|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 20, 2013 23:46:16 GMT -5
How does what Jews did make it ok for Muslims to do what they did? Muslim's excuses are that Mohammad married the Jewish woman because her husband got killed and he married her to protect her. and he made his adopted son divorce his wife and married her because his son was treating her bad. Ask any Muslim. Mind you there are Muslims who did not know he married his first wife when she was 9 years old nor how many wives he had. He said God told him that men could only have 4 wives. He had 13? because he was a prophet and could have as many as he wanted. Who said what the Jews did made anything right, or was even much of a consequence to Mohammad and his followers. As for the rest of this particular post, is there anything in it that you couldn't find in the Christian Bible?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 20, 2013 23:50:03 GMT -5
Read about the life of Mohammad. The Jewish woman he married and his adopted sons wife. Robbing carvan's which I guess is camel caravans. Spreading Islam but the sword. Have you not read about his life? Yes. I've read a lot about his life -- and not all of it written by Muslims. But I have read that Jews use Christian baby blood to make bread.How does what Jews did make it ok for Muslims to do what they did? Muslim's excuses are that Mohammad married the Jewish woman because her husband got killed and he married her to protect her. and he made his adopted son divorce his wife and married her because his son was treating her bad. Ask any Muslim. Mind you there are Muslims who did not know he married his first wife when she was 9 years old nor how many wives he had. He said God told him that men could only have 4 wives. He had 13? because he was a prophet and could have as many as he wanted. Mary, I don't think that you understand what Bob is saying!
He was telling you that can't believe everything that you read!
Not everything that you read is true!
When Bob said, "But I have read that Jews use Christian baby blood to make bread," he meant that just because he had read that didn't make it true!
Actually, that allegation, "Jews use Christian baby blood to make bread," is a fallacy that has been used to incite pogroms against Jews throughout history of Christianity.
Anyone can write (and publish) something but it doesn't follow that what they write is true!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 20, 2013 23:50:12 GMT -5
Doubt if you will find the New Testament, Bob. Will u ? I'm open to finding out.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 20, 2013 23:51:46 GMT -5
Doubt if you will find the New Testament, Bob. Will u ? I'm open to finding out. Do you believe in the OT?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 20, 2013 23:55:07 GMT -5
Read it for yourself dmm. It's in Muslim history but they give a different interpretation of it. Example they say muhammad married all those women so that they could have a husband. He did it for the woman not for himself.
Boy its hard writing from the phone.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 20, 2013 23:56:46 GMT -5
Doubt if you will find the New Testament, Bob. Will u ? I'm open to finding out. Do you believe in the OT? The old testament isn't Christian history, it's Jewish history
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 21, 2013 0:07:57 GMT -5
Do you believe in the OT? The old testament isn't. Christian history, it's Jewish history I know. But I asked you if you BELIEVE that part of your Bible.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 21, 2013 0:10:52 GMT -5
Read it for yourself dmm. It's in Muslim history but they give a different interpretation of it. Example they say muhammad married all those women so that they could have a husband. He did it for the woman not for himself. Boy its hard writing from the phone. That much I wouldn't dispute. It was his violent escapades I disagreed with you on.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 21, 2013 0:12:15 GMT -5
I believe that it happened in Jewish history.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 21, 2013 0:14:38 GMT -5
I believe that it happened in Jewish history. So you weren't critical of Muhammad's lifestyle, then, considering the accepted practices of those he professed to be following?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 21, 2013 1:31:32 GMT -5
Read it for yourself dmm. It's in Muslim history but they give a different interpretation of it. Example they say muhammad married all those women so that they could have a husband. He did it for the woman not for himself. Boy its hard writing from the phone. Read what for myself?"Example They say Muhammad married all those women so that they could have a husband."I wonder why Solomon married 500 women? So they could have a husband? No other men around?
And Solomon also had 700 concubines? geeze where were all the other men I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 21, 2013 1:39:49 GMT -5
Read it for yourself dmm. It's in Muslim history but they give a different interpretation of it. Example they say muhammad married all those women so that they could have a husband. He did it for the woman not for himself. Boy its hard writing from the phone. Read it for yourself dmm. It's in Muslim history but they give a different interpretation of it. Example they say muhammad married all those women so that they could have a husband. He did it for the woman not for himself. Boy its hard writing from the phone. I still don't think you understood my post, Mary!
I'll just repeat it: "Not everything that you read is true!
When Bob said, "But I have read that Jews use Christian baby blood to make bread," he meant that just because he had read that didn't make it true!
Actually, that allegation, "Jews use Christian baby blood to make bread," is a fallacy that has been used to incite pogroms against Jews throughout history of Christianity.
Now do you understand what I meant?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 21, 2013 3:37:17 GMT -5
Yes, I understand what you mean dmm. Loud and clear. I didn't believe it and realised it was a fallacy but I wasn't going to argue with him. I have enough to handle with you guys without putting more fuel on the fire.
Read what you ask? If you doubt me, then read Muslim history. As you wrote "Anyone can write (and publish) something but it doesn't follow that what they write is true!" I know you think I don't get it. I survived well before you came into my life with a couple of degrees to my name, and I will survive well after your gone, if I don't go first. I do get it, you were referring to Bob's post. But if you doubt what I wrote then you guys can read Muslim history. His first wife (the one he married when she was 9) wrote a book on his life.
No wonder they called Solomon wise!! Many men find one woman too much but he had hundreds. Not very wise to me. Fun for him yes, but wise, no. A miracle he lived as long as he did and that one of his jealous wives didn't poison his food or drink. Men have to have an excuse for their behaviour. It's for the women you know. Poor guy trying to do all these women a favour and they get no thanks for it, called dirty old men and all the names under the sin, I mean sun. Come to think of it, wasn't Mohammad poisoned by one of his wives? Don't quote me on that, but in the filing cabinet of my mind I think I pulled the file out that says that. I know he died in the arms of his first wife, that much I remember because .......... (hold on to your seat) I was there. I mean I was reading the book one day.
Boy, you guys keep me busy.....I go to the shops to get some food for Christmas day and come back and have 3 notifications waiting for me. The world keeps going on with out me but you guys I know are waiting for me to get back and answer you.
Now it's Bob's turn for me to answer his question. Can't keep a guy waiting you know. What excuse can a man use for that. Maybe he will say he was worried about me when I disappeared for a while but really he is anxiously waiting my reply.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 21, 2013 3:59:08 GMT -5
I believe that it happened in Jewish history. So you weren't critical of Muhammad's lifestyle, then, considering the accepted practices of those he professed to be following? I am critical of his accepted practices. He believed that Jesus was a prophet and Jesus lived before him and he didn't live a life anything like Jesus portrayed. He ignored the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was not violent, have many wives, etc etc which Mohammad did. His teachings were nothing like Jesus. He claimed to be following what God told him , (or the angel) not the Jews. He didn't follow the teachings of Jesus so he didn't follow those he professed to follow. He claimed to be following the teachings of God. His own revelation. Bob wrote: It was his violent escapades I disagreed with you on. You did not know he went attacking people who were traveling in caravans in Saudi? Muslims say he was a kind of Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. They say that Mohammad was the first to introduce socialism in which the rich pay tax which pays for welfare for the poor. That is the excuse Muslims use to justify his attacking and robbing people. He would rob them also his men killed those who opposed them. You know his message was to kill those who did not believe his message. You didn't know his men killed the husband of the Jewish woman he married? One thing I give him credit for is that he did not always look for virgins to marry some were women who had been married.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 21, 2013 4:20:28 GMT -5
Jordan, a mostly Muslim country has a certain number of Christian seats reserved in parliament for Christians. Foreign evangelical Missionaries have been kicked out in recent years but that is the result of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches insistence to the government, it did not come from the government itself. But then there are restrictions, an elder person cannot witness the Christian faith to a younger person (I guess Muslim), it is against the law, but they can witness to an equal but then a Muslim can witness to anyone. So freedom of religion with restrictions. Many restrictions. No foreign evangelicals, no witnessing to younger or unequal person, so is it freedom of religion because often in these countries Christians are not allowed to witness to others. These so called freedom of religion Muslims countries are not true freedom at all. That's right Mary. I appreciate that someone is willing to acknowledge the difference between Western freedom of religion and Islamic-style "freedom". Many Islamic countries tolerate other religions (in theory at least) but they don't enjoy the same freedoms Muslims have e.g. Muslims can convert people to their religion but other religions are forbidden to do the same. Jordan is one of the more liberal Islamic nations but they certainly don't provide the freedom of religious expression that we value in the West:
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 21, 2013 4:38:21 GMT -5
Jordan's so called freedom of religion.
From the Wikipedia article fixit just linked.
Employment applications for government positions occasionally contain questions about an applicant's religion. Christians serve regularly as cabinet ministers. Of the 120 seats of the lower house of Parliament, 9 are reserved for Christians. No seats are reserved for adherents of other religious groups. No seats are reserved for Druze, but they are permitted to hold office under their government classification as Muslims.
The Government does not recognize Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Church of Christ, but each is allowed to conduct religious services without interference.
The Government recognizes Judaism as a religion; however, there are reportedly no citizens who are Jewish. The Government does not impose restrictions on Jews, and they are permitted to own property and conduct business in the country.
Because Shari'a governs the personal status of Muslims, converting from Islam to Christianity and proselytism of Muslims are not allowed. Muslims who convert to another religion face societal and governmental discrimination. Under Shari'a, converts are regarded as apostates and may be denied their civil and property rights. The Government maintains it neither encourages nor prohibits apostasy. The Government does not recognize converts from Islam as falling under the jurisdiction of their new religious community's laws in matters of personal status; converts are still considered Muslims. Converts to Islam fall under the jurisdiction of Shari'a courts. Shari'a, in theory, provides for the death penalty for Muslims who apostatize; however, the Government has never applied such punishment. The Government allows conversion to Islam.
There is no statute that expressly forbids proselytism of Muslims; however, government policy requires that foreign missionary groups refrain from public proselytism.
Muslims who convert to other religions often face social ostracism, threats, and abuse from their families and Muslim religious leaders. According to the survey in 2010 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 86% of Jordanians polled supported the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion.[1]
The Baptist Church applied for official registration with the Ministry of Interior on December 12, 2006. In June 2006 the Prime Ministry denied the Church's application. No additional information regarding the reason for denial was available by the end of the reporting period. The Assemblies of God Church also applied for official registration with the Ministry of Interior on April 10, 2007. Its application was under consideration at the end of the period covered by this report.
On January 20, 2006, a Shari'a court received an apostasy complaint against Mahmoud Abdel Rahman Mohammad Eleker, a convert from Islam to Christianity. On April 14, 2006, the complainant, the convert's brother-in-law, dropped the charges after the convert's wife renounced in the presence of a lawyer any claims she might have to an inheritance from her own parents. At the end of the reporting period, there was no further update on this case.
In September 2004, on the order of a Shari'a court, the authorities arrested a convert from Islam to Christianity and held him overnight on charges of apostasy. In November 2004 a Shari'a court found the defendant guilty of apostasy. The ruling was upheld in January 2005 by a Shari'a appeals court. The verdict declared the convert to be a ward of the state, stripped him of his civil rights, and annulled his marriage. It further declared him to be without any religious identity. It stated that he lost all rights to inheritance and may not remarry his (now former) wife unless he returns to Islam, and forbade his being considered an adherent of any other religion. The verdict implies the possibility that legal and physical custody of his child could be assigned to someone else. The convert left the country, received refugee status, and was resettled in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 21, 2013 4:46:10 GMT -5
According to the survey in 2010 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 86% of Jordanians polled supported the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion. Statistics like that lead me to conclude that Islam is not compatible with Western values. Muslims must be incredibly insecure to want to kill those who leave their religion.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 21, 2013 4:47:40 GMT -5
In September 2004, on the order of a Shari'a court, the authorities arrested a convert from Islam to Christianity and held him overnight on charges of apostasy. In November 2004 a Shari'a court found the defendant guilty of apostasy. The ruling was upheld in January 2005 by a Shari'a appeals court. The verdict declared the convert to be a ward of the state, stripped him of his civil rights, and annulled his marriage. It further declared him to be without any religious identity. It stated that he lost all rights to inheritance and may not remarry his (now former) wife unless he returns to Islam, and forbade his being considered an adherent of any other religion. The verdict implies the possibility that legal and physical custody of his child could be assigned to someone else. The convert left the country, received refugee status, and was resettled in the United States. That's doesn't exactly equate to what I consider freedom of religious expression.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 21, 2013 4:50:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 21, 2013 11:23:55 GMT -5
Bob wrote: But Muhammad's followers did not need a name for their religion until they were ejected from membership in a Jewish community for political purpose. Mohammad and his men went everywhere they could killing people. He saw a Jewish woman, got his men to kill her husband and took her to marry her himself. Imagine marrying a man who just had your husband killed. He even got his adopted son to divorce his wife because he wanted to marry her and marry her he did. He would stop caravan's and kill and rob people. People who would not submit to him he killed. Any wonder the Jews didn't want him. He spread his religion by the sword taking women on the way, forcing them into marriage and bringing their kids up Muslims. People rarely converted, they were forced or killed. Islam spread by the sword and fear. And this is so unlike god ordering the death of all non-virgins and male children and giving the women to the soldiers as spoils of war. Or god's good buddy, David, having Bathsheba's husband killed so he could marry her. Wasn't the wife part of the spoils of war? It was not a murder, as upi implied, to get the wife, was it?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 21, 2013 13:26:20 GMT -5
Bob wrote: But Muhammad's followers did not need a name for their religion until they were ejected from membership in a Jewish community for political purpose. Mohammad and his men went everywhere they could killing people. He saw a Jewish woman, got his men to kill her husband and took her to marry her himself. Imagine marrying a man who just had your husband killed. He even got his adopted son to divorce his wife because he wanted to marry her and marry her he did. He would stop caravan's and kill and rob people. People who would not submit to him he killed. Any wonder the Jews didn't want him. He spread his religion by the sword taking women on the way, forcing them into marriage and bringing their kids up Muslims. People rarely converted, they were forced or killed. Islam spread by the sword and fear. And this is so unlike god ordering the death of all non-virgins and male children and giving the women to the soldiers as spoils of war. Or god's good buddy, David, having Bathsheba's husband killed so he could marry her. Wasn't the wife part of the spoils of war? It was not a murder, as upi implied, to get the wife, was it? I hear you Rational. Israel could kill every last man woman and child in the Gaza strip and claim it was God's will according to the example of the Old Testament. It won't happen though, because Israel is a democratic modern country that offers its citizens greater religious freedom than any of its neighbours.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 21, 2013 15:52:18 GMT -5
So you weren't critical of Muhammad's lifestyle, then, considering the accepted practices of those he professed to be following? I am critical of his accepted practices. He believed that Jesus was a prophet and Jesus lived before him and he didn't live a life anything like Jesus portrayed. He ignored the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was not violent, have many wives, etc etc which Mohammad did. His teachings were nothing like Jesus. He claimed to be following what God told him , (or the angel) not the Jews. He didn't follow the teachings of Jesus so he didn't follow those he professed to follow. He claimed to be following the teachings of God. His own revelation. Then your problem is not with what he claimed to be, because people considered honorable in the OT made the very same claims and lived the same lifestyle. Your problem has to be with the person himself. And you either don't know or refused to believe what Muhammad taught about the NT gospels. No, I did not know. I have heard that, but only from people who are openly hostile to Islam ... never in a dozen history classes about the era nor in the writings of Christian religious historians. If you're thinking about people attacking caravans in Arabia, you'll find them, lots of them, but it wasn't Muhammad. And some Christians call welfare "robbing the rich and giving to the poor". Call it what you like -- but the West hadn't converted to capitalism at that time. Absolutely not. What you don't know is the difference between what Muhammad taught and what Islamic terrorists think he taught. No, I didn't know they were "his" men. Sounds like the apostle who cut off someone's ear, though. And what is the problem with him marrying a "Jewish" woman? So you accept polygamy if none of the wives are virgins. Makes Solomon look worser and worser.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 21, 2013 16:08:49 GMT -5
Poisoned by a Jewess Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman, following the conquest of Khaibar, where he took Safiyah as a wife, and ordered the torture and beheading of her husband Kinana, the chief of the Jews at Khaibar. wikiislam.net/wiki/Circumstances_Surrounding_Muhammad's_Death www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo-death.htmYou need to read many different versions of his life. You need to get out and meet more Muslims from Muslim countries. Not just one man who you claim to be an expert and a few from the local mosque. Muslims are not ignorant of his history but give a different interpretation on it like I have written earlier. You keep trying to twist what I have written. No one says what the Jews did was right. I am Christian not a Jew. No excuse that he was copying them. Jesus went before him to show him the different way.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 21, 2013 16:15:43 GMT -5
You did not know he went attacking people who were traveling in caravans in Saudi? Muslims say he was a kind of Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. They say that Mohammad was the first to introduce socialism in which the rich pay tax which pays for welfare for the poor. That is the excuse Muslims use to justify his attacking and robbing people. He would rob them also his men killed those who opposed them. You know his message was to kill those who did not believe his message. You didn't know his men killed the husband of the Jewish woman he married? One thing I give him credit for is that he did not always look for virgins to marry some were women who had been married. Can you provide the source of this information? Also explain how it is different from what god commanded his people to do. In some cases they did not even bother to save the virgins.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 21, 2013 16:47:21 GMT -5
Yes, I understand what you mean dmm. Loud and clear. I didn't believe it and realised it was a fallacy but I wasn't going to argue with him. I have enough to handle with you guys without putting more fuel on the fire. Read what you ask? If you doubt me, then read Muslim history. As you wrote "Anyone can write (and publish) something but it doesn't follow that what they write is true!" I know you think I don't get it. I survived well before you came into my life with a couple of degrees to my name, and I will survive well after your gone, if I don't go first. I do get it, you were referring to Bob's post. But if you doubt what I wrote then you guys can read Muslim history. His first wife (the one he married when she was 9) wrote a book on his life. You say that didn't believe the statement and realized it was a fallacy but you wasn't going to argue?
It would seem unreasonable that you would know such a horrible statement about the Jews was a fallacy and yet would not say anything about such a statement when you are are arguing everything else!
Bully for your numerous degrees!
I certainly do hope that you will survive well after I'm gone since I'm fairly sure that you are much younger than I am.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 21, 2013 16:55:03 GMT -5
Poisoned by a Jewess Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman, following the conquest of Khaibar, where he took Safiyah as a wife, and ordered the torture and beheading of her husband Kinana, the chief of the Jews at Khaibar. wikiislam.net/wiki/Circumstances_Surrounding_Muhammad's_Death www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo-death.htmYou need to read many different versions of his life. You need to get out and meet more Muslims from Muslim countries. Not just one man who you claim to be an expert and a few from the local mosque. Muslims are not ignorant of his history but give a different interpretation on it like I have written earlier. You keep trying to twist what I have written. Okay, how about weekly prayers with Muslims in the ghetto for a couple of years? How about birthday parties and picnics in the park with Muslim neighbors and their kids? How about a Sufi dikka or two? How about Indonesia, India, Pakistan (that one almost became a brother in law), Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Ivory Coast, South Africa? I tried sleeping with a Muslim woman, but I couldn't bring that one off. The picture is becoming clearer and clearer.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 21, 2013 17:17:09 GMT -5
Poisoned by a Jewess Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman, following the conquest of Khaibar, where he took Safiyah as a wife, and ordered the torture and beheading of her husband Kinana, the chief of the Jews at Khaibar. wikiislam.net/wiki/Circumstances_Surrounding_Muhammad's_Death www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo-death.htmYou need to read many different versions of his life. You need to get out and meet more Muslims from Muslim countries. Not just one man who you claim to be an expert and a few from the local mosque. Muslims are not ignorant of his history but give a different interpretation on it like I have written earlier. You keep trying to twist what I have written. No one says what the Jews did was right. I am Christian not a Jew. No excuse that he was copying them. Jesus went before him to show him the different way. How many Muslims do you know, Mary?
Have you ever been in a Mosque?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 21, 2013 17:35:12 GMT -5
The picture is becoming clearer and clearer. And sadder and sadder.
|
|