• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is it that Muslims never learn about Muhammed.

Yasureoktoo said:
I never said that,
Why are you just making sh-t up.

The Qur'an is actually a nightmare to read, and few Muslims even know the correct way to read it, to understand what can be understood in it.
Click to expand...

That's true of Christians too. So what's your point?
 
Irredentist said:
Absolutely! What I am attempting to do here is to reconstruct a historical Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the man, or at least as close as possible given the documentation we have. The gospels do possess some valid historical elements. The trick is to figure out which ones.
Click to expand...

Why are you doing it here, this is about Islam, not Christianity
 
Yasureoktoo said:
Actually not, I will use Islamic text to validate anything I post, and not rely on 2nd hand info.

However Al Bagdadi, the recently killed leader was a PHD in Islamic studies, along with a few other degrees.
It is safe to say he knew what the religion was about.
Click to expand...

So Bagdadi and Muhammad are likely now reunited in hell.
 
Yasureoktoo said:
The Jewish OT. says to kill homosexuals.

What religion follows that today.
Click to expand...

Who says Christians shouldn't be doing it? Certainly not Jesus:


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17-19

Now I am sure you can come up with some clever and imaginative way to try to dismiss that quote from the NT. But Muslims can be just as clever and imaginative with their interpretations of their scripture too, I assure you. But you won't get them there through insults and attempts at humiliation.
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
Is it true that he was a warlord that married 7 year olds? I really dont know I just hear people arguing about it in chat rooms.
Click to expand...

He actually married a 6 year old, but didn't bang her until she was 9... Hell of a guy.
 
Irredentist said:
Absolutely! What I am attempting to do here is to reconstruct a historical Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the man, or at least as close as possible given the documentation we have. The gospels do possess some valid historical elements. The trick is to figure out which ones.
Click to expand...

If Jesus' actual, original teaching was no divorce, ever, it didn't make the millennial cut. Thank God!:mrgreen:Actually, I have been told that the problem Jesus was addressing was that divorce under Jewish law was being used in an arbitrary manner so a man could divorce his wife for any reason, no matter how trivial, and that Jesus was reacting to this abuse of the law.
 
marke said:
So Bagdadi and Muhammad are likely now reunited in hell.
Click to expand...

That is controversial.
What can throw you in hell in one religion, can put you in heaven in another.
 
ataraxia said:
So Mary was pregnant at 13. Is that THAT much better?
Click to expand...

Probably, People usually got married when they became sexually mature,
Generally young girls married young boys.

It takes a special kind of person to marry a 6 year old girl when they are 50.
 
Yasureoktoo said:
Probably, People usually got married when they became sexually mature,
Generally young girls married young boys.

It takes a special kind of person to marry a 6 year old girl when they are 50.
Click to expand...

Well apparently it was GOD himself who got Mary pregnant, right? How old is God?
 
ataraxia said:
Who says Christians shouldn't be doing it? Certainly not Jesus:


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:17-19

Now I am sure you can come up with some clever and imaginative way to try to dismiss that quote from the NT. But Muslims can be just as clever and imaginative with their interpretations of their scripture too, I assure you. But you won't get them there through insults and attempts at humiliation.
Click to expand...

I know you're not sure, it's only been explained by many people a few dozen times that I am aware of , but it still manages to find it's way into an Islamic thread all the time.
 
ataraxia said:
Well apparently it was GOD himself who got Mary pregnant, right? How old is God?
Click to expand...

That probably would have been AI, not tossing her against a wall for sexual gratification.
 
Yasureoktoo said:
That probably would have been AI, not tossing her against a wall for sexual gratification.
Click to expand...

Mary was just told she was pregnant. I don't remember reading about anyone asking her for her consent.

And who said the 9-year-old was tossed against a wall for sexual gratification?
 
Yasureoktoo said:
I know you're not sure, it's only been explained by many people a few dozen times that I am aware of , but it still manages to find it's way into an Islamic thread all the time.
Click to expand...

There are lots of excuses. I don't know which one you are thinking of. But repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more acceptable. I can read what the book says directly, just like you want the Muslims to stop listening to the excuses from their own clergy and actually read their holy book directly itself.

You're still not seeing your own hypocrisy?
 
ataraxia said:
Mary was just told she was pregnant. I don't remember reading about anyone asking her for her consent.

And who said the 9-year-old was tossed against a wall for sexual gratification?
Click to expand...

Actually she was a gift from Allah, and her sex was probably in the normal ways.... sometimes.
 
Yasureoktoo said:
Actually she was a gift from Allah, and her sex was probably in the normal ways.... sometimes.
Click to expand...

Yeah OK. So? Who said she did not give consent, but Mary did?
 
bearpoker said:
If Jesus' actual, original teaching was no divorce, ever, it didn't make the millennial cut. Thank God!:mrgreen:Actually, I have been told that the problem Jesus was addressing was that divorce under Jewish law was being used in an arbitrary manner so a man could divorce his wife for any reason, no matter how trivial, and that Jesus was reacting to this abuse of the law.
Click to expand...

The infidelity exception only appears in the Gospels of John and Matthew. I have already pointed out that Matthew uses the earlier Gospel of Mark as a source. John on the other hand was written the last out of all of the canonical gospels, bears the least resemblance to the other three, and is widely considered to be the least historically reliable. I therefore think the evidence is strong that Jesus never originally provided any exception to his proscription against divorce.
 
ataraxia said:
There are lots of excuses. I don't know which one you are thinking of. But repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more acceptable. I can read what the book says directly, just like you want the Muslims to stop listening to the excuses from their own clergy and actually read their holy book directly itself.

You're still not seeing your own hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy lies with you.
There are a couple controversial verses in Christianity that people try to judge in their own ways.

The difference is there is entire books, volumes of books about muhammed,
Rapes, murders, thievery, slave trading, and a slew of of others.
and there is no mistaking what he did, and Jesus did none of that.
 
Yasureoktoo said:
The hypocrisy lies with you.
There are a couple controversial verses in Christianity that people try to judge in their own ways.

The difference is there is entire books, volumes of books about muhammed,
Rapes, murders, thievery, slave trading, and a slew of of others.
and there is no mistaking what he did, and Jesus did none of that.
Click to expand...

Those Christian verses are as clear as day. It's only "controversial" because Christians try their best to whitewash it or brush it under the rug as best they can. Why? Because ethics don't come from holy books. The most recent values, opinions, and ethics come first, and only then get projected to the holy books after the fact. That's why religious people always tell you to make sure you "interpret" the scripture correctly- "proper exegesis", I believe, is the technical term for it in some circles.

Many Muslims would call your interpretation of their holy stuff "controversial" too. What, you're going to tell them you know their holy book better than they do?
 
ataraxia said:
Many Muslims would call your interpretation of their holy stuff "controversial" too. What, you're going to tell them you know their holy book better than they do?
Click to expand...


Here again, more of the same.

Why would I interpret any book, especially one that is written plainly.
As was posted earlier, but you seem to overlook.

interpretation is an excuse, used by the ignorant.

Manipulation is a closer definition.


BTW, The Norse Gods were also pretty nasty,
But this is about Islam, and why people don't read about Muhammed.
 
Last edited:
Yasureoktoo said:
Here again, more of the same.

Why would I interpret any book, especially one that is written plainly.
As was posted earlier, but you seem to overlook.

interpretation is an excuse, used by the ignorant.

Manipulation is a closer definition.
Click to expand...

This is what the Bible says plainly:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Corinthians 14:34-35

That seems as plain as day to me. So what manipulation would you use to explain that?
 
ataraxia said:
This is what the Bible says plainly:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Corinthians 14:34-35

That seems as plain as day to me. So what manipulation would you use to explain that?
Click to expand...

That is was Paul's personal opinion on the matter.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah OK. So? Who said she did not give consent, but Mary did?
Click to expand...

Abu Hurairah narrated that: The Prophet said: “ A matron should not be given in marriage until she is consulted, and a virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is sought, and her silence is her permission.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Volume 2, Book 6, Hadith 1107)

Sounds like something written by insecure men, like all religions.
 
ataraxia said:
This is what the Bible says plainly:

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Corinthians 14:34-35

That seems as plain as day to me. So what manipulation would you use to explain that?
Click to expand...

So why are you telling me this in a thread about how Muslims do not read about Muhammed.

They cannot in Islam either, in fact, they cannot even be in the same room.
Seems like one evolved, one did not.
 
bearpoker said:
That is was Paul's personal opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

So now Paul’s letters are not part of the New Testament anymore either?

So why should we pay attention to the 10 Commandments in the Old Testament?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom