[chotadipo]

more so the africans...

[teejay]

Slag and Chota, Do you two have anything to say about the prophethood of Muhammad.

By no means, I am not trying to downplay your view guys.All am saying is that this not the right place to do it. I would have expected either you Slag or Chota to Start a thread on Whether or not the world really need religion.

@ Aways

Buddy what happened to you?

[Aways]

@ teejay and ATlian
I have been out of my office for a week now.
I just read your responses and will definately respond to it by tomorrow God willing.
Kindly forgive me for the delay
Regards.

[teejay]

>That's a biased opinion! In my world, as long as you don't
>provide me with an iota of evidence to back up the claim that
>god exists and he sent an angel to dictate to an illiterate
>man over 23 years his book on life, then I dismiss it as
>hogwash!

AT, in my view the basis of Muhammad's illiteracy is geared towards proving the he was indeed a prophet, because by virtue of being one his ability to memorize all that Gabriel dictated to him therefore, becomes a miracle. Remember biblical prophets had to validate their prophethood by some miraculous signs from God.

You realize that those of us who don't acknowledge Muhammad's prophethood disapprove of him for his lack of miracles or even his inability to Prophesy any tangible future events. It is because of this that Moslems want us to believe that an "illiterate man" actually was able to memorize all Gabrielic pronouncements.

I would like Aways to tell us whether at the time of the revelation, Muhammad had any one writing what he was seeing or this was put down wholesale after the 23 years of revelation.

[chotadipo]

@Teejay,

Legend has it that once he got those revelations from Gabriel, he would dictate to his confidants, who will in turn memorise or jot down. Many years after his demise, those people came together and decided to put all Mohammed had dictated to them into a book. The initial versions ( I think 6 with only one surviving) written in ancient arabic or some language can still be found in modern day Khazakhstan or some central asian country in a museum, though they have refused anyone to read it

[satjas]

No! (pbuh)

-the paradigm shifter......God's friend.

[Aways]

@teejay
First of all i would request everyone to forgive me for being so late in responding to teejay`s post. That has been due to tight schedule and my absence from my place of work. I will try as much as possible to respond to teejay`s every other comment or rebuttal.
>If we were to adopt your line of thought, may I first begin by >requesting you to >supply us with any proof that the prophets who >followed after Moses were a >fulfillment of D18:18. None of the >prophets thereafter proclaimed that this verse >spoke about them.

This is why in examinations it’s written at the top of the paper “READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY”. Of course there were no instructions I gave for you to read carefully but it would have been better if you understood my point and responded to it accordingly.
I don’t understand why people keep on misquoting me. I have never said that those prophets who followed moses were a fulfilment of D18:18 and I never said that any of them claimed this verse spoke about them but I said and I quote what I wrote.

“Usually the Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus(pbuh)
because Jesus (pbuh) was like Moses (pbuh). Moses(pbuh)
was a Jew, as well as Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. Moses(pbuh)
was a Prophet and Jesus (pbuh) was also a Prophet.
If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be
fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after
Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea,
Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (pbut) will
fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as
prophets.”

Please note the use of the word “IF” here. This is a conditional and not a confirmatory statement my dear. The passage only means that IF the two criterion given above are the only ones for this prophecy to be fulfilled then all the prophets who came after moses should have also fulfilled this prophecy since they were also Jews as well as prophets. And I know as well as you do that these two criterion are NOT the only we have for this prophecy to be fulfilled. They are many and I did give a few somewhere in one of my previous posts. I hope you got my point now.

>There are certainly lots of evidence in the Bible to prove that God >spoke of Jesus >and not Mohammed. God tells Moses to inform Israel >that the prophet was to be >from among their brethren, which means >that he would have to be an Israelite. >Moslems who dispute this >assert that, as the Arabs are the brothers of the Jews, this >refers >to an Arab. However, there is no scriptural evidence to support >this. The >Arabs are never called the brethren of the Jews in the >Bible. There are a few verses >where Edom is described as the >brother (singular) of Israel ( See Num. 20:14, Deut. >23 , Amos >1:11), but the word brethren (plural) is never used. In any case, >Muhammad is not a descendent of Edom (who joined the Jews in the >second century >BC), but of Ishmael, who is never referred to as the >brother of Israel. The passage >can only mean that the prophet like >unto Moses was to be an Israelite.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was prophesised in the bible in great details as I have already mentioned it.
The fact is that before Jesus, Moses had foretold of a great prophet in clear and precise words. When Moses went to Mount Horeb under the command of God he addressed the Israelites saying:

“The Lord thy God will raise unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. (Deuteronomy 18:15) “
And again, God's words to Moses:
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that, whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-19)”
It is evident from these verses that Moses foretold a Law-giving Prophet who was to appear after him, and who was to be from among the brethren of Israel.That he was to be a Law-giver and not an ordinary Prophet is obvious from the words "like unto Moses", since Moses was also a Law-giver. The promulgation of "a new Law" means the initiation of a new movement, a new nation. A prophet with a new Law is obviously no ordinary teacher or reformer. He has to present a comprehensive teaching, incorporating fundamental principles as well as detailed rules.
Was Jesus such a prophet? Was he a Law-giver? Did he bring a new Law into the world to replace an old one? The answer, in his own words:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto You, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18)”
The prophecies of the Bible had even led its followers to that part of the world where the great Prophet was to appear. Thus it was said:
“And he said, the Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; and shined forth from Mount Paran and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (Deuteronomy 33:2)”

In this verse Moses is promised three manifestations of the glory of God. The first of these appeared on Sinai in the time of Moses. Time passed. The second manifestation promised in the prophecy was to take place at Seir, a part of the world near where the miracles of Jesus took place. "Rising up from Seir," therefore, meant the advent of Jesus.
The third manifestation of divine glory was to take its rise from Paran, and Paran (Arabic Faran) is the name of the hills which lie between Mecca, the birth place of Muhammad, and Medina, the town where he died. According to the Old Testament, Ishmael, the ancestor of Muhammad, lived in this part. Thus we have in the Bible:
“And God was with the lad (Ishmael): and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran. (Genesis 21:20-21) “
Historical and geographical evidence shows that the descendents of Abraham lived in Arabia. All of them held Mecca and Kaaba, the house of worship built by Abraham, in great reverence. His son Ishmael first settled in Mecca. Genesis gives the names of twelve sons of Ishmael including two named Tema and Kedar. (Genesis 25:13-16) This is further supported by the testimony of Isaiah where we read:

“The burden of Arabia. In the forest of Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye traveling companies of Dedanim.The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they provided with their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords, from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war. For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail: And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished: for the Lord God of Israel hath spoken it. (Isaiah 21:13-16)”
I can give a number of other verses from the bible that talk of the same but space wouldn’t allow me to do so. I believe this can be enough prove and evidence that the prophet Muhammad was mentioned in the bible but I know the sceptics would still raise some more questions.

>We find that the prophet would validate his message by some sign, >either a miracle >or a prediction of the future, which he would >predict or announce and which would >then be fulfilled. There is no >doubt that Jesus worked miracles; even the Qur'an >admits this (Q >5:115). However, Muhammad never performed a miracle and the set >of >predictions claimed for him is singularly unimpressive

I do not agree with you on that again. A number of miracles were bestowed upon and performed by Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to establish the proof of his prophethood. The greatest miracle bestowed upon him was the revelation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is miraculous in a number of aspects: Its linguistic perfection and inimitability, its validation by recent historical, archaeological, and scientific discoveries, its prophecies and so on. Unlike the miracles of other prophets before him, the miracle of the Qur'an is eternal.
Allah, the Exalted says:

"Say: If the whole of mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they assisted each other." [Al-Israa' (17): 88]”
As for the other miracles, it is not possible to enumerate them all due to their huge number. However, I will mention just two examples:
Splitting of the Moon
"The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder" [Qur'an 54:1]
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 388:
Narrated Abdullah:
The moon was cleft asunder while we were in the company of the Prophet, and it became two parts. The Prophet said, Witness, witness (this miracle)."
Food Multiplication
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 780:
Narrated Jabir:
My father had died in debt. So I came to the Prophet and said, "My father (died) leaving unpaid debts, and I have nothing except the yield of his date palms; and their yield for many years will not cover his debts. So please come with me, so that the creditors may not misbehave with me." The Prophet went round one of the heaps of dates and invoked (Allah), and then did the same with another heap and sat on it and said, "Measure (for them)." He paid them their rights and what remained was as much as had been paid to them.

>Let us assume that Muhammad was the said comforter. Would the title >comforter >really fit him. Hadiths and Hadiths would beg to differ. >Muhammad’s moral life was >so gross that the title comforter itself >takes shame when we attempt to cloth the >prophet of Islam with it. >Muhammad was a warrior. Wars do not bring comfort but >lasting >suffering. We have all read of his lust houris and many other >misdeeds that >heaped a lot of discomfort to his subjects.

Another baseless claim. I won’t say anything about but would rather quote Gibbon, a historian of world repute who says:
“The principle of Islam that there is no compulsion in religion is well known. Gibbon says, "A pernicious tenet has been imputed to Muhammadans, the duty of extirpating all the religions by sword." This charge based on ignorance and bigotry, says the eminent historian, is refuted by Quran, by history of Muslim conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of Christian worship. The great success of Muhammad's life had been effected by sheer moral force, without a stroke of sword.
But in pure self-defense, after repeated efforts of conciliation had utterly failed, circumstances dragged him into the battlefield. But the prophet of Islam changed the whole strategy of the battlefield. The total number of casualties in all the wars that took place during his lifetime when the whole Arabian Peninsula came under his banner, does not exceed a few hundreds in all. But even on the battlefield he taught the Arab barbarians to pray, to pray not individually, but in congregation to God the Almighty. During the dust and storm of warfare whenever the time for prayer came, and it comes five times a every day, the congregation prayer had not to be postponed even on the battlefield. A party had to be engaged in bowing their heads before God while other was engaged with the enemy. After finishing the prayers, the two parties had to exchange their positions. To the Arabs, who would fight for forty years on the slight provocation that a camel belonging to the guest of one tribe had strayed into the grazing land belonging to other tribe and both sides had fought till they lost 70,000 lives in all; threatening the extinction of both the tribes to such furious Arabs, the Prophet of Islam taught self-control and discipline to the extent of praying even on the battlefield. In an age of barbarism, the Battlefield itself was humanized and strict instructions were issued not to cheat, not to break trust, not to mutilate, not to kill a child or woman or an old man, not to hew down date palm nor burn it, not to cut a fruit tree, not to molest any person engaged in worship. His own treatment with his bitterest enemies is the noblest example for his followers. At the conquest of Mecca, he stood at the zenith of his power. The city which had refused to listen to his mission, which had tortured him and his followers, which had driven him and his people into exile and which had unrelentingly persecuted and boycotted him even when he had taken refuge in a place more than 200 miles away, that city now lay at his feet. By the laws of war he could have justly avenged all the cruelties inflicted on him and his people. But what treatment did he accord to them? Mohammad's heart flowed with affection and he declared, "This day, there is no REPROOF against you and you are all free." "This day" he proclaimed, "I trample under my feet all distinctions between man and man, all hatred between man and man."
This was one of the chief objects why he permitted war in self defense, that is to unite human beings. And when once this object was achieved, even his worst enemies were pardoned. Even those who killed his beloved uncle, Hamazah, mangled his body, ripped it open, even chewed a piece of his liver. “
I believe i have given enough prove and evidence that Muhammad(pbuh) is the last prophet of Allah and the quran is the final revelation of God for those who understand.I would request my friends the likes of teejay and ATlian to make their arguements as logical and rational as possible.

[teejay]

Thank you for reminding me of the examination rules, although I think that you only wanted to insult my intelligence. Let us quickly revisit your claim, but first let me say that it is my wish to request you disallow the use of sophistry when attempting refute my statements, but rather lay bare facts on the table. You therefore, will not hide behind the word “If” while at the same time driving your point home. It is not possible for you to have your cake and eat it the way you want.

Looking at the subject at hand Prophethood of Muhammad let us all agree that while there are over dozens of similarities between Jesus and Moses, you ignored them all and chose talk about two, which as we have seen, gave you a temporary upper hand; I think though that an element of insincerity protruded in your statement. Nevertheless, the similarities between Moses and Muhammad, and the dis-similarities between Moses and Jesus are not the cardinal proof that Muhammad is the foretold prophet. In my view there can be found similarities and differences between all men. What need to be identified are the crucial attributes that the future prophet would have to possess in order for him to be "LIKE UNTO MOSES".

One very important similarity between Moses and Jesus was that they each mediated a covenant. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant (Testament) while Christ of the New Covenant, or Testament. (Exodus 19&20, Hebrews 12:24). Muhammad did not bring a covenant. Muhammad's Islam is but a synthesis of Jewish, Christian, and Pagan religious themes mixed with Muhammad's own ideas.

Talking about attributes, below are some that makes the Prophet of D18 “LIKE UNTO MOSES”, but before we do look at them let us also look at another portion of the bible that which will help us resolve this issue.

D34: 10-12 " And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, In all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the sight of all Israel."

In D 18: and D34: 10-12 we discover the following:-

1.THAT this future prophet is to speak the words that God puts in his mouth.

How does Jesus and Muhammad fit attribute one?

About Jesus We see that:
Jn 7:16, 17 – “ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me, If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

Jn 8:28 “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.”

About Muhammad we see that:
Q53:2-5 – “Your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived, nor does he speak of his own desire. It is an inspiration this is inspired, which one (Gabriel) of mighty powers has taught him.”

Now we can clearly see that Jesus was the one speaking directly from God, while Muhammad on the other Hand was receiving from Gabriel, an Angel whose Identity is very much suspect. We can there conclude that since it is “Gabriel” who is informing Muhammad, he fails to meet this attribute.

It is also worth noting that in this way Moses is more similar to Jesus, because he was directly receiving from God.

2.THAT this future prophet would speak with God face to face

About Jesus:
Prior to his descending to earth Jesus was with God and when he was here he spoke to his Father face to face. Sample the following verses,

Jn 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

Jn 17:5¸ “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”

Matt 17:5, “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

About Muhammad:
See Q53:2-5 (which I have already quoted above)

Again Muhammad has failed to fulfill this attribute.
When we do a comparison of Matt 17:5 and Exodus 34:29 we see that both Moses and Jesus were radiating with God’s glory- transfiguration to be precise. This one thing that Muhammad never went through. At least there is no mentioning of such an event in the Qur’an. Jesus is therefore LIKE UNTO MOSES, than Muhammad.

3. THAT this future prophet would perform miracles, signs, and wonders.

About Jesus:
The book of four Gospels are full of Jesus’s Miracles however we will take interest in Luke, a doctor during those days (Lk 5,7,8)

About Muhammad:
The Qur’an is very clear on this, take a look,

Q6:57, - "Say: “For me, I (work) on a clear sign from my Lord, but you reject Him. What you would see hastened (a miracle) is not in my power. The command (to perform a miracle) rests with none by Allah: He declares the Truth, and He is the best of judges.”

Q6:58-Say: “If what you would see hastened (a miracle) were in my power, the matter would be settled at once between you and me…” (also see Q28:28).

We see that people did not believe in him because he lacked miracles to back his claim of prophethood. Taking you back a little to D18:22, we see that according to the sender (God) the prophet was to validate his Prophethood by some signs. Now that Muhammad lacked the signs can only mean that he was never a prophet of God? For you, Aways to tell us that Muhammad did any miracle will be to undermine the Qur’an’s authority. I would like you to tell us where you got your evidence regarding the Miracles you want us to believe that Muhammad performed.

You have quoted a few haditths to prove that Muhammad performed Miracles. I would say if they are more or less fables. They are contradicting the Qur’an. We have already seen above that Muhammad never did any miracles. It is obvious that the Author of such Hadiths took this step of fabricating the miracles in order to elevate Muhammad to level of prophethood. I, being a Christians can find it easy to believe in Miracles but then we must be able to soberly and rationally examine the contents of any evidence given to us as proof of Miracle. The hadiths you quoted here are simply fighting the Qur’an. This how I tell they are fabricated

You told us that the revelation of the Qur’an is a miracle. Assuming that that is the truth, can I ask you who is performing this miracle, betwixt Muhammad and Gabriel? It is not Allah, via Gabriel who is revealing to Muhammad and not the vice versa. What is so miraculous about being told to do something i.e IQRA(RECITE)? Was that the fast time ever, the word IQRA was uttered in Arabia?

All Muslims (you Aways Included) have been brainwashed by their clerics to believe that the eloquence of the Qur’an, the supremacy of its language and the beauty of its expression are conclusive evidence that the Qur’an is the Word of God because the inimitability of the Qur’an lies in its beautiful style of the Arabic language. This one thing I have always radically dismissed and shredded with the saw of truth. Indeed, I could not agree more with the writer of the following quote “THE ELOQUENCE OF ANY BOOK CANNOT BE AN EVIDENCE OF THE GREATNESS OF THE BOOK AND PROOF THAT IT WAS REVEALED BY GOD, BECAUSE WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO GOD IS NOT TO MANIFEST HIS POWER IN THE ELOQUENCE OF STYLE AND THE EXPRESSIVE FORCEFULNESS OF THE CLASSICAL ARABIC LANGUAGE, BUT RATHER TO EMBODY HIS POWER IN THE SUBLIME SPIRITUAL MEANING CONTAINED IN THAT BOOK WHICH WILL LEAD THE PEOPLE TO A HIGH SPIRITUAL LEVEL WHICH ENABLES THEM TO LIVE TOGETHER IN PEACE AND LOVE. IT HELPS THEM TO ENJOY AN INTERNAL PROFOUND JOY AND SPIRITUAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL FULLNESS—ABUNDANT LIFE. GOD DOES NOT CARE TO TEACH THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH THE RULES AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. GOD IS NOT A TEACHER OF A FADING CLASSICAL ARABIC LANGUAGE, BUT THE TRUE LIVING GOD IS OUR SPIRITUAL LEADER IN LIFE OF LOVE AND JOY.”

This writer is amazing! He got me thinking about those great Arabian poets (some of whom Muhammad killed) and many a global authors like Daniele Steel, Sidney Sheldon, the King of Fiction- Robert Ludlum, Shakespeare and many more. Indeed if eloquence of style is an evidence that the words uttered come from heaven or that the one who has spoken them is a prophet, the people I have mentioned above were surely prophets. Their writings speak for themselves.

What i cannot fathom however, is how you Aways, is able to comprehend the writings of this magnificent Qur’an whose Classical Arabic literature you previously told us, is difficult to read and even to understand, and mark you, even to Arabs themselves! Doesn’t this mean that no matter how much one strives to learn the Qur’an they will always have zero understanding of it. I pity our non-arabic brothers. This should even be more humongous a task for them. I do however want to point out one thing to you; that either you or the Qur’an, perfect book, is lying. The Qur’an says,

Q 44: 58 “Verily, We have made This Qur’an easy in the tongue, in order that they may give heed.”

I can only interpret this to mean that No matter which translated Qur’an you, me and the Ummah read, the Quranic materials remain the same to us and every sentence is self explanatory and it does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend what is the message Allah wanted to transmit for Arabs. Yet, bigot Muslims want us to believe otherwise.

Aways, can you tell us why you are at variance with your Holy, miraculous, inimitable, perfect word of Allah. Why do you want such a simple verse as Q44:58 to to be interpreted otherwise, while it tells that the Qur'an is an easy read? What do you Muslims want to hide so bad you have tell us that it aint easy to understand a book which humiliates your very inconsistent and uncorroborating statements?

The fact that you have mentioned the inimitability of Qur’an, I found myself thinking about this Allah. I wondered why Allah must make us all be Arabs in order to understand his words. Is he an Arabic God only? If so, then why did he let us all be of different ethnicities if he knew that his Arabic book could not be translated into our native languages? He is All-knowing right? If the Classical Arabic language is difficult to comprehend then why even bother to give it people who would not understand it? What advantage do the people of the world get out of the Book of God if it is written in a difficult language, which makes it impossible for Arabs (even Muhammad’s companions and his relatives) to comprehend it? Does God write a book in which people do not comprehend the meaning of many words included in the text, especially when the Islamic scholars insist that the Qur’an must be read only in Arabic?

In the masjid they told us once that for every generation of people, a prophet (in whom even you Muslims believe) was sent, why does your prophet turn around to say that Christians and Jews must not befriend muslims because they only love their own? It is possible not for one to believe in Jesus and turn around to say that Prophet Jesus only loved Christians and thus he is an enemy to Muslims? What is his name doing in the Qur'an (if at all that is him therein)?

In another Post, I asked you to explain the use of “WE” by Allah and your answer was a simple ROYAL PLURAL! I must say I was greatly dissatisfied by that response. In fact it portrayed you as a person engaging in Polemics. The reason I have brought this up is because of what you termed the “linguistic perfection” of the Qur’an. My argument then will be why is Allah using “WE”, first person plural then shifts to “I/ME”, first person singular, then jumps to “HE/HIM”, third person singular. Grammatically speaking this type of speech is maverick, and the more one keeps on reading it the more one see that the much celebrated perfection is erroneously attributed to the Quran. Indeed it seems like Muhammad was tripping lots of time. If the Qur’an is a perfect word of Allah why does Muhammad want us to think otherwise? The Prophet of Islam is in the verses below showing us Allah adverting to Himself as third person singular. Kindly read Q 21:25-29, Q 34:23. This is an obvious error on the part of Muhammad, he forgot that Allah should not be alluding to himself in the third person singular.

In addition to the above, the Qur’an is littered with a lot or errors that renders it inutile. I can show you a lot of them that will leave you rescinding your decision on the book’s perfection.

Consider this lie told by the Qur’an about Mary in Q 19:27-28. Moses and Aaron lived centuries before Mary. How then is possible for Mother of Jesus to be Aaron’s sister? Is it the All-knowing and wise Allah who made this mistake or Muhammad? Why is the error appearing in the perfect book? Surely, a prophet would know better.

THE GIBBON SUPPORT

Well, what can I say. I am saddened by the fact that instead of you reading the simple and easy to understand Qur’an, you have opted to read from another person, who as Muslim clerics say cannot comprehend the Qur’an(keep in mind that Gibbon is not of Arabic origin). I highly doubt the possibility of Gibbon understanding anything about the Qur’an, because to you the book’s ancient Arabic literature is kind of difficult to understand.

You say my claim is baseless. Okay, let me agree for a while. And as I do that I want you to sample the following verses

Q2: 256 There is no Compulsion in religion….

Q9: 29 Fight those who do not profess the true faith(Islam) till they pay the polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility.

Q9: 5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush….

Q47: 4 When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads….

Q2: 191 And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

To add on to the above we all know that APOSTASY IN ISLAM ATTRACTS DEATH PENALTY. Is this not a religious compulsion? What is Gibbon talking about? Gibbon must be talking about different Muhammad. Between Gibbons and the Hadiths (traditions), who has more validity to resolve matters Islamic? Or has Gibbon’s book, become a new hadith. Is Gibbon aware that Muhammad had to worlds- Political and Religious world? Is he aware that Muhammad had two personalities- MEEK AND HUMBLE, before his acceptance and the MIGHTY WARRIOR, the prophet of Islam after he had acquired a massive following that would guarantee him victories in the battle field against infidels?

I am not a nincompoop and Gibbon is not just about to make me one, and neither will you, Aways. You have become a good student of Gibbon and you are not even verifying your facts before you quote from him. Gibbon for instance, says that it is the Meccans who despised and drove Muhammad and his followers away from that city. Well, you are in for a rude shock. This Historian’s work is nothing but inutile fallacy. Why do I say this?

The truth is that Meccans did not drive the Muslims and their Prophet out of their homes. They emigrated on their own volition and because of Mohammad’s insistence. At first he ordered his followers to immigrate to Abyssinia and then when he found enough disciples in Medina, he sent them thither. Despite the fact that Muhammad constantly insulted the religion of the Quraish and infuriated them with his abrasive behavior there is not a single incidence of physical violence or persecution against him or his followers recorded in Islamic annals. It was Muhammad who asked them to leave. In fact he ordered them to leave making it a mandate from Allah. (see Q8:72, Q4:89, Q4:97).

Going through these texts that I have supplied you will see that the Prophet of Islam used all the underhand tactics to ensure that his instructions were obeyed, He demands that other Muslims kill those who will not leave their homes, he also tells them that they would go to hell if they stayed behind and did not emigrate.

Again Gibbon mocks himself by claming that Muhammad only allowed war in self defense and that he brought a new code of ethics in the battlefield. Since you pasted the Gibbon article on his behalf let me refresh your mind by reminding you of NAKHLAH, a valley between Mecca and Taif, where the prophet of Islam used to send his Bandits to attack Caravans even during SACRED MONTHS a time when no wars were supposed to be fought! In fact going the banditry stories one gets the implication that Muhammad was a greenhorn thief and not a prophet of God, yet prophet gave sanction those booties. In addition to that I shall also remind you of the TREATY OF HUDAIBIYAH, where Muhammad went around a 10 year treaty between him and the Meccans and decided to attack them only after two years into the treaty. The saddest thing is that he invoked the name of what I call ghost god –Allah to push forth his heinous agenda.

Narrated Sahih Bukhari, (Pg 24 English Translation)

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory "

Clearly this can only be the acts of an untrustworthy person and not a prophet of God.

As if that was not enough,let me also give you another Narration that implicates the prophet as a man devoid of any iota of peace in him. This is rather ungodly considering that this came from a made who claimed divine vocation.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292
Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH (MAY PEACE BE UPON HIM) MADE A RAID UPON BANU MUSTALIQ WHILE THEY WERE UNAWARE AND THEIR CATTLE WERE HAVING A DRINK AT THE WATER. HE KILLED THOSE WHO FOUGHT AND IMPRISONED OTHERS. ON THAT VERY DAY, HE CAPTURED JUWAIRIYA BINT AL-HARITH. NAFI' SAID THAT THIS TRADITION WAS RELATED TO HIM BY ABDULLAH B. UMAR WHO (HIMSELF) WAS AMONG THE RAIDING TROOPS.”

I gather you have not heard of the one about the Jews of Medina.
I could supply more atrocities that the prophet of Islam committed, but let me stop here until such a time when it will be required of me to do so. The evidence cannot be wished away. Yet our Muslims brothers who never even care to look at the history of Islam want to defend it and it is founder. They feed and sleep on the lies, which their religious leaders tell them. Anybody who says otherwise is often branded ignorant of Islamic knowledge.

[Aways]

@teejay,
It was a healthy debate thus far.
It seems the only weapon you have is INSULTING the prophet muhamad(pbuh) and Allah almighty glory be to Him.

the Qur'an prohibits Muslims from insulting the objects of worship of other religions, as seen in its command to the Muslims not to insult the idols that the people of Arabia used to worship:

"And do not insult those whom they call upon beside Allah, lest they would insult Allah out of ignorance. Thus We have made the deeds of every people look fair to them; then to their Lord shall be their return, so He will inform them of what they did (6.108). "

Insulting and mocking someone's beliefs is a highly provocative action that can rarely solicit a rational or positive reaction. Even when instructing the Muslims to try to convert the idolatrous Arabs to Islam, God commands the Muslims to use debates and argue their points in the best possible way:

"Call [O Muhammad!] to the way of your Lord with Wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He best knows those who follow the right way (16.125)."

if Muslims find their beliefs being insulted, they should turn away from the places and gatherings where this is done, until the offensive attacks against their religion is stopped.

"And He has revealed to you [O you who believe!] in the Book that when you hear Allah's verses being disbelieved and ridiculed, do not sit with them (those who do so) until they engage in some other conversation. Otherwise, you would be like them; Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the disbelievers all in hell (4.140)."

Allah the almighty says in another verse:

"And when you [O Muhammad!] see those who meddle with Our verses, turn away from them until they engage in some other conversation. And if Satan causes you to forget, then do not sit, after you remember, with the wrongdoing people (6.68). "

Note that the Muslim is not told to return the insult with insult or violence, but he is commanded to respond in a completely peaceful manner. He should turn away from those who are trying to provoke him and avoid listening to their insults to his religion. This is not a passive reaction to a serious issue, but it is a positive response that protects the Muslim's faith and underlines his veneration for the symbols of his religion, and also preserves peace and avoid conflict.

In the light of the above i am obliged not to respond to your insults with more insults. Because doing that is tantamount to going against the teaching of my beloved holy book the Quran.

I would rather close my debate with the following chapter of the holy Quran.

Allah the almighty says:

"Q 109: 1. In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful."

Q 109: 2. Say, `O ye disbelievers !

109: 3. `I worship not as you worship,

109: 4. `Nor do you worship as I worship.

109: 5. `Nor do I worship those that you worship,

109: 6. `Nor do you worship Him Whom I worship.

109: 7. `For you your religion, and for me my religion."

With that i ask Allah the almighty to show you the straight path.. Ameen.


Thanks and Regards.

[teejay]

Aways,

It is nice to here from you again. May I say that your belated response is much welcomed and I have no problems with the period it took, for you to get back to me. It is a busy world and we must run up and down to honour this and that obligation.

I must however say that am both saddened and disappointed that you reached decision to discard this debate even before we had hardly begun to solve core issues. I further take beef with you for insinuating that I have insulted you, Allah and his prophet in the cause of our infant debate.

Maybe I came down hard on you, and you did not expect that kind of response. But let me say this brother, in the quest to discover the truth no stone is left unturned and truth as they say is painful. It tears apart soft tissues- tendons and ligaments alike. It bruises the heart with it hot fire. And because of this openness of truth, we tend to live in denial. Denial my friend, takes away pain, Denial is soothing, Denial is bliss, but Denial is hiding one’s head in the sand. Unfortunately or fortunately, Truthful facts are stubborn and they will not go away just because we refuse to absorb them. It does not matter how long we stick our heads in the sand. The Truth will always be waiting for our heads out above the granules of the sand.

To the best of my understanding I feel that I did not at any one time during the short-lived debate, insulted you, but presented you with bold truths that as we can see have already begun to create some clout of doubt in you with regards to your prophet and Allah, and because you wish to live in Denial and enjoy the bliss you have opted to turn away from the path of truth and plunge yourself into the sand of ignorance, which like denial is bliss. In the cause of our debate we were to establish truth. You were at liberty and had the opportunity to reprove, refute and rebut my claims just as I had the same opportunity to do so. After all we must all agree to disagree and then agree. I leave mashadites to decide whether I indeed insulted you or I merely rained facts on you.

In the search for truth, one finds knowledge. However you cannot get that knowledge until you appreciate that you are lacking. To know that you don't know is the foundation of all wisdom and willing to doubt what you know is the virtue of the sage. Therefore my dear, do not hide behind the many verses you have quoted above. I thought you said that it is difficult to understand the Qur'an why do you think that I will comprehend the Translated verses you have supplied above? I'm I not right to say that, the fact they are translated into English alone, invalidates them as the authentic direct word of Allah. In the first place we don't know whether the translators got the Phrases right from their original Arabic writs.

It is unfortunate that you have come to a decision to stop the correspondence because you allege that the Qur'an prohibits Muslims from insulting the objects of worship of other religions. On one hand I am happy that you are exhibiting a different face of Islam- an ever-elusive peaceful Islam, but on the other hand am afraid you are right against your prophet, as we will see in my succeeding delivery. Am quite sure you are not aware that Muhammad in countless occasions insulted the gods of his clansmen-the Quraish. In fact Muhammad was so persistent in his insults against these people that they could no more stand his mocking of their deities. It is at that point that a body of their elders repaired to Abu Talib, the Prophet's Uncle to lodge their complain about his nephew's abrasive behavior. Please do a detailed study of the hadiths (traditions) and you will see that the prophet contrary to what is written in the Qur'an did look down upon other peoples’ religion. Need I not remind you of the multiple times he incited Muslims against Jews and Christians. The prophet even imposed Jizya on the duo. Doesn’t the Qur’an itself rubbish and attack a core belief of the Christian faith by alluding that Christ never died on the cross and that it was another person that died on the cross. Is that not an Insult from the same perfect, inimitable holy book that discourages insults? If not, then tell me why the meaning of Insult keeps on shifting to serve your interest?

I like that place where you tell us that Muslims should turn away from those who provoke them. Well, I don't really know if you leave in this world or some place far off the planet. Or maybe you just love feigning naivety. Recently we had a Caricature of the Prophet of Islam drawn on a Denmark newspaper, what followed thereafter from our Muslims brothers was a show of absolute rage. Again we had the pope quote from Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, and I quote,

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Do you know what happened after that? Immediately, the Ummah, worldwide went into frenzy. We were treated to some barbaric acts. None that came close to your peaceful fantasies here. These were the actions of responsible Muslims engaging in acts of irresponsibility and who claimed that the pope and many a people were ignorant about Islam but them. Do you want to tell us that these were not Muslims returning the favour twofold; in the fashion they know best? While you were talking about that retreat did you forget that it is Islam that continues to advocate for, and perpetuate “an eye for an eye” decree. We have neither forgotten that an author of the Book Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie is still in exile because foolhardy and blood thirsty Muslims want his head. As if that was not enough Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (ruling) of death sentence against Salman Rushdie! And you actually have the nerve to tell us about the Qur’an counsel. Are these people not Muslims? Don’t they read (oops sorry, I meant recite) the same Qur’an that you recite? And if the Qur’an tells them to be peaceful why do we see rage, rage and more rage, whenever the Prophet’s name is “provoked”?

Aways, allow me to say that you don't understand your own religion. Perhaps it would do you good to study Islam’s history and more so the History of Muhammad himself. You will find a lot of baffling things about Islam. Please don't blame me for your inability to handle and sustain this debate, and don't blame it on “Insults” either. In fact any one who goes through my response will basically consider me very lenient on Islam as far this debate is concerned. I did approach this discussion as a very open minded person without reservations whatsoever. Your work was easy. If you felt that I was abusive why did you not ignore that abusive portion and tackle the issues at hand?

I beg you not to hide cowardly behind "turn the other chick", which Islam is very unknown for and continue the debate. After all you Muslims have for ages maintained that we are an ignorant lot who don't understand Islam. Prove us wrong, not by re-reciting the Qur’an like you have done above but by engaging us in useful discussions that clearly allow us to understand the “most uncomprehended” religion-Islam. If am going to become a Muslim, I will obviously need to know more about Islam, I will need to get a different picture of the religion that is beyond the sacrificial rituals, observation of religious holidays and the alimentations thereof.

You have said what you have, but you have failed to prove the Prophethood of Muhammad.

May I wind up by saying that in Islam, there is what is commonly known as JIHAD (Holy War). I understand that it has two faces, GREATER JIHAD (other sections of Islam consider this one as non-violent means of combat, i.e. debates, etc) and the LESSER JIHAD (considered a an act involving warfare). I understand that a Muslim must chose his tool of trade with regards to whichever Jihad is in question. You and me are in debate devoid of violent use of any arsenal, but words. I believe that you need to choose your (appropriate) tool of trade and come after me Aways, otherwise you are letting your Prophet and Allah down big time, and you are not different from those who recite the Qur’an and claim that this repetitive poetic read is not boring, yet they fathom not the literature they yawl.

Come Brother! Let us fight the Jihad of Truth. Let us find out the truth and nothing but the whole truth, which I believe will give us a win, win situation. The triumph of the truth means the victory for everyone. The one who learns more truth is the bigger winner. Only those who have inflated egos feel defeated once proven wrong. Ego my friend, is a veil that impairs enlightenment and understanding. And that Aways is my GREATER JIHAD.