Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) honored By US Supreme Court

[PoliticalChic]

Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the perfect example for all of mankind to emulate in both behavior and morals.

Sunni....don't make me do it.


The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah...


The massacre of the Banu Coreiza....


I'm-tryin'- to-hold-back.....

 

[Hollie]

But taken over all they nearly all say the sun goes to a resting place, and the hadith I quoted goes into details which cannot be interpreted any other way.

Going to a "resting place" is based on translating an arabic idiom and in no way reppresents the actual meaning or intent of the original language.

False! The transliteration describes a "resting place" just as it describes the sun setting in a muddy spring.

Re-writing the Koran as you go only further reinforces your ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the perfect example for all of mankind to emulate in both behavior and morals.

Sunni....don't make me do it.


The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah...


The massacre of the Banu Coreiza....


I'm-tryin'- to-hold-back.....

The Battle of the Trench....

Don't hold back, sister.

 

[there4eyeM]

Thank you for demonstrating that you have been lying about Yeshua being your prophet too.

Yes, Jesus is a great Prophet in Islam.

But we do not believe in the false stories told in the corrupted christian Bible about Jesus. (which was the Jesus I was referring to)

Muslims only believe in the true Jesus as presented and written in the Quran.

So, you answered part of my previous post, though incorrectly regarding the falsehood part. What about the authority for what you decide to believe and choose to try to make an absolute?

 

[Hollie]

You say the New Testament is false, but the verification for it is at least equal as to that for the Koran.

Incorrect

No one knows exactly who Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, of the Bible were; in fact they don't even have last names.

Whereas, there were thousands of eye witness accounts from both muslims and non muslims supporting that the man named Muhammad pbuh existed and lived and taught the Qur'an in Arabia.

Mo, (swish), didn't teach the Koran. The Koran wasn't assembled by Uthman until after Mo's (swish) death.

Are you really this clueless? (that's a rhetorical question, btw).

 

[Sunni Man]

It's still the Qur'an; whether memorized and recited or written down in a book form.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's certainly true.

Mormons are benign; peaceful and productive members of society.

Muslims, not so much.....

 

[Dajjal]

Looks like Muhammad had trouble convincing people he was not just a mad poet in his own lifetime.He tries to justify himself in the quran.

21.5 "Nay," they say, "(these are) medleys of dream! - Nay, He forged it! -Nay, He is (but) a poet! Let him then bring us a Sign like the ones that were sent to (Prophets) of old!"


36.69 We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur'an making things clear:

37.36 And say: "What! shall we give up our gods for the sake of a Poet
possessed?"

52.30 Or do they say:- "A Poet! we await for him some calamity (hatched) by Time!"

69.41 It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe!


Here are three more verses that show many people of Muhammads own time did not believe in him, but he tried to justify himself claiming the holy spirit taught him. But he mistook the meaning of the holy spirit in the bible, thinking the angel Gabriel was the messenger. But the holy spirit is part of the trinity, and it spoke though Jesus and the diciples. The angel Gabriel only announced the coming of John the baptist and Jesus, but gave no message to them.


16.101 When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

16.102 Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.

16.103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.

 

[Hollie]

It's still the Qur'an; whether memorized and recited or written down in a book form.

Obviously not. The Koran is a book. That book did not exist during the lifetime of Mo (swat).

Do you know anything of islamism?

 

[Sunni Man]

Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the perfect example for all of mankind to emulate in both behavior and morals.

Sunni....don't make me do it.


The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah...


The massacre of the Banu Coreiza....


I'm-tryin'- to-hold-back.....

I have no problem with either of those events.

These are well known by all muslims.

Muhammad was a warrior, commander, and religious leader of a nation.

He had to do whatever it took to defend his people and land from enemies.

 

[there4eyeM]

When it comes to pure faith in order to believe, all beliefs are the same. What should we find compelling about the Koran story if it has no affect upon our personal, internal world? How could imposing it be justified? How can protesting what others may say about our personal, internal beliefs be justified?

Clearly, you choose to evade these intellectual contradictions to your position. Let me pose one other question.

If Jesus is merely a prophet and not even on a par with Mohammed, what could he possible have meant by answering the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I am."?

 

[Hollie]

Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the perfect example for all of mankind to emulate in both behavior and morals.

Sunni....don't make me do it.


The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah...


The massacre of the Banu Coreiza....


I'm-tryin'- to-hold-back.....

I have no problem with either of those events.

These are well known by all muslims.

Muhammad was a warrior, commander, and religious leader of a nation.

He had to do whatever it took to defend his people and land from enemies.

The wars of aggression that muhammud (swish) lead, the ethnic cleansing of Yathrib, the tacit permission for his soldiers to rape war captives you have no problem with? The permission of sexual slavery (or slavery at all). The assassination of political rivals. The practice of banditry and caravan raids. The marriage to Aisha. The very reason these occurrences are even a part of the historical record is because Muslims recorded these events. They were perfectly fine with the ideas of sexual slavery, genocide and piracy. Those behaviors were not morally objectionable to them, and so they were dutifully recorded with the intention of preserving the history of muhammud as an example for all later Muslims.

All of the behaviors described above were perfectly acceptable in the zeitgeist of Muhammud's day. While it may be unfair to cast judgments regarding Muhammud as a 7th century Arab warlord in the context of his time, we have no legitimate reason to accept his behavior in the context of the 21 st century.

However, the standards for judgment are different if, rather than judging Muhammud (swish) as a 7th century Arab warlord, we instead are judging him as a "model for humanity". In that sense, muhammud's behavior is irreconcilable with the ethics of either a good man or the standards of behavior we define as acceptable in the 21 st century

 

[Aristotle]

Hey Hollie what about the massacre of Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem? Or hitler and his racial purification tactic? Or the Klu Klux Klan? Or swore under the Christian banner.

We can talk all day about history

 

[Hollie]

Hey Hollie what about the massacre of Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem? Or hitler and his racial purification tactic? Or the Klu Klux Klan? Or swore under the Christian banner.

We can talk all day about history

I was responding to specific comments in connection with the idolatry of a 7th century Arab warlord.

Are you suggesting that muhammud (swish) was just as detrimental to humanity as the roll call of people in your post?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

They believe it. History doesnt prove it out. In fact, history shows that it was compiled specifically so they could squelsh what they termed false revelations.

No it doesn't at all. The Muslims themselves in Saudi Arabia are more credible than "historian" . I never heard that before. The Koran wasn't changed. The mainstream one isn't changed. We all have the same views on most things. Christian texts, modern ones say different things in regards to specific events such as Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, they have differences some people will say is a significant difference

It seems you need some lessons in history so you can come to an understanding of the false assumptions you have.

Let's understand that the lineage of the Koran is irreparably broken in three places. Those places are:

1. The 'Uthmanic'' rescension.
2. The Compilation under Abu Bakr.
3. The chain of transmittal prior to Muhammad.

For those of us who have made an effort to understand the compilation and standardization on the mushaf of 'Uthman, such self reference is more prosaically explained by the late date of this version.

The fact remains that "Qur'an" means "recitation," not book. It did not become a book until years after Muhammad's death.

Without going into too much detail, rather than "numerous" sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Koran, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn't that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?

How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?

In fact, how does one account for Uthman's rescension at all?

It is pretty clear that the "perfect preservation" of the Koran did not commence until after the rescension. And even then, we could get into a wonderful discussion of the multiple readings, but why bother. The point is made. Second, giving the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as suggesting that Mohammed would have even recognized the writings. The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.

All that writing and you wasted your time. You don't teach us our history we have our history on Islam. The Koran was the same original book under all Caliphs

 

[Hollie]

No it doesn't at all. The Muslims themselves in Saudi Arabia are more credible than "historian" . I never heard that before. The Koran wasn't changed. The mainstream one isn't changed. We all have the same views on most things. Christian texts, modern ones say different things in regards to specific events such as Genesis 1 or Genesis 2, they have differences some people will say is a significant difference

It seems you need some lessons in history so you can come to an understanding of the false assumptions you have.

Let's understand that the lineage of the Koran is irreparably broken in three places. Those places are:

1. The 'Uthmanic'' rescension.
2. The Compilation under Abu Bakr.
3. The chain of transmittal prior to Muhammad.

For those of us who have made an effort to understand the compilation and standardization on the mushaf of 'Uthman, such self reference is more prosaically explained by the late date of this version.

The fact remains that "Qur'an" means "recitation," not book. It did not become a book until years after Muhammad's death.

Without going into too much detail, rather than "numerous" sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Koran, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn't that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?

How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?

In fact, how does one account for Uthman's rescension at all?

It is pretty clear that the "perfect preservation" of the Koran did not commence until after the rescension. And even then, we could get into a wonderful discussion of the multiple readings, but why bother. The point is made. Second, giving the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as suggesting that Mohammed would have even recognized the writings. The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.

All that writing and you wasted your time. You don't teach us our history we have our history on Islam. The Koran was the same original book under all Caliphs

I think it's clear that your understanding of islamist history is lacking. The Koran was clearly not the same original book under all caliphs. For that matter, there is no such thing as an "original" Koran.

 

[there4eyeM]

The Koran remains a book, not first-hand experience, and so cannot be judged superior to any other such reference.
What a person chooses to belief is subjective and individual.
Believers that want to impose their belief on others do not understand themselves or others, and if God exists it shows they do not understand God's creation.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

It seems you need some lessons in history so you can come to an understanding of the false assumptions you have.

Let's understand that the lineage of the Koran is irreparably broken in three places. Those places are:

1. The 'Uthmanic'' rescension.
2. The Compilation under Abu Bakr.
3. The chain of transmittal prior to Muhammad.

For those of us who have made an effort to understand the compilation and standardization on the mushaf of 'Uthman, such self reference is more prosaically explained by the late date of this version.

The fact remains that "Qur'an" means "recitation," not book. It did not become a book until years after Muhammad's death.

Without going into too much detail, rather than "numerous" sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Koran, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn't that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?

How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?

In fact, how does one account for Uthman's rescension at all?

It is pretty clear that the "perfect preservation" of the Koran did not commence until after the rescension. And even then, we could get into a wonderful discussion of the multiple readings, but why bother. The point is made. Second, giving the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Koran was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as suggesting that Mohammed would have even recognized the writings. The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.

All that writing and you wasted your time. You don't teach us our history we have our history on Islam. The Koran was the same original book under all Caliphs

I think it's clear that your understanding of islamist history is lacking. The Koran was clearly not the same original book under all caliphs. For that matter, there is no such thing as an "original" Koran.

No you don't have the right history at all. Where are you getting this from? The Caliphs all had the same Koran and every Muslim had the same Koran

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The Koran remains a book, not first-hand experience, and so cannot be judged superior to any other such reference.
What a person chooses to belief is subjective and individual.
Believers that want to impost their belief on others do not understand themselves or others, and if God exists it shows they do not understand God's creation.

I think people who do that are stupid. I agree they don't even understand how to preach. I came myself to becoming religious no one brought me there. But on these threads I'm just defending my religion. Since many anti Islam people here like to rant and what not

 

[Hollie]

All that writing and you wasted your time. You don't teach us our history we have our history on Islam. The Koran was the same original book under all Caliphs

I think it's clear that your understanding of islamist history is lacking. The Koran was clearly not the same original book under all caliphs. For that matter, there is no such thing as an "original" Koran.

No you don't have the right history at all. Where are you getting this from? The Caliphs all had the same Koran and every Muslim had the same Koran

How could every Moslem have had the same Koran when the Koran was being edited by Uthman after the death of muhammud (swish).