Signs Of Doomsday Day!!!

TrolleyDave · Jun 21, 2011

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pyrmon @ Jun 20 2011, 12:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3727032"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I refuse to say the Qur'an is wrong about saying slavery is OK because it doesn't say so. Every criticism has an answer. As a non-Muslim I was giving you the point of view of a Muslim. It had little to do with me. Even if I had agreed to something you said, to present a Muslim's point of view I had to ignore it and find what a Muslim would respond. Which wasn't very hard considering I was practically Muslim.</div>

Ok, let me make it easier for you then. The Qu'ran says it's alright to strike your wife if she's disobedient. Is the Qu'ran wrong for stating this? Should a husband have the right to strike his wife?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). (4:129) I don't see how it can get much clearer than that. Besides, that site doesn't give the full quote, so here it is: <b>If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans,</b> marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or that which your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (3)</div>

It could get clearer by saying "Unless these circumstances apply". lol As it stands that verse is open to a multiple amount of interpretations, as is evidenced by the sheer number of interpretations. Suggesting someone can't do something isn't the same as telling someone not to do something.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I could care less of what is preached in mainstream Islam and in the Hadith.</div>

So you could care less what Mohammed taught? Because Mohammed most definitely did not teach that polygamy was only to be followed under those circumstances.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I agree that there were very drastic measures taken, it doesn't change the fact that they were compiled, for the eldest, over 200 years after Muhammad's death. Do you know how a word can be deformed in a chain of 30 person playing Telephone? Here the chain is big and lasts three lifetimes. Whatever measure was taken to know were a Hadith came from, it doesn't mean they are authentic or even remotely reliable. There is a very very big difference between 19 years and two centuries. When the compilation of the Qur'an started, many of those who had memorized the Qur'an during the time of the Prophet were still alive. Verses were written down on parchment and palm leaves, a little everywhere. There were partial compilations in existence. For the Hadith, there was nothing. Oral transmission doesn't work well.</div>

That's where you're wrong about the Hadiths. Yes they were compiled over 200 years later but they were not however written then. There are many many many hadiths written from prior and just after Mohammeds death. The first attempt at collecting the Hadiths was by Uthman himself during the compilation of the Qu'ran.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The absence of something better doesn't make it good. What Muslims are taught today is wrong. Muhammad was the embodiment of the ideals of the Qur'an. Following his Sunna or emulating him means to follow the Qur'an. Ah, the missing info. You see, us Muslim believe Islam and all it's teachings have existed since Adam. The five pillars were given to Abraham and, thus, existed in pre-islamic times. Salat, Zakat, Hajj, Shahada and Sawn were practices that already existed before Muhammad. To get the real form of Salat, one must simply remove the parts that don't make sense. Like including Muhammad in the Shahada. It goes against the commandment to consider all prophets equal. And the five times of prayer are mentioned in the Qur'an along with the basic positions(bowing, prostrating, etc).</div>

And how are you so sure that what Muslims are taught today is wrong? What makes you so sure that your Islam is the right one? You're not following what Mohammed taught, you're making your own interpretation of the Qu'ran and following that. As for all prophets being equal, that's not entirely true. The Qu'ran states that Mohammed is a special prophet with privileges that no other prophet has/had.

If Mohammed is also the embodiment of the ideals of Islam then it means that the Wahabbi/Salafi are correct in their interpretation of the Qu'ran. They attempt to follow Islam as preached about by Mohammed and the companions. This means killing people who speak out against Mohammed (Qu'ran 9:24), it means sex with slaves without marriage is fine (Chapter Al-Tahrim). marrying pre-pubescent girls is fine (his marriage to Aisha), hitting a woman is acceptable (Mohammed struck Aisha for spying on him), slaughtering an entire tribe of people through beheading is fine (Bani Qurayzi) and the list goes on. Do you think it's acceptable to marry a 6 year old girl, if not then why not?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You didn't post all the verses that mention slaves, here:</div>

I didn't. I posted the ones relevant to showing that Islam accepts slavery as a social norm.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>

But those who divorce their wives by Zihar, then wish to go back on the words they uttered― (it is ordained that such a one) <b>should free a slave</b> before they touch each other: this are ye admonished to perform: and Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do. (3)

</div>

Ok, it says to free a slave as punishment for going back on your word.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>

Allah will not call you to account for what is void in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed then indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or <b>give a slave his freedom</b>. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His Signs, that ye may be grateful. (89)

</div>

Ok, so once again it's telling Muslims to free a slave as a punishment for something they've done wrong.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>

And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty. <b>And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allâh which He has bestowed upon you.</b> And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil act unwillingly). (33)

</div>

Ok, and what happens if the master decides that there is nothing good and honest in the slave? It doesn't say that they if a slave asks for freedom it must be granted, it leaves it up to the discretion of the slave owner.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>

The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and <b>to free the slaves</b> and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise. (60)

</div>

Read the Tafsirs of this verse. What it's talking about here are the slaves who have entered into a contract to buy their freedom and supplying money towards it and this is in the hope of encouraging them to become Muslim. So any slave who looks like he will never embrace Islam will not be party to this "charity".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and <b>to set slaves free</b>; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing. (177)

</div>

Once again when you consult the teachings of Mohammed and his companions you find that what it's talking about here is manumitted slaves who are likely to become Muslim.

Now show me the verses that talk about unconditional release of all slaves and that owning a slave is immoral.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It was an example of how a Muslim could have gotten possession of them.</div>

And Mohammed also promoted the taking of female captives as war booty. This was a privlege not just for him but for anyone that fought in battle. This is how most slaves came to be in the Muslims posession at the time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Prisoners of war are to be treated kindly and most definitely NOT used as sexual toys. No sexual contact is authorized unless a marriage has taken place. And marriage requires the consent of both parties.</div>

Read Al-Tahrim and then tell me that no sexual contact is authorised unless a marriage has taken place. Also verse 23:6 says "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -"

Notice how the wives and slaves are an 'or" situation. In otherwords no marriage with the slave needs to take place for the slave owner to have sex with them. Show me the passage that states that a man must marry his slave to be able to have sex with her.

The Qu'ran also states that a slave girl should be treated like a wife. And what does the Qu'ran say about a wife refusing sex with her husband?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It just means that you can have sex with slaves and prisoners of war. But the condition for sex is and always was: marriage. Which requires the consent of both parties. So if a captive wants to marry him, it is ok.</div>

That's a very noble thought, and I congratulate you for wanting it to say that but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't.

TrolleyDave · Jun 21, 2011

Sorry bsfmtl123 but I've just noticed the second video in the spoilers above isn't showing properly. I'm not entirely sure why but here's a direct link to it as well as the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGm-_etZmWk

ThePowerOutage · Jun 21, 2011

I am a Christian, and this is what I believe:
The "Second Coming" already happened in 1914. Jesus didn't come to the earth, he started ruling in heaven and threw Satan the devil out of heaven.
The "End of the World" foretold by many is not the destruction of the Earth, but the destruction of the current system of things.
After that, God will judge everyone past and present and decide whether they should survive or not.
The people God decides shouldn't survive just cease to exist, or hell fire or eternal punishment.
The people God decides should exist live in paradise conditions under rule by Jesus (and the 144,00, but i dont want to get that deep at 10:30), without the influence of the Devil.
After a thousand years of rulership, Satan is released and allowed to influence people for a very short time. Then he and anyone he misleads are destroyed. Rulership is handed over to God and then... Well, the sky is the limit.

This is what i believe, and I know at least one other person believes the same on this forum.
I'm not going to say what religion I am from, as I have made mistakes and I don't want my religion to be judged by those mistakes.

Tanas · Jun 24, 2011

When a believer starts lying to defend their beliefs, its time to leave them alone.

MADKATZ99 · Jun 25, 2011

I don't think I've mentioned this yet, but the book 'prophet of doom' by Craig Winn is really informative. (And it's free online)

Here

"Prophet of Doom is the best-documented, most comprehensive, presentation of Islam's five oldest and most reliable scriptural sources. Ishaq's Biography of Muhammad, Tabari's History of Islam, and Bukhari's and Muslim's Hadith, were used to reorder the Qur'an chronologically and to set its surahs into the context of Muhammad's life."

Miss Panda · Jun 25, 2011

ThePowerOutage said:
I am a Christian, and this is what I believe:
The "Second Coming" already happened in 1914. Jesus didn't come to the earth, he started ruling in heaven and threw Satan the devil out of heaven.
The "End of the World" foretold by many is not the destruction of the Earth, but the destruction of the current system of things.
After that, God will judge everyone past and present and decide whether they should survive or not.
The people God decides shouldn't survive just cease to exist, or hell fire or eternal punishment.
The people God decides should exist live in paradise conditions under rule by Jesus (and the 144,00, but i dont want to get that deep at 10:30), without the influence of the Devil.
After a thousand years of rulership, Satan is released and allowed to influence people for a very short time. Then he and anyone he misleads are destroyed. Rulership is handed over to God and then... Well, the sky is the limit.

This is what i believe, and I know at least one other person believes the same on this forum.
I'm not going to say what religion I am from, as I have made mistakes and I don't want my religion to be judged by those mistakes.

You Jehovah's Witness's must have very creative bible to back all that up.

MADKATZ99 · Jun 25, 2011

Miss Panda said:
You Jehovah's Witness's must have very creative bible to back all that up.

It was pretty obvious wasn't it lol.

bsfmtl123 · Jun 25, 2011

Sorry TrolleyDave I cannot reply to your criticisms right now because I am busy in something but I will surely reply u by the next week.............hope u understand........greetings.

TrolleyDave · Jun 25, 2011

Take your time.

bsfmtl123 · Jul 5, 2011

<b>First Half</b>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I know Islam didn't invent polygamy. Using that line of defence is no different than saying "Well Islam might say this but look at what Christianity says". I really couldn't care less. Does Christianity still allow polygamy?

You're also repeating yourself. I've already agreed to everything you're saying. It has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that this rule shows inequality towards women. The statistics have changed now. In many countries men outnumber women. If men are allowed to marry multiple wives in those circumstances then really shouldn't it be fair that women can have multiple husbands in the same circumstances? No provision was put in for this because the Qu'ran erringly believed that women would always outnumber men.</div>

This is what context is about,Allah had allowed polygamy at a time when women outnumbered men so we should practice it under same circumstances.

I know polygamy is still practiced by some Muslims but those Muslims are ignorant and i think they fail to understand their Religion as well.These Muslims who do not fully understand their Religion call for Jihad which is self-struggle not human killing or any form of terrorism.
NOTE

olygamy is not for sexual pleasure and fulfillment but is to support widows and helpless women.
As far as polyandry is concerned it is not allowed Islam(I have given some reasons to it).

When the verse was revealed the companions of Muhammad, peace be upon him, did not run out with the attitude that they were going to get four wives all of a sudden. Some of them already had much more than that and these men had to divorce their wives, if they had more than four. So this was not an order to go out and get four wives. It was an order to begin limitations. And the first limitation was; No more than four.

Second, the limitation of equal treatment for all of them. How could a man keep more than one wife unless he was exceedingly wealthy and/or exceedingly strong and virile?

Next, the limitation very clearly states; ".. but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them) then only one ..."

Step by step, the men of Islam have come to be known today as the most monogamous of all men on earth (we only have one wife). Check for yourself and see. In the majority of all the Muslim homes on earth, a man gets married once, to one woman and then he stays married to her until the death of either himself or his wife.
Source: <a href="http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/marry_4_women_too.htm" target="_blank">http://www.islamtomorrow.com/articles/marry_4_women_too.htm</a>

According to Zakir Naik(It has some reasoning and facts):

The following points enumerate the reasons why polyandry is prohibited in Islam:

1. If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father. Islam gives tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names! I am aware that recent advances in science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing. Thus this point which was applicable for the past may not be applicable for the present.
2. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.
3. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle.
4. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>No a Prophet cannot change any rule according to his will.This is what you believe about Muhammad(S.A.W) but the Quran itself states,
"Nor does he say anything of his own desire.It is no less than an inspiration sent down to him."(Surah An-Najm)

In your rush to defend Mohammed you've completely overlooked the point. The point I'm making is that there has to be a prophet to speak for God. Wihtout a prophet to speak for God then God can not change any of the rules/laws. God doesn't speak directly to people (not since the Old Testament), even Mohammed wasn't spoken to directly by God.</div>

Yes,Not directly to Allah but through Angel Gabriel he received revelations.There is no need of changing these rules Allah has clearly stated that Quran is the complete guidance and the Book to mankind till eternity.

Allah actually did talk directly to Muhammad(S.A.W):
Shab-i-Miraj means the night of Ascent. It is the blessed night when the Holy Prophet of Islam was spiritually transported to heaven and he reached a high stage of nearness to God Almighty which is beyond ordinary human comprehension. The Ascent took place on 27th day or Rajab, 2 years before Hijra. The journey was not with a physical body but was a vision of the highest type. On the way the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, met Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and some other Prophets. The purpose of the Ascent was to confirm the high status of the Prophet of Islam, a position which all Muslims believe, is impossible to attain by any other human being. It is related that even Gabriel, the Angel who was accompanying the Holy Prophet remarked at one stage, 'I am forced to stop here. I cannot go any further, but you O Messenger of peace and friend of the Master of the worlds, continue your glorious ascent.'

It is also related that the Holy Prophet continued his journey until he reached very close to the Throne of God Almighty and attained the utmost nearness to Him. After having drunk fully at the Divine fountain of spiritual knowledge he came down to impart the knowledge to mankind.

It was on this journey, that five daily prayers were made obligatory upon Muslims.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I've already seen those videos. The only people they'll convince are people who are already believers. They're not for convincing, they're for reassuring.</div>

Which videos?....I only posted one single video

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Are you following Mohammed according to the teachings of the companions? Or according to the writings of Ibn Kathr or Al-Jalalayn? Or are you following modern interpretations of Islam like Pyrmon? Remember to follow true Islam you need to follow what Mohammed taught, and to know what Mohammed taught you have to get closer to his time - not further away.</div>

There is nothing bad in following his Companions................to get guidance we should follow them.Never heard of Ibn Kathr or Al-Jalalayn?I know that to understand his teachings i need to get closer to his time.....to have a better picture.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I never used to keep records of these things (I have started doing it only recently) and can't find the Hadith I'm particularly thinking of, however I did find these showing Mohammed baring his stomach/abdomen and his thigh.</div>

This happened during the digging of a trench....when Muhammad(S.A.W) along with his companions dug a trench on the Syrian route to protect Madinah.Do you know how hot and dry it is in an area mostly arid or desert.There is also a tradition or something i don't clearly remember,people used to put stones on their abdominal part to lessen the severity of thirst,hunger and weakness.

Firstly:It happened during some constructional work or digging.
Secondly:This has nothing to do with men being allowed to roam with naked stomachs yet they can bare their stomachs during any heavy physical work.
Thirdly:Notice that his stomach was covered with earth meaning dust and was not clearly visible

Instead of noticing this you should have taken in to account his simplicity,hard work and commitment to work.Even being hailed as a Prophet and the Head of the State he accompanied his companions in digging of the trench.

Sahih Bukhari 1:8:367 - "Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walrma (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle .""

What should i do with this Hadith............there is nothing wrong with it.
He just uncovered his thigh!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Also, here is a website talking about the Islamic dress code for men and women. According to the Shari'a a men need only cover navel/waist to knee. So there's no problem with men showing the abdomen according to it.

<a href="http://www.albalagh.net/food_for_thought/dress.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.albalagh.net/food_for_thought/dress.shtml</a></div>

Under normal conditions men don't have breasts like women.........I know there are some women who have smaller breasts then men but that is just a minority.A man gets attracted to women breasts but not women get attracted to men breasts.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yes I know you follow Allah. Allah is the Arabic word for God (although if you dig further into the history of the word you'll see it differently). This is the same god that the Christians and the Jews follow (also known as Yahweh). This particular god was first taught about by Abraham. Therefore it is the Abrahamic god. It's not a Hindu god, a Greek god, an Indian god, a Native American god, a Maori god, a Chinese god, a Japanese god etc. etc.

You might believe that you follow the one and only god, however so do all the other people following their religion. They believe you follow the wrong god just like you believe they follow the wrong god(s). This is also a very good indication that god(s) are man-made. Every ancient culture had their own particular god(s). This is because they saw things in their own particular way according the world around them. Think of it as humans first attempt at science and philosophy. There were other gods long before there was Allah/God/Yahweh. The first known recorded religion was the Sumerian religion, one which the Abrahamic faith borrows from quite extensively. In fact the whole idea in Islam of humans being slaves to their creator comes from the Sumerian religion. The flood myth also comes from the Sumerian religion, although it does have differences. The Sumerians also talk about their god having created the universe, as do the Chinese (Pangu/Jade Emperor), Greeks (Gaia), Hawaiian (Kumulipo) and many more.

Some of them also talk about how the heavens and the Earth were one and then broken apart, long before Islam and the other Judaic faiths came about. Islamic scholars and Muslims have been saying that about the Big Bang being in the Qu'ran long before science talked about it. Well that very same idea was in other religions before Islam. Just as most of the stuff in Islam was already previously talked about by other religions, scholars and just smart people in general.</div>

This is where you get Islam wrong.......Quran states that Islam existed the day the first human being was sent to earth that is why you find other Religions similar to it but those Religions were corrupted and people found their own ones.
Hazrat Isa(Jesus)(P.b.u.h) performed many miracles which have been witnessed by many people.How can a human perform these miracles?
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus</a>

How Humans came into existence was there a sperm and an ovum or something like that.
What does Science say about this?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate man who had no formal education in any science, language, religious or secular.

When it speaks about "unlettered man" in the Qu'ran it doesn't necessarily mean that Mohammed was illiterate, it could just be referring to him having no formal education. I've had little formal education, I never finished school. It however hasn't stopped me learning lots of information since. You don't have to go to a school to learn things. Mohammed was a trader who regularly went on trading expeditions while married to his first wife. There was ample opportunity for him to pick up any information.</div>

Muhammad(S.A.W) had received no formal education.

This is something you assume about Muhammad(S.A.W) that he went on trade journeys and learned about other Religions and created Islam.You just totally ignored the titles he received,Al-Sadiq and Al-Amin,for his truthfulness and trustworthiness.Why would a person lie after being so truthful whole his life.

Quran speaks about a variety of branches of science like: Astronomy, Embryology, Hydrology, Geology, Sociology, Psychology, Oceanography, Law etc. including lots of scientific statements that were validated only recently and were not known in the time of the prophet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>All of the stuff that you mentioned was known during the time of Mohammed, most of it long before. Even alot of the laws in the Shari'a. There is very little in the Qu'ran that is original. Study something other than Islam (and information from Islamic scholars) and you'll see this. If you care to post what you think wasn't known or thought of at the time of Mohammed I can show you the evidence that disproves it, including where he got things wrong.</div>

If it was known long before Quran came then why were the people amused at these verses.There was not just a single trader at that time.....there were plenty of them.They would have known that Muhammad(S.A.W) is just making up a Religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It was not known about prophet Muhammad any scholarly tendencies or achievements until the age of forty (when he received the first verses of Quran). So, how this illiterate man suddenly brings about a book like the Quran including an ideological and religious revolution that changed history?

He didn't suddenly bring about the Qu'ran tho did he. The Qu'ran wasn't revealed all in one go, it was revealed over the space of 22 years. So Mohammed had plenty of time to speak to others and learn from them. He had amongst his followers doctors, scientists and scholars so there was no problem with learning information from them.

As for how he could write the religious text. He learned Christianity from his Aunt I believe it was, other relatives followed an offshoot of the Abrahamic faith (one that Islam borrows alot from including some of the Shari'a punsihments) and there was also a large Jewish community.

Ideological ideas? That's pretty simple as well. Most of the government ideology came later on in the Qu'ran, when he actually had enough followers to start being considered a power. Alot of the ideas he had actually come from Jewish ideas (social security, zakat, no interest etc), some came from the ideas of people like Plato and many other sources.</div>

It wasn't even possible for anyone to just bring Quran in one day.During his Prophethood in Mecca he mostly had poor people as his followers as far as i know there weren't any doctors, scientists and scholars during his early Prophethood.
It was obvious that the government ideology was laid when it was needed as such in Madinah when he was crowned as the Head of the State.
It weren't his ideas...these were the revelations sent down to him which had been sent to previous Messengers as well but their message had been distorted that is why you find similarities in other Religions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Why prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), if he authored the Quran, honor the virgin Mary (May Allah be pleased with her), the mother of Jesus (peace be on him) as the best woman over all women on earth over all ages until day of judgment (an honor that even not offered by the bible) while not mentioning his own family members with a single word and even not mentioning any name of them.?

If he'd have said he wrote he would have been no different than anyone else at the time. He also would have not have been paid attention to by many because of his uneducated status.

Then you also have the fact that he was hoping to get the local Jews and Christians to follow him. If he'd have claimed that he wrote the Qu'ran rather than the Abrahamic god then none of them would have listened to him, let alone follow him. Plus, if the book comes from God then questioning it is blasphemous and could send you to hell (this is even stated in the Qu'ran itself - doubt will send you to hell).

There are many many many many reasons why he said it was from the Abrahamic god rather than himself.</div>

I think he could have easily claimed himself god and get enough followers.Teachings matter more than status.Poor people could have easily believed him as he talked of Equality and Rights.His personality was more than enough to cover uneducated status.

Quran taught that Jesus was not more than a Prophet and there were many Prophets before him,which contradicted with the Christians Belief of god.This shows that he wasn't even eager to attract followers to Islam moreover this shows he didn't even create this Religion.

There are many people in History who claimed themselves to be god even if they didn't had power and wealth but they still got a considerable number of believers:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...sidered_deities</a>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If he had authored the Quran, why he didn't claim this authorship of Quran and consequently gaining higher prestige among his followers who may consider him as a God.

What higher prestige is their than being a prophet of the Abrahamic god? None of his followers would have considered him a god, he would have been thought of as a clever man similar to Plato or Socrates. Plus being a prophet of God gave him more power and authority. People are likely to question a mans authority and decision but not so quick to question a gods authority and decision. Are you willing to question any of the things in the Qu'ran? No ask yourself, if Mohammed claimed authorship of the Qu'ran would you be willing to question any of the things in it?</div>

We don't question God right, then if Muhammad(S.A.W) claimed himself god then why would any one question him.Quran did not come directly from Allah but Muhammad(S.A.W) revealed it to us and no one questioned him because everyone even one of his bitterest enemies Abu Jahl knew that he was the real Messenger.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Why he mentioned Quran verses that reprimand him (as that of chapter 33, verse 37 and chapter 80 verses 1-3) if he wrote Quran by himself?.

Source:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Quran_the_true_word_of_God

What about the verses that give him special permissions? And what about the verses that told off his wives (including telling them that God would make Mohammed divorce his wives and give them better ones)? There were plenty of times that God was quick to bestow favours upon him.</div>

He was Allah's Messenger so even if Allah did favor him then what is wrong with it.His Caliber and Status was far above ours.
Even if the verses weren't favoring him u would make it look like that they were!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>including telling them that God would make Mohammed divorce his wives and give them better ones</div>
Please post this verse and do remember to take context into account.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>There treatment is the same as treatment of Non-Muslims(who aren't slaves).

Are non-Muslim slaves allowed to marry?</div>

Even Muslim slaves were not allowed to marry until they were released as far as I know....so maybe the same will go to them as well.
Sorry but I don't remember any verse for this in particular.....if u know do let me know.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Slavery is unjust, immoral and inhumane according to it's general statement or meaning or that practiced by Non-Muslims but it's not the same taking in consideration the description laid by Islam.

You previously said that slaves were like video games and pets but this was not the way they were treated...............to find out this you need to re-read Islamic

Again, you're missing the point entirely. I have said over and over that treatment means nothing. The idea of a human being owned by another human being is immoral, unjust and inhumane. Not the actual treatment but the actual ownership. You keep presenting them like they are just staff or workers, however staff and workers have the choice to quit there jobs - slaves do not. Mohammed even stated in the Hadith that a runaway slave will go to hell.</div>

Slavery is inhumane,immoral and unjust according to It's general statement but in Islam there is no foundation or definition which implies this meaning.They are considered Equal and part of the Society.It seems that you only have problem with Slavery itself but not the Slavery in Islam but u don't have to worry about it now as slavery is no longer practiced.

Muhammad(S.A.W) also stated in an Hadith that if a slave demands freedom he should be freed

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>From the Tafsir of al-Jalalayn :

Men are in charge of, they have authority over, women, disciplining them and keeping them in check, because of that with which God has preferred the one over the other, that is, because God has given them the advantage over women, in knowledge, reason, authority and otherwise, and because of what they expend, on them [the women], of their property. Therefore righteous women, among them, are obedient, to their husbands, guarding in the unseen, that is, [guarding] their private parts and otherwise during their spouses’ absence, because of what God has guarded, for them, when He enjoined their male spouses to look after them well. And those you fear may be rebellious, disobedient to you, when such signs appear, admonish them, make them fear God, and share not beds with them, retire to other beds if they manifest such disobedience, and strike them, but not violently, if they refuse to desist [from their rebellion] after leaving them [in separate beds]. If they then obey you, in what is desired from them, do not seek a way against them, a reason to strike them unjustly. God is ever High, Great, so beware of Him, lest He punish you for treating them unjustly.

It clearly states that husbands are allowed to strike their wives for disobedience.</div>

What is Tafsir of al-Jalalayn?
Well this note seems unjust......is it written by an extremist?
It has been written as if Men are the Masters and Women are there slaves.I don't think it holds any weight age in some points.
It also contradicts with the Quran.

bsfmtl123 · Jul 5, 2011

<b>Second Half</b>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The very first verses that you quoted about questioning the Prophet(S.A.W) have again been twisted out of context.The Prophet(S.A.W) had always consulted his companions in all matters(such as battle of Trench and Uhud).He always took the views of other people into consideration.</div>

They weren't taken out of context at all. He may have consulted his compnaions in all matters, but ultimately they had to obey and follow him.</div>

Yes and was there any decision with which his followers suffered..........and consultation is not a small thing for a leader to do and listen to the majority.Let me ask you does President Obama consult people and listen to the majority?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This is again a self opinion about Muhammad and the verse.Were u inside Muhammad(S.A.W) or could read his heart and feelings to tell that he was annoyed.</div>

I don't need to read his heart and feelings. The verse states what it does. Do not annoy the prophet. If he was the perfect man and the role model for all time being annoyed by questions shouldn't have been part of his personality.

Let me give you another chapter to go look at objectively. Do you know the reasons behind the chapter Al-Tahrim?</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You just quoted verses and gave your view or interpretation of the verse.You didn't even quote one question that was left unanswered.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>What does that even have to do with it? The fact of the matter is the verse says not to ask complicated questions. Would you ask Mohammed difficult questions after the revealing of this verse or would you obey God?</div>

If a person really had doubts about Islam then why would he convert.Yes it was not possible for Muhammad(S.A.W)
to answer each and every question.....that is why Quran was revealed to answer all the queries people had.As time passed on people got the answers to their questions because it was not possible for Muhammad(S.A.W) to answer them at that time.

Yes tell what are the reasons behind Surah Al-Tahrim(Prohibition)?

Allah did not allow people to ask complicated questions because Muhammad(S.A.W) himself wasn't aware of these because the verses were slowly revealing to him and he passed them on.He obviously wasn't born with all the knowledge.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This is again a twist of words.Quran clearly states that they were the Mothers of the Faithful.All his wives were a complete guidance for women to follow.They were the women of great knowledge and dignity.Even the Prophet's companions consulted them and learned from them.</div>

It's not a twist of words at all. Why would marrying someone else, some like say Abu Bakr, stop them from being the mothers of the faithful? Why would them getting remarried affect anything at all as long as they married good men?
</div>

Would you marry your mother?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If Muhammad(S.A.W)'s wives knew his secrets then why would they remain Muslims.They would have told everyone after his death that he wasn't a true Messenger.</div>

Because it gave them power and privilege. Why would a Queen give up her kingdom?
</div>

And why would a Queen keep a throne of falsehood and no real treasure even by spending her life according to it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It's not that Allah needs booty.It means to spend the booty in His way(ex:helping poor,widows and orphans).</div>

Why not just use the words "For Allah", why "For Allah and his Messenger"?
</div>

In many places it has been stated that "For Allah" means to spend in His way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>For not misbehaving but committing a sin because they were the Mothers of the Faithful.</div>

Misbehaving and sin are the same thing to me. Why should they get punished double though? If they committed a sin and then repented it would be much more valuable as a role than someone who didn't commit sin because they were fearful of being flogged to death.
</div>

They were the ones to set an example for future Muslim generations......if they had committed sins wouldn't you question the validity of Islam.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If he gets caught up,then the people there were fool enough to again believe in him after this verse.....Can you please quote the verse about which the Quran is talking about.

I'll go one better. I'll present you with the Tafsir of Al-Wahidi explaining why the verse was revealed.

(And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation…) [16:101-102]. This verse was revealed when the idolaters said: “Muhammad is mocking his Companions; one day he commands them to do something and the next day he forbids them from doing it, or brings instead something which is easier. He is nothing but a calumniator who says things of his own invention”, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse and the verse after it.</div></div>

Well I think it no more than another assumption........I know the idolaters would have been talking about the change of Qiblah and some other things like this.

Tell me the things in particular which he made easier or changed....I'll try to make u understand why it happened.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>*snipped out video of Zakir Naik</div>

Once again Zakir Naik doing what he does best, avoiding the issue by talking lots of nonsense about everything other than the subject. Here's an experiment for you to try. Go outside during the sunset and tell me what you see. You'll see the sun setting in the horizon, a horizon that is so distant you can not make out the details. So unless the guy the verse is talking about had telescopic vision then the Sun could not look like it was setting in a muddy pool.

</div>

Why can't you just accept the reality and stop insulting others.....i know why do you think he is speaking all nonsense because it goes all against your beliefs.

Here i have something not said by Zakir Naik(I hope it fulfills you criticisms):

The verse says, "he found it set in a spring of murky water" i.e., according to his vision and sight that's why Allah does not say "it is setting".
Imam Al-Baidawi notes,
He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that's why He says "he found it set" and does not say "it sets". (Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw'il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt)

Imam Al-Qurtubi states,

Al-Qaffal said: It is not meant by reaching the rising or setting of the sun that he reached its body and touched it because it runs in the sky around the earth without touching it and it is too great to enter any spring on earth. It is so much larger than earth. But it is meant that he reached the end of populated land east and west, so he found it - according to his vision - setting in a spring of a murky water like we watch it in smooth land as if it enters inside the land. That is why He said, "he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun." (Holy Qur'ân 18:90) and did not mean that it touches or adheres to them; but they are the first to rise on.
Al-Qutabiy said: Probably this spring is a part of the sea and the sun sets behind, with or at it, so the proposition takes the place of an adjective and Allah knows best. (Al-Qurtubi, Al-Game' le Ahkam-el-Qur'an, Volume 16, page 47. Published by Dar-ul-Hadith, Cairo, Egypt. ISBN 977-5227-44-5)
Imam Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Razi states,

When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea. (Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir-ul-Kabir, Volume 21, page 166)

Imam Ibn Kathir states,

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun" means he followed a certain way till he reached the furthest land he could go from the west. As for reaching the setting of the sun in the sky, it is impossible. What narrators and story tellers say about that he walked for a period of time in earth while the sun was setting behind him is unreal, and most of it is from myths of People of the Book and inventions of their liars.
"he found it set in a spring of murky water" means he saw the sun according to his vision setting in the ocean and this is the same with everyone ending to the shore seeing as if the sun sets inside it (i.e. the ocean).
(Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur'ân Al-'Azim, Volume 5, page 120. Published by Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura,Egypt)
I believe this is adequate to refute the missionaries' imposed interpretation. And to Allah is the Judgement in all affairs.

Pyrmon · Jul 7, 2011

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jun 21 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3728770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>Ok, let me make it easier for you then. The Qu'ran says it's alright to strike your wife if she's disobedient. Is the Qu'ran wrong for stating this? Should a husband have the right to strike his wife?</div>
As to those women on whose part you see ill¬conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.
The word "beat" is the Arabic "idribuhunna", derived from the root "daraba". "Daraba" can have many different meanings, but I will only talk about the three most used. 1) Giving an example, 2) beat, 3) leave. The first meaning, giving an example, makes no sense. So the verse either says to leave her or beat her. Couple that fact with all the verses that says that mercy and forgiveness is always the better option, that one cannot treat his spouse with harshness and that the relationship should be based on love and tranquility. I'll assume it means to leave her. Now, I know very well you'll tell me that that is not what mainstream Islam preaches or that Muhammad did this or that or something like that. Just know I don't care.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jun 21 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3728770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>It could get clearer by saying "Unless these circumstances apply". lol As it stands that verse is open to a multiple amount of interpretations, as is evidenced by the sheer number of interpretations. Suggesting someone can't do something isn't the same as telling someone not to do something.</div>
Not really. It says <b>If</b> you fear of being unjust with orphans, then marry up to four times, but you have to be perfectly just and equitable. Then it says you cannot be just however you try. I simply don't see other interpretations.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jun 21 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3728770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>So you could care less what Mohammed taught? Because Mohammed most definitely did not teach that polygamy was only to be followed under those circumstances.</div>
No, I could care less about things Muhammad supposedly taught. They are in no way reliable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jun 21 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3728770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>That's where you're wrong about the Hadiths. Yes they were compiled over 200 years later but they were not however written then. There are many many many hadiths written from prior and just after Mohammeds death. The first attempt at collecting the Hadiths was by Uthman himself during the compilation of the Qu'ran.</div>
Ahem:

Traditions of the life of Muhammad and the early history of Islam were passed down mostly orally for more than a hundred years after Muhammad's death in AD 632. Muslim historians say that Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (the third khalifa (caliph) of the Rashidun Empire, or successor of Muhammad, who had formerly been Muhammad's secretary), was the first to urge Muslims to record the hadith. Uthman's labours were cut short by his assassination, at the hands of aggrieved soldiers, in 656. <b>No sources survive directly from this period so we are dependent on what later writers tell us about this period.</b>

Directly from Wikipedia.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jun 21 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3728770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>And how are you so sure that what Muslims are taught today is wrong? What makes you so sure that your Islam is the right one? You're not following what Mohammed taught, you're making your own interpretation of the Qu'ran and following that. As for all prophets being equal, that's not entirely true. The Qu'ran states that Mohammed is a special prophet with privileges that no other prophet has/had.</div>
Simple, the Qur'an and, ironically, some Hadith say not to follow the Hadith. Few interpretation was needed to build my point of view. It's pretty clear.
Oh yeah? Where in the Qur'an does it say Muhammad is in any way superior to other prophets? All I see are the parts where it says not to compare prophets with one another.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jun 21 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3728770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>If Mohammed is also the embodiment of the ideals of Islam then it means that the Wahabbi/Salafi are correct in their interpretation of the Qu'ran. They attempt to follow Islam as preached about by Mohammed and the companions. This means killing people who speak out against Mohammed (Qu'ran 9:24), it means sex with slaves without marriage is fine (Chapter Al-Tahrim). marrying pre-pubescent girls is fine (his marriage to Aisha), hitting a woman is acceptable (Mohammed struck Aisha for spying on him), slaughtering an entire tribe of people through beheading is fine (Bani Qurayzi) and the list goes on. Do you think it's acceptable to marry a 6 year old girl, if not then why not?</div>
Yes, it means to try to emulate Muhammad, through his Sunnah. But his Sunnah is the Qur'an. By representing the ideals of the Qur'an, his Sunnah is the one the Qur'an describes. And the Hadith are also banned several times in the Qur'an, so Muslims can't do any of the things you described. And 9:24 has nothing to do with Muhammad.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jun 21 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3728770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>I didn't. I posted the ones relevant to showing that Islam accepts slavery as a social norm.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>