Quote:
Originally Posted by Melissa G
March 642ad, 353 muslim warriors from Medina defeated 900 commanded by Amr ibn Hisham, one of the poltheist leaders in Mecca.melissa
Originally Posted by Melissa G
March 642ad, 353 muslim warriors from Medina defeated 900 commanded by Amr ibn Hisham, one of the poltheist leaders in Mecca.melissa
They were defeated. But were they killed?
I would guess so, id be stunned if they just, gave up.
=====================================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
Just to clear up a point here. Muhammad (peace be upon him) did destroy all the idols in the Kabah...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by goraya15
Just to clear up a point here. Muhammad (peace be upon him) did destroy all the idols in the Kabah...?
The idols at Kabah represented the religion of the idol-worshippers. Begin a non-idol worshipping religion, by all means. But why destroy the idol-worshippers’ religion for it? If the argument is that Kabah was originally built by Abraham and it had no idols and it was the idol-worshippers who profaned Kabah, it would be worth remembering that Abraham himself ought to have been no role-model because he was an iconoclast himself who began his religious career by destroying the idols his father worshipped. Mohammad obviously did not believe in the concept of sacred spaces unless that space happened to be Islamic space. (For the record, Mohammad destroyed not only the idols at Kabah, but all idols in Mecca.)
=============================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Truth
According to my 50 years old hindu teacher, Hinduism is not a religion, and the world should feel ashamed for calling it so. It's merely a collection of philisophical thoughts.
Could it be he meant that Hinduism is not just a single religion but a culture of many religions, as it believes that God can be approached in many ways? If to philosophize means to see the larger picture, then many Hindu scriptures are indeed philosophical.
=============================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by moegypt
As i said to you before,Don't look at muslims look at the Qur'an.Take the islam from the Qur'an not from muslims.
Originally Posted by moegypt
As i said to you before,Don't look at muslims look at the Qur'an.Take the islam from the Qur'an not from muslims.
Have Muslims failed to live up to the Quran?
MFaraz_Hayat
Certain amount has failed, while there is still hope for others.
In these days, I can say that alot of muslims failed to live up to the Qur'an.So people,Take the Islam from the Qur'an.Qur'an convince people who read it carefully.
===========================================================
Quote:
moegypt
1113Or they say: He hath invented it. Say: Then bring ten surahs, the like thereof, invented, and call on everyone ye can beside Allah, if ye are truthful!
This is a challenge all Muslims take to be the winning argument that the Quran is truly the word of God. Actually the challenge was to produce a work that is a masterpiece of Arabic literature as the Quran is. We have to accept the word of connoisseurs of Arabic literature that this challenge has so far not been met. But if the take the Quran in translation and consider Marmaduke Pickthall's translation, which is arguably the best English translation of the Quran, we would no doubt concede that its literature is remarkable. However, when I compare it with the King James Version of the Bible, I would say that King James Bible surpasses the Quran in excellence of literature, particularly as the Bible is so simple to understand and hardly needs interpretation. Which is why devils like me are comfortable quoting the Bible because they mean exactly what they say, particularly the Sermon on the Mount.Of course, exactly 1000 years after the Quran, William Shakespeare produced in English a literature of such scintillating excellence that we at this point of time would tend to think it will never be surpassed. But then human genius has a tendency to excel itself.
=========================================
Isn't that ummm contradictory? You first agreed that the challenge was concerning Arabic and later compare English literature with A transliteration of Quran?Let me tell you that transliteration is indeed work of a human being. Secondly, words in Arabic have got many meanings attached to a same word for eg:"Alaqa: it means 1: congealed clot of blood 2: leech like substance and one more that I have forgotten.It was translated as clot of blood though it has other meanings. And the other two also fit the description or can be taken as parts of verse.
What I meant was that only the Arabic connoisseurs could decide whether Quran's literature has been surpassed. But we, folks on RF, using the medium of English here, would only be able to compare works of English literature and have no choice but to go by a translation of the Quran into English. It’s at best one of the many great works of literature. Hardly a befitting position for a work of God. Are you trying to say that the Quran is untranslatable? Then maybe it was a work meant only for the Arabs?
MFaraz_Hayat
Join Date: Jul 2007Gender:
Posts: 52
Frubals: 7488
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.Venugopal
What I meant was that ...
I am not saying that it cannot be translated but rather, that Quran is pretty difficult to translate. Secondly, translations have been made by man not GOD, so are not perfect and therefore should not be compared.
The belief of Muslims that the Quran is from Allah ought not to be questioned, because it is a matter of faith. All who know the intensity of Muslims' fidelity to this belief cannot but be impressed. However, it is not as if Mohammad one fine morning discovered a book and understood the book to be from God because the book claimed so, or God called on Mohammad and handed over the book to him. It began when Mohammad started meditating in Mount Herat. Over the next 27 years, his insights were presented to his companions, who transcribed it and the scattered pages were collated into a book called Quran only after Mohammad passed away. How do we reconcile these facts with belief?
I am sorry but I am unable to understand your question. Are you asking that how was Quran compiled in it's earlier stages? What facts are to be reconciled with what beliefs?
Islam is based on the believe that Quran is Allah's word. But between Allah and the Quran, the message passed through Gabrial to Mohammad who in turn dictated Allah's (Gabrial's?) word to his many companions over a period of 27 years and then it (the companions' words?) came out in a book form compiled by Caliph Uthman, who was not sure as to the sequence of compilation as Mohammad had by then passed away. Why such a circuitous route for the word of God?
I don't talk about translation... Translation of the Qur'an didn't and can't transfer the miracle of Qur'an... The miracle is in th Arabic language not the translation.
1. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh)2. Qur’an copied on one common material The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.3. Usman (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.). Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centres of Muslims. There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman (r.a.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 123
...i suppose u know abt the verse which says "kill the mushriqeens"(non beleivers i.e. pagans) the history is such tht the pagans of mecca violated norms..and failed to maintain peace...
Are you saying some verses in the Quran only make sense in the context of the historical circumstances? This means that some verses are not universal in application for all time. How can the words of God be so circumscribed? Since historical circumstances do not recur, each being unique, are such verses useless? If so, why are they in the Quran?
An illiterate man is not a stupid man. He does not read and write, that's all. Mohammad did not need to be literate anyway; his companions took dictation and read out to him. In any case, he was only memorizing what Allah said and passing on. Where does illiteracy come in? It would have been a miracle, of course, if Mohammad was deaf.
no mr venu gopalu got it wrong .......abt breaking the treaty its mentioned in he qur'an itself in the immediate verse....i said it is history but i never said it's not mentioned in the qur'an......
Quote:
Originally Posted by opuntia
Sir John Glubb writes that Muhammad was always correct whenever he acted under a certain capacity: a prophet. But whenever he was not acting as a prophet, he made as many mistakes as we mortals do.
Ordinary men move into the stage of godmen when, through meditation, they rise to a higher level. Then out of them are produced scriptures and/or great works. Thus were godmen like Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Guru Nanak and many others. However, Mohammad was unique because he seems to have had relapses from his high stage. Which is why he appeared to have acted out of sync with what we would recognize as the life of god-immersed men. Mohammad's many marriages and wars, for instance. This god-consciousness/relapse/god-consciousness/relapse seems to have been the pattern. This is reflected in the Quran too, with verses calling for killing of disbelievers and others saying to kill a single person is to kill mankind. This relapse from god-consciousness has not happened to Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or Guru Nanak. Thus there is no report of them having made any mistake in their lives subsequent to their god-realization.
totally dude ...u need a freshers course on islam.....u never inderstood islam,u think understanding in ur own whims and fancies will suffice for the non sensical explanation u give out.......wat do u mean my god men??be specific ,men choosen by god or god in human form...because for muhammed it can be only man choosen by god , nothing more ,he was only god's humble servant ....when u say 'uinique' is tht in a positive sense or negative..i suppose it is positive...when u say tht reflection of it is on the qur'an..i take strong objection....by saying tht ur raising questions abt the authenticity of qur'an as god's word.....abt killing the disbeleivers(the situation is sited in a battlefield)..when ur already at war in order to boost the morale of soldiers any general will tell his men to kill thedisbeleivers....as far as krishna is concerned (it's a mythmyhtologyfictional) so please dont even involve them.........even krishna beleive in jihad..u should read ur bhagwad gita or ramayana before u make such comments of made mistakes and who didnt...in battle as the cousins fought arjun says tht he rather drop his weapons and let his cousins kill him rather fight him..at this lord krishna says oh arjun how have u become so impotent.hold ur weapon and fight ....and as far as no of wives r concerned qur'an mentions specifically giving a concession only for the prophet because most of the wives he had were all due to political reasons....khadija was much elder to him...the reason he married her was purely political and rest goes for the most of the wives he had.....keeping in mind tht krishna is alledged to have 16000 wives...ur suppositions are abnoxious........
This is amusing. Allah has promised you He will guard the Quran against any change. Now you, his slave, are attempting to ensure that I understand matters as you want them understood. I am not living in Saudi Arabia where they would probably cut my head off if I give a different interpretation to what is official.
Don’t get frightened by the word godmen. It is just to indicate men who are imbued with divinity. I consider Mohammad a godman.
For me there is nothing unique about Quran being God’s word as I hold all words are from God and lead to God.
Did Mohammad marry for his politics or Allah’s politics? Would Allah have required to play politics among the Bedouins of Mecca to spread his final message to mankind? As for Krishna’s 16000 wives, truly a godman! Who else could have managed so many wives?
Did Mohammad marry for his politics or Allah’s politics? Would Allah have required to play politics among the Bedouins of Mecca to spread his final message to mankind? As for Krishna’s 16000 wives, truly a godman! Who else could have managed so many wives?
WOW 16000 wives imagine them all nagging at once
1. when u say u give different opinion of wat is official...ur saying ur going against the conventional methods of wat is thought to be true...conventional methods in islam r based on knowledge of scholars, and on extensive search of historical truth....so ur saying a 1 man show who is indu(underqualifid) considers himself more qualified to comment on another grt religon called islam and justify with all might..now tht's hilarious...
Under Islam I might not have the right to go against the official version. But fortunately the world at large is not governed by the Shariat.
ur day dreaming i suppose.....u forget islam is the fastest growing religion because it has the maximum converts,last yrs report says increase in muslimpopulation by 235% especially after sep11tht's unheard of......very soon the world will be governed by islamic shariat...as far as indus..oh well they r cornered in a subcontinent, and r not comparible to no. of muslims throughout the world.....
I say the future world will be a liberal world and a liberal world would never accept Islamic fanaticism and narrow-mindedness. Organizations will loose its hold on religions more and more.
u say' so doesnt mean it will happen so, ive given u statistics to prove my point, u could always google it and check up..also 'islamic fanaticism and narrow-mindness' are only ur views, seems the world at large doesnt agree with ur views which is precisely why islam is growing.......
The future Muslim generations, born in democratic and secular societies, will be more amenable to Sufism.
look i dont have any illusions of saudi arabia(refering to sufism),i only care abt significance of the kaaba in makkah and travel to medina.....there are many muslimplaces around the world, saudi arabia is not the only one..u also have egypt and many others.....
State sponsored Islam will disintegrate. The Hindu vision of unity in diversity will be the panacea of religious strife in the world. Buddha and Jesus are set to be the symbols of the future world, not Mohammad.
again ur assumption,i have given u irrefutable evidence by statistics,besides r u convincing urself????buddha and jesus are indeed symbols for the future but so is muhammed as the best example,and theres nothing u can do to stop tht frm happening..also qur'an predicts tht the only religion tht will finally prevail will be islam(u can see tht happening toady as it's unstoppable growth),if u want to challenge tht prophecy ,try prooving it wrong by inverting the statistics......
--------------------------------------------------
2.all religions r abt god no doubt..but then ur the one who's drawing the line...the line of difference by saying who made mistake and who didnt.....
I am glad you accept all religions are about God. I thought Islam teaches only Islam is about God. I did not catch what you meant about "drawing the line". Please elaborate.
i said all religions talk about god , i didnt say all religions give the correct message abt god....dont put words in my mouth....drawing the line, well u assumed tht krishna etc etc never made any mistakes, and muhammed did because he had this change of spritual phase(ur assumption) did probably make mistakes, tht's wat i call drawing the line.......
You are here saying only your religion is true. Seeing the type of narrow-mindedness the adherents of Islam display, Islam is being brought into disrepute.
================================================
3.righteous???please define krishna was fighting for righteous in terms of wat????
Certainly not in terms of Islam.
again righteous in wat sense????in sense of killing ur own cousins huh very righteous indeed!!!!(now im talking like u)
Krishna killed his cousins only to have them reborn. But Allah kills and roasts in hell for eternity only for not believing in Him. Mohammad helped Allah along the way. Compared to Allah’s actions, Krishna’s is righteous.
so!!!ur saying i could kill u too(if ur bad) only to beleive tht ull be reborn again huh!!amazing 'indu logic'...besides dont degrade the high honor of lord kishna..he fought for rights and tht's entirely righteous...and he never said theyll be reborn again in this world..i repeat vedas dont teach tht.........oh yes if u reject the ultimate truth ur gonna get roasted for sure!!!
============================================
by the way muhammed never fought war for religion ..tht he fought for religion is one of the fantastic myth's created (not by u)by the enemies of islam ,because the growing message of islam and the rising religion is a threat to the non beleivers....muhammed fought for rights just as krishna did
Mohammad in fact is the only religious founder who started his career by destroying others’ religions – the religions of the idol worshippers. Krishna on the contrary accepted all religions as being true.
nope again wrong...muhammed is no religious founder at all..shocked oh u will be....he was only a sort of catalyst........the first muslim was adam peace be upon him........the pagans themselves were destruction for themselves too bad...they demanded a war and only wanted war and they got wat they wanted.......
How can Mohammad not be the founder of Islam? Islam is based on the Quran. And it was sent for the first time through Mohammad. Nobody before Mohammad knew about the Quran. Claiming Adam was the first Muslim is only to claim a legacy that Islam is not heir to.
tht's because wat adam preached was coincident with islam's laws,like monotheism,no images of god,etc, etc....god revealed book's even earlier but every time man failed to preserve them,god kept giving man a chance and man kept failing miserably to preserve them.....even jesus was a muslim ,he said 'i submit my will to god' and tht's a definition of the word 'muslim' besides we beleive in the 'ingeel' given to jesus by god but wat bible u see today is not even close to the injeel originally given, besides he is one of our greatest messengers of god.........qur'an is final message tht man could preserve.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no quote of krishna saying 'all religions are true' in ur holy book ...i challenge....
In whatever way people approach me Me, in the same way I bless them. For the paths by which people come to Me from all sides are My paths, O Partha. (Bhagavad Gita 4:11)
when i say holy book my reference is towards 'the vedas'....if the vedas dont have this message,r u saying the message of krishna in bhagwad gita is different than the message in the vedas????i dont know if u consider the vedas or not???but vedas r regarded more holy thn all ur other hinduism books combined together according to experts, if u visit wikipedia it says the bhagwad gita was written by a devotee of another indian deity,krishna around 150.B.C...whereas the vedas date back in 1500B.C. ........which is more holy to follow?????if vedas then why do u follow bhagwad gita and not vedas when it comes to no idol worshipping and giving him no images??????
========================================================
and even if he did well tht's because he himself wasnt sure whether he precahed the right religion or wrong..(see now im really talking like u)
Whatever else you may say of Krishna, you certainly cannot say Krishna was given to doubts. In fact he is the great doubts clarifier.
===========================================
let me give a scent of factual history and not fablemuhammed was born in mecca, one day he started preaching monotheism,the pagans couldnt take it because the statues of different god's were sold and bought them enormous wealth..so he(muhammed) and his followers were thrown out of his birth place(mecca) and left into the scorching desert..muhammed travelled only to find medina, a prosperous paradise with righteous people.....now here his followers grew in no's...in the mean time meccan rulers heard tht muhammed and his message was growing, they sent people for his assasination but due to mysterious reasons all failed,and one day muhammed sent message to meccan leaders of his return(but in peace) ...at this meccan rulers declared war knowing he was nearby city limits....muhammed tried to negotiate but in many ways,yet those rulers never agreed....here after the pagans declaring war gave death threats not only to muhammed but even to followers of muhammed.....soon muhammed's birth place and his followers residence were all looted.....he had but no option but to declare war.....following when u say kill the nonbeleivers is only said when the war is on....ONCE victorious at war it was is moral right to preach his monotheism and do away with idols...for those who have tht anti-islamic scent make,muhammed breaking statues as an excuse for the war....
I agree Mohammad had a moral right to preach monotheism, whether he won wars or not. He also had the right to ensure that his new religion is not based on idol worship. But if he thought it was his moral right to do away idols of others' religions, he was only proving that he was an intolerant tyrant.
nope, now if u make a painting of our prophet or scribble a painting of kaaba in ur house i really cant do much abt it tht's because it's ur property obviously u cant do tht outside ur house,
What you mean is that you decide what I scribble or paint. You still think all the world is Saudi Arabia for you to decide what I scribble or paint. If someone was even rumoured to have drawn a cartoon of Mohammad in Saudi Arabia or any Muslim majority country, the Islamic police would have entered his house and lynched the person.
i am giving u a supposition,and justifying obviously because it's ur house ur rit,i cannot tell u wat u should do in ur house and not do in ur house.....it's not wat SA says to not make a painting of the prophet,it's wat the prophet has said not to make his painting,obviously knowing tht people will start doing hero-worship,and hero-worshipping is harram in islam,unlike ur culture of raising mortals equivalent to god.....besides muhammed was truly a propet because he didnt want people to worship him unlike ur krishna who wanted all the attention in the world,ur showing tht krishna was jealous and muhammed was 'gareeb swabhav' types....
But what happened when it was drawn in Europe? The Muslims could do nothing but protest in the Middle East violently. And what are you going to do about it when many such drawings are freely available on the internet? Fortunately the world is not dominated by Muslims yet and therefore freedom of expression is extant in many parts of the world.
europe???ill tell u the double standards of europe...they allow salman rushdie(a liar) to write a book tht abuses europeans themselves,blacks,all muslims and all women of all nations(including indians)....and here comes a muslim(indian born) called ahmed deedat telling the european government to only allow him to quote versus(including the abusives) only frm salman rushdie's book to the world and he would be ready to give charity of 1 million pounds to europe...and U.K. explicitly denies his appeal.....but allows rushdie to publish his book....now,'protesting in middle east violently' means wat??? they protested in frustration.......when ur shiv saniks or watever found one morning tht the gold of some god in a temple here in mumbai at dadar was stolen they raised hulla-gulla abt it..i was caught in tht crossfire in mumbai, when they eventually declared a ban tht day and everythng was forcefully closed by ur shiv saniks and all violence had broken loose........and to their suprise later a hindu was caught stealing....sites on the internet cannot be just banned tht easily,there is enormous pressure abt this on the islamic states(u dont happen to know this) ...it's precisely why there r innumerable illegal pornographic sites on the internet many even indian because it's not possible to just remove them so easily........
===========================================================
similarly when he is victorious and it is his moral right to do away with idols(note it is such tht all accepted islam) here
This is a morality that could be taught only in the Quran. It is such narrow-mindedness and intolerance that makes the question as to whether God is really the author of the Quran valid.
YES!! if 2+2=4 then i say it is,if u want me to say 2+2=5, i wont agree and u can label it as narrow mindness or watever u like.......the only thing left to prove is tht im the one saying 2+2=4 and ur the one saying 2+2=5...tht's wat needs to be debated......god does not give contradicting views by saying all religions(having diff practices differences in beleifs etc)are the true way to him.....if he does he would become illogical.......
==========================================================
2 things r kept in mind:::initiative cannot cause damage of human life:which didnt happen as they marched towards the kaaba also:ethically it is entirely correct of disposing a wrong practice tht in any way was initially a point of difference of opinion.....if i am the lord of a land and someone does malpractice within my land i will indeed be intolerant to let him be free without punishment...ur logic says wat right does a supreme court judge have to hang a murderer or to illegalize dance bars......
The very fact that you consider idol-worship illegal stems fromthe Quran. Fortunately, again, the Quran does not rule the world, much as the Muslims dream one day it would....
fine ill throw u more statistics.....u would know tht the religion having largest no. of followers today is christianity..now in 2005 no. of christians in the world=24% and no.of muslims 14% seeing before 2005 muslims r much less and christians much more....in 2011 estimated by UN: no. of christians in world=no. of muslims in world=17% of world population.....and thereon after muslims keep growing ...as far as hinuism ur people dont even come as close as 5% of world population.....so ur the one whos dreaming not us....idol worshipping is wrong , ur vedas themselves confirm that..so if u complain abt it ..ur going against ur own vedas,ur own authority, ur own law, ur own god...........so stop beating round the bush and stop idol-worshipping.....or do you accept tht the vedas mean absolutely nothing to u and tht they r fake?????accept tht or stop the practice......
==============================================
the above is not my story,it's in the qur'an...
Talking about stories, is it not in the Quran that Mohammad was lifted bodily from Mecca to Palestine by the Angles and placed on a rock, from where he got on to a steed (horse) and the steed flew him to meet Allah? Is this a story or a fact?
present be a verse like tht!!! or it's some another story ur indu brother must have told u......
[Quran 17:1] “Most glorified is the One who summoned His servant (Muhammad) during the night, from the Sacred Masjid (of Mecca) to the farthest place of prostration, whose surroundings we have blessed, in order to show him some of our signs. He is the Hearer, the Seer.”
"The Bukhari Hadiths" ( Vol.15, p.3615 ) In the year 621 at the age of 51, Muhammad flew on the magical Winged-Horse of Fire which he called Burak, which means "Thunder-Lightning"The story of the Ascension of Mohammed, known as "Miraj", or "Stairway to Heaven" began when Mohammed fell asleep on a carpet at his cousin's place and became the inspirational source of different "Stories of the 1001 Nights of Arabia" involving "Magic Carpet Rides".One night as the Prophet lay sleeping next to the Ka’ba, the Archangel Gabriel woke him. Later the Prophet described what happened: 'I sat up and he took hold of my arm. I stood beside him and he brought me to the door of the mosque where there was a white animal for me to ride.' The animal was a white winged horse.The Prophet told of how he mounted the animal and, with the Archangel Gabriel at his side, was transported from Mecca. First of all, they went to the summit of Mount Sinai and then to the mosque called al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, on the temple mount, at the rock of Mt. Moriah, Muhammad found Abraham, Moses, and Jesus among a group of Prophets. Muhammad acted as their leader, or imam, in prayer. Then he was brought two jugs, one containing wine and the other milk. He chose the milk and refused the wine. At this, the Archangel Gabriel said, 'You have been rightly guided to the fitrah (the true nature of man) and so will your people be, Muhammad. Wine is forbidden to you. Which is why Muslims do not drink alcohol beverages.The Prophet also related how they passed through Heaven's gates and saw countless angels. Among them was Malik, the Keeper of Hell, who never smiles. Malik stepped forward and showed the Prophet a view of Hell and the terrible plight of those who suffer in that place.Then the Prophet was taken up by the angels, through the seven Heavens, one by one. Along the way he again saw Jesus, Moses, and Abraham, and the Prophet said that he had never seen a man more like himself than Abraham. He also saw John, Joseph, Enoch, and Aaron.At last he reached the Lote Tree of the Uttermost, where no Prophet had been before. Here the Prophet received the Revelation.
also abt the bukhari hadith tht says: is true, also in islam we dont beleive in winged horses to exist in this world..but u missed the most important point::the prophet was sleeping and wat followed was just a dream......a dream my boy,u missed reading 'dream' ...in dreams we see many thngs dont we???winged horses,flying carpets,etc,etc....it clearly states tht prophet loved telling his people of what he dreamt and wat follows is a dream....and before waking up he was revealed a true revelation.......
================================================
so read ur scriptures abt krishna , infact both fought krishna and muhammed and both fought gor righteous deeds ,,u labelling muhammed's war as religious is like myself telling u tht krishna taught to kill ur cousins....so be sure of facts before commenting....
In Islam, Allah Himself says that any religion other than Islam will not be accepted – that people who follow religions other than Islam would burn forever in hell. Is this not worse than Krishna killing his cousins, who anyway, according to Krishna’s teachings, would be born again?
lol!! another fictitious imagination...krishna never taught abt rebirth...tht's wat some illogical sadhus talk abt.....if u read the vedas it says life after death(i.e.hell or heaven) like qur'an ,not life and death and again life and again death and on and on...know ur vedas properly go read boy!!!if u heard zakir say tht why do u even ask all this??
Krishna talks about rebirth in the Bhagwad Gita.
i told u have no proof......and im talking abt vedas anyways......
===========================================
4.abt the wives part......yes it was morally correct for muhammed to have the wives he had...if u say he played ALLAH's politics ..so be it ,it was ALLAH's political plan........after all he took grt care of all his wives,he is the true man to take care of so many wives..as for krishna having 16000 it's impossible to beleive tht he even knew all his wives by name or the very fact tht he treated all of them equally which is most important....and note i never said he 'managed 16000 wives, i only said he had 16000 wives'.......
If you believe that Mohammad’s marriages were political and it was in fulfillment of Allah’s politics that he married even a 9 year old when he was 54, you are confirming that you are a successful slave that Allah intended you to be. Krishna, however, did not marry for any politics. He was man enough to marry for the sake of marriage.
ABOUT U SAYING ABOUT PROPHET MUHAMMED MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM MARRYING AISHA AT 8Arabs followed a custom in marrying a child who had her first menstrual cycle Muhammad's first wife - Khadija, died a few years before he fled to Medina.Later, he was encouraged to take another wife. At the age of 49 he met Aisha, age six. Aisha was his closest friend's, Abu Bakr's, daughter. At that time, she had already met another man but by mutual consent(not forced) the betrothal was dissolved.Three years later, following her first menstrual cycle, he then formally marriedMost Western people know it is not in a 9 year old girl's best interest to engage in marriage and sexual relations with a 52 year old man, regardless of the cultural setting. We know that, in our culture today, a person doing such a thing could possible be sent to prison for sex with a minor, statutory rape, or other related laws. Most of us find it questionable for Muhammad, a self proclaimed prophet of God, to do such a thing. What is more critical than Muhammad's single action with Aisha is that he taught that a girl is considered an adult following her first menstrual cycle. He also taught that his followers were to follow his "sunnah" or lifestyle. Thus today, throughout much of the Mideast, girls as young as nine are often married by men old enough to be their grandfather.But why then do we find it objectionable? After all, Muhammad did not live in our culture or under our law. And this custom of marrying girls after their first menses existed in the Mideast long before Muhammad. What is the basis for rejection of this Semite custom and Muhammad's precedent? Are there any valid reasons to criticize it? Or should it simply be rejected based upon our own cultural bias?From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""Bukhari vol. 7, #88:"Narrated Urwa: "The prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).""SCIENCE AND PUBERTYHow do the biological sciences address the topic of female puberty? Here are quotes from several college level text books, and the World Book Encyclopedia. There is a great deal of info presented, but it is necessary to provide scientific details to fully understand puberty.From"Adolescence", by L. Steinberg, pub. by McGraw Hill, 1993.page 26:"The effects of the endocrinological changes of puberty on the adolescent's body are remarkable. Consider the dramatic changes in physical appearance that occur during the short span of early adolescence. One enters puberty looking like a child and within FOUR years or so has the physical appearance of a young adult."page 32The onset of puberty can occur as early as8 years in girls and 9.5 in boys.In girls,the interval between the first sign of puberty and complete physical maturation can be as short as one and one-half years or as long as six years....brother spare some time and ask a near by gynaecologist whether it is possible for a 9 yr old woman to conceive with the labour pains etc etc.......ull be shocked to know the answer as yes...........IN SHORT ISLAM'S LAWS ARE NOT BASED ON CULTURE THAT MAY HAVE FLAWS WITHIN ITSELF LIKE HINDUISM BUT ON SCIENCE...HERE SCIENCE ENTIRELY AGREES WITH THE PROPHET MARRYING AISHA AT 9...WAT MAY BE CULTURAL FOR U MAY BR UNCULTURAL FOR ME AND THE CONVERSE COULD BE TRUE BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY SCIENCE IS VICTOR......its the indian government tht labels girls as legal marrying age of 18-19 and men 21 tht may not be necessary tht it is entirely a 'universally accepted cultural practice'in aisha's case she had attained a stage of puberty before marriage confirmed by scriptures..e.g. some states in US allow minimum age limit as 15 for girls and 16 in UK ....and brides as young as 8 yrs old in byzantine were married until recently...and remember aisha was no child labelled as 'minor' according to scientific approcahalso i said most wives were married for political reasons not all...again u dont read carefully
You have convinced me about the rightousness of Mohammad marrying a six year old girl at the age of 49. Great grandpa, lucky child!
tht's wat i call as pretentious speech..ur convinced u say but doesnt seem so....(i had read a 'indu' married a dog in some place, please enlighten me whether in indu culture r men are allowed to marry dogs???)
=======================================================
...krishna could never do justice to 16000 women it's impossible for one to do justice to 16000wives at one time....
If Mohammad could fly on a carpet and a winged horse, Krishna could certainly take care of his 16,008 wives.
YES MUHAMMED COULD FLY ON A CARPET AND A WINGED HORSE IN HIS DREAM,BUT NOW U AGREE THAT KRISHNA CERTAINLY COULD NOT DO JUSTICE TO 16008 WIVES......
==================================================
123
123
brother penguinoi honestly apologize if i have offended u or ur religion, my statements were in rebuttal to tht ape man called venu gopal...
==================================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by 123
if i ask a common indu ..how many gods u believe in?? Some may say 3, some may say 33,and others may say a 1000, while the others may say 33 crores, 330 million. the common Hindu believes in a Philosophy known as ‘Pantheism’---that is, everything is god. The tree is god,the sun is god,the moon is god,the snake is god, the monkey is god, the human beings are god.The common Muslim believes that everything is God’s----GOD with an Apostofy‘S’ everything belongs to God.The tree belongs to God,the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God,the snake belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the human beings belong to God......take to foll versus:::
Originally Posted by 123
if i ask a common indu ..how many gods u believe in?? Some may say 3, some may say 33,and others may say a 1000, while the others may say 33 crores, 330 million. the common Hindu believes in a Philosophy known as ‘Pantheism’---that is, everything is god. The tree is god,the sun is god,the moon is god,the snake is god, the monkey is god, the human beings are god.The common Muslim believes that everything is God’s----GOD with an Apostofy‘S’ everything belongs to God.The tree belongs to God,the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God,the snake belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the human beings belong to God......take to foll versus:::
Fine. So you have stated the Muslim view and the Hindu views. Doesn’t this prove that there are many views of God? Can you prove that only Islamic view is right? Hinduism believes difference in views do not necessarily mean contradictory views. Whereas Islam believes what it states alone is true and all other views are contradictory views.
hinuism i.e. vedas here never claims many views of one god, again ur imagination is running wildor u r under influence of an illogical sadhu.....in order to know whether views contradict u needto know wat both views r......here both (qur'an and vedas) views r talking of no image of god and no idol worship..so just stick to tht for now.......
As a matter of fact many Hindus do not worship idols and many do. This is called freedom of religions afforded by Hindu culture. This is not available in Islamic culture.
why dont all hindus beleive so??????ur own god doesnt give u the freedom of beleiving in idols...go read the vedas..it prohibits and doesnt give u an option of beleiving in idols.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by 123
yajur veda 'na tasya pratima asti' 'there is no image of him' -----(no idols) yajur veda 32:3 further 'he is un born,he deserves our worship' yajur veda 40:8 'he is bodyless and pure' --(no idols) yajur veda 40:9 'they enter darkness who worship natural things' e.g.sun moon etc...'they sink deeper in darkness who worship simbhuti' sumbhuti means human creation e.g.table,fan,chair, idols etc... yajur veda 32:3 'na tasya pratima asti' 'there is no image of him' brahma sutra of hindu vedanta is 'ekyam brahm divitya natse ne na naste kinchan' 'there is only one god ,not a second ,not at all, not at all , not at the least bit' i could quote versus similarly frm sikhism, zorashtrinism,judaism,christanism(prove there is nothing like trinity) .....
I am glad you have extensively quoted the Vedas to prove it holds views that Quran also holds. This proves that there is nothing original in the Quran. Could Mohammad have plagiarized the Quran from the Vedas? However, it appears that the dubious scholar of the Vedas Dr. Zakir Naik has found what he was looking for in the Vedas. But if he had proceeded to read more, he would have found that the Vedas declare ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ – I am God. This Dr. Zakir Naik does not quote because it is not in the Quran also. However the great Mansoor Al Hillaj said the same thing when he said ‘Ane Al Haq’. He was promptly killed by Muslims for that!
there is everythng original in the qur'an...just because i agree with say 2 points out of 10 points of hinduism doesnt mean i agree with hinduism entirely......there was no way of him plagiarizing frm vedas for many reasons ..one of which he never visited the indian subcontinent
Do not forget the idol worshippers of Mecca – they were probably Hindus and knew the Vedas.
oh really...in tht case if u happen to know those pagans also beleived free sexual intermingling,dancing girls,selling ones daughters,sisters for a few grands of gold,wine drinking,keeping slaves etc etc was their right..does the vedas confirm all these practices also????!!!!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the vedas at tht time never reached the arab lands...
How do you know?
because veda originated in india,muhammed lived in arabia and to get to arabia u need a sea vehicle...the first such sea vehicle built was in late 1700's in india .i.e.some 350 yrs ago,muhammed lived 1400 yrs ago(ur question is very illogical)
=====================================================
soon ill quote vedas predicting arrival of a prophet called antim rishi or final prophet ...ill write abt it soon...why would i proclaim or zakir naik proclaim someting tht we dont beleive in???????the word 'aham brahmasmi' well who saying this???? is it god or some another krishna types....tht'a uncertain........abt mansoor al hillaj too bad for him he shouldnt have said tht.........
Why had Islam killed someone for claiming he is God?
simply because a human cannot be a god at the same time....and he's only degrading god....how can u degrade the almighty??
Quote:
Originally Posted by 123
as far as doing good for humanity i could go on and on....but ill give u only 1 example. when the prophet revealed the verse(just 1 verse) in the holy qur'an abt prohibiting alcohol,and all intoxicants...the barrels of arabia tht contained alcohol were all drained dry and was disposed off never to be refilled again ever......this was the power of just 1 verse and elimination of a evil like beer,wine,whisky etc etc.....
Originally Posted by 123
as far as doing good for humanity i could go on and on....but ill give u only 1 example. when the prophet revealed the verse(just 1 verse) in the holy qur'an abt prohibiting alcohol,and all intoxicants...the barrels of arabia tht contained alcohol were all drained dry and was disposed off never to be refilled again ever......this was the power of just 1 verse and elimination of a evil like beer,wine,whisky etc etc.....
Maybe you are not aware of it, but liquor sales are brisk in Arabian countries and the clients are not just expatriates. Why, I know of a bar called Mecca bar in Oman. The justification is that Mecca actually means bar in Arabic and holy Mecca, birthplace of Islam, is actually pronounced Makkah! Obviously Mohammad's writ has not run flawlessly down the ages even in Arabia.
now now my own cat gives me a meoww!!
Very quaint expression. Is it an Arabic expression?
nope....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes it's absolutely fair justification...makkah is not mecca after all...if u happen to visit saudi arabia ull see written as makkah....so nothing wrong with tht......muhammed never wrote 'mecca' expicitly ...so keepcrying abt tht alright!!!
You miss the point. Whether the bar is named Mecca or Makkah, the fact is there is a bar (actually there are many bars) in Arabia, where you claimed Mohammad got rid of all intoxicants for ever.
when i say 'barrels of arabia never to be refilled again' i hope u understand it's a figure of speech....i m saying tht it was illegalized in those lands so whether 1 muslim out of 1000 drinks wine or trades wine is not my concern..in tht case tht person is not a muslim(only claiming to be so).......anyways muslims have a lower alcoholic consumption than most other religions,as far as indus dont make me compare ur alcoholic consumption with ours, itll only embarass u further......mecca translates to bar...and not makkah...'mecca bar' is in US,UK and australia and some other places.....also there is no legalized bar in makkah....
=====================================================
soon ill bombard u with questions on hinuism......
You are welcome. Remember, Hinduism is not based on the Quran and therefore is not a narrow-minded culture.
=======================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment