Islam does not hate christianity

You say many somebodies is no better than one somebody. Multiple witnesses have historically been counted as evidence by courts, the more the better. Maybe no longer, maybe we've degenerated to the point that such standards are meaningless.

quote:

---

I notice that you have quotations around the word "witness" in regards to Mohammed but not to the "witnesses" of biblical events. Do you think if any person claimed, today, that God had spoken to them or an acquaintance (to order, for example, the destruction of a people), he or she would be believed? If a great number of people made the same claim, would they be believed? If not, why not, and why is such a standard not extended to the biblical "witnesses"?

---

The Bible is a collection of reports of thousands of witnesses to the miracles, the judgments, the character of God. Biblical law also prescribes that two or more witnesses are required to determine the truth about any event.Mohammed had only himself as witness to "Gabriel." Perhaps I wrongly put "witness" in quotes for Mohammed since he was at least one witness, but on the other hand what did he "witness?" He had some kind of experience with an "angel" he called "Gabriel." Well, this "Gabriel" bears no resemblance to the Gabriel of the Bible and teaches things contrary to the Bible so we know this messenger was not from God. So many things besides his being sole witness are in question about Mohammed. But his being the sole witness SHOULD raise doubts in any case.If thousands of witnesses mean nothing to you in comparison to one witness, obviously there's nothing I can say further.

quote:

---

Faith writes:
{Edit because I always think of stuff after I post -- "Prophet" in the Bible doesn't only refer to prophecy of future events, but to those who hear directly from God, as in "The word of the LORD came to me." There is NOTHING like this in any other religion.

​

Thank you Faith.

​

You have just confirmed that Muhammad is a Prophet. LOL

---

Oh how tiresome. Mohammed didn't even CLAIM to hear from God. He heard from this "angel" called "Gabriel." You will not find a single "Thus saith the LORD" or "The word of the LORD came to me" in ANY other religion.Actually Joseph Smith's utterly unBiblical vision of the two figures he called the Father and the Son may come closest to such a claim. But then he fails on the prophecy of future events account anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-26-2005 22:23 AM

quote:

---

Well, this "Gabriel" bears no resemblance to the Gabriel of the Bible and teaches things contrary to the Bible so we know this messenger was not from God.

​

Sorry wrong. The Bible is the word of God corrupted by man, it's depiction of Gabriel is not the same as that in the holy Koran. The Bible teaches things contrary to the holy Koran so we know its not from God.*

​

You see how fun duelling mythologies can be?

---

Well, the Koran is supposed to follow from the Bible and Muslims claim to revere the Bible so judging the Koran by the Bible makes sense to me.---------
*The Bible is the word of God corrupted by man, it's [shouldn't have an apostrophe] depiction of Gabriel is not the same as that in the holy Koran. The Bible teaches things contrary to the holy Koran so we know its [needs an apostrophe] not from God. [Sorry, the apostrophe problem was getting to me].This message has been edited by Faith, 02-26-2005 22:56 AM

quote:

---

So prophecy only counts when it comes directly from GOD and not through an intermediary?

---

Well, let's see. "A man" appears in the OT sometimes who is understood to be God HImself or Jesus Christ in a preincarnate appearance, not an angel, and it is He who appears to Daniel in the 10th chapter. I'd have to review Daniel to know for sure if Gabriel might have actually shown Daniel some things that were to come, but I believe he was sent only to explain the visions and prophecies but Daniel got them direct from God. Same in the Book of Revelation, where angels explain visions, but the vision is given by God.HOWEVER, there is no "Thus saith the Lord" and "The word of the Lord came to me" elsewhere.AND, Mohammed got no revelations of anything future. Nor did any other "Prophet" outside the Bible.

quote:

---

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

---

But it's not The word of the LORD came to me, and it's not Thus saith the LORD. It's hard to tell how the statement was arrived at.

quote:

---

Fitting since Zorastrianism, the most popular religion in the Middle East during the time of Jesus, heavily influenced what Christianity became.

---

Well the majority of the Thus saith the Lord prophecies were all in the Old Testament, not the New.And Christianity was not influenced by anything but the Old Testament. Everything in the New Testament follows from the Old.

quote:

---

So the question remains, "must a prophet get his revelation direct from GOD?"

---

OK, foiled by my imperfect knowledge of the Bible. But of course God isn't Ahura Mazda and God isn't Allah and the angels of the Bible are serving the true God but I know I can't prove it.

A symposium on the topic, to get this thread back on topic.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

Page Not Found | Freedom House
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm
http://www.thespiritofislam.com/nyattack01.html
The Spirit of Islam - Home
Prophet of Doom - Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words
Daniel Pipes
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
noniedarwish.com - noniedarwish Resources and Information.
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
Walid Shoebat - Former Muslim Brotherhood Member Now Peace Activist
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/L/lying.html
http://www.faithfreedom.org/testimonials.htm
Dhimmitude: The Status of Minorities Under Islamic Rule
http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_dhimmitude.php
http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_jihad.php
http://www.dhimmi.org/
The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations
Little Green Footballs
403 Forbidden
Page not found – secularislam.org
Page not found | Free Inquiry
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamapostasy.shtml
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=3069
DomainHost[Edited for nonnefarious reasons]This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 02:59 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 03:00 AM

Duplicate post. Sorry.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 02:58 AM

quote:

---

And of course, they say the same thing about you. And that's really what it always comes down to, isn't it? Religious prickwaving. It's like the theological Cola Wars.

---

Sure, that's life. People disagree on all kinds of things. Our job is to find the truth in the whole mess, not give up. They could theoretically all be false but they certainly couldn't all be true as they contradict each other. There's the first clue in the puzzle.

quote:

---

OK, foiled by my imperfect knowledge of the Bible.

---

No, not until I've reread the books of Daniel, Revelation and Zechariah to check out whether it was ever the case in the Bible, or until somebody produces a Bible quote clearly showing that an angel did actually give prophecy as well as explain it. (The only intermediary COULD be an angel, but Mohammed's "angel" was no angel of God in any case.) ? Yes.But we're off topic.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 14:08 AM

Want to start another thread on this new topic? I don't think it will go very far but it is off-topic and it would be good to keep some of these rabbit trails off this one.

quote:

---

I once had a stalemate discussion with Buzsaw about the nature of war verses in the Qur'an, here:
EvC Forum: Fundamental Biblical Christianity and Fundamental Islam Fundamentally 180% Opposites

​

Start with my reply on message 82.

---

I have enough on my plate here for the moment, but I'll check there later if I remember or you remind me.

quote:

---

I can't write much at the moment but I'm keeping an eye on this. And Faith, you are just taking Qur'an verses out of context. Again.

---

There are two sides on this, and my view is represented by Muslim scholars too. You can't win the dispute by accusing anyone of taking the verses out of context. Historically they have all too frequently been taken at face value, context notwithstanding, and they are preached at face value by the jihadists and this is as legitimate a reading as yours, and far more lethal. Tell me how you are going to persuade your strict fundamentalist Muslim brethren, such as Bin Laden and the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, and the Wahhabis who are defining Islam in 80% of American mosques, that their literal interpretation of the Koran is wrong? This whole discussion is academic at best until you can do that. Persuading me is irrelevant. Tell me how you are going to persuade them. I would prefer that the milder readings were obvious, but they aren't, the violent readings are the straightforward obvious ones and some of the most powerful leaders in Islam have said so.

quote:

---

The Qur'an only said that violence is allowed in defense. Period.
2:178 is about retaliating. This is allowed in Islam.
2:190 is 'fight those who fight you'. Defense.
2:193 and 2:216 is about fighting against oppression. That's a reason.
The chapter 3 verses relate to the Battle of Uhud, which is an attack to Muslims in Medina by Mecca pagans. So they're all about defense.
4:89 is about violence against 'the hypocrites', a group of people that backstabbed the early Muslim community.
4:100 is not about fighting, it's about fleeing persecution (seeking asylum)! The translation's inaccurate.

---

As I said, prove it to the Wahhabis who are calling the shots for Islam these days.

quote:

---

If you have issues with that please specify.

​

Now if you could be so kind in singling out one Qur'anic verse that tell me to do offensive violence against non-Muslims...

---

If you interpret them all into oblivion obviously nobody is going to be able to show you even what is right there in black and white, as I've posted before.[Edit to add: ] And again, it's the fundamentalists who need persuading. All your apologetic does is lull people to the fact that there are plenty of Muslims who DON'T read the Koran with the spin you do, but take it as I've presented it.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 14:22 AM

quote:

---

It is that they repeated had them torn down after planting again, had their farm burned, had their children barred from school, with no justification. These actions can partially be confirmed from the links I posted about the destruction of Palestinian agriculture primarily olive trees. And then we have a wonderful comment of your following.

---

But you present all of this as if the Israelis were simply insane destroyers and I don't buy it. We're talking about an area that breeds terrorists whether your family is involved or not and you are giving me NO way to judge this situation. They have REASONS for their actions. There is a Biblical Proverb about how one person's story sounds very reasonable until you hear the other side. Well there is no other side to your stories so there is no basis for judgment.

quote:

---

He doesn't know why the Israelis destroyed them, he merely assumes there was no good reason because he believes his family had no part in terrorist action and misses the olive trees.

---

How can I? I don't know anything about your family. All I'm doing here is saying the mere actions of the Israelis do not prove anything about the rightness or wrongness of their actions given the situation that such actions are their dealing with terrorists in those areas. It appears your family has suffered terribly but their suffering says nothing about why these things are happening. The reasons may not be about your family, but something else having to do with terrorist threats in the area, I don't know, but it is certainly about terrorist threats as that is why Israel does those things. If they're wrong in your family's case you can't prove it by the mere fact of their actions.And I don't know you personally so how can I believe you that your family is not somehow involved in the terrorism? You get all offended that I don't just trust you, but who in their right mind trusts a faceless person on a website? Unfortunately this is how the Palestinian side is often argued -- no facts, but a lot of feelings where there should be evidence.

Sorry, another duplicate.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-27-2005 14:52 AM