It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mohammad - a perspective

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Yeah, I have pointed out that Mohammad did not get rid of the idolaters, because he was and idolater, and all Muslims are idolaters.

I was ignored. Also, if Islam is the true religion, why has God gave so much favor on Western Nations, who as a large degree are atheists, agnostics, and pagans.

Basically blows his whole position.


edit on 24-4-2012 by poet1b because: missing ed




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Yeah, I have pointed out that Mohammad did not get rid of the idolaters, because he was and idolater, and all Muslims are idolaters.

I was ignored. Also, if Islam is the true religion, why has God gave so much favor on Western Nations, who as a large degree are atheists, agnostics, and pagans.

Basically blows his whole position.


edit on 24-4-2012 by poet1b because: missing ed


We have his favor because we belong to Yeshua and we keep his commandments, and his favor rains down on everyone around us, although it took us 1300 years to find our way back to his path because we were lost in the Dark Ages. We were adopted into the royal family and Yeshua said he would bless those who bless us and curse those who curse us. When muslim kill christians, that angers him and look how they live. He said "better it be that you tie a millstone about your neck and throw yourself into the sea than hurt one of my little ones", he was not lying.

Maybe there are some good people in islam, but Muhammad has cast a curse on anyone who follows after him, his path leads to death, oppression and fear.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Answer my question first. I have answered all your previous questions, which you accosted me to do so.

Mohommad converted the arabian peninsual through subjugation, military conquest. My question is completely in context. I am merely painting the realities of the process.


You've constantly been avoiding the point about Isaiah 42. Because your'e uncomfortable with the fact that Mohammad was foretold in Isaiah 42, so you bring up an irrelevant question to derail the main discussion.

Like I said earlier... the bible just foretells what it has to... its not going to always tell you what you'd like to hear.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 




Has anyone provided a link on HOW Muhammad ended idolatry in Arabia? I can't seem to find any detailed information on it.


Mohammad was enforcing the 2 commandment pertaining to idolatry.
Idolatry ended after Mohammad established Islam....and thereby fulfilled the prophecy of the idolaters in Isaiah 42.
Whether you like it or not.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


LOL!!!
Your "source" is a shady historian called P.N.Oak. You really believe this guy?
P.N.Oak also propagates the theory that Christianity is a vedic religion following Krishna!!!

Christianity as Vedic Chrisn-nity or Krishna-neeti Theory


Oh, and by the way.... heres a muslim blog which refutes this silly historians claim.
kaabaisnotahindutemple.blogspot.in...



edit on 25-4-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 




We have his favor because we belong to Yeshua and we keep his commandments, and his favor rains down on everyone around us, although it took us 1300 years to find our way back to his path because we were lost in the Dark Ages.


You know the moral decline of America better than me.
So be warned, don't fool yourself into thinking that the favors are going to keep "raining" on everyone around you. If ungodliness is taking over America ... if mocking God and the prophets (on TV, movies) is tolerated in the name of "free speech".... then punishment will start to rain on people around sinners.

I don't mean to sound preachy but ponder over this...

"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows.But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
-Luke 12:47-48


If you think Western nations are entitled to "what they have received" and these nations continue to uphold godlessness and immorality... instead of upholding God who favors you, as you say....
you know whats going to happen next.




edit on 25-4-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Mohammad was enforcing the 2 commandment pertaining to idolatry.
Idolatry ended after Mohammad established Islam....and thereby fulfilled the prophecy of the idolaters in Isaiah 42.
Whether you like it or not.


Basically, what I'm asking is if Muhammad used force and war to eradicate the idols.

If so, the only thing that Isaiah 42 proves is that a prophet came in peace, was rejected and then God sent in an adversary to battle them for not listening to Him, like he did so many other times throughout the Bible. Remember, the Bible said that Ishmael would do nothing but battle his brothers his entire life. Heck, Muhammad battled his own tribe because they wouldn't accept him. Ishmael's seed was meant for battle. Isaac's seed was meant for peace.

Isaiah 42 in no way implies that Muhammad was the prophet, because it doesn't appear that Muhammad came in peace. So, like I mentioned earlier, it was most likely John who was sent in peace. There's usually more than one verse in the Bible to back up other verses and so far there aren't any other verses to back up that this was Muhammad. However, we can assume Isaiah was talking about John.

Isaiah 40:3


3) The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.


John 1:23


23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.


So, sorry, just because you say everyone should accept it as Muhammad, doesn't mean they should. Quit telling everyone to accept your explanation as the truth or fact when you have nothing else to back it up with.

Also, I'm tired of people stating how corrupted and rewritten the Bible is. There's too many explanations available on the internet for how the Qu'ran was rewritten too. So, if no one wants to take the Bible's word for it, then quit using it as a reference to prove Muhammad, because it's not working.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 




the only thing that Isaiah 42 proves is that a prophet came in peace, was rejected and then God sent in an adversary to battle them for not listening to Him, like he did so many other times throughout the Bible


Nothing is said about a prophet coming in peace. You are misinterpreting verse 2 and 3 to conclude so.
On the contrary, it says that this servant of God will will "not be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth."

Mohammad fulfills Isaiah 42 as he was
a) Involved with Kedar and the wilderness
b)shamed the idol worshippers
c)was a light to the gentiles... who dwelt in the darkness of polytheism and idolatry.

Only Mohammad fits this bill.


However, we can assume Isaiah was talking about John.

Isaiah 42 cannot be about John as John was not involved with Kedar and John did not shame the idol worshippers... and so on.




Quit telling everyone to accept your explanation as the truth or fact when you have nothing else to back it up with.


I am backing up my claim that it was Mohammad using scripture and historical events.... whereas you are the one making wild assumptions about Isaiah 42 being about John, without having anything to support that claim.

Anyway, I've noticed Christians downplay scripture to cling on to doctrine... even in matters concerning Jesus.... so its hardly surprising when you do the same for Mohammad.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Fine, let's see if we can find other scripture that repeats Isaiah 42:2-3.

Matthew 12:15-21


15) But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;

16) And charged them that they should not make him known:

17) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias (Isaiah) the prophet, saying,

18) Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

19) He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

20) A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

21) And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.


Here's all of Matthew 12 for confirmation:

kingjbible.com...

By the way, we all know that Muhammad wasn't capable of performing miracles. However, we know from the above verses that Jesus did.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by borntowatch
 




If you had have read Ephesians 1 like I asked

I've read Ephesians and its proof to me that Paul is a false apostle... and you follow his false teachings.


Jesus invitation isnt to everyone,

It isn't...and Paulianites like yourself never received the invitation. You are only deluded that you follow Jesus... but in reality you follow Paul.


Paul was not a false apostle, the false apostles were the ones rejected, but you know that.

The ephesians of Asia rejected Paul and were applauded for that in revelations.
Yet, you believe Paul was a true apostle.


I would prefer eternal hell to serving a female bashing pedophile who demands the sword on his enemys.
Just saying



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Answer my question first. I have answered all your previous questions, which you accosted me to do so.

Mohommad converted the arabian peninsual through subjugation, military conquest. My question is completely in context. I am merely painting the realities of the process.


You've constantly been avoiding the point about Isaiah 42. Because your'e uncomfortable with the fact that Mohammad was foretold in Isaiah 42, so you bring up an irrelevant question to derail the main discussion.

Like I said earlier... the bible just foretells what it has to... its not going to always tell you what you'd like to hear.


You mean my responses to Isiah 42 here, and here, and HERE

I'm not going to answer it again because you haven't countered it. You've been dismissive to everybody in this thread that's posed you a question, yet you froth at the mouth when you want one of yours answered.

I asked you question (but of course nobody can answer YOU questions because it's your thread :@@
: "If foreign men come into your city, kill all of your friends and most of your family, rapes the women before they kill them, hands you a Qu'ran and tells you that this is all Allah's idea, you're going to feel ashamed of yourself? "

I'll put it into context for you AGAIN. Undoubtedly Mohammad was a skilled military leader, leading over 13 campaigns in the name of Allah. Conquering a large part of the Arabian peninsula in very few years and converting the conquered subjects to Islam, subjugation.




During these later years, Muhammad did not seem at all bothered by conversions that were made under obvious duress. These included that of his sworn enemy of Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind. According to Muslim historians, when Abu Sufyan went to seek peace with Muhammad, he was ordered instead to embrace Islam. The exact words spoken to him in Muhammad's presence were, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head" - (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814). He did.

The entire city of Mecca followed suit, even though the residents and leaders detested Muhammad and had resisted his preaching from the beginning. Most of them "converted" to Islam the day that he marched through their city with an army so dominant that little resistance was offered. Only the most credulous of believers would think that the city's religious epiphany just happened to coincide with the sword at their necks. Meccans who would not change their religion were forcibly expelled from the city following that last Haj (Quran 9:5). The Christians and Jews living in Arabia at the time suffered the same fate on Muhammad's deathbed order. They were given the choice of either accepting Islam or being forced off their lan


You still think he shamed idolarators? Where is the realization that these people had done anything wrong except living their lives until foreign men invaded their city and forced them to practice their religion?

One more time so you wont forget : "If foreign men come into your city, kill all of your friends and most of your family, rapes the women before they kill them, hands you a Qu'ran and tells you that this is all Allah's idea, you're going to feel ashamed of yourself? "



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



Fine, let's see if we can find other scripture that repeats Isaiah 42:2-3.

Matthew 12:15-21


Isaiah 42 is only referred to by the author of Matthew, after the record of Jesus warning those he healed not to tell anyone. Jesus himself did not read out the words of Isaiah 42, like how he read out Isaiah 58 from the scroll in the synagogue, as recorded in Luke.

The author of matthew also stops short of mentioning the graven images and the idolaters because he knows fully well that Jesus had nothing to do with it.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 




I asked you question (but of course nobody can answer YOU questions because it's your thread :@@ : "If foreign men come into your city, kill all of your friends and most of your family, rapes the women before they kill them, hands you a Qu'ran and tells you that this is all Allah's idea, you're going to feel ashamed of yourself? "


This question attempts to derail the thread.... but since you insist that I answer.... I'll give it to you....

I am a monotheist.... I do not worship idols.... so this "foreign army" that kills my friends and family and hands me a Koran are war criminals. I can't do much but complain to God...and let Him avenge me. I will fully admit that all matters are in His hands.

There you go.

Now you answer my question... what if you were a Midianite during biblical times and the Israelites did a Numbers 31:17 on you.... would you still accept the message of the bible?



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Funny you mentioned that, because the Midianites were the offspring of Ishmael.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



because the Midianites were the offspring of Ishmael.


Ummmm.. no.
Midian is the fourth son of Abraham by his third wife... Keturah.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
This talk of "Ishmael being war and Isaac being peace" is a bit funny, considering how absolutely wrong it is.

Moses was not peace.
Joshua was not peace.
Saul was not peace (you can ignore this one if you are only going to focus on it and say "Yeah, but he was cursed by God").
David was not peace.
Jesus says himself he came not to bring peace, and while some claim he was being metaphorical, in his second coming he definitely won't be bringing any "peace".

Considering the supposed (biblical) actions of these people from the so-called "line of peace", even the most out-there and unsupportable allegations of what Muhammad did are very tame.
edit on 25-4-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Yes, you are correct.

Thanks for pointing that out.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Great post.

The thing with christians is that they think only they have absolute monopoly over the term "peace".

Any violence in the bible is quickly swept under the carpet and they cherry pick the most lovey-dovey verses to represent their religion.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
This talk of "Ishmael being war and Isaac being peace" is a bit funny, considering how absolutely wrong it is.

Moses was not peace.
Joshua was not peace.
Saul was not peace (you can ignore this one if you are only going to focus on it and say "Yeah, but he was cursed by God").
David was not peace.


First of all, these were all people of the Old Testament before Jesus arrived, so yes, God used them directly to fulfill his plan.


Jesus says himself he came not to bring peace, and while some claim he was being metaphorical, in his second coming he definitely won't be bringing any "peace".


Regardless, Jesus was peaceful himself and taught all of the apostles to just walk away from the people who wouldn't listen to them and move on. Yes, during Jesus' second coming, He will be coming to eradicate evil from the earth (in a not so peaceful way) in order to clear the path for his peaceful 1,000 year reign, known as the Millennium.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Originally posted by Deetermined
First of all, these were all people of the Old Testament before Jesus arrived, so yes, God used them directly to fulfill his plan.

What has that got to do with anything? "They came before Jesus, so it was okay for them to be violently genocidal, even though they are from the peaceful line of Isaac, and the evil violent line of Ishmael is much worse"? So now you admit that the line of Isaac is not peaceful at all?



Originally posted by Deetermined
Regardless, Jesus was peaceful himself and taught all of the apostles to just walk away from the people who wouldn't listen to them and move on. Yes, during Jesus' second coming, He will be coming to eradicate evil from the earth (in a not so peaceful way) in order to clear the path for his peaceful 1,000 year reign, known as the Millennium.

I hope you realise the irony of what you just said: "Jesus will come and slaughter everyone who disagrees with him, so yeah, he'll come to bring peace".
Also, Jesus instructed his disciples to be prepared, and buy swords.
edit on 25-4-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join