Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) honored By US Supreme Court

[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 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

A fair and honest response.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

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).

The Koran was never edited by Uthman. He actually had all the original verses. You might be mistaking it for someone else. You know which Uthman were talking about, right?

 

[Sunni Man]

It's extremely funny how non muslim homosexuals like Hollie think they are some kind of Islamic scholars.

 

[Hollie]

It's extremely funny how non muslim homosexuals like Hollie think they are some kind of Islamic scholars.

What's really is funny is gofy converts who are unable to respond to a single salient point.

It's also funny how moslem homosexuals like sunni-boy get so angry when their frail egos are bruised.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's also funny how moslem like sunni-Man get so angry when their frail egos are bruised.

Hey, you are the one who poses as a man on another board, AKA ...Rugged Touch.

And a woman on this board.........Hollie.

Transgender much??

 

[Hollie]

It's also funny how moslem like sunni-Man get so angry when their frail egos are bruised.

Hey, you are the one who poses as a man on another board, AKA ...Rugged Touch.

And a woman on this board.........Hollie.

Transgender much??

Your gender confusion is not my issue.

 

[Hollie]

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).

The Koran was never edited by Uthman. He actually had all the original verses. You might be mistaking it for someone else. You know which Uthman were talking about, right?

Much of the confusion you’re experiencing has already been addressed to sunni-boy who could do no better that shield his embarrassment by running away.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6064450-post93.html

There is also a goat which would disagree regarding your insistence that the Koran was never edited.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/6063929-post81.html

The case can easily be made that ‘Uthman’s Rescension was an obvious example of editing and “tampering.” Or a more objective view would be that it was part of process by which Uthman’s koran was created.

The issue you’re unprepared to address is that we have no reason to believe that the korans were actually revealed by god in the first place. And we know they were not. Mo (swish) was convinced the voices he heard in his head were from the angel Gabriel, not the gods.

 

[The Irish Ram]

"You go to the source."

One can only do that on a personal, internal level. It can not be externalized, or even very much communicated to another. It certainly cannot be imposed on another.

The question about the Koran and the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with the message in each, it had to do with the fact that they are both received information that no living person can attest to and that are based on texts that no longer exist. They are equal in that respect.
An objective observer could justifiably wonder how a person could decide to believe either.

But, If you don't externalize your beliefs, what good are they?
For instance, if you know the 10 commandments and don't apply them externally, and show others the benefit of applying them also, aren't your beliefs, no matter how strongly you believe them, moot?
As for ancient texts, you can recreate 98% of the New Testament from the original texts that remain intact . (Prophesy from Christ that His word would not pass away.)

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

Yes, but are any of those men, men you would like to emulate?

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

As far as your fellow man, what made you choose death over love?

and:

It's extremely funny how non muslim homosexuals like Hollie think they are some kind of Islamic scholars.

As oppose to Muslim homosexual Islamic scholars?

 

[logical4u]

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.

Where is the documentation to back up what was written in the quran?

 

[logical4u]

Besides the fact that there is No copy of the New Testament known to have ever existed in it's original language.

The Bible is so full of revisions, contradictions, and omissions.

That anyone with an ounce of sense can see the Bible has been totally changed and corrupted over the years.

Yes I was reading passages from a 15th century Bible today, beside a KJV, and you are right, the spelling of the words were changed

Please show the documentation of the quran. Mohammed didn't write it, and it all wasn't written at the same time.

There was no "New Testament" before the Catholic church brought the OT together with the Gospels (written by different people, because they were witnesses to the telling of the Gospels) a hundred years or more after the Christ was crucified for all men.

 

[logical4u]

There is nothing to address; because the Qur'an does not contain any mistakes.

Oh, so it says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God now?

God has No son and Never had a son.

Then who is the "US" in Genesis?

 

[Sunni Man]

Oh, so it says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God now?

God has No son and Never had a son.

Then who is the "US" in Genesis?

Please cite the verse that says "us" in Genesis.

 

[logical4u]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sunni Man
Hollie you really should make an appointment with your mental health care provider and have your med's dosage increased.

Seriously............
How sad for you that you're unable to offer a relevant comment. The entirety of your commenting is reduced to childish personal attacks as you have no facts relevant to the issues.
(from Hollie)
Similarly, how sad you actually believe "the Koran hasn't changed", nonsense. Sorry to break the news to you, but it is not true. You have swallowed the myth of the korans' "miraculous preservation" hook line and sinker. You need go no further than compare the text of two different koranic qira'at (say… Hafs and Warsh) to see that the manuscripts are not the same. They are very similar, and preserve the same meaning. But they are not the same. At least they are no more similar than hundreds of other books, far older than the koran, and that make no claim to divine origin. Those are fabricated too, you know.

Since I am not Moslem, my concern is not really whether or not the koran is authentic. It is whether or not the koran is actually true. Something can be absolutely authentic, and yet still be entirely unconnected with truth.

In other words, even if we believe the myth of the "perfectly preserved koran" or the myth of the "path of transmission of the koran is perfect", there are still insurmountable problems. If what was being transmitted was never of divine origin in the first place, why would all this fuss really matter? So the big problem here is that even were we to pretend a perfect chain of transmission to Muhammad (which we do not have), it ends there. It is still at least two steps removed from a claimed "Allah" god himself.

Why should you even care whether the Quran is authentic or not?

Muslims believe in it 100%

And your postings to the contrary mean absolutely zero to the muslim ummah.

Yep! How did they say it in the NT "we are legion"......

 

[Hollie]

God has No son and Never had a son.

Then who is the "US" in Genesis?

Please cite the verse that says "us" in Genesis.

Better yet, explain to us the use by muhammud (swish) of the term "we" in many koranic verses.

It seems that muhammud (swish) had every intention of assigning a partner to the gods.

Don't you find that a bit self-serving

 

[The Irish Ram]

Sunni, Allah has no son, as you can see by the inscription on the Dome of the Rock.

The God of Abraham has a Son. He is Jesus Christ, the Lord.
Your Qur'an can minimize Him, but it's followers will never defeat Him. The Son of God will be taking His rightful place on the Throne of His father David. And the Muslims will be happy for it.

 

[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.....

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.

1. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah...espouses the view that one need not keep their word.


2. Jews had lived in Iraq for some 2600 years, but the origin of this mass Muslim movement was in 627. At that time, Mohammed, defending Medina, judged the Jewish tribe to be guilty of aiding the Meccan attackers, and oversaw such acts as the beheading of 900 captives of the Banu Qurayzah tribe, he watched the bodies thrown into a pit.(… in his 1895 biography of Muhammad ("Mahomet and Islam", London, 1895, p. 151), which relied entirely on the original Muslim sources, the scholar Sir William Muir observed:
"The massacre of the Banu Coreiza was a barbarous deed which cannot be justified by any reason of political necessity the indiscriminate slaughter of the whole tribe cannot be recognized otherwise than as an act of monstrous cruelty?")
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj//content/view/38/27/


I don't believe for a minute that you find either one moral nor ethical.
I don't expect you to admit it....but I know it for a fact.

 

[Sunni Man]

As for ancient texts, you can recreate 98% of the New Testament from the original texts that remain intact . (Prophesy from Christ that His word would not pass away.)

There are No original texts of the New Testament in existence.

The oldest known N.T. is written in Greek and is a translation.

And no one knows what language the original N.T. was written in.

Fact...............

 

[The Irish Ram]

God has No son and Never had a son.

Then who is the "US" in Genesis?

Please cite the verse that says "us" in Genesis.

Genesis 1: 26 - Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.....................

 

[Hollie]

As for ancient texts, you can recreate 98% of the New Testament from the original texts that remain intact . (Prophesy from Christ that His word would not pass away.)

There are No original texts of the New Testament in existence.

The oldest known N.T. is written in Greek and is a translation.

And no one knows what language the original N.T. was written in.

Fact...............

And there are no original Korans. We actually do know that Uthman burned various documents that he edited out of his koran and that a goat ate other material.

Fact..........

 

[logical4u]

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

Another reason why you cannot have a serious discussion with a muslim.... they refuse to listen to facts....