what you think and I don't think its against the forum rule to write 'lol' when you don't find it funny.

 

[Erfan777]

I already answered the question of the thread, which was why I trust Muhammad. My responses directed towards the OP were concluded in post #15 after which the topic became an excuse to throw stones at Islam and Christianity, back and forth.

Though it appears the topic has gone from a mere question to an all out assault on the character of the prophet and the religion.

What exactly is there to respond to when you are going around making absolute statements like:

"Islam is the religion of fear and terror."

You never substantiated your claim. You just stated it as though it were factual. What then is there to address? I can not bother myself with every unsupported outburst. Once you start supporting your claims then you can expect me and others to respond.

Their support would most likely be from media and anti-islamic websites.

 

[humblemuslim]

Their support would most likely be from media and anti-islamic websites.

Probably. But that is fine. It would be a ad hominem (Personal Attack) to disregard the sources solely because they have a prejudice against Islam. But I am not about to read through pages and pages of nonsense that I have seen time and time again. The point should be made concisely, and clearly.

If Montalban is really interested in a discussion of the prophet, then he needs to supply specific details. Not broad statements.

Imagine if someone came up to you and said "Science is silly". There is no response to be given to that aside from a question "Where?". I am still at the "Where?" stage and have yet to receive a response back.


Though quite frankly the ad hominem against the prophet is not the correct approach to discrediting Islam. The Qur'an is right there.

 

[peaceful soul]

Fine, fine I will try to refrain frm using 'you too' argument. But I found it funny when ppl try to run away from questions such as the one I posted hence I wrote 'lol', what do I care about what you think and I don't think its against the forum rule to write 'lol' when you don't find it funny.

I don't think that he was trying to run away from questions, but I will not decide that for you. I just saw your 'LOL'. It didn't have any context by which I could discretely judge that you had other intentions than to simply dismiss what was said or to take it lightly. That was why I commented.

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by humblemuslim

Montalban brought forth the statement of 'irrational' arguments. Refer to the origin in post #93. All I said was I feel likewise. I never said anything in disagreement with his comments regarding 'irrational' attacks on Christianity.

OK, but then you proceeded to then reverse the position to fit your religion as to protect it. That is OK if you just want to bring attention to it; but, I have to ask why? Does that change the situation mentioned in that post (93)? We still have to deal with that post in regards to Muslims. How about it?

I unfortunately see I am talking with a hypocrite or someone who is confused, unless you wish to address/acknowledge your bother in faith equally so in post #93. If you do not realize the error in your comment here, then there is no further need to discuss this matter any further.

My intent was not to be a hypocrite. I just want to know why is it important that we look at the reverse when the topic was with Muslims. Sure people of other religions do it too, but what would that have to do with Muslims, especially when post 93 was not done in a hypocritical manner? Care to explain?

So if a Christian says 'I believe Christianity is true because of all these irrational attacks' that is sound. But if a muslims says likewise, it is a cry of victim? That is simply nonsense. Do not let your bias mock you.

It is the context that you mentioned it that is out of place IMO. It is as if you are trying to construct a tu quoque argument to protect your religion from being discussed on its own merits. It seemed to me that you were basically saying that if we do, so do you; so, why single us out. That does not answer the question presented at all. It only diverts attention to Christians now. Do you see that?

What Montalban was saying is that the irrationality of discussion gives credence to Christianity since there appears to be no sound argument against it as evidenced by all of the tu quoques presented here. If those people actually dealt with content and context of scripture, then perhaps this conclusion wouldn't have much weight.

I am just fine with that. Are you equally fine with the 'legitimate issues' raised about Christianity or are we still in a fantasy world of double standards?

Again, it appears like a tu quoque. The issues that were first raised have gone unanswered. Why not just deal with what was asked of you instead? There is no double standard since no one has denied that it doesn't happen in Christianity as well. We are not being hypocritical as you suggest. How about dealing with what we asked? A double standard would exist if we didn't allow the same criteria to be used against Christianity, but no Christian has argued that. We only asked about Islam; so, we have no need to address Christianity. Do you see that? If we were being hypocritical, then you would have good reason to call us out.

 

[humblemuslim]

originally posted by humblemuslim



OK, but then you proceeded to then reverse the position to fit your religion as to protect it. That is OK if you just want to bring attention to it; but, I have to ask why? Does that change the situation mentioned in that post (93)? We still have to deal with that post in regards to Muslims. How about it?



My intent was not to be a hypocrite. I just want to know why is it important that we look at the reverse when the topic was with Muslims. Sure people of other religions do it too, but what would that have to do with Muslims, especially when post 93 was not done in a hypocritical manner? Care to explain?



It is the context that you mentioned it that is out of place IMO. It is as if you are trying to construct a tu quoque argument to protect your religion from being discussed on its own merits. It seemed to me that you were basically saying that if we do, so do you; so, why single us out. That does not answer the question presented at all. It only diverts attention to Christians now. Do you see that?

What Montalban was saying is that the irrationality of discussion gives credence to Christianity since there appears to be no sound argument against it as evidenced by all of the tu quoques presented here. If those people actually dealt with content and context of scripture, then perhaps this conclusion wouldn't have much weight.



Again, it appears like a tu quoque. The issues that were first raised have gone unanswered. Why not just deal with what was asked of you instead? There is no double standard since no one has denied that it doesn't happen in Christianity as well. We are not being hypocritical as you suggest. How about dealing with what we asked? A double standard would exist if we didn't allow the same criteria to be used against Christianity, but no Christian has argued that. We only asked about Islam; so, we have no need to address Christianity. Do you see that? If we were being hypocritical, then you would have good reason to call us out.

Post 93 was an irrelevant outburst. Do you agree with this statement? It had nothing to do remotely with Muhammad. In fact the two of you have had at least one off topic side discussion in the thread.

There is no merit in irrelevant outbursts. If you believe his post was on topic, please tell me how it relates to Muhammad.

Which is irrelevant. What he should be saying is "Answer X" if he is looking for an answer. That post was not looking for an answer.

Look. If either of you have serious concerns, state them clearly without surrounding it with irrelevant outbursts and I will gladly supply an answer within my abilities.

The more orderly you are about it, the greater the chance I will respond. I am not going to waste my time trying to figure out what is meant to be an argument and what is not. State them one by one and we can proceed.