Islam: Schizophrenia and Deception?

[ByaKya]

Quote by: The_Genius Haha... We all can see who is confusing himself with false quotations. ...you only mention what 'seems bad to you' and leave out the good parts... Thats not the way to judge a religion.

exactly and if stronghearts is going to let other people decide, dont trick them into believeing something is written in the koran when it isnt.
im not muslim but bigotry wont be tolerated, quote the koran if youre going to proove anything about islams "essence", "purpose" or what it "preaches"

[ItsDarts]

For the last 23 years of his life, beginning at age 40, Muhammad reported receiving revelations from God. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an, was memorized and recorded by his followers.[31] These memories and recordings were then compiled into a single volume shortly after his death. All Muslims believe that Muhammad transmitted the revelations he received perfectly, as attested to by this verse of the Qur'an: "And if the apostle were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)." Qur'an 69:44-47 Source

So Muslims believe that Mo didn't actually write the Qur'an himself. He was given revelations for 23 years. None of which was written down until AFTER his death. Yet claim that its perfect, can only be fully understood in Arabic. This is like trying to write down every single lesson your father taught you for the last 23 years and getting it exactly correct. HOW on earth do people fall for this kind of lunacy? This is no better than the bible.

Secondly, TG, back on this page I asked you to show the context of the verses that SHW was positing was wrong. I'm still waiting.

As for ByaKya, there is no bigotry going on here. SHW's debate is for Muslims to show how their religion DOESN"T promote violence and for muslims to show us how terrorists are taking the Qur'an out of context. Earlier in this thread, there ARE quotes from the Qur'an that clearly showed violence being promoted, but as of yet, no one has successfully shown how the quote is being take out of context. Like the Bible, it appears that people will take the sweet nicey nice stuff and preach how wonderful their way of life is and then totally ignore all the atrocities in the very same book. SHW's post clearly stated that the same charges can be brought against Christians and their book. He is not "picking on" muslims any more than we would normally pick on Christians and their doctrines and dogmas. Its Islams turn, that's all.

Feel free to find a verse in the Qur'an speaking of violence and show how and why its just. Here, lets take the one I have above.... is it metaphorical to seize ones right hand and cut off the artery of the heart? Or is this literal? Support what ever view you take with other verses or apologetics. I don't know Islam so I can't say its metaphorical or literal. I and others are only trying to learn so that we MAY be tolerant of others if it is so justified. But if someone wants to seize my arm and cut my artery all because I incorrectly wrote something wrong, well then, they can kiss my fat atheistic ass. That is NOT just.

[Athena]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin In what ways was he like them? Please be specific with your descriptions. Is Allah bound by time? Isn`t he timeless? So, why did he allow or order Muhammed to torture and murder in his name then if torture and murder is bad to Allah? Or perhaps, torture and murder is not always bad to Allah? Would you be willing to accept that a God of mercy and love dabbles in torture and murder? Yes, but Christians will point out to you the verses that deliver people from having to be under the Old Law and do those horrendous things. Where in the Koran does it state a break with the violent ways Muhammed showed us at the order of Allah or in Allah`s name? I don`t see that clear break or limiting order stating that what Muhammed did is not available for emulation by future generations of Muslims. Because the western world has embraced reason to lift them out of the quagmire of the hideous things in the Bible, Muslims are killing in Allah`s name, reasoning it ok to do so based on the unprovable that Allah definitely exists. We skeptics don`t. Look at the menu in the Religion forum category. There are much more threads critical of the Bible and Christianity than Islam. This thread is only one of a few targeting Islam. And, threads rightfully can choose to examine one faith for the benefit of debate without having to make it a comparative study of all religions side by side. I am the first to say that Christianity is still a bane to the western world. One peice of the puzzle at a time. This thread is examining the Islamic piece.

I can't handle this thread any longer. Talk about Schizophrenia and Deception, this thread is really crazy making.

Is Allah bound by time?

OF COURSE HE IS! What in blazes is wrong here? It is like I am attempting to communicate with someone whose thinking is organized so differently from own, communication is impossible.

Here try this, Is Isis bound by time?

[Athena]

Attila the Hun, leader of the Mongoloid tribe that invaded the Roman empire during the A.D. 300's and 400's. Genghis Khan, leader of a Mongol tribe who invaded China and Europe 1167-1227 A.D.. When Mohammed began preaching in the 600's A.D. Arabia was a wild, lawless land. The fierce fighting tribes of the deserts fought bloody wars. All these people shared the same mentality. What ruled was men with swords and ability to lead men. Not a government of laws, nor even a religion with laws.

The Mongloids rejected religion. Genghis Khan told them never to choose one religion over another, and until they did divide between Christianity and Islam, and turn against themselves, they were indefeatable. Mohammed, however, embrassed religion and spread it with a sword.

With the sword and the Arab way of doing things, he was able to impose a religion on the Arabs, that was a blend of Judaism and Christianity. He was not a Jesus who martyred himself. He was a warrior, and frankly, many Jews expected the messiah to be such a warrior and that is why they didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Mohammed may have expected the Jews and Christians to accept him as a prophet. At first he was friendly with them, and had everyone bowing in the direction of Jerusalem when they prayed. But when he was not accepted by them as a prophet, he drove them out and organized a purely Moslem society. This was possible because of tribal ties and settling things with the sword. He also turned them, to bow in the direction of Mecca. Literally turning their backs on the holy city of Jerusalem.

Something Mohammed surely shared in common with other leaders, besides having great leadership skills and conquering with the sword to conquer is, a huge ego!

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Athena Mohammed, however, embrassed religion and spread it with a sword. With the sword and the Arab way of doing things, he was able to impose a religion

Hi Athena,

First, I have to just say, "Wow!" in regards to the last post of yours. It agrees with one of the premises of this thread, that Islam is a religion of deception when it claims to be one of peace but is spread by violence.

Keep in mind also, that spreading it by the sword was done so not only with the traditional masses of men meating each other on the battlefield with an honourable face to face clash of swords, but also with the techniques of indiscriminate killing, terror, and torture.

I think that if the followers of Muhammed at sometime after his death had spread it with the sword, and Muhammed never did resort to the sword with his brutal techniques of torture and terror, then perhaps there would be no guilt of deception or violence at the core of it. But, since the Prophet, himself at the order of Allah, spread it in a manner you have honestly stated, it is unmistakenly a religion built on violence, and those who commit terrorism today are merely following the ways of Muhammed in the example he gave them -- because no ordained message from God told them not to emulate him.

When Muslims or others engage in repeatedly putting Islam forth as a great religion of peace worthy of great respect, they do so ignorantly -- or purposely, and hence bring about deception. I am glad to see you are not one of those. I think intellectual honesty is the best innoculation for schizophrenia and potential acts that could come from that.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Athena I can't handle this thread any longer. Talk about Schizophrenia and Deception, this thread is really crazy making.

<smile>

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Is Allah bound by time?

Quote by: Athena OF COURSE HE IS!

Then Allah is not all mighty, is he? Something is stronger than him. Is that a shared belief by Muslims?

I am just trying to understand this. Because, if he is bound by time, then his message and the morals that people take from his message may not be timeless and therefore of no importance to today -- hence no need for the Koran. If his message was one of peace and mercy, but it is not a timeless one, anymore than the message of terror or torture, than why should any give them any weight just because they came from him via Gabriel and Muhammed?

What in blazes is wrong here? It is like I am attempting to communicate with someone whose thinking is organized so differently from own, ...

I think our thinking IS organized differently. Intellectual curiosity leads me to be skeptical of extraordinary claims and to examine the parts that don`t seem to be based on reason. Intellectual honesty lets me make a final decision on what is most probable after examining the evidence -- or lack of it, and then declare that decision.

... communication is impossible.

You see, that is what religion does, it sows miscommunication amongst people of different beliefs or those who choose not to believe. Miscommunication leads to misunderstanding and that often leads to bloodshed.

Here try this, Is Isis bound by time?

Of course. We have no obligation to follow any myth.

What we believe today to follow should be based on what helps us avoid pain and suffering, a trait all sentient beings share and do not want to be the target of. That is timeless, for surely a being 10000, 5000, or 2000 years ago no more wanted to have his legs and arms chopped off and hot nails passed over his eyes than a being today.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: ItsDarts So Muslims believe that Mo didn't actually write the Qur'an himself. He was given revelations for 23 years. None of which was written down until AFTER his death. Yet claim that its perfect, can only be fully understood in Arabic. This is like trying to write down every single lesson your father taught you for the last 23 years and getting it exactly correct. HOW on earth do people fall for this kind of lunacy? This is no better than the bible. Actually it is better than the bible, at least in terms of how soon it was written after muhamads death. most estimates are immediatly afterwards to about 50 years after this death. The bible was written along some 300 to 400 years, many version, many chapters, some kept, others discarded and then finally edited and filtered by the catholic church. As for ByaKya, there is no bigotry going on here. SHW's debate is for Muslims to show how their religion DOESN"T promote violence and for muslims to show us how terrorists are taking the Qur'an out of context. Earlier in this thread, there ARE quotes from the Qur'an that clearly showed violence being promoted, but as of yet, no one has successfully shown how the quote is being take out of context. Like the Bible, it appears that people will take the sweet nicey nice stuff and preach how wonderful their way of life is and then totally ignore all the atrocities in the very same book. SHW's post clearly stated that the same charges can be brought against Christians and their book. He is not "picking on" muslims any more than we would normally pick on Christians and their doctrines and dogmas. Its Islams turn, that's all. Well im just gonna have to say tough noogies, i have not seen any quotes that promoted violence in any way shape or form. copy and paste them. Feel free to find a verse in the Qur'an speaking of violence and show how and why its just. Here, lets take the one I have above.... is it metaphorical to seize ones right hand and cut off the artery of the heart? Or is this literal? Support what ever view you take with other verses or apologetics. I don't know Islam so I can't say its metaphorical or literal. I and others are only trying to learn so that we MAY be tolerant of others if it is so justified. But if someone wants to seize my arm and cut my artery all because I incorrectly wrote something wrong, well then, they can kiss my fat atheistic ass. That is NOT just.

there are violent quotes in the quran, im not sure what you are getting at.but if you ever get your artery cut out by muslims because of something you wrote about islam, ill be sure to take this "promotion of violence" theorty very seriously

[ByaKya]

[quote=StrongHeartsWin;324995]<smile>


Then Allah is not all mighty, is he? Something is stronger than him. Is that a shared belief by Muslims?

He is almighty and not bound by time, he is super duper powerfull

I am just trying to understand this. Because, if he is bound by time, then his message and the morals that people take from his message may not be timeless and therefore of no importance to today -- hence no need for the Koran. If his message was one of peace and mercy, but it is not a timeless one, anymore than the message of terror or torture, than why should any give them any weight just because they came from him via Gabriel and Muhammed?

He is not bound by time. The message is timeless. Gabriel is an angel of god. thats why the message is important and muhamad is the prophet

I think our thinking IS organized differently. Intellectual curiosity leads me to be skeptical of extraordinary claims and to examine the parts that don`t seem to be based on reason. Intellectual honesty lets me make a final decision on what is most probable after examining the evidence -- or lack of it, and then declare that decision.

Too bad we arent in court


You see, that is what religion does, it sows miscommunication amongst people of different beliefs or those who choose not to believe. Miscommunication leads to misunderstanding and that often leads to bloodshed.

I am communicating clearly, religion has nothing to do with that, most of the humans on this planet are religois and seem to communicate quite clearly

Of course. We have no obligation to follow any myth.

You do, since it is the true path. or you cant be helped when life gets tough. Just as you have no obligation to follow any myth, people that could help you would have no obligation to save you from say, a band of hungry wolves or humans.

What we believe today to follow should be based on what helps us avoid pain and suffering, a trait all sentient beings share and do not want to be the target of. That is timeless, for surely a being 10000, 5000, or 2000 years ago no more wanted to have his legs and arms chopped off and hot nails passed over his eyes than a being today.

Huh ?

Athena isnt muslim, rofl.

[ItsDarts]

Actually it is better than the bible, at least in terms of how soon it was written after muhamads death. most estimates are immediatly afterwards to about 50 years after this death. The bible was written along some 300 to 400 years, many version, many chapters, some kept, others discarded and then finally edited and filtered by the catholic church.

Technically, it's no better than the bible for the simple fact that it wasn't written by the original person receiving the message. It was relayed and "remembered" by various authors, just like the bible. How soon after the message was relayed is a moot point. A volume that large, "remembered" by tribesmen in the dessert is bound to have errors from the original message. Not to mention, that if I say this post was inspired by Allah, can you prove me wrong? Of course not.

Quote by: ByaKya there are violent quotes in the quran, im not sure what you are getting at.but if you ever get your artery cut out by muslims because of something you wrote about islam, ill be sure to take this "promotion of violence" theorty very seriously

What I'm getting at is.... I have been waiting for someone to show how the violent verses do not apply to todays standards and why terrorists are taking the verses in the Qur'an literally instead of metaphorically. Show some support for taking bad verses metaphorically instead of literally.

So far, this hasn't been done and I'm left to conclude that SHW's post is a valid argument until someone steps up and does a good job of apologetics to show otherwise. Christians have done a fairly good job of apologetics for their book. Where are the Islamic apologetics? Put up or shut up, as they say.

[ByaKya]

[quote=ItsDarts;325108]Technically, it's no better than the bible for the simple fact that it wasn't written by the original person receiving the message. It was relayed and "remembered" by various authors, just like the bible. How soon after the message was relayed is a moot point. A volume that large, "remembered" by tribesmen in the dessert is bound to have errors from the original message. Not to mention, that if I say this post was inspired by Allah, can you prove me wrong? Of course not.

There is quite a huge difference between how the koran was put together and how the bible was put together. You can look up the history yourself, you can take any source.
as i described it, the bible had no where near the clean from "mouth" to "written word' type of transition that the koran did. Not to mention the 400 year difference from death of dude to writing of text that the bible did.
Well im gonna have to agree with you, your post may indeed be inspired by allah, as a form of comedy to make my day better. GG pwnt

What I'm getting at is.... I have been waiting for someone to show how the violent verses do not apply to todays standards and why terrorists are taking the verses in the Qur'an literally instead of metaphorically. Show some support for taking bad verses metaphorically instead of literally.

the violent verses do not apply the same way christian say the old testaments violence doesnt apply, DERRR.
Why terrorists are taking the verses literally? because they want to. i thought that would be pretty obvious i guess not.
show you evidence they are taking violent (instead of bad, what grade are you in) verses metaphorically instead of literally? i thought we agreed they are taking them literally? which is it

So far, this hasn't been done and I'm left to conclude that SHW's post is a valid argument until someone steps up and does a good job of apologetics to show otherwise. Christians have done a fairly good job of apologetics for their book. Where are the Islamic apologetics? Put up or shut up, as they say

there is no need for islamic anything to do anything.
only someone who thought history began on 9/11 2001 would ask for such a thing.
The west has been attacking islamic people and countries since after they got done attacking asian countries, only after this did any islamic terrorism show up.
how terrorists justify their attacks is irrelevant

[Athena]

Quote by: The_Genius Ok, once again I must emphasize the word 'context'... The world in which we are living today is not the same compare to the world in which Mohammed (saw) lived or Quran revealed... Lets go back to early Islamic history... Prophet Mohammed (saw) was born in a rich, powerful and very sophisticated Pagan tribe of Arabia. However, at a young age he started questioning the traditional and religious beleifs of his family/people. He simply saw "idol worship" is illogical. After he received revelation from Allah (God) through the Angel Gabriel, he started preaching Monotheism or the religion of Islam. At that time his people became more and more angry at him since his teachings clashed with their Pagan beliefs. I must mention that they (Pagans) were a backward and intolerant group of people who not only condemned new ideas but participated in rape, molestation, war and incestuous deeds. They began torturing Mohammed (saw) and his loyal followers, which made Mohammed (saw) leave his birthplace (Mecca) for Medina... He was prosecuted... After Mohammed (saw) stayed in Medina for few years - as the number of Muslims grew - they started making treaties with Pagan Leaders. Part of the treaty included that Mohammed (saw) and his followers would visit Mecca for annual pilgrimage. However, the Pagans broke the agreement and started attacking the Muslims whenever they went to Mecca. This led to confrontations between them... Having no other options, Muslims took up swords against the warring Pagan tribes. The important thing for you to know is, Mohammed (saw) hated Christians and Jews. In fact, at his young age he used to debate with Christians and Jews but he never insulted them or their beliefs. He was forced to defend himself and his followers from Pagan Arabs who did not know the meaning of "negotiation". Therefore, you must not quote things out of context. For 23 years Mohammed (saw) and his followers had to fight the Pagans; the Quran was revealed during that time. Here is a good example... According to Christian and Jewish doctrines, Islam does not come from God and Mohammed (saw) is not his messenger. Those doctrines totally deny Islam... But yet Muslims respect the Christians and Jews by referring to them as "People of the Book". So your idea of "Musilms hating everyone" is wrong. I hope I answered you. I tried... if you aren't satisfied, ask me again.

Huh? Mohammed hated Jews and Christians? In what way is this a good thing to say? What proof do you have of his feelings?

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Athena Huh? Mohammed hated Jews and Christians? In what way is this a good thing to say? What proof do you have of his feelings?

he forgot to add DIDNT before "hate".
I can tell from the way he types

[ItsDarts]

[quote=ByaKya;325395]

Quote by: ItsDarts Technically, it's no better than the bible for the simple fact that it wasn't written by the original person receiving the message. It was relayed and "remembered" by various authors, just like the bible. How soon after the message was relayed is a moot point. A volume that large, "remembered" by tribesmen in the dessert is bound to have errors from the original message. Not to mention, that if I say this post was inspired by Allah, can you prove me wrong? Of course not. There is quite a huge difference between how the koran was put together and how the bible was put together. You can look up the history yourself, you can take any source. as i described it, the bible had no where near the clean from "mouth" to "written word' type of transition that the koran did. Not to mention the 400 year difference from death of dude to writing of text that the bible did. Well im gonna have to agree with you, your post may indeed be inspired by allah, as a form of comedy to make my day better. GG pwnt

I agree there is a difference in how it was put together. What I disagree with is that it's any better. The people who actually wrote the words did so by memory. Mo was "receiving" Allahs message from "an angel" for some 20 odd years and then, only AFTER his death did someone bother to write down from memory, over 50 years, the words. Five will get you ten that you can't even remember a recipe you got back in Home Ec in high school (assuming you;ve been out of high school for 10 or more years), let alone a large volume of work. That's all I'm saying. We have "word of god, passed onto an angel, passed onto Mo, passed on to Qur'an writers AFTER his death. Of course we still have to assume Allah and angels actually exist. Why do we ALWAYS assume that when some nutter who kills someone in the name of god is a nutter? Why don't we assume this nutter actually got instructions from god? Why do people give credence to the holy books and not others who claim to have received words from god?

the violent verses do not apply the same way christian say the old testaments violence doesnt apply, DERRR.

Oh really? Support for this please. Christians ignore OT civil laws and ritual laws because Jesus came along to pay the price for sin. Whats different for Islam?

Why terrorists are taking the verses literally? because they want to. i thought that would be pretty obvious i guess not. show you evidence they are taking violent (instead of bad, what grade are you in) verses metaphorically instead of literally? i thought we agreed they are taking them literally? which is it

Sorry, poor wording on my part. What I'm asking for is for someone to show WHY terrorists are wrong when interpreting the Qur'an literally. Maybe the moderates are interpreting the Qur'an wrong? What is there to show that they should take the voilent parts metaphorically?

there is no need for islamic anything to do anything.

Since you attacked my grammar (bad/violent above) what the hell is this supposed to mean? Where is the capitalization? What grade are YOU in? LOL

only someone who thought history began on 9/11 2001 would ask for such a thing. The west has been attacking islamic people and countries since after they got done attacking asian countries, only after this did any islamic terrorism show up. how terrorists justify their attacks is irrelevant

There is too a need for Islamics to support their Qur'an and do a much better job of apologetics so the west will not assume it's a religion of terror. This is why we're having this debate, to give Islamics the chance to educate us. So far all I've seen is "context" charges without support. Saying we're taking verses out of context without showing the context we SHOULD be taking it in is not an argument.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: ItsDarts So Muslims believe that Mo didn't actually write the Qur'an himself. He was given revelations for 23 years. None of which was written down until AFTER his death. Yet claim that its perfect, can only be fully understood in Arabic. This is like trying to write down every single lesson your father taught you for the last 23 years and getting it exactly correct. HOW on earth do people fall for this kind of lunacy? This is no better than the bible.

Now I'm loving this Christian dude.....

Why don't we debate? One on One... The_Genius Vs ItsDirt...

The Quran (took 23 years) Vs The Bible (took 600 years).......

I know I will win easily with facts, but lets see if you have got the guts...

[The_Genius]

Quote by: ItsDarts Technically, it's no better than the bible for the simple fact that it wasn't written by the original person receiving the message. It was relayed and "remembered" by various authors, just like the bible. How soon after the message was relayed is a moot point. A volume that large, "remembered" by tribesmen in the dessert is bound to have errors from the original message. Not to mention, that if I say this post was inspired by Allah, can you prove me wrong? Of course not.

Not really... you got your facts wrong. The Old Testament was produced in 600 years and, they weren't "memorized" like the Quranic passages. They were spred orally and simply became legends.

What I'm getting at is.... I have been waiting for someone to show how the violent verses do not apply to todays standards and why terrorists are taking the verses in the Qur'an literally instead of metaphorically.

Today, Mohammed (saw) does not have to put up with ruthless Pagan Arabs armed with weaponry to kill Muslims. Although, US army is no different since they became experts at killing innocent women and children.

So far, this hasn't been done and I'm left to conclude that SHW's post is a valid argument until someone steps up and does a good job of apologetics to show otherwise. Christians have done a fairly good job of apologetics for their book. Where are the Islamic apologetics? Put up or shut up, as they say.

Numerous times I have emphasized the phrase 'out of context'..

[The_Genius]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin First, I have to just say, "Wow!" in regards to the last post of yours. It agrees with one of the premises of this thread, that Islam is a religion of deception when it claims to be one of peace but is spread by violence.

Wow wow wow! Someone has been bunking history classes ......

1. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years and yet, Spain is not a Muslim country.

2.Muslim ruled India for hundreds of years, and yet, Hinduism is Indian subcontinent's dominant religion...

3. No Muslim army even penetrated communist China but the country has 100 million Chinese Muslims..

4. Indonesia (the largest Muslim country by population) was also never invaded by a Muslim King/Leader/Politician...


Clearly shows that a great religion of peace, tolerance and equality certainly does not need to use violence to spread it's messages.

Keep in mind also, that spreading it by the sword was done so not only with the traditional masses of men meating each other on the battlefield with an honourable face to face clash of swords, but also with the techniques of indiscriminate killing, terror, and torture.

umm... If you can't present proof of those things, then why do you even mention them? It is clear you just made up those things in your mind.

I think that if the followers of Muhammed at sometime after his death had spread it with the sword, and Muhammed never did resort to the sword with his brutal techniques of torture and terror, then perhaps there would be no guilt of deception or violence at the core of it. But, since the Prophet, himself at the order of Allah, spread it in a manner you have honestly stated, it is unmistakenly a religion built on violence, and those who commit terrorism today are merely following the ways of Muhammed in the example he gave them -- because no ordained message from God told them not to emulate him.

again... mere accusations with no credible proof.

When Muslims or others engage in repeatedly putting Islam forth as a great religion of peace worthy of great respect, they do so ignorantly -- or purposely, and hence bring about deception. I am glad to see you are not one of those. I think intellectual honesty is the best innoculation for schizophrenia and potential acts that could come from that.

What is so intellectual about one-sided hatred towards the great religion called Islam?

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: The_Genius Now I'm loving this Christian dude..... Why don't we debate? One on One... The_Genius Vs ItsDirt... The Quran (took 23 years) Vs The Bible (took 600 years)....... I know I will win easily with facts, but lets see if you have got the guts...

First of all, I'm not Christian, I'm an atheist. Secondly, how is "memorized" text in a 23 year period that much better than a 600 year period? It took 600 years to be "COMPILED" into the book it is today.

You have FACTS that say the Qur'an has not changed one word of Mohammeds oral revelation? That I'd like to see.

How can ANYONE provide evidence that Orally revealed text from a dead guy is spot on 23 years AFTER the fact? If there was a Tape Recorder you might be able to pull this off, but there wasn't. THey didn't START writing til after he died. But if you want to believe that Allah told an angel who told a prophet who told followers then the followers decided to write this stuff down after the prophet died, thats fine with me. I don't believe it. I don't believe angels exist or god.

So what eviidence do you have that supports the claim that angels talk or even exist? No fair saying the Quran says so.... that would be circular.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: The_Genius Not really... you got your facts wrong. The Old Testament was produced in 600 years and, they weren't "memorized" like the Quranic passages. They were spred orally and simply became legends.

Uhhhhh memorizing is the same as being spread orally. Mo words were spread orally first by a god, then by an angel and then by Mo himself. Each time it was Memorized then finally written down AFTER the dude died. Get it?

Today, Mohammed (saw) does not have to put up with ruthless Pagan Arabs armed with weaponry to kill Muslims. Although, US army is no different since they became experts at killing innocent women and children.

Then why all the fighting between Sunnis and Shi'a? Hmmm? Why all the fighting in Somalia and Ethiopia? Give me a break.

Numerous times I have emphasized the phrase 'out of context'..

I know you have and this is my point. You keep saying Context, but you haven't SHOWN how the context is suppose to be interpreted. You haven't shown scriptual support for the context. Saying "Context" doesn't support your case without showing the correct context.