Muslims riot to kill atheists and others.

[smaneck]

Wow. I trust you realize that "killing atheists for Jesus" is in no way connected to the Gospel?

Actually it has some connection. The last verse of the parable of the Talents as recorded in Luke has historically been used to justify killing unbelievers.

"27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Likewise Luke 14:23 has been used to justify forcible conversions.

 

[smaneck]

He said in the Qur'aan that He has perfected our religion for us.

And when Jesus was on the cross, he said "It is finished." Just like Muslims Christians have taken this to mean that God will never have anything else to say to us. Thus the same pattern repeats itself from age to age:

"And Joseph came to you aforetime with clear tokens, but ye ceased not to doubt of the message with which He came to you, until, when He died, ye said, 'God will be no means raise up a Messenger after Him." (Qur'an 40:36).

Essentially this tying up the Hand of God, and you know what the Qur'an has to say about that:

"The Jews say that the Hand of God is tied up. Tied up are their own hands for what they have said. But the Hands of God are outstretched. (5:67)

When I was a freshman in college I attended a debate between a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim. The Muslim kept going on and on about how there would be no revelation after Muhammad. I finally raised my hand and said, "Aren't you saying that the Hand of God is tied up?" The Jew jumped up and said, "That's right, that's right. We are not the ones saying the Hand of God is tied, up Muslims are!"

As Baha'u'llah pointed out:

"For over a thousand years they have been reciting this verse, and unwittingly pronouncing their censure against the Jews, utterly unaware that they themselves, openly and privily, are voicing the sentiments and belief of the Jewish people!"

In the past, Muslim scholars have actually declared some rulers who called themselves Muslims as disbelievers because they preferred man-made laws over God laws

Which is contrary to the Qur'an:

"do not say to anyone who gives you greets you with peace "You are not a believer" (4:94)

 

[smaneck]

Moslem girls in Bangladeshi schools wear a sash across their dresses to indicate their faith,

Actually most women in South Asia where a dupatta or sash when they are wearing a salvar and chamiz not matter what their religion. I didn't wear one when I lived in India for the simple reason I couldn't keep them draped over my shoulders. I had it sewed on for my wedding outfit.

Wahhabi culture is destroying the actual culture of people from Bangladesh and Pakistan, and replacing it with an alien Arab culture.

It is not even Arab. The Wahhabis were considered dangerous heretics in the 18th and 19th century.

Bangladesh is a very beautiful, very friendly and sadly very poor country. The riots do not reflect it in any way whatever, imo.

I would agree. What some people forget is that the Islamic world has produced more female prime ministers than any other place in the world and they all come from South Asia, Bangladesh being one of them.

 

[smaneck]

Like religion, like followers! But it's good for humanity that there are a lot of moderate and liberal "Muslims" who do not follow their religious texts strictly or the footsteps of Mohamed.

Muhammad's first wife, Khadijah was not kept veiled or in seclusion. During the Medina period this changed because Muslims were not respecting the privacy of the Holy Family.

The problem is not that Muslims are following their religious texts or the example of the Prophet, it is that they fail to consider the context of Muhammad's actions.

 

[smaneck]

1.) Do you notice that site? It's PressTV on Saudis. You might as well have been asking Fox about Muslims. Really.

Or a Sunni website about the principles of hadith in Shi'ism?

 

[smaneck]

Those Bosnian women were clearly wearing hijaab.

It is only in the last four decades that the hijaab has become a marker of Muslim identity. It clearly isn't something associated with Wahhabism because Wahhabis want to cover their women entirely, not just their hair. It is something which got started mostly in Iran and Egypt. There is a movie, The Veiled Revolution which explains this but it is very expensive and not available on Youtube.

 

[smaneck]

Not really. I've been posting here for nigh on ten years. I was raised with the Christian mindset. I know it pretty well.

There is no such thing as a "Christian mindset." At most there may be a mindset of a particular wing of the church. Christians as a whole are too diverse to make that generalization.

 

[LoAmmi]

I'd like to point out that Judaism doesn't really see the Hand of G-d as tied up. We believe that that prophecy left Israel with the destruction of the first Temple.

 

[smaneck]

Mohammed as well married Aysha a 6(9) years old girl and destroyed other religions

I don't think Aisha was anywhere near that young myself, despite what some hadiths indicate, for the following reasons.

She is supposed to have accepted Islam soon after her father who
became a Muslim almost immediately after the Prophet raised His Call
in 610 A.D. That suggests to me she must have been at the age of
discretion by then, say seven or eight at least. She was already
engaged at the time to the pagan Jubair in 615 A.D. when Muslims fled
to Ethiopia in that year. She ended up accompanying them when Jubair
refused to solemnize the wedding. The formal marriage or niikah with
Muhammad does not take place until the tenth year of the Call, which
makes it 620 A.D. So if she accepted Islam when her father did in 610
A.D. at the age of about seven or eight that would make her about
seventeen at the time of their marriage. Their marraige
isn't consummated until two years after the hijra which was in 624
A.D. This would put Aisha's age at the consummation of their marriage
at more than 19 and perhaps as old as 21.

Now my math could be a bit off here as I can't see why Muhammad would
not have consummated the marriage earlier if she were already in her
late teens. There are some hadiths which claim she was five years
younger than Muhammad's eldest daughter Fatima, who was born around
605 A.D. Following that chronology she would have formally married
Muhammad at 10 and consummated the marriage at 13 which would coincide with when we would ordinarily expect a girl to reach puberty and even the hadiths which suggest a very young marriage age admit that Muhammad does not consummate the marriage before puberty.

If these hadiths which record Aisha's age at the time she married the
Prophet at seven or nine years old are inaccurate, why were they
invented in the first place? My guess is that they came out of Sunni
Islam which wished to give Aisha a place as Muhammad's young 'darling'
that would have otherwise belonged to Fatima, His eldest daughter.

However, what is *most* unfortunate about these hadiths which assign a young age to Aisha, is not the accusations which Christians unfairly make against Muhammad but acts condone in some Muslim countries today which are justified on the basis of these ahadith. Let me give you an example. Based on the fact that Aisha was supposedly able to give consent to marriage at nine, this is the age of majority for girls in Iran. It is not that girls are getting married that young, or vote or anything else, but they can be convicted as adults for crimes like prostitution which carry the death
penalty! There was one case of a thirteen year old mentally challenged
girl that had been put out for prostitution by her mother. If you can
believe it, the courts *hung* this little girl.
Mind you, the age of majority for a male is fifteen.

Now, as for Muhammad "destroying" other religions, that simply isn't the case as the the covenant Muhammad made with a Christian monastery indicates:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

 

[smaneck]

I'd like to point out that Judaism doesn't really see the Hand of G-d as tied up. We believe that that prophecy left Israel with the destruction of the first Temple.

I'm not sure why you would say that prophecy left Israel with the destruction of the first Temple. What about Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.?
In any case, the idea that prophecy ends at any time or is limited to a specific people is what the Qur'an means by tying up the Hand of God.

 

[smaneck]

All of this said, let's not forget that Islam isn't exactly kind to people who disagree with Islam...

There is no such thing as "Islam" in that sense anymore than there is a "Christian mindset." There are Muslims, some of whom are tolerant and some of whom are not.

What a Billion Muslims Really Think (Part 01) - YouTube

 

[LoAmmi]

I'm not sure why you would say that prophecy left Israel with the destruction of the first Temple. What about Deutero-Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.?
In any case, the idea that prophecy ends at any time or is limited to a specific people is what the Qur'an means by tying up the Hand of God.

Ezekiel was alive when the temple was destroyed. Isaiah was alive prior to the destruction of the Temple.

Daniel isn't a prophet.

Prophecy is something specific and Daniel did not do that job.

 

[smaneck]

Ezekiel was alive when the temple was destroyed. Isaiah was alive prior to the destruction of the Temple.

I said Deutero-Isaiah. The author of the second half of the Book of Isaiah (fro chapter 40 on) lived during the time of Cyrus the Great. He is not the same person as wrote the first half of the book. As for Ezekiel while he may have been alive when the temple was destroyed most of his prophecies were made after the destruction of the temple.

Daniel isn't a prophet.

Prophecy is something specific and Daniel did not do that job.

I realize that the Book of Daniel is listed under the Kataviim rather than Navaiim, but he is said to have received divine revelation, is he not?

And what about Zachariah? He is listed among the Neva'im and he lived during the time of Darius the Great (c. 500 BC)

 

[LoAmmi]

I said Deutero-Isaiah. The author of the second half of the Book of Isaiah (fro chapter 40 on) lived during the time of Cyrus the Great. He is not the same person as wrote the first half of the book. As for Ezekiel while he may have been alive when the temple was destroyed most of his prophecies were made after the destruction of the temple.

That isn't traditional.

No new prophets were born after the Temple's destruction. Those born before were still eligible.

I realize that the Book of Daniel is listed under the Kataviim rather than Navaiim, but he is said to have received divine revelation, is he not?

The mark of a prophet in Judaism isn't being given divine revelation.

And what about Zachariah? He is listed among the Neva'im and he lived during the time of Darius the Great (c. 500 BC)

I believe the argument would be that he was alive prior to the destruction of the Temple.

 

[smaneck]

That isn't traditional.

Granted.

No new prophets were born after the Temple's destruction.

I don't think so. Zachariah's prophetic career doesn't begin until 520 BC. The Babylonian captivity began in 597 BC. He would have had to have been a mighty old prophet! Haggai's ministry begins about the same time. And then there is Malachi who is supposed to have lived a century later. I'm thinking it was his prediction of Elijah returning that effectively put an end to anymore claims to prophethood being accepted in Judaism.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think so. Zachariah's prophetic career doesn't begin until 520 BC. The Babylonian captivity began in 597 BC. He would have had to have been a mighty old prophet! Haggai's ministry begins about the same time. And then there is Malachi who is supposed to have lived a century later. I'm thinking it was his prediction of Elijah returning that effectively put an end to anymore claims to prophethood being accepted in Judaism.

Well, regardless of the dating, there have been no more recognized prophets since their time. The secular dating and the Jewish dating of things don't line up well, for example.

I think you're doing the same thing other people do in that you are confusing people having a message from the divine with people being a prophet.

 

[smaneck]

Well, regardless of the dating, there have been no more recognized prophets since their time. The secular dating and the Jewish dating of things don't line up well, for example.

I think you're doing the same thing other people do in that you are confusing people having a message from the divine with people being a prophet.

I realize there is a distinction in Judaism. However, Zachariah, Haggai and Malachi are all considered Nevai'im and all three are post-exilic, so I don't think it was the exile that put an end to this.

 

[LoAmmi]

I realize there is a distinction in Judaism. However, Zachariah, Haggai and Malachi are all considered Nevai'im and all three are post-exilic, so I don't think it was the exile that put an end to this.

Perhaps not. There are probably a bunch of different explanations for it anyway. The end result is that we no longer have people come to us as prophets. While some people may receive divine information, they are not prophets. It's also important to keep in mind that this only relates to Israel.

 

[smaneck]

Perhaps not. There are probably a bunch of different explanations for it anyway. The end result is that we no longer have people come to us as prophets. While some people may receive divine information, they are not prophets. It's also important to keep in mind that this only relates to Israel.

I think that is true today. Most Jews I know accept the possibility of other peoples having prophets and divine revelation, but don't think it was true during Muhammad's time.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think that is true today. Most Jews I know accept the possibility of other peoples having prophets and divine revelation, but don't think it was true during Muhammad's time.

It was in the Torah. Any Jews that didn't believe it would be disbelieving the Torah.