Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

To the Muslim, Jesus Christ is merely one of the many prophets of Allah (Sura 4:171; 5:74). According to Islam, the prophet Muhammad supersedes Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not the Son of God or a part of any Trinity (Sura 5:17; 5:116; 19:35). We are told that He was nothing but a slave on whom God showed favor (Sura 43:59); yet elsewhere we are told the Messiah is not a slave (Sura 4:172).

Jesus Christ did not atone for anyone's sins, although he was himself sinless (Sura 3:46) and is one of those who are near to God (Sura 3:45). Positively, the Qur'an says that Jesus performed miracles (Sura 3:49; 5:110) and was the Messiah (Sura 3:45; 4:157, 171). But Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. Various Muslim traditions say that he either miraculously substituted Judas Iscariot for himself on the cross, or the God miraculously delivered him from the hands of the Romans and Jews before He could be crucified. Most Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was taken bodily into heaven without having died (Sura 4:157). However, Sura 199:33 says he died and would be resurrected.

It is interesting to compare Jesus and Muhammad according to the Qur'an:

Jesus did miracles (Sura 3:49; 5:110), but Muhammad did not (Sura 13:8: "thou art a warner only"; also 6:37; 6:109; 17:59 and 17:90-93).

Jesus was sinless (Sura 3:46), but Muhammad sinned and needed forgiveness (Sura 40:55: "Ask forgiveness of thy sin"; 42:5: "Ask forgiveness for those on the Earth"; 47:19: "Ask forgiveness for thy sin"; 48:2: "that Allah may forgive thee of thy sin".

Jesus was called "the Messiah" and was even born of a virgin (Sura 3:45-57). Yet Muhammad is supposed to be the greatest of the prophets!

Aside from contradiction, I'm curious as to why Muslims view Jesus as inferior to Muhammad.

Muslims view Jesus as inferior to Muhammad because they believe that Muhammad was the one Allah/God chose as his personal main man...sure he might not be as pious as Jesus but he seems to be Allah's fav...who knows why sometimes your just attracted to people...besides...they had different missions...Muslims believe that Muhammad's was the more important regardless of his personality or nature...

This is severely interesting, imo. I hope some of our Islamic friends on here will respond. I had not considered this, and am curious as to the answer.

Well you got one,

Muhammad was chosen by God to be his top prophet...Jesus' personal qualities etc don't put him above God's judgment do they?

muslims do not view any of the prophets as inferior of superior to each other. they were what they were; men chosen by God to deliver the truth about him to age in which they were born. each prophet posessed an ability that was above and beyond the period of time he existed in.

Jesus was a miracle man. Born from a Virgin, he from the very start was set aside from the common folk of the time. He needed to be more obviously special in ability in order to make his sayings more effective. He had the gift of healing the sick and when need be, bring people back to life. He is NOT seen as "god" or "son of god" or anything related to the divine except exist as God's messenger.

Moses, againt was a messenger who tried to reveal the truth to the people in Egypt. His special ability was magic, since at the time it was one of the biggest pride's of the Pharoah's. He outdid any trick the royal magicians had up there sleeve when by the thrust of his stalk into the Red Sea, he split it into half.

Muhammad was when compared to the earlier prophets all things ordinary. Him being the last in line didn't need extraordinary and obvious abilities to make himself more plausible becaues humans had evolved into beings of relevant enough intelligence. His "special powers" if you will, was more abstract and profound. He had a way with words. Which was amazing because he was illiterate. At the time in Arabia people took pride in their ability to write poetry, but with his verses, Muhammad astounded all and stablized his status as the Modern messenger of God.

So no, to the muslims all prophets are the same in importance in that they were all men, beings from the Homo Sapien species who were prominent in that they were hand picked by God to deliliver his Message. Muhammad, they don't regard as more important as Jesus, just more relevant because he is the most recent in the long line of Messengers.

the reaction to the muhammed drawings shows how many muslim country rate their prophets, they never acted up like this over mocking cartoons of jesus

he was different according to islam because he was the most perfect of exampled to follow. he did not sin{contrary to what was suggested before} and was an example for all mankind to follow for alll time as opposed to jesus, who was just an example for the israelites of the time.
he was also special because he is seen as a seal of the prophets, and onto him was granted the final revealation which was for all time and all people unlike god's previous revelations. his special ability was his way with words, which could astound all men and touched their souls.

and really, you cant make the virgin birth and miracle argument for jesus, after all, muslims also beleive that moses was able to directly SEE god on sinai, and do much magic, that wud make him superior to jesus but that isnt the criteria by which to judge such things in islam. moses was given what he needed to touch the lives and make people around hims beleive{limited physical wonders- same with jesus}, while muhammad was given a speech of truth which wud not REQUIRE physical miracles to make people beleive but make the truth apparent to them through simple words.

also as far as supernatural occurances go, muhammad was taken to the heavens on shab-e-miraaj{the night of ascencion} where he lived for a time and saw all the heavens and led all the prophets of old in prayer at the dome of the rock and met all the major prophets and angels and had a personal audience with god himself who was seated at the highest place in heaven and the only thing seperating them was a translucent viel and muhammad was apparently very near to god. another interesting thing to note is that the reason{in islam} that god forgave adam after decades and decades of crying after him and havva{eve} fell, was that he asked god'f forgiveness in the name of muhammd. and when asked as to where he heard the name, i think he replies that it was written sumplace having to do with the creation of the universe which {dont remember completely right noe} implied heavily that the world had been created for muhammad or in his name or honour or sumthin, which is wierd. also, muhammad chose not to let angel gibrail destroy a certain tribe byt crushing them between two mountains after they severely wounded and ridiculed him even after gibrail offering to because muhammad beleved that they wud sumday turn to the truth- which they did according to tradition. so technically, from the islami viewpoint, muhammad isnt without his set of miracles either.

but why are we judging the two anyway? are they really that important?

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Moses, againt was a messenger who tried to reveal the truth to the people in Egypt. His special ability was magic, since at the time it was one of the biggest pride's of the Pharoah's. He outdid any trick the royal magicians had up there sleeve when by the thrust of his stalk into the Red Sea, he split it into half.

This is the only paragraph of your post that I find especially weird...unless I'm mislead about what you are saying. What do you mean by "his special ability was magic"? Did he inherit magic as a genetic trait? Did God make him magical as a child? Or, as your next sentence semi-implies, did he learn it just because he was a prince of Egypt?

Originally posted by Quark_666
This is the only paragraph of your post that I find especially weird...unless I'm mislead about what you are saying. What do you mean by "his special ability was magic"? Did he inherit magic as a genetic trait? Did God make him magical as a child? Or, as your next sentence semi-implies, did he learn it just because he was a prince of Egypt?

He was allowed to perform fantastical and magical things, like part the Red Sea and turn his staff into a snake.

Okay, now I'm a little less...surprised.

thats a trick many MEN claim to be able too

Originally posted by ushomefree
Aside from contradiction, I'm curious as to why Muslims view Jesus as inferior to Muhammad.

Its because Jesus personal relationship to God as Abba(Aramaic word for Daddy) is different how Muhammad practise and believes in God in His Allah. Jesus taught God which is Love while Quran teaches God(allah) which is full hatred. Quran should not be the basis of understanding of Jesus teachings because it is different to Muhammad.

I'm curious as to why Muslims view Jesus as inferior to Muhammad. Because that's what human beings do: they compare, evaluate, choose, divide. This way there is always a Them the Us can feel superior to, and feeling superior ultimately means feeling more deserving of resources for survival, feeling safer from Death.

Originally posted by mahasattva
Its because Jesus personal relationship to God as Abba(Aramaic word for Daddy) is different how Muhammad practise and believes in God in His Allah. Jesus taught God which is Love while Quran teaches God(allah) which is full hatred. Quran should not be the basis of understanding of Jesus teachings because it is different to Muhammad.

do not let bias cloud your judgement. the christian god can be every bit as full of hatred and cruelty as the muslim god. and both can be full of love too. it depends on how you interpret it. factually, in an ubiased way, they are both generally dominating and hating, permeated by places of love and affection or favour. it will depend on the folloerr.

however, to say that the christian god is "love" is absolutely wrong.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
however, to say that the christian god is "love" is absolutely wrong.

Why is that?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
factually, in an ubiased way, they are both generally dominating and hating, permeated by places of love and affection or favour.

Factually, in an unbiased way, you can't say anything about the nature of ordinary humans, let alone Gods.

Factual stuff is things like "2+2=4", and technically that isn't even correct.

factually, i CAN well comment on the nature of CLAIMED beings whose traits, decisions and commandments are supposed to be written in impeccible books. as long as we assume that what those books say is all true, then we can well set up a hypothetical argument which can FACTUALLY, prove or disprove things about the nature of said hypothetical being. {e.g. the bible says that a square circle exists in this universe. now irrespective of whether it is REALLY true or not, we can use our intellect to see if a FACTUAL contradiction exists inside the claim. and since it does then we can say for a certainty that the claim is factually false or self contradictory. }

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Why is that?

because he has often done hateful and egotistical things in the bible which not only take away COMPLETENESS of his claimed love, but also, make him a lot less than a REASONEABLY loving entity.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
because he has often done hateful and egotistical things in the bible which not only take away COMPLETENESS of his claimed love, but also, make him a lot less than a REASONEABLY loving entity.

Hmm...are you sure you have the right definition of love? Or the accurate understanding of the nature of God?

yes i am sure i have the right definition of love. i CAN come up with very improbable explanations for god's deeds which can be interpreted as him being LOVE, but that wud contradict his omnipotence/omniscience and any other things in the bible.

as to his nature? i can not say, but i can say that the part of his nature which i am referring to certainly has been shown to exist, for whatever reason. and it is inconsistant with the ideology of god=love. i wish that such a god existed, but it isnt true and it almost certainly is not the god of any relegion that i am aware of.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
factually, i CAN well comment on the nature of CLAIMED beings whose traits, decisions and commandments are supposed to be written in impeccible books. as long as we assume that what those books say is all true, then we can well set up a hypothetical argument which can FACTUALLY, prove or disprove things about the nature of said hypothetical being. {e.g. the bible says that a square circle exists in this universe. now irrespective of whether it is REALLY true or not, we can use our intellect to see if a FACTUAL contradiction exists inside the claim. and since it does then we can say for a certainty that the claim is factually false or self contradictory. }

Oh. Thanks for the insight. What hypothetical argument?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes i am sure i have the right definition of love. i CAN come up with very improbable explanations for god's deeds which can be interpreted as him being LOVE, but that wud contradict his omnipotence/omniscience and any other things in the bible.

as to his nature? i can not say, but i can say that the part of his nature which i am referring to certainly has been shown to exist, for whatever reason. and it is inconsistant with the ideology of god=love. i wish that such a god existed, but it isnt true and it almost certainly is not the god of any relegion that i am aware of.

Well, can we have examples of where you don't think God is acting out of love?

Please remember that even if a person commits a grave sin they are forgiven...thats quite allot of love.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, can we have examples of where you don't think God is acting out of love?

Kill the Cannanites
Hey Noah I'm about to drown everyone
Lets burn Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot, I dare you not to turn around
Abraham, kill the kid! Nah just kidding.
So son you've got 33 years and then you die in the most painful way possible

I think those are the most commonly cited examples.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Kill the Cannanites
Hey Noah I'm about to drown everyone
Lets burn Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot, I dare you not to turn around
Abraham, kill the kid! Nah just kidding.
So son you've got 33 years and then you die in the most painful way possible

I think those are the most commonly cited examples.

Very poor examples indeed...we totally missed out Job...which I think is the only example which has any real credence.

Kill the Cannanites
Hey Noah I'm about to drown everyone
Lets burn Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot, I dare you not to turn around

All these events involve people who had "lost their way" or gone down on paths that were not just according to God, now lets not forget God has rules- and if you don't follow them punishment is necessary surely? I think so, after all God has to hold up divine justice as it is ofcourse, part of his personage. However even though all these people forfieted their earthly lives they were actually rescued- for by being taken away from the reach of Satan they were being taken away from the temptation to sin. After a short spell in purgatory they would gain access to Heaven- Jesus after all died for their sins...even if it was a few thousand years later. This is love surely?

Abraham, kill the kid! Nah just kidding.

God gave Abraham his son, he gave Abe allot as he was very special however lets not forget Abraham had already flouted God's orders once, he had to prove himself- ofcourse he didn't need to prove his dedication for God's sake as God would be aware that Abe was on the right track- but Abe had to prove it to himself. By going to sacrifice his son he knew to himself that he was able to work for the Lord completely and since the Lord spared his sons life he could learn this moral. Obey your God and you will be rewarded. An interesting way to learn a lesson? Lets remember Abraham was no normal guy, religions would be built on his shoulders, so lessons have to be taught in special ways...does this suggest God doesn't love Abe? No.

So son you've got 33 years and then you die in the most painful way possible

An interesting example lets remember that God the Father is Jesus the Son...they are the same person in the holy trinity but also separate people...its quite complicated at first...anyway the God took human form to save man from sin and Satan. He was betrayed, beaten and killed for mankind...truly the ultimate act of love for a loving God.

^rationalisations. god is not living up to his lovely nature in those examples. you can twist and turn it all you wanr but fact remains that an omnipotent and omnibenevolant entity is not BOUND by things to stop it to making things right.

the fact that god created hell is a good enough example to realise that he isnt all acting out of love. plus the fact that he lets satan run free.

besides, your wrong, hell exists for a reason, people are NOT forgiven.

Your wrong, you don't understand what hell is

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^rationalisations. god is not living up to his lovely nature in those examples. you can twist and turn it all you wanr but fact remains that an omnipotent and omnibenevolant entity is not BOUND by things to stop it to making things right.

the fact that god created hell is a good enough example to realise that he isnt all acting out of love. plus the fact that he lets satan run free.

I think your imposing limits on God...if hes omnipotent he has ultimate restraint...your argument fails because your subjecting God to limitations of man.

^not really. omnipotence =/= trancendance. it is a well known, self contradictory property.

making god trancendant is an easy way of saying "any and all arguments you make fail because god is beyond them and beyond human reasoning so everything he does is right" . it doesnt work. plus, god showing preference and very petty egotistical qualities, as he does in the bible, make him FAR less than the omnipotent or trancendant being that sume make him out to be.

yes i do understand the concepts of hell and some vague interpretations made by some christians{stating that hell is just the absence of god and whatnot} based on no solid scriptural evidence does nothing to take away form it. if anything, i can say that you dont understand the concept of hell that you yourself seem to beleive in. simply because it is contradictory to god's own claimed nature.

anyhow, what did all that have to do with what i posted? examples have already been given where god isnt acting out of love.

And he was clearly shown to be acting in the capacity of a person who is loving...you just didn't accept it...will you wrap your children in cotton wool?

no he wasnt. those were hateful/egotistical acts. and you forget, that a "person" who is "loving" is not COMPLETELY loving, but is also hating etc. many things make up even the best of humans. either way the claim was that god=love which doesnt hold up in the second situation and CERTAINLY not in the first one. i didnt have to accept anything which is illogical.

what does rapping my children in cotton wool have to do with anything?

Sometimes the best act of love is to allow your child to go out and get their knees hurt...just be there to pick them up again.

^inappropriate parallel. the parent is never omniscient, nor omnipotent. if the parent was llike that, then the harm wud never exist for the child.

also, that example is a far cry from the types of punishment that one wud have to undergo in hell{which god himself created} and the criteria for hell which is illogical and trivial{also created needlessly by a LOVING god}. the appropriate example wud be letting the child fall endlessly into an oblivion of unbearable hurt.

Not quite, the parent has the ability to not allow the child to go out and play...and thus get hurt...in its youth the parent is quite all powerful over the child...

God vs Humanity
Parent vs Child

Its a fair parallel.

Why is the existence of hell needless, what do you believe hell to be...what makes you think people will not eventually be reconciled?

Note an all loving God is also all powerful and all-just he has the ability to punish people even if he loves them.

untrue. you fail to understand that parents do not CREATE the dangers chidlren have to face{because they only have power over the child and not the WORLD around it} , while god created all human and everything in the world includig the challenges and dangers facing humans to begin with. therefore the paralles is completely illogical. parents dont go around digging holes for chidlren to fall into and then only warn them to stay away.

the existance of hell wud be needless because an omnibenevolant god wud be incapable of producing a world with hate in it or suffering or negetivity. also, all hell serves to do is male people suffer further, it doesnt RIGHT any wrong. plus, most of the criteria for entering have nothing to do with goodness but god's egotism and accepting CHRIST as saviour which wud have no significance to an omnibenevolant god.

note that an all loving god can not create a hating/suffering world to begin with, nor create the CONCEPT of suffering itself{i.e. today's world}, also note that all loving is inconsistant with all just. you can not have both at the same time just like you can have omnipotence and omniscience at the same time. it is contradictory.

It isn't your just twisting the ideals...how can a non-omnipotent, non omniscient, non-omnipresent being say how a being of those features could act? Answer, they cant...

Anyway just for you I've dug out a book on Christian Theology by a man called Alister E. McGrath...it has a chapter on the Doctrine of God so I'll give that a read.

^hehe, wrong argument. you are again trying to use obscurity and incomprehensibility as defenses. well they can justify ANYTHING cant they. anyhow, first youd have to prove to me that god can be all those things. furthermore, i can think about what such a being wud do because, hard to comprehend{IN THE "COMPLETENESS"} as these qualities may be, they are NOT completely incomprehencsible, which is why the words{omniscience etc} EXIST and make sense to us. looking from those, it is clearly seen that the two are contradictory and hence you dont NEED to understand the concept in its completeness.

i mean, the example your using is like this.
a. a square circle can not exist as the two shapes are unique and sumthing can not be both at the same time and from the same perspective
b. but then how can a being who ISNT a square circle or hasnt ever SEEN a square circle say anything about the nature of a square circle?

hence a square circle exists! naah, not really, that is a fallacy.

Mohammad who encouraged and promoted death, war, rape and robbery and said it was A'ok i'm God's prophet and contary to what God supposedly told the other prophets i'm right. Then their's the sketchy business of him marrying a six year old and having sex with her when she was 9 and he was 54 and the unclear business of what exacatly he did with the goat and the dead woman

^ yea, really, thats ALL he was wasnt he. a raping, murdering savage!
lmao, youve been reading too much anti muslim propoganda. he definately wasnt perfect but he isnt all hes made out to be or specially evil or anything. and most of the other prophets were worse.

Leon tut tut don't make assumptions for your information i own and have read the Qur'an amongst the Bible and Gnostic gospels i have nothing to gain by inventing stories so please don't take an opposing opinion and dig deep to find something to discredit it!

It is in plain view for all to see that Mohammad raised armies and laid waste to many towns took their women and possesions prisoner and states it's a muslims duty to do the following against non believers until the calpihate is in place and Islam is the only religion left, It is also in plain view that he married Ayisha when she was six years old and consumated the marraige when she was nine and he was 54 years old.

Also there is the unclear intrepretations of the hadiths off what he drank from the goat and what he actually did with the dead womans body.

If your require me to list the following verses in the Qur'an that as i've already stated promotes the following then i'll be happy to oblige you'll find it's all there and not propoganda.

Now the difference is where are the verses in the Bible of the words and testaments depicting Jesus saying it is the duty of a believer to kill and hold to ransom non believers and it is ok for women and members of your own religion who doubt their faith to be treated worse than dogs and to be put to death? I think we can both agree we'll find none.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
besides, your wrong, hell exists for a reason, people are NOT forgiven.

People are forgiven. Or heaven wouldn't exist either.

Originally posted by Quark_666
People are forgiven. Or heaven wouldn't exist either.

Or this life is heaven.

Everything is possible I guess. But that would, of course, increase the possibility that life is also hell.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Everything is possible I guess. But that would, of course, increase the possibility that life is also hell.

Hey! You beat me to my next point.

Life is Heaven and Hell and 8 other worlds.

http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/faqs/tenworlds.htm

It is a Buddhist way of looking at it.

I thought you might bring up the ten worlds! I've actually used those a lot.

Never hurts to mix a few religious ideas together...especially when they happen to be more like philosophies anyway

i have read the quran and the hadith too. dont assume that i have no idea of what i am saying. there is valid criticism and then there is invalid criticism, it is just unfortunate that most people wud rather unknwingly use the invalid one and make up weak arguments, than use valid ones and make up valid ones.



the only valid thing there is him marrying aisha. ofcourse, that kind of thing was reletively normal then, so even though it in itself is wrong, muhammad was not specially bad or evil for doing so. and going by aisha's own accounts of her life later{ofcourse u can critique it talking about brianwashing and manipulation of accounts} she loved him more than any1. just saying that it doesnt do to approach such things from a hateful standpoint. as for the other stuff, there was only one or two example in his life where that happened {i.e imprisoning women and children}, and only one where it happened in a proper invasion/conflict. that was after a jewish tribe betrayed the muslims in conflict and left than unprotected, after which they were punished ans their women and children imprisoned. NOT saying that that was right in any way, but you cant project that muhammad was just a madman who was senslessly slaughtering every1 other than himself who he found.


excuse me, but which hadith are you talking about?? and is it a strong or weak hadith?



SELECTIVELY quoting without context is what is wrong. and that is what you are going by. there are many negetive things in RIGHT interpretations, you shud quote those and make argument, not things which are invalid.



no we can NOT. infact you wont find such VERSES in context, in the wuran EITHER. that is your bias. however, you are very very VERY wrong to assume that such things do not exist in the bible, they VERY much do. i beleive there is even a commandment by jesus sumwhere in the red letter where he told other to take up the sword. but the difference is that jesus has VERY little say in the actual bible. most of it is paul and he among other saints has directly or indirectly said a LOT of very hostile and illogical things which can easily trump what mohammad ever said. also NUMEROUS such references in the old testament. christianity is every bit as hateful as islam, but both can be interpreted in parts to be good too. that is a fact. the hypothesis that islam is more hateful than christianity is COMPLETELY false.

Ah abit defensive.. Yes indeed i'll apologise for being cheeky and starting my reply in the manner i was addressed by yourself that does nothing but insult each others intelligence.

I did not make the distinction of Mohammad marrying aisha as a good or bad thing i just stated the ages they where married and consumated the marriage if i wanted to i could of said he was a pedophile but i didn't and also why when the UK's own Royal family where praticing the same custom even during the 15th century.

The seiges of Medina and Mecca are always described as self defense yet why did Mohammad go out of his way to kill the insulters?

He wasn't a madman as the Qur'an shows alot of positivity but he was like many prophets full of contradiction again as the Qur'an shows which allows many to cherry pick the verses to critcise the religion and character of Mohammad.

The inherent problem people have is the fact that context can be manipulated in the exact same way their is no right or wrong context why do you think extremism exists in both Christainity and Islam that's why i laugh when people make the same tired arguement of ' you don't understand or your not reading it in the right context'

It's futile because if it says 'kill so and so' then it means kill so and so.... it's like your told on the news that a bomb is being dropped on where you live but someone comes around and tells you don't panic it's out of context and nothings going to happen? Who are you going to believe your own eyes or someone else? Inherently it starts to become propaganda and brainwashing if you have to be told by someone else what things are without making the distinctions youself

Also there is little that he revealead that was new in wisdom although it's not a popularity contest it's like comparasions of Jesus revealing little compared to what Buddha already had before him and other prophets. It's as the time grows between each prophet the same inherent message is made but with bits and personal bias tacked on by each person making the message dealing with the world and society as it was in each one of their time to them.

Again my friend you have made an assumption of me i know full well that these where the norms of the times in both the old testament which is probably more violent than anything in the Qur'an and the Qur'an it's self.

But i get the feeling and i may be assuming myself that you think i'm all against Islam and trying like bible bashers to descredit it competely and paint Christainity as something wonderful well that's not the case i am not a fan of either religion just because of the sheer lunacy of following 2000 year old dead mens words and laws and applying them to 21st century life and the trouble both have caused the world and still do and your right according to the Gospel of Thomas Jesus did supposedly claim to come and bring fire and war.

only in name maybe it had sumthing to do with a moon god. other than that, islam is based a lot on both christianity and judaism.

Originally posted by GGS
Mohammad who encouraged and promoted death, war, rape and robbery and said it was A'ok i'm God's prophet and contary to what God supposedly told the other prophets i'm right. Then their's the sketchy business of him marrying a six year old and having sex with her when she was 9 and he was 54 and the unclear business of what exacatly he did with the goat and the dead woman
That is what u call ignorance.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I can't tell whether you are joking or not. Would you mind specifying?

Taken from some Christain website.


1. Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
2. In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah, he was a moon god.
3. The idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
4. The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
5. "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
6. There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
7. When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
8. Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
9. Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
10. Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism.

The same argument could be made about Christianity...unless of course you are looking at a Christian website

I don't think it's fair to say Mohammed had paganism beliefs based on what he called his monotheistic religion.

i dont think that is true. if anything, islam borrows from judaism and parts of christianity. as for allah being the moon god, i dun think thats very true. all the idols in kabah were destroyed to begin with. arabic and hebrew are sister languages and "eloih" in hebrew became "allah" in arabic, the muslims claiming that they worshipped the same god as those of abraham. as for the moon, that has more to do with the islamic importance on the lunar calender{like the christian and jewish among others, importance of the solar calendar} than the pagan moon symbol. see the reason is that if you look at muslim history and muhammad's preferences, he was SPECIFICALLY monotheistic and had a hate of worshipping idols and multiple gods. it is infact in the scriptures{forgot if it was a hadith or the quran} that no name to represent god shud be chosen which can be easily atributed to real life things and people.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Taken from some Christain website.


1. Moon worship has been practiced in Arabia since 2000 BC. The crescent moon is the most common symbol of this pagan moon worship as far back as 2000 BC.
2. In Mecca, there was a god named Hubal who was Lord of the Kabah, he was a moon god.
3. The idol of moon god Hubal was placed upon the roof of the Kaba about 400 years before Muhammad. This may in fact be the origin of why the crescent moon is on top of every minaret at the Kaba today and the central symbol of Islam atop of every mosque throughout the world:
4. The moon god was also referred to as "al-ilah". This is not a proper name of a single specific god, but a generic reference meaning "the god". Each local pagan Arab tribe would refer to their own local tribal pagan god as "al-ilah".
5. "al-ilah" was later shortened to Allah before Muhammad began promoting his new religion in 610 AD.
6. There is evidence that Hubal was referred to as "Allah".
7. When Muhammad came along, he dropped all references to the name "Hubal" but retained the generic "Allah".
8. Muhammad retained almost all the pagan rituals of the Arabs at the Kaba and redefined them in monotheistic terms.
9. Regardless of the specifics of the facts, it is clear that Islam is derived from paganism that once worshiped a moon-god.
10. Although Islam is today a monotheist religion, its roots are in paganism. This only shows ignorance of how language evolves. Consider the use of the word "Hades" in the New Testament. It was not a referral to the classical meaning of the word, but rather a reference to the Hebrew Sheol. It is simply the way language works.

Originally posted by Nellinator
This only shows ignorance of how language evolves. Consider the use of the word "Hades" in the New Testament. It was not a referral to the classical meaning of the word, but rather a reference to the Hebrew Sheol. It is simply the way language works.

Meaning the pit or common grave, not hell

But Islams roots IS in the pagan moon god cult FACT!
No language errors or whatever.

Any belief or religion that purposely wants you to hurt another is wrong thinking and should be avoided. Any belief or vision that teaches you to accept everyone as you would do yourself is one to admire.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Meaning the pit or common grave, not hell

But Islams roots IS in the pagan moon god cult FACT!
No language errors or whatever. No, actually it doesn't mean that at all. Especially, not the latter considering there is already word for an actual grave.

No, it isn't. And even if it were the evidence you presented doesn't show an inch of it.

islam's root is not in padanism but in the abrahamic relegions of the past with a little bit of arab customs n stuff.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
islam's root is not in padanism but in the abrahamic relegions of the past with a little bit of arab customs n stuff. I entirely agree. Considering how vehemently they consider themselves the legitimate successors of Abraham and the Koran's generally consistency with that (from my best understanding as I have not actually read the Koran).

^u shud read the quran and the hadith. they are intriguing books in themselves if read without any bias or prior notions of history or what the relegions is about by other people.

Quran is a bit of an unreadable collection of sayings.

^no it is not. get a proper translation and explanation and its quite easy to read really.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^u shud read the quran and the hadith. they are intriguing books in themselves if read without any bias or prior notions of history or what the relegions is about by other people. It's a goal of mine for the next 10 years. However, to be honest, I haven't even read the entire Bible yet. I think that's going first.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^no it is not. get a proper translation and explanation and its quite easy to read really.

I did, but it's quite vague.... the sayings and it's all over the place really.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
^

The crescent moon represents change and the five-pointed star represents the five pillars of Islam.

And did you expect that website to be unbiased and down-the-middle?

where are you getting this stuff from??????? what does "change" have to do with islam???? n u shud know that the moon has significance due to muslims following the lunar months and a lot of mosques dont even have the moon insignia. its more prevelant in pakistan/iran/iraq than anywhere else{n sumwhat in istanbul}

Ali dispatched most of his opponents inside 12 rounds and often called the round he'd do it in....! Arguably the greatest heavyweight to have lived, where as the lord's ring record is unproven.

So its difficult to have any accurate comparison really.

Basic comparison - Jesus was a Jew and Muhammad a Muslim. I think we're beginning to see a problem already.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Basic comparison - Jesus was a Jew and Muhammad a Muslim. I think we're beginning to see a problem already.

Saying that Muhammad was a Muslim is like saying that Jesus was a Christian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Saying that Muhammad was a Muslim is like saying that Jesus was a Christian.

No.

Jesus wanted to revise Jewish laws, not bring a new religion while Muhammad wanted to introduce a whole new religion.
Christians made Judaism into new religion, not Jesus.

Therefore, no.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No.

Jesus wanted to revise Jewish laws, not bring a new religion while Muhammad wanted to introduce a whole new religion.
Christians made Judaism into new religion, not Jesus.

Therefore, no.

Not according to the bible.

Nope. How did Jesus say it? He came to fulfill the law, not undo it. I think Jesus was taking Judaism to the next stage as prophesied in Isaiah. Point is, Jews believe the Messiah is coming, Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah.
And then Judaism has as many variations as the Christian faith.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Basic comparison - Jesus was a Jew and Muhammad a Muslim. I think we're beginning to see a problem already.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Saying that Muhammad was a Muslim is like saying that Jesus was a Christian.

Bitchiness' point is still valid. Muhammad's earlier belief was even farther from Jesus' set of beliefs then Muhammad's Muslim belief (whether you count Jesus as Jew or Christian). Muhammad was polytheistic at first, remember?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No.

Jesus wanted to revise Jewish laws, not bring a new religion while Muhammad wanted to introduce a whole new religion.
Christians made Judaism into new religion, not Jesus.

Therefore, no.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not according to the bible.

Why not according to the Bible?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Bitchiness' point is still valid. Muhammad's earlier belief was even farther from Jesus' set of beliefs then Muhammad's Muslim belief (whether you count Jesus as Jew or Christian). Muhammad was polytheistic at first, remember?





Why not according to the Bible?

Jesus started his own church and rebelled against the religious Jewish authorities.

Yes. But it still becomes a problem when comparing Jesus with Muhammad in much technical detail, because Jesus didn't start a Muslim church. If anything, Jesus started a new denomination of Judaism.

Jesus and Muhammad were both monotheistic. Both believed in spreading their doctrines to the entire world, not just one civilization. Both had significant similarities in doctrine.

The nature of their religions after their deaths were significantly different. Their behavior throughout their lives were vastly different. It poses a problem to compare Christian/Judaic historical figures with Islamic historical figures.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus started his own church and rebelled against the religious Jewish authorities.

Jesus never started his own church.

And he only rebelled to the Jewish authorities to the extent that he didn't follow their dogmatic views on how religion should be practised in their views. He was controversial.

Originally posted by queeq
Jesus never started his own church.

And he only rebelled to the Jewish authorities to the extent that he didn't follow their dogmatic views on how religion should be practised in their views. He was controversial.

So, what was that talk Jesus had with Peter calling him a rock that would be the foundation of his church?

I'm glad you agree that Jesus rebelled against Jewish authorities. I never said to what degree, or if it was justified.

Church just means community of believers, he didn't mean an exact institute with worldy powers.
The church was more or less founded by St. Paul.

Originally posted by queeq
Church just means community of believers, he didn't mean an exact institute with worldy powers.
The church was more or less founded by St. Paul.

Well, you might be right, but how do you know what Jesus intended?

Because He said quiet clearly what He came to do.

Originally posted by queeq
Because He said quiet clearly what He came to do.

All you know is what the church said he said. There are no original manuscripts of what Jesus said.

To us Christians Jesus is the savior. To other religions Jesus was a teacher of peace, Jesus, himself said he was a bringer of peace, so which is it? I am getting confused.

All of the above.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you know is what the church said he said. There are no original manuscripts of what Jesus said.

No, we sorta know what he said from eye witness reports. They were later assembled into what we now know as the New Testament.

Originally posted by queeq
All of the above.



No, we sorta know what he said from eye witness reports. They were later assembled into what we now know as the New Testament.

Actually, if my understanding is correct, most, if not all of the New Testament's documentations was written at least 100 years after Jesus' death. Before that they were passed down via oral tradition.

Originally posted by queeq
All of the above.

No, we sorta know what he said from eye witness reports. They were later assembled into what we now know as the New Testament.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Actually, if my understanding is correct, most, if not all of the New Testament's documentations was written at least 100 years after Jesus' death. Before that they were passed down via oral tradition.

Queeq, could you imagine if we today did not have any news papers, TV or Internet, and someone where to right down what they heard about something that happened 100 years ago? Even with news papers, TV and Internet we are inundated with conspiracy theories about things that happened just 7 years ago. It is human nature to make things up, hero worship, and conspiracy theorize things to death.

True. And we can't even trust today's media can we? Then again, if media are accessible to everyone, lies are also easily detected. It was the same when these books were written. If there were complete baloney, a lot of people would have attacked it severely on its facts. But they didn't. The early Christian had a pretty good name, except with the ones that persecuted and killed them.


Originally posted by Kram3r
Actually, if my understanding is correct, most, if not all of the New Testament's documentations was written at least 100 years after Jesus' death. Before that they were passed down via oral tradition.

No, that is incorrect. Only the book of John and Revelation is dated to about 100 years after Jesus' death. The Book of Mark is roughly dated at about 60 AD, some 30 years after Jesus' death, and many eyewitnesses were still alive then. Most of the books were then written between 60 and 100 AD.

Not instant recording no, but no documents from the time are. Plus, there are thousands of copies known from that period so we know it wasn't altered too much. Comparing to many contempory and older non-bilblical documents, it rates as pretty reliable.

But then, it's easy to debunk it by saying people didn't remember too well after 30 years. It just depends on what you are willing to accept as reliable or not. And what criteria your using in that assesment.

Originally posted by queeq
True. And we can't even trust today's media can we? Then again, if media are accessible to everyone, lies are also easily detected. It was the same when these books were written. If there were complete baloney, a lot of people would have attacked it severely on its facts. But they didn't. The early Christian had a pretty good name, except with the ones that persecuted and killed them...

But that would leave it up to popular opinion, and we know how accurate that can be.

Well, at least it contains some facts that CAN be checked and they prove pretty accurate.

And no, we don't leave it up to popular opinion, because that would be dumb. Look what president the US got due to popular vote. Maybe not the first time, but worse: they re-elected him.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, at least it contains some facts that CAN be checked and they prove pretty accurate.

And no, we don't leave it up to popular opinion, because that would be dumb. Look what president the US got due to popular vote. Maybe not the first time, but worse: they re-elected him.

You kind of proved my point.

No I didn't. There's no such thing as democracy in science.

Originally posted by queeq
No I didn't. There's no such thing as democracy in science.

In a perfect world there is no such thing as democracy in science, but we don't live in that world.

Yes we do.