Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Muhammad as the anti-christ http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519763320 Message started by freediver on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am

Title: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am

This is an interesting idea from Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:

Debating Hitler's genocide can land you in gaol in many western countries. That and the fact that very few people, and certainly no powerful vested interests, disagree that Hitler was awful. On the other hand, I acknowledge there are quite a few - and very (disproportionately) vocal mob of Islamaphobes whose agenda is to make Muhammad out to be the anti-christ.

I have not actually seen anyone use this term to describe Muhammad before, but I think it is both fair and accurate, especially when it comes to the use of violence to promote your ideology. You would struggle to find a single leader, either religious or political, who is to the left of Jesus on this. There are not many that are to the right of Muhammad, and if your metric is their effectiveness in encouraging people to use violence to spread their ideology, there are none.

Muhammad and Jesus are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Quran is full of explicit instructions to use violence to impose Islam on people, and Muhammad was very effective at motivating people to follow those instructions.

Muhammad is literally the anti-christ. Just to be fair, I should also acknowledge that this makes Jesus the anti-Muhammad. You can have that one for free Gandalf. Give it to the people who coined the phrase Islamophobe and see if they run with it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:41am

Well, not the anti-Christ. That one's meant to come at the Second Coming, the End Days.

You know, the fullness of time.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Yadda on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:51am

Quote:

Muhammad is literally the anti-christ.

Just to be fair, I should also acknowledge that this makes Jesus the anti-Muhammad.

"On his death-bed Allah's Apostle....said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians....."
hadithsunnah/bukhari #004.056.660

Years ago, i came across an interesting table on the www somewhere, comparing varying aspects of the eschatology [end time studies] of both ISLAM and Christianity.

It depicted for ISLAM, the Christian Jesus as representing an ISLAMIC type 'anti-christ'.

And for Christianity, the ISLAMIC Mahdi [end time personage] as a representation in type, of the Christian 'anti-christ'.

And it presented [for ISLAM] the God of Jacob [and Abraham, and Isaac] as a SATAN 'type' to ISLAMIC theology.

And visa-versa.

It was a interesting table to peruse.

[i have an image of part of that table, but at 366 kb it is too large to attach]

TRY THESE [from my archive]

Will Islam Be Our Future?
A Study of Biblical and Islamic Eschatology ['end-time' beliefs]
Joel Richardson
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm

and...
Comparison of End Times Figures in Christianity and Islam, Part I
http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/compare.html
http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/index.html

and...
12 Astounding Parallels:
Islam’s Anticipated “Mahdi” and the Bible’s “Man of Lawlessness” or “Beast”
http://www.fbch.com/Notes/2006_07_16_Supplement.html [dead link]

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:38am

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

And indeed, the Jews were waiting for such a political leader.

Without a doubt, Moh was nicer and kinder than past Jewish leaders/prophets: Abraham, Moses, David.

FD doesn't want to talk about it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

And indeed, the Jews were waiting for such a political leader.

Without a doubt, Moh was nicer and kinder than past Jewish leaders/prophets: Abraham, Moses, David.

FD doesn't want to talk about it.

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:44pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

And indeed, the Jews were waiting for such a political leader.

Without a doubt, Moh was nicer and kinder than past Jewish leaders/prophets: Abraham, Moses, David.

FD doesn't want to talk about it.

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

No, Moses just burnt them to death for blasphemy.

Have you?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:46pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Dying for a cause, or living for one?

Questions questions.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

That's a lot of lies for one post Gandalf.

Muhammad was not "burdened" with a state. There was literally no state in Arabia at the time. He created it from scratch. No-one forced him to. Jesus would not have done that in the first place, and certainly not as ruthlessly and violently.

It was not under constant attack. It was constantly attacking. Muhammad got away with many years of robbing Meccan trade caravans and killing innocent traders before the Meccans took any action against him to stop the slaughter and theft in the name of Islam.

After he then reached a treaty with Mecca, he sought out a way to get out of it and conquer Mecca, which he subdued without real challenge. After Mecca, he conquered the Arabian peninsula entirely aggressively. In the century after he died, Muslims expanded his empire into the biggest there had ever been.

The Quran specifically states that fighting is only for self defence during the holy months. Outside of then, Muslims are specifically instructed to fight for the purpose of imposing Islam on people - even if, like Gandalf, they detest fighting. This message is repeated in the Quran, along with many, many verses calling on Muslims to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. Gandalf lies about the Quran to claim it says something completely different. He even quotes one of the verses instructing Muslims to impose Islam on people by the sword as evidence the Quran says that war may only be fought in self defence. It is literally opposite day when Gandalf reads from the Quran.

And now he also projects the cynicism of Muslims onto Jesus himself - that love thy enemy, turn the other cheek etc were not his actual message, but a strategic move to get his 'real message' out there. And the real message is something to do with Islam, right Gandalf? Jesus and Muhammad were entirely products of circumstance, and religion ought to flip flop from from peace and tolerance to rape and pillage as the opportunity arises...

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:06pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

blah blah blah - and thats a lot of ranting to avoid the most pertinent point: Muhammad (and his people) were attacked first. Amazing how many times you neglect to mention that.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:13pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Dying for a cause, or living for one?

Questions questions.

I would say that consciously choosing to be tortured and die is more spiritual. Muhammad might have lived for the caused, but he killed or ordered the deaths of people. That's not spiritual, Karnal.

Answers, answers.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:14pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

That didn't stop other so-called Jewish Messiah pretenders such as Bar Kokbar. That Jesus didn't want to sacrifice the lives of his disciples shows incredible compassion.

Muhammad had no such compunction; he said people out to fight and kill.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:16pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

blah blah blah - and thats a lot of ranting to avoid the most pertinent point: Muhammad (and his people) were attacked first. Amazing how many times you neglect to mention that.

So, in each and every case of warfare he was responding to a direct attack him or the Muslim community??? He never conducted pre-emptive warfare in order to eliminate a 'perceived' threat?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:22pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:14pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

Sure its compassionate - its also a smart choice for survival.

The key difference here, which I'm not sure why you don't want to acknowledge, is that Muhammad was in a position to fight and win - while Jesus was not. Ignoring all your lofty notions of spirituality and compassion - this alone is adequate in explaining the different approaches does it not? Why do you bother going on your moral high horse about it? I mean, assuming you don't buy into the whole destiny and "God instructed me to do it" stuff.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Bobby on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:25pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am:

This is an interesting idea from Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:

It's very strange as I saw a TV show once about Muhammad.

Apparently in his younger days he toured the Middle East preaching the gospel of Jesus &
that's why Jesus is mentioned so many times in the Koran.
He seems that Muhammad started out as a Christian.

( not only that - all the barbaric laws in the Koran were lifted straight out of the Old Testament from the Jews)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:22pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:14pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

Sure its compassionate - its also a smart choice for survival.

He didn't survive; he died on the cross.

The key difference here, which I'm not sure why you don't want to acknowledge, is that Muhammad was in a position to fight and win - while Jesus was not. Ignoring all your lofty notions of spirituality and compassion - this alone explains the different approaches does it not? I mean, assuming you don't buy into the whole destiny and "God instructed me to do it" stuff.

The point is that even if he were in such a position he should've never engaged in conflict and killing. When he was in Mecca and preaching his message peacefully he should've continued that message.
Even if the powers-at-be were after him (which appears very dubious) he should've made the choice to surrender himself and die, rather than galvanising the community to fight with him. Sure, Islam might not have spread, but people's lives would've been saved.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:33pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:16pm:

He never conducted pre-emptive warfare in order to eliminate a 'perceived' threat?

Not that I'm aware of. Some historians argue his northern campaign against the Byzantiums shortly before his death was a pre-emptive attack - however there are sources that claim that the Byzantiums attacked first. FD of course will point to the caravan raids - but I would argue that was a legitimate campaign in a war that was already started when Muhammad's followers were evicted from their homes (the incident that FD strangely never wants to mention).

Other than that, I believe every military action taken by Muhammad was either in response to a direct military attack against him or his alles - or a violation of a treaty.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:35pm

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am:

This is an interesting idea from Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:

You are mistaken. Muhammad didn't preach anything in his 'younger days'.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Bobby on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:37pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am:

This is an interesting idea from Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:

You are mistaken. Muhammad didn't preach anything in his 'younger days'.

I wish you could see the doco - it was a 4 part series from memory.
It was maybe 5 to 10 years ago?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:38pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:33pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:16pm:

He never conducted pre-emptive warfare in order to eliminate a 'perceived' threat?

Ok, assuming that you are correct, let's move on to another point.

Why didn't Muhammad give himself up and surrender to the enemy instead of trying to preserve his religion?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:45pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:38pm:

Why didn't Muhammad give himself up and surrender to the enemy instead of trying to preserve his religion?

Because that makes no sense at all.

Why would you even ask that? From both a religious and non-religious point of view it makes absolutely no sense.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:46pm

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am:

This is an interesting idea from Gandalf:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 1:36pm:

You are mistaken. Muhammad didn't preach anything in his 'younger days'.

I wish you could see the doco - it was a 4 part series from memory.
It was maybe 5 to 10 years ago?

And you've clearly forgotten what was said in it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:51pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:45pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:38pm:

Why didn't Muhammad give himself up and surrender to the enemy instead of trying to preserve his religion?

Because that makes no sense at all.

Why would you even ask that? From both a religious and non-religious point of view it makes absolutely no sense.

Being spiritual, Gandalf, is acting in accordance with what is NOT human nature. Do you think it's human nature for a person to consciously take steps which lead to his/her torture and death?

Preserving a state and community is political, not spiritual.

Spirituality is about an evolution from the animal to the human - which is complete divinity at the most extreme end. Acting like a homo sapien isn't spiritual. Acting against the natural inclinations of a homo sapien is spiritual because it's closer to God.

Muhammad never acted as an anti-animal.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Bobby on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:57pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:37pm:

I wish you could see the doco - it was a 4 part series from memory.
It was maybe 5 to 10 years ago?

And you've clearly forgotten what was said in it.

No I haven't.

How amazing is this:

in the times soon after Muhammad -

all 3 Abrahamic religions gathered at the same churches

the Muslims on Friday
the Jews on Saturday
the Christians on Sunday.

It was only later that they started to kill each other
and make their own holy places.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm

I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on the idea that sacrificing yourself per se is necessarily a spiritual act. Surely a spiritual act must have some meaning vis-a-vis bringing you closer to God. Now you might say handing himself in and sacrificing himself would be 'spiritual' because it would save lives - but I would say it would likely result in the killing of his entire community - not to mention the death of his message and religion. Particularly given the fact that the revelation was not complete, and continued right up until the rest of Muhammad's life. A muslim would doubtless say that its not very 'spiritual' to cut short the revelation of the Quran mid-way through, and finish off the muslim community before it ever really began. While I'm a bit scratchy on Christian history - I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't crucified mid-way through his message.

I also don't buy the rather simplistic notion that anything done of a temporal nature - such as preserving a state and community - is some antithesis to spirituality. True, its not exactly a 'spiritual' thing to do - but doing it doesn't necessarily make you a "non-spiritual" person. Its pretty silly to insist that the only people who can be spiritual must be completely removed from the day to day monotony of the temporal world.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:38am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

And indeed, the Jews were waiting for such a political leader.

Without a doubt, Moh was nicer and kinder than past Jewish leaders/prophets: Abraham, Moses, David.

FD doesn't want to talk about it.

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

Neither did Mohammed, Augie. He married her first. She was apparently accepting of his advances. His marriage was no different to the numerous other dynastic ones which occurred in Arabia and Europe and Asia at the time. Tsk, tsk, always remember what L.P.Hartley said. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:27pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Retelling myths as if they were facts, Augie? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Yadda on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:05pm

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

bobby,

You shouldn't believe everything that is presented to you, in a documentary, on TV.

TV documentary producers, are selling something.

In the same way that politicians are selling us something.

If we see a politician on TV, telling us things bobby, should we believe them, because it is on TV ?

:)

Romans 12:9
Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:49pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on the idea that sacrificing yourself per se is necessarily a spiritual act. Surely a spiritual act must have some meaning vis-a-vis bringing you closer to God. Now you might say handing himself in and sacrificing himself would be 'spiritual' because it would save lives - but I would say it would likely result in the killing of his entire community - not to mention the death of his message and religion. Particularly given the fact that the revelation was not complete, and continued right up until the rest of Muhammad's life. A muslim would doubtless say that its not very 'spiritual' to cut short the revelation of the Quran mid-way through, and finish off the muslim community before it ever really began. While I'm a bit scratchy on Christian history - I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't crucified mid-way through his message.

It wasn't the act of self-sacrifice that made him spiritual; it was the fact that he made the CHOICE to do so of his own volition. The revelation aspect has nothing to do with it. This is about moving away from the animal toward the anti-animal, shedding ourselves of animalistic instincts. Jesus achieved this more than Muhammad: for e.g. he didn't have a lover/partner - i.e. he never had sex, which is very animalistic; he didn't accumulate wealth or material possessions, which is also very animalistic, etc. Muhammad did neither of these things.

I also don't buy the rather simplistic notion that anything done of a temporal nature - such as preserving a state and community - is some antithesis to spirituality. True, its not exactly a 'spiritual' thing to do - but doing it doesn't necessarily make you a "non-spiritual" person. Its pretty silly to insist that the only people who can be spiritual must be completely removed from the day to day monotony of the temporal world.

Then, I would argue that you're not really a spiritual person then. True spiritual people are those who are able to devoid themselves of attachment of materialism, show compassion, etc. For e.g. I would a true Christian to sell all of his possessions and live in squalor in the slums of Rio. I would expect a Muslim to do the same, considering that Muhammad said that 'those who pile up wealth' will be sent to the Fire.

Of course, at the end of day, no person would do that, which is why Christianity evolved to include the Cosmic Christ - just believe in a set of propositions and you'll be saved. It makes the COST OF DISCIPLESHIP very easy.

Same with Islam: just believe in God and Muhammad and you're ok.

At the end of the day, religion can't be 'too hard' on its followers, otherwise it won't have any followers.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:50pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Retelling myths as if they were facts, Augie? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

So, you're saying that all the things that Jesus did cannot be adequately commended because he was a fictional character?

So, it's like a tight rope walker with a net under him: "Yeah, ok, but he's God...." ?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 5:45pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Retelling myths as if they were facts, Augie? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

So, you're saying that all the things that Jesus did cannot be adequately commended because he was a fictional character?

As I have indicated in the past, there is no way to verify if Christ existed or not or if he said or did any of the things that you and others claim about him. I am unsure why you find this difficult to understand, Augie. You're an intelligent person. Seems you're a committed Christian as well. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 5:45pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Retelling myths as if they were facts, Augie? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

So, you're saying that all the things that Jesus did cannot be adequately commended because he was a fictional character?

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:47pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

Perhaps because there is very little, if any, independent evidence to verify his existence? I like my religious leaders to be verifiable, thank'ee. I do not like to rely upon the religion's own claims about what they did or what they said. ::)

Quote:

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Of course it does. It's like having a pissing contest in cyberspace. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:49pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Of course it does. It's like having a pissing contest in cyberspace. ::)

Well, that's very convenient for you, isn't it? Any time a person tries to raise a comparison of any religious figure with Christ, you're rebuttal is: "Oh, but he's not real, you know.... Next!"

BTW, many historians agree that Christ was a real figure.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:54pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Dying for a cause, or living for one?

Questions questions.

Good answers.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:56pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Good answer too. Good to see you engaging in a discussion, FD.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:03pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Of course it does. It's like having a pissing contest in cyberspace. ::)

Well, that's very convenient for you, isn't it? Any time a person tries to raise a comparison of any religious figure with Christ, you're rebuttal is: "Oh, but he's not real, you know.... Next!"

You have a problem with the truth, why? ::)

Quote:

BTW, many historians agree that Christ was a real figure.

Many Christian historians agree that Christ was a real figure. Many non-Christian historians raise doubts about his existence. You need to read more widely, Augie. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Bobby on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:10pm

Yadda wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

I've looked on Youtube -
I wish I could find the doco but I can't.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Secret Wars on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:19pm

I can understand why Brian refuses to engage in any comparison between Big Mo and Jebus as religious representatives. Makes his job as an apologist so much easier.

He is really getting value for money from his framed doctorate of divinity from the internets.

He deserves it with that sort of rigorous examination. ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Another good answer. Religions offer different things. Yeheshua modelled self-sacrifice. The Buddha taught mindfulness. Moh showed how to unite and fight for your beliefs.

Take one, take all. Just as a doctor prescribes different medicine for different diseases, we should find the right spiritual treatment for our ailments.

Each prophet has a different cure. But first, diagnose your symptoms and say Ah.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Mr Hammer on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:42pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Why not just accept that we all carc it and turn to dust? That opens up a whole new world.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

So Jesus chose to preach peace and tolerance because he was afraid of death?

Quote:

blah blah blah - and thats a lot of ranting to avoid the most pertinent point: Muhammad (and his people) were attacked first. Amazing how many times you neglect to mention that.

Muhammad and his people robbed Meccan trade caravans and murdered Meccan traders for years prior to the Meccans attacking. That's basically how he acquired 'his people' - the spoils of war made him popular in Medina. I 'neglect to mention that' because it is another lie.

Quote:

So, in each and every case of warfare he was responding to a direct attack him or the Muslim community??? He never conducted pre-emptive warfare in order to eliminate a 'perceived' threat?

Muhammad was the agreesor in nearly every violent encounter. Arguing otherwise is a demonstration of the Islamic principle of hysterical over-reaction and victimhood mongering.

Quote:

Sure its compassionate - its also a smart choice for survival.

You realise Jesus got killed don't you Gandalf? Or are you talking about the Islamic version of Jesus?

Quote:

The key difference here, which I'm not sure why you don't want to acknowledge, is that Muhammad was in a position to fight and win - while Jesus was not. Ignoring all your lofty notions of spirituality and compassion - this alone is adequate in explaining the different approaches does it not?

It is only a key difference and adequate explanation if you assume other religious leaders are as cynical as Muhamamd and his followers, and that their primary agenda is always to rape and pillage, they just build an entirely fabricated ideology (that is the opposite of rape and pillage) as some kind of cunning plan. Otherwise it is just a pissweak excuse for Muhamamd's genocidal tendencies. Also it does not make sense to argue Jesus did what he did to stay alive when he walked open-eyed to his death.

Quote:

Other than that, I believe every military action taken by Muhammad was either in response to a direct military attack against him or his alles - or a violation of a treaty.

How about all the Meccan traders he robbed and killed? You have personally tried to justify this as revenge, not defence.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on the idea that sacrificing yourself per se is necessarily a spiritual act.

Jesus didn't just slit his wrists Gandalf. Was there some point to this?

Quote:

I also don't buy the rather simplistic notion that anything done of a temporal nature - such as preserving a state and community - is some antithesis to spirituality. True, its not exactly a 'spiritual' thing to do - but doing it doesn't necessarily make you a "non-spiritual" person. Its pretty silly to insist that the only people who can be spiritual must be completely removed from the day to day monotony of the temporal world.

Muhamamd achieved absolute power in his lifetime, with no immediate enemies on the horizon. Instead of doing some good with it, he actually ramped up the rape and pillage. The worst parts of the Quran are the bits he revealed at the end, when he used it to motivate his followers to slaughter innocent people en masse.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Quote:

Then, I would argue that you're not really a spiritual person then.

Abu once described Islam as a "practical religion". I think that is Islamic double speak for a political movement. Like Nazism.

Quote:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

Brian will avoid discussing his teachings at all costs, because it makes his Islamic apologism a bit too embarrassing. He even once argued that the teachings of a religious leader are irrelevant to how people interpret their teachings. There really is no limit to how stupid his posts will get to defend an indefensible position.

Quote:

Moh showed how to unite and fight for your beliefs.

Including that your belief should be imposed on people through the use of violence.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:57pm

Secret Wars wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:19pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. The politics of jealousy are on display, yet again. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

It isn't "rape" if the female consents, FD. Tsk, tsk, it is amazing how you don't understand what L.P.Hartley said when he stated, "the past is a different country, they do things differently there." The past was where different mores held. I don't hear you condemning the numerous European Christian dynastic marriages which occurred. I don't hear you condemning the numerous Indian dynastic (arranged) marriages which occur. I don't hear you condemning the numerous Chinese dynastic marriages which occur. Why? Why only attack one which occurred 1400 years ago, FD? Does it make you feel better? Of course it does, 'cause you're an Islamophobe. right? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Oh, and stop misquoting me. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:08pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:57pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:19pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. The politics of jealousy are on display, yet again. Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

What are people jealous of, Bwian? Your vanity or your deceitfulness? Or the vain stupidity that made you fork out $50 for an online 'certificate'?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:10pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Of course they do things differently there. Like raping 9 year old girls and calling it an eternal moral example for all mankind to follow. Slaughtering Jews. Destroying civilisation. Creating a religious empire on the back of sex slavery and violence.

That doesn't make it not rape.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:12pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

And yet - Muslims regard them as eternal if Mohammed did it in the 7th century. Shurely shome mishtake, Bwian.

So are they eternal or are they different, Bwian, them Mohammedan mores? You can't just keep jumping this way and that like a demented idiot without being caught out - once again - as being just that. Tut tut, Bwian, tut tut. And Hmmmm. Tsk tsk ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:13pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Produce evidence it was "rape", FD. I look forward to reading it. ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:15pm

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:12pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

And yet - Muslims regard them as eternal if Mohammed did it in the 7th century. Shurely shome mishtake, Bwian.

So are they eternal or are they different, Bwian? You can't just keep jumping this way and that like a demented idiot before you are caught out - once again - s being just that. Tut tut, Bwian, tut tut. And Hmmmm. Tsk tsk ::) ::)

It is FD who regards them as different. You should direct your questions to him, Soren. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:16pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Produce evidence it was "rape", FD. I look forward to reading it. ::) ::) ::)

He had sex with a 9 year old girl Brian.

He even later document his beating of this girl for leaving the house without his permission as part of his 'eternal moral example for all mankind to follow'.

Gandalf insists he beat her because he loved her.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:20pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Produce evidence it was "rape", FD. I look forward to reading it. ::) ::) ::)

Did she refuse his advances, FD? Do you have evidence that this was a case of rape? YES/NO

If you don't, then piss off. All you're doing is applying 21st century morality to the era of 700 CE.

As I have pointed out, you ignore the Christian dynastic marriages where the spouse was of a young age. You ignore the Hindu dynastic marriages, the Chinese dynastic marriages. Why? Are they too embarrassing for you to admit to? I wonder why? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:26pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

What a disgusting, disgraceful piece of gweggy you are, Bwian.
Karnal will be along in a minute, miam-miaming you. Hideous.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Bobby on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:36pm

Find an interesting chart here:

Jesus and Muhammad,
Islam and Christianity:
A Side-by-Side Comparison.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:04pm

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

What a disgusting, disgraceful piece of gweggy you are, Bwian.
Karnal will be along in a minute, miam-miaming you. Hideous.

Now that's offended.

Brian - miam miam.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:07pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Why not just accept that we all carc it and turn to dust? That opens up a whole new world.

That's one way. Stay curious, Homo.

Either that, or be offended. We all have this choice, no?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Yadda on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:03pm

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Find an interesting chart here:

Jesus and Muhammad,
Islam and Christianity:
A Side-by-Side Comparison.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx

Good find bobby.

SNIPPET....

Differences Between the Islamic and Christian-Based Worlds

Muslim Legacy Countries that Muslims want to escape from.

Christian Legacy Countries that Muslims want to escape to.

So true.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Bobby on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:09pm

Yadda wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Find an interesting chart here:

Jesus and Muhammad,
Islam and Christianity:
A Side-by-Side Comparison.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx

Thanks - I hope everyone reads that - it's great.
It shows that the muslims are satanic.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:37pm

the board liar wrote:

Quote:

Reply #45 - Today at 8:04pm
it is amazing how you don't understand what L.P.Hartley said when he stated, "the past is a different country, they do things differently there." The past was where different mores held

Reply #52 - Today at 8:20pm
All you're doing is applying 21st century morality to the era of 700 CE.

Well that's nice, as the imam said when he played with himself after he sat down to pee.

Here we have a poster who lies and 99.99% of the time refers to ancient deeds to excuse 21st century muslim terrorists.

A lying self righteous hypocrite.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:23am

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Produce evidence it was "rape", FD. I look forward to reading it. ::) ::) ::)

Gosh Brian, your apologism for Mohammad is going too far. He was a supposed prophet of God and he did this. Did Jesus do this, or Buddha?

Second, yes medieval kings didn’t marry what we would refer to now as underage but neither of them were 9 years old. On average they were 16 years old. There’s a huge difference between a 9 year old and 16 year old.

Third, the key point is that Muhammad is a the example of behaviour, so if he married a 9 year old then that is acceptable according to the Sunni tradition.

Gosh, Brian! I can’t believe some of the comments you’ve made!

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 12:11pm

Brian's Islamic apologism now compels him to support 50+ year old men having sex with their neighbour's 9 year old daughter.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 1:49pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Muhammad and his people robbed Meccan trade caravans and murdered Meccan traders for years prior to the Meccans attacking.

;D ;D

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Muhammad and his people robbed Meccan trade caravans and murdered Meccan traders for years prior to the Meccans attacking.

;D ;D

Gandalf?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:14pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:49pm:

It wasn't the act of self-sacrifice that made him spiritual; it was the fact that he made the CHOICE to do so of his own volition.

I could shoot myself in the head, by my own volition - does that make me 'spiritual'? I could even make some dubious claim about how it will save lives. Thats basically where you are at with your whole spiritual argument.

Obviously, spirituality, as it pertains to monotheistic religions, has to have some purpose vis bringing oneself closer to God. You can't just simply grow a beard, take your shoes off and remove yourself from all temporal aspects of life - and then allow yourself to be killed. Of course you may choose to exhibit some or all of those behaviours as part of your quest for spirituality - but those alone do not make you spiritual. And of course there are different paths you may take - some which may involve utilising aspects of the temporal world - not because you love the temporal world so much, but simply because its pretty hard to avoid, since we are actually living in the temporal world. In Muhammad's case, I don't think its fair to say all the earthly things he partook in - politics, marriage, warfare - were at the expense of his spiritual motivation and purpose, nor do I buy the absurd assumption (flaunted by both you and FD) that I must consider acts such as killing and warfare as "spiritual". They were a necessary part of the temporal burdens that he was saddled with.

Quote:

Thats a completely arbitrary and meaningless set of criteria. Spiritualism in the Islamic and Christian sense - is simply about reaching an inner peace with yourself to accept your uncompromising love and/or submission to God. Your efforts to dictate a set of hard and fast list of practical measures for how that must be achieved (no materialism, live in squalor etc) will always be doomed.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:21pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Muhammad and his people robbed Meccan trade caravans and murdered Meccan traders for years prior to the Meccans attacking.

;D ;D

Gandalf?

Muhammad and his followers were evicted from their homes, and had their properties confiscated while also an attempt was made on Muhammad's life. Muhammad had done nothing but peaceful activism up to this point. FD literally pretends this didn't happen, and continues the lie that the caravan attacks (which happened about a year after this eviction and failed assassination attempt) was the very first attack in the war between the muslims and the pagans.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:33pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:14pm:

That's a very simplistic example of my claim. Let me explain in further detail. Discarding all the non-sense about the Cosmic Christ and the Holy Spirit, let's focus on his social teachings: "The first will be last; the last will be first", "blessed are those who are hungry.... woe to those who are full..." These teachings preached a radical social order, threatening the 'powers-at-be', which was why he was later executed. Jesus thus encouraged that the temporal be in accordance with nature of the Spirit.

The way Jesus behaved was also in accordance with his social teachings: he never married (according to the mainstream interpretation); he never had sexual relations; he didn't accumulate wealth; he didn't accumulate political power; he didn't raise an army; he didn't own property. NOTHING. The way he lived his life was against any human expectation or rational behaviour (in the sense that humans are concerned with person survival or welfare).

There is a scene in the NT in which Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey with some of his followers waving palm branches, saying: "Here comes the King of the Jews..." This act would've been considered sedition in Ancient Rome, and Jesus knew it. The decision to enter Jerusalem was the moment he signed his own death warrant: the ultimate act of rebellion against the Roman Empire.

The torture, humiliation and death following his teachings isn't the same as your simplistic 'shoot myself in the head' - it's the totality of his actions as well as the fact that he sacrificed himself that is the key point of his teachings.

By contrast, Muhammad did neither of these things: he owned property; married; had sexual relations with women; raised an army; governed a community; and order the deaths of people. Now, from a historical point of view, what Muhammad did was no different from what any conquerer did, like Julius Caesar or Napoleon. The point is that Muhammad is a Prophet and is professing a spiritual creed. There is nothing spiritual about politics. Sure, he couldn't avoid it, which is why there is a distinction between Islam - the religion or spiritual components and Islamism - political Islam. There are no Christian principals of governance practised BY JESUS; by the Catholic church, yes, but not by Jesus himself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:14pm:

Obviously, spirituality, as it pertains to monotheistic religions, has to have some purpose vis bringing oneself closer to God. You can't just simply grow a beard, take your shoes off and remove yourself from all temporal aspects of life - and then allow yourself to be killed. Of course you may choose to exhibit some or all of those behaviours as part of your quest for spirituality - but those alone do not make you spiritual. And of course there are different paths you may take - some which may involve utilising aspects of the temporal world - not because you love the temporal world so much, but simply because its pretty hard to avoid, since we are actually living in the temporal world. In Muhammad's case, I don't think its fair to say all the earthly things he partook in - politics, marriage, warfare - were at the expense of his spiritual motivation and purpose, nor do I buy the absurd assumption (flaunted by both you and FD) that I must consider acts such as killing and warfare as "spiritual". They were a necessary part of the temporal burdens that he was saddled with.

That's the point I was making beforehand: religion has to be 'easy' - the cost of discipleship must be cheap, otherwise you won't have followers. Asking people to give up their money and possessions is the best way to not have a large following.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:14pm:

Not according to the Indian religions. According to the monotheistic religions, yes, which makes them perfectly suitable for modern times and in a materialistic world.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:33pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:21pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Muhammad and his people robbed Meccan trade caravans and murdered Meccan traders for years prior to the Meccans attacking.

;D ;D

Gandalf?

So, he did it for revenge?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:40pm

attribute whatever motivation you like Augy - my only point was that FD lied about who attacked first.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:47pm

islam is one of the beasts mentioned in the bible:

Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

muslims believe Ishmael was a prophet (nabi) and an ancestor of muhammad. muslims also believe he was associated with Mecca and the construction of the Kaaba'

Genesis 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Fits the muslim perfectly. Who is the enemy of all mankind? muslims are the world wide terrorist organizations.

Revelation 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

from the time of muhammad on muslims blasphemed against the God of the Christians and Jews. muuhammad put himself out as God when he tried to usurp the title of the Comforter (the holy Ghost / spirit of God), all muslims blaspheme in exactly the same way today 2018.

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

halal certification, the compulsory mark to buy and sell.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Beheading Christians is a muslim depravity still carried out with islamic relish today 2018

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

The fourth horseman whose name was death? What does islam represent? Nothing but death and destruction. One quarter of the people (1.5 billion muslims) follow the ideology of death (islam)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:40pm:

attribute whatever motivation you like Augy - my only point was that FD lied about who attacked first.

So, they drove him and the followers out of Mecca, and one year later, after being the leader of community in Medina, he then decides to take revenge on those who deported him???

So much for 'turning the other cheek'.

Jesus forgave his torturers and executioners as he was hanging from the cross. "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." That there, my friend, is spirituality.

Not some petty revenge over being deported.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Secret Wars on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:00pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:21pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Muhammad and his people robbed Meccan trade caravans and murdered Meccan traders for years prior to the Meccans attacking.

;D ;D

Gandalf?

Of course. :) I have not investigated if what you say is true, I suspect not, bloke was a warlord in a violent age. But, unwittingly or not, yourself, and especially Brian, in your partisan and biased attempts to exonerate your religion from any blame or culpability lead me, and probably others to be doubtful of any justifications you offer.

Brian in particular is for me, a figure of mirth, in the mental gymnastics he must engage in.

My main concern is being of the this century, and of this time, and of the tolerant west, on viewing lessons evident from Islam in similar countries and evident in the bollards in our streets, Islam is a toxic and unwelcome influence.

You and of course Brian will deny this, religion of peace innit, nuffin to do wiv Islam. None the less, despite the denials, the aggression will continue, security costs will continue and every now and then, your fellow cultists will get one thorough and kill and maim.

That's the issue. Not debates if Mo raped or just consensually rooted a nine year old, but that nobbers take Mos examples as life lessons to be emulated as an example from that most perfect man.

Islam is a toxic and aggressive ideology and political system but I fear, it may win.

The left and fellow softcocks are on the ascendency in the West but burdened with guilt about colonialism and being anti west whilst being petrified of offending fellow virtue signallers they have submitted to relativism and are enabling and arguing themselves and everyone else into a regressive dark age.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Yadda on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:10pm

Secret Wars wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:00pm:

Islam is a toxic and aggressive ideology and political system but I fear, it may win.

Secret Wars,

ISLAM may 'win', or overcome, people like yourself.

ISLAM will not overcome me, nor people like me.

Dictionary;
overcome = = succeed in dealing with (a problem). defeat.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:24pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:23am:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:10pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Produce evidence it was "rape", FD. I look forward to reading it. ::) ::) ::)

Gosh Brian, your apologism for Mohammad is going too far. He was a supposed prophet of God and he did this. Did Jesus do this, or Buddha?

Who is apologising for anything, Augie?

I am stating facts. FD appears to be stating bullshit. There is no evidence that rape took place. Dynastic/arranged marriages occurred, still do occur, today. When FD admits his mock horror is just that, mock horror, we perhaps can move forward. "The past is a different country, they did things differently there." Sums up my attitude. We hear nothing from FD about the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Persians. We nothing from FD about the Dark Age/Medieval Europeans, the Chinese, the Africans, the Native Americans, the Jews, etc. All practised and some still do, arranged and dynastic marriages. ::)

Quote:

Second, yes medieval kings didn’t marry what we would refer to now as underage but neither of them were 9 years old. On average they were 16 years old. There’s a huge difference between a 9 year old and 16 year old.

You do understand how averages are derived, don't you, Augie? It appears not. ::)

As for the ages of Europeans, they married as young as nine and as old as their eighties. It all depended on what was at stake for the dynasty. In India, marriages can occur as young as three. In China, ditto. In the Native Americans - the Aztecs and Incas, which are the best documented, marriages could be as young as five or six. Everybody once used to marry young. Some survived the experience. Some didn't. ::)

Quote:

Third, the key point is that Muhammad is a the example of behaviour, so if he married a 9 year old then that is acceptable according to the Sunni tradition.

Gosh, Brian! I can’t believe some of the comments you’ve made!

Yet you are silent when more outrageous comments are made about Africans/Muslims/Asians/etc. by Racists. Funny that, Augie, hey? ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:25pm

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Brian's Islamic apologism now compels him to support 50+ year old men having sex with their neighbour's 9 year old daughter.

Where is one word of "support" for that, FD? As usual, you tell porkie-pies to suit your attacks on Muslims. Tsk, tsk. What is the point, hey? You just hate Muslims. You're an Islamophobe. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:30pm

Secret Wars wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:00pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk. Nothing interest here. Just a load of tortured electrons.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm

@Brian Ross.

First of all, I do condemn the virulent beliefs of bigots on this forum. In fact, earlier today I officially declared Valkie to be racist and bigoted in the thread Spot the Aboriginal.

Second, can you provide evidence where a European medieval king, count or other has married a nine-year old???

Charlemagne’s wife was 17 when they married.

Edit: Justinian’s wife Theodora was 27 when she married Justinian in the 500s, 100 years earlier than Muhammad.

Constantine’s wife Fausta was 18 when she married in the 300s

Shall I go on?

The so called prophet of god is instructed by God to marry and consummate the marriage with a nine year old girl.

Very spiritual, innit?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 4:51pm

Still nothing, Brian.

Your google search has yielded nothing.

Still waiting...

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm:

British Monarchs:

Quote:

The youngest monarch to marry was David II, who married Joan, daughter of Edward II when he was 4 years, 134 days old in 1328.

The youngest female monarch at the time of her marriage was Mary II, who was 15 years, 188 days old when she married William III in 1677.

The youngest queen consort was Isabella of Valois, who married Richard II when she was 6 years, 358 days old in 1396.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchy_records#Youngest_2]Source[/url]

list of child brides

Quote:

Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father.[5] The marriage was annulled in 1453.[6]
Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.[7]
Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.[8]
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.[9] After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891, which increased age of consent for girls in India, married or unmarried, from 10 to 12.[10]
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.[11]
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10[12] in 2008.[13] Coverage of her self-presented application for divorce later that year led to the legal age of marriage in Yemen to be raised to 18.[14]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_brides]Source[/url]

Quote:

Henry The Young King, also called Henry Fitzhenry, (born February 28, 1155, London—died June 11, 1183, Martel, Quercy, France), second son of King Henry II of England by Eleanor of Aquitaine; he was regarded, after the death of his elder brother, William, in 1156, as his father’s successor in England, Normandy, and Anjou.

In 1158 Henry, only three years of age, was betrothed to Margaret, daughter of Louis VII of France and his second wife, on condition that Margaret’s dowry would be the Vexin, the border region between Normandy (then held by England) and France. Henry II took advantage of Pope Alexander III’s political difficulties to secure the Pope’s permission for the children to be married in 1160.

[url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-the-Young-King]Source[/url]
He was five years old.

Guess you didn't look all that hard, hey, Augie? ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:17pm

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Find an interesting chart here:

Jesus and Muhammad,
Islam and Christianity:
A Side-by-Side Comparison.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx

Bwian know all this too well but his mission is to lie and deceive about this stuff.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:24pm

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Find an interesting chart here:

Jesus and Muhammad,
Islam and Christianity:
A Side-by-Side Comparison.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx

Bwian know all this too well but his mission is to lie and deceive about this stuff.

"Deceive"? Where have I "deceived" anybody, Soren? Tsk, tsk, erecting strawmen arguments yet again, hey? Oh, dearie, dearie, me.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Bobby on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:23pm

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Find an interesting chart here:

Jesus and Muhammad,
Islam and Christianity:
A Side-by-Side Comparison.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx

Bwian know all this too well but his mission is to lie and deceive about this stuff.

Brian is forgiven but Gandalf is not forgiven
for he must have read it yet didn't comment.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:56pm

Quote:

Muhammad and his followers were evicted from their homes, and had their properties confiscated while also an attempt was made on Muhammad's life.

Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina. Gandalf likes to flip flop between this murder and theft being an act of self defence and and act of retribution for Muhammad's mistreatment in Mecca. Again, this is Islam indoctrinating in it's followers a culture of instinctive hysterical over-reaction and victimhood mongering. Gandalf even acknowledged the problem of the victimhoom mongering among Muslims himself once, then went right back to victimhood mongering on behalf of Muhammad. Either way, there is no credible way to pass off Muhammad's long career as a highway robber and mass murderer as self defence. I have tried many times in futility to get Gandalf to address this point. He runs away every single time.

Quote:

Muhammad had done nothing but peaceful activism up to this point. FD literally pretends this didn't happen, and continues the lie that the caravan attacks (which happened about a year after this eviction and failed assassination attempt) was the very first attack in the war between the muslims and the pagans.

For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

Quote:

So, he did it for revenge?
attribute whatever motivation you like Augy - my only point was that FD lied about who attacked first.

Oh look, Gandalf is running away again.

Quote:

So, they drove him and the followers out of Mecca, and one year later, after being the leader of community in Medina, he then decides to take revenge on those who deported him???

Would you believe that Muslims try to pass this off as self defence? Every step of the way Muhammad was brutally violent in a way that cannot rationally be passed of as self defence. Yet Muslims still try.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:25pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Brian's Islamic apologism now compels him to support 50+ year old men having sex with their neighbour's 9 year old daughter.

Where is one word of "support" for that, FD? As usual, you tell porkie-pies to suit your attacks on Muslims. Tsk, tsk. What is the point, hey? You just hate Muslims. You're an Islamophobe. ::) ::)

Would you like to offer an alternative interpretation Brian? Or have you suddenly realised you have no right or even ability to criticise other nations or religions?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:40pm:

attribute whatever motivation you like Augy - my only point was that FD lied about who attacked first.

This is typical of Gandalf - tell all sorts of lies to try to justify Muhammad's genocidal tendencies (a good example here being that Muhammad only slaughtered people in self defence). Then when his lies are exposed insist that his "only point" is something that he mentioned a few pages later.

I will make a prediction. Gandalf will offer all sorts of absurd excuses for Muhammad's murdering ways. Some may make him look like a Nazi. If you explain this patiently enough he will eventually backpedal and insist he never said it. Some will merely make him look like a slippery Muslim, or confused. Eventually he will settle on whichever gets him mocked the least - probably inventing an alternative but plausible sounding narrative that has no historical basis and where none of the attrocities actually happened. Then he will insist that that was his only real argument and the rest were merely academic exercises about how it would have been justified if it had in fact happened.

We've seen it all before. He's more predictable than Brian.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:32pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm:

British Monarchs:

Quote:

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchy_records#Youngest_2]Source[/url]

list of child brides

[quote]Margaret Beaufort, (age approximately 7) was married to John de la Pole (age 7) in 1450 by the arrangement John's father.[5] The marriage was annulled in 1453.[6]
Joan of France, Duchess of Berry, betrothed in a wedding contract at age 8 days old, she was officially married at age 12 in 1476.[7]
Anne de Mowbray, 8th Countess of Norfolk (age 6) was married to Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (age 4) in 1477. She died at age 10 and he, as one of the Princes in the Tower is believed to have been murdered at age 10.[8]
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.[9] After a lengthy court battle, the marriage was dissolved by an order from Queen Victoria and the publicity helped influence the passage of the Age of Consent Act, 1891, which increased age of consent for girls in India, married or unmarried, from 10 to 12.[10]
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.[11]
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10[12] in 2008.[13] Coverage of her self-presented application for divorce later that year led to the legal age of marriage in Yemen to be raised to 18.[14]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_brides]Source[/url]

Quote:

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:43pm

Cleopatra was married to her 6 year old brother. Does that count?

Miam miam.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:43pm:

Cleopatra was married to her 6 year old brother. Does that count?

Miam miam.

And who exactly is trying to introduce laws and customs based on her example, you idiotic Paki arse clown?

Do explain if you can speak with a gobful of miam-miam.

.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:56pm

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:43pm:

Cleopatra was married to her 6 year old brother. Does that count?

Miam miam.

And who exactly is trying to introduce laws and customs based on her example, you idiotic Paki arse clown?

Do explain if you can speak with a gobful of miam-miam.

That's a hard one, old boy. Who's trying to lower the age of consent to 6?

Please excuse me, I'm a bit distracted. I'm putting you down for your 2am insemination. Does that work for you?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:54pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm:

British Monarchs:

Quote:

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_brides]Source[/url]

[quote]Henry The Young King, also called Henry Fitzhenry, (born February 28, 1155, London—died June 11, 1183, Martel, Quercy, France), second son of King Henry II of England by Eleanor of Aquitaine; he was regarded, after the death of his elder brother, William, in 1156, as his father’s successor in England, Normandy, and Anjou.

In 1158 Henry, only three years of age, was betrothed to Margaret, daughter of Louis VII of France and his second wife, on condition that Margaret’s dowry would be the Vexin, the border region between Normandy (then held by England) and France. Henry II took advantage of Pope Alexander III’s political difficulties to secure the Pope’s permission for the children to be married in 1160.

[url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-the-Young-King]Source[/url]
He was five years old.

Guess you didn't look all that hard, hey, Augie? ::)

[/quote]

Wow! Are you serious? In each of those cases the groom was the same age as the bride. Louis was 14 and she was 12.

Your apologist is bordering on delusion. [/quote]

Really?

Richard II was 39 when he married Isabella of Valois who was 6 years old.
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan when he was 32.
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10.

Guess your maths isn't all that good, hey, Augie? ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:58pm

Who's on the night shift, Brian? The old boy's down for his 2am protein.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:00pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Who's on the night shift, Brian? The old boy's down for his 2am protein.

Not me, mate. I wouldn't piss on him, let alone inject him with anything... ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:01pm

Muslims frequently use Muhammad's example to justify opposing a reasonable age of consent. In other words, little girls get raped because of Muhammad.

We even have ISIS using sex slavery as a tool to build an Islamic state. Just like Muhammad.

Queue the apologists.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:08pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm:

British Monarchs:

Quote:

[url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-the-Young-King]Source[/url]
He was five years old.

Guess you didn't look all that hard, hey, Augie? ::)

Wow! Are you serious? In each of those cases the groom was the same age as the bride. Louis was 14 and she was 12.

Your apologist is bordering on delusion. [/quote]

Really?

Richard II was 39 when he married Isabella of Valois who was 6 years old.
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan when he was 32.
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10.

Guess your maths isn't all that good, hey, Augie? ::)[/quote]

So I read the article and Richard II was 26 (he died when he was 33; got your maths wrong). He was ‘willing to wait’ for her. So presumably he didn’t consummate the marriage until later.

Regarding the other 2, they’re not Christian but Hindu. And yes, that’s unacceptable too.

So, all you’ve got isn’t one king who married a 7year old with the understanding the he would wait.

Now you’re clutching at straws.

Edit: Richard II might not have even had sex with her. No comparison.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:10pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:43pm:

Cleopatra was married to her 6 year old brother. Does that count?

Miam miam.

Not Christian, Karnal.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:10pm

Apparently Muhammad did the right thing by waiting until his child bride was 9. Gandalf can use his special Islamic maths to turn that into a 15. She was obviously lying about her age, your honour.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:29pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 5:15pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 3:56pm:

British Monarchs:

Quote:

[url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Henry-the-Young-King]Source[/url]
He was five years old.

Guess you didn't look all that hard, hey, Augie? ::)

Wow! Are you serious? In each of those cases the groom was the same age as the bride. Louis was 14 and she was 12.

Your apologist is bordering on delusion.

Really?

Richard II was 39 when he married Isabella of Valois who was 6 years old.
Rukhmabai was married in India to her husband when she was 11 and he was 19.
Janakiammal Iyengar was married at the age of 10 years to the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan when he was 32.
Nujood Ali, an arranged marriage by her father to a 30-year-old man at age 10.

Guess your maths isn't all that good, hey, Augie? ::)[/quote]

So I read the article and Richard II was 26 (he died when he was 33; got your maths wrong). He was ‘willing to wait’ for her. So presumably he didn’t consummate the marriage until later.
[/quote]

Correct. My apologies, Augie. I am working on a difficult computer problem at the same time as talking to you.

Quote:

Regarding the other 2, they’re not Christian but Hindu. And yes, that’s unacceptable too.

So, all you’ve got isn’t one king who married a 7year old with the understanding the he would wait.

Now you’re clutching at straws.

Edit: Richard II might not have even had sex with her. No comparison.

Does it matter? He married her when she was young, quite a bit younger than himself.

As for clutching at straws, you asked for examples of "dynastic or arranged marriages". I provided one from the UK, several from the sub-continent. I believe that is sufficient.

They occurred but all we hear from FD is "Mohammad did this," "Mohammad did that." Why? Because he is an Islamophobe. As I keep pointing out, they did things differently then. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm

@Brian Ross.

The issue here is that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old girl. If he married her and then waited 10 years, that I would be able to swallow. But he essentially raped her.

Richard II most likely didn’t have sex with her. This is key issue here.

Second, the biggest point is that he was a so called prophet of god. There is no way in hell that god would command a person to marry let alone have sex with a nine year old.
—-
So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:39pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:40pm:

attribute whatever motivation you like Augy - my only point was that FD lied about who attacked first.

Gandalf, please respond to this post.

Hate to break it to you: you made a grave mistake, my friend, in choosing to worship Muhammad over Jesus. I suspect you’ll come to regret your decision later on in life.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:56pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm:

So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 11:47pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:56pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm:

As I keep pointing out, "the past is a different country, they did things differently there." Mohammed was in Mecca, not modern Australia. Different places, times have different ideas about such matters. You cannot and should not apply 21st century morality to the 7th century C.E. No proper historian would.

As I keep pointing out, he was deemed a prophet of god and is considered an exemplar of human behaviour. I apply a higher standard to him because of his self-declared prophet status.

Quote:

So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

No, it is what the Church(es) tell you, Augie. There is Mary Magdalen - a "lady of negotiable virtue" who it is alluded had a relationship with Christ. Do not believe what you have been told is "fact" when there is no way of verifying it. It is IMHO, myth. ::)

That is what the doctrine teaches. That is what the Christian faith is based on.

Even if he had a partner or wife in Mary Magdalene, this makes him less extraordinary than he is portrayed but hardly is it unacceptable: he was in a monogamous relationship. Much better than Muhammad.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:09am

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society. When you understand this point, you might understand the fact that Muhammad's actions were done with the welfare of his people in mind. The fact is, when his people were evicted from their homes - from a city and society which was really the only place that resembled a commercial centre in the entire peninsula - a state of war had been established. The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina. Caravan raids were not merely a legitimate prosecution of an existing war that was not started by the muslims - it was actually a means of survival for a group that had almost no possessions, and had no experience or skills carving a life on a farm.

These are the things that Muhammad had to take into consideration when taking the action that he did. Things that frankly Jesus didn't have to worry about.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:15am

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:56pm:

Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina.

Quote:

For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

Good point FD. Now if you wouldn't mind just furnishing me with some figures (with evidence preferably) for the pre and post first caravan raid muslim population. Just a ballpark figure will do.

thanks.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:25pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:56pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm:

So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

Muslims are still using rape and institutionalised sex slavery to build an Islamic state in the present. They do this because they believe that the example set by Muhammad and the nasty things he wrote in the Quran are eternal examples for man to follow. I am yet to hear the same thing about King Richard. They are still using Muhammad's example to oppose a reasonable age of consent. I am yet to hear the same thing about King Richard. Little girls are still getting raped today because of Muhammad, not because of King Richard, and all Brian can do is offer idiotic excuses.

I don't see how "alluding" to the existence of someone who might be a whore has the same implications either. Jesus also touched lepers and consorted with all sorts of nasty people.

If you could convince Muslims that Muhammad and the Quran belong in the past, you might have a point. Alas, you cannot do this and you do not have a point. All you have to offer us is rather disturbing support for the rape of little children.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:45pm

Quote:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society.

Neither was Muhammad, until he decided to use rape and pillage to build a state from scratch - a state that institutionalised rape and pillage for the benefit of the state. In order to build this state to impose his religion on people, Muhammad chose to sacrifice everything that was good about his religion and turn it into a tool of evil for the benefit of his state.

Quote:

When you understand this point, you might understand the fact that Muhammad's actions were done with the welfare of his people in mind.

We do not fail to understand it. We criticse it as morally vacuous and self serving.

Quote:

The fact is, when his people were evicted from their homes - from a city and society which was really the only place that resembled a commercial centre in the entire peninsula - a state of war had been established.

The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina.

Caravan raids were not merely a legitimate prosecution of an existing war that was not started by the muslims - it was actually a means of survival for a group that had almost no possessions, and had no experience or skills carving a life on a farm.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:09am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

Jesus didn’t lead a state because he chose not to. He could’ve migrated to another nation and establish his Christian state; he had ample opportunity to do so. The fact is that Jesus wasn’t willing to subject his followers to such a project because he had no desire to be a temporal leader. Hence, why Jesus kingdom is ‘not if this earth’.

Muhammad could’ve made the same choice as Jesus: rather than migrate to medina, he could’ve offered himself to the Meccan powers at be and give his life like Jesus did. Instead he was too selfish to do so.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by issuevoter on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:37pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:09am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

Oh, here we go. Another religious ratbag joins the ranks of Gandalf, Light Boy, Bobby, Scoot, Ross, Taverner, JiSi, Capisonora, et al.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:47pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 11:47pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:56pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:37pm:

Why ask me, then? I do not consider him as a representative of any Sky Daddy, Augie. I consider him a man who foundered a religion. Ask a Muslim if you want the opinion of a Muslim. Tsk, tsk.

Quote:

[quote]
So back to you the issue: Jesus never had sex with any one nor was he in a relationship. This makes him a better person than Muhammad. Jesus was superior in every way.

That is a fact.

That is what the doctrine teaches. That is what the Christian faith is based on.

Even if he had a partner or wife in Mary Magdalene, this makes him less extraordinary than he is portrayed but hardly is it unacceptable: he was in a monogamous relationship. Much better than Muhammad.
[/quote]

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 2:50pm

issuevoter wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:37pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:09am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 2:52pm:

Oh, here we go. Another religious ratbag joins the ranks of Gandalf, Light Boy, Bobby, Scoot, Ross, Taverner, JiSi, Capisonora, et al.

Excuse me?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

Brian is it possible to conduct a reasoned analysis of the very real, earthly consequences of people's faith-based beliefs? Or is that only possible if you have the right and ability to criticise other religions?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

You have thus failed to show you have an understanding of Islam, Freediver, therefore I do not think you have the right or the ability to criticise it. When you realise just how ignorant you are, we might be able to have a discussion. Until then, all you're doing is showing your Islamophobia. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:43pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

So neither you nor I have the right or ability to criticise Islam?

Have you ever met anyone who does?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 2:16pm

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

So neither you nor I have the right or ability to criticise Islam?

Have you ever met anyone who does?

Yes. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 6:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

So neither you nor I have the right or ability to criticise Islam?

Have you ever met anyone who does?

Yes. ::)

Was that exciting for you? Or scary?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:28pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

You are complete idiot, Bwian.

Do you fully understand mass murderers? Yet you, like everyone else, criticise them.

Rapists? Do you understand rapists? Are you a rapist? Murderer? Pedo? Nazi?

No. You are an idiot. Idiocy is where you are fully at home, Bwian.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:29pm

It certainly gave FD a thrill to put up that Moh cartoon.

He took it down, of course. After all, FD has the lives of all his members to consider.

Still, for a couple of days, FD really lived.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm

Well, Mohammed was a pretty evil man by any account. He would be locked up or executed now if he did now what he did then.

Jesus would get the Nobel Peace Prize. That's the difference - a war criminal and a peace maker.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:44pm

Frank wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Ah yes - like Kissenger, no?

Kill them.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:49pm

Frank wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:28pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Still behaving like a little kiddy, Soren? Tsk, tsk, back to the little kiddies' playground for you. When you grow up up, well I might bother to notice you.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 7:20pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:44pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Ah yes - like Kissenger, no?

Kill them.

No, not like Kissinger, you stupid arse-sucking pervert. Nobody gets killed for not accepting Kissinger as the final prophet, you contemptible lowlife. Go and suck arse, you Paki idiot. They will give you ten rupee.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 11:08am

Frank wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 7:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:44pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Ah yes - like Kissenger, no?

Kill them.

you stupid arse-sucking pervert... you contemptible lowlife. Go and suck arse, you Paki idiot.

I'd say there's a Nobel Peace Prize for you, dear boy.

You?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 2:08pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

So neither you nor I have the right or ability to criticise Islam?

Have you ever met anyone who does?

Yes. ::)

Were they real, or a figment of your imagination, like those Christian terrorists who 'often' cite the book of Luke to justify terrorism?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 6:20pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 11:08am:

Frank wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 7:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:44pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Ah yes - like Kissenger, no?

Kill them.

you stupid arse-sucking pervert. Nobody gets killed for not accepting Kissinger as the final prophet, you contemptible lowlife. Go and suck arse, you Paki idiot.

I'd say there's a Nobel Peace Prize for you, dear boy.

You?

You are an idiot. You delete the pertinent point and then you do the perverted lowlife act.

Mohammed WAS pretty evil by any measure. The anti Christ in the literal sense - and otherwise. His whole point WAS to be anti Christ. And he was. His followers are.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 9:17pm

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 2:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 1:41pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:12am:

Quote:

If you choose to rely on faith, rather than reason, why are we discussing this at all, Augie? You don't need affirmation from me, afterall you have faith, now don't you? Tsk, tsk.

So neither you nor I have the right or ability to criticise Islam?

Have you ever met anyone who does?

Yes. ::)

Were they real, or a figment of your imagination, like those Christian terrorists who 'often' cite the book of Luke to justify terrorism?

More questions with question, hey? Tsk tsk, FD. Oh, dearie, dearie, me. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 7^th, 2018 at 10:24am

Frank wrote on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 6^th, 2018 at 11:08am:

Frank wrote on Mar 5^th, 2018 at 7:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:44pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 4^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

Ah yes - like Kissenger, no?

Kill them.

you stupid arse-sucking pervert. Nobody gets killed for not accepting Kissinger as the final prophet, you contemptible lowlife. Go and suck arse, you Paki idiot.

I'd say there's a Nobel Peace Prize for you, dear boy.

You?

idiot... perverted lowlife act.

As you can see, the old boy is compelled to obey the orders of his prophet.

Submission, innit.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 11:20am

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:45pm:

Quote:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society.

We do not fail to understand it. We criticse it as morally vacuous and self serving.

Quote:

The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:04pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:45pm:

Quote:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society.

We do not fail to understand it. We criticse it as morally vacuous and self serving.

[quote]The fact is, when his people were evicted from their homes - from a city and society which was really the only place that resembled a commercial centre in the entire peninsula - a state of war had been established.

The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm

one man =/= entire community

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Your point?

Jesus was threatened and almost killed during his ministry but he never sought revenge or retribution, and in the end he chose to die.

Muhammad sought revenge and order the deaths of those who ‘turned him out’.

Which is more spiritual? Forgiving enemies or seeking revenge?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:45pm:

Quote:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society.

The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina.

There was no war. There was no state to fight that war.None of this existed until Muhammad turned his religion to hsyterical over-reaction, victimhood mongering, violence and warfare. No wonder modern Muslims follow his lead and never let go of any percieved wrong, turning it instead into a convenient excuse to murder people who they see as being linked in even the most tenuous way. No wonder Muslim countries are such basket cases of never ending violence.

Muhammad went far beyond survival. He went from nothing to ruling everything in a short time. But thanks for thinking of yet another excuse.

Looks like my prediction is coming true. Let's list Gandalf's excuses so far:

Muhammad was only acting in self defence: lie

Muhammad only murdered people to stay alive: lie

Muhammad's 'people' only murdered Meccan traders because they were unfairly evicted: another lie, most only joined up after the rape and pillage started to gain the spoils of war

Jesus didn't really mean what he preached about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, rather it was a cunning plan to get his (apparently unknown) real message out: Muslims projecting the self indulgent cynicism of Islam onto other ideologies

Jesus only did what he did to stay alive: does not even make sense, given that he died

[/quote]

There you go, according to FD, arguing that war is declared when you are forcibly evicted from your homes and your property is seized and an attempt is made on the life of your leader - is "a culture of hysterical over-reaction and victimhood mongering"
[/quote]

You cannot have a declaration of war if there is no state and no leader. There was just Muhammad being a douchebag. Muhammad created the state to seek vengence on a massive scale against his perceived enemy. To pull this together you have to turn both time and causation on it's head.

How many followers did Muhammad have when he fled Mecca?

How many did he have before he started murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods?

Are you still seriously arguing that Muhammad and his growing band of followers were acting in self defence when they murdered all those Meccan traders? Or just changing your excuses one by one as they are exposed as lies? Can you ever settle on one claim and stick with it? Self defence? Survival? Vengeance? Or just greed and lust for power?

Are you also arguing that he was acting in self defence when he marched his army on Mecca? If so, how do you explain that the Meccans were trying to re-establish a peace treaty at the time?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 1:04pm

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:45pm:

Quote:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society.

Only if you have been indoctrinated by Islam into a culture of hysterical over-reaction and victimhood mongering. This is why that state of war has existed for 1400 years - because Islam teaches Muslims to seek excuse for war where any humane ideology would teach the pursuit of peace.

[quote]The muslim community in Medina was not only not safe from the power of Mecca, the non-agrarian community had no means of livelihood in the entirely agrarian city of Medina.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 1:15pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 12:45pm:

Quote:

As I have said repeatedly, Jesus was not leading any state, and had no responsibility for the running of an actual society.

Absolute BS. Muhammad got away with murdering Meccan traders and robbing their caravans, unchallenged for a long time (except for the traders themselves trying to avoid being murdered). Muhamamd's own fetish for murder is what created the danger, and lo and behold, his fetish for even more murder was the solution.

[quote]Caravan raids were not merely a legitimate prosecution of an existing war that was not started by the muslims - it was actually a means of survival for a group that had almost no possessions, and had no experience or skills carving a life on a farm.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:13pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Again, your source for Jesus's actions/thoughts is, what Augie? Oh, The Bible, of course. Well, we know who wrote and edited The Bible, now don't we? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:19pm

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

You cannot have a declaration of war if there is no state and no leader.

What is this FD - you can't argue against the moral legitimacy of their plight, so you're resorting to a technicality around the modern day definition of war? Exactly what was a "state" in 7th century tribal Arabia FD? Care to have a crack at that one? There obviously was a leader, his name was Muhammad. And there was a small community who could justifiably feel they were at war - because they had been evicted from their homes and had their properties seized.

Quote:

How many followers did Muhammad have when he fled Mecca?

How many did he have before he started murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods?

Good question FD. I believe I asked you that exact same question when you made your BS claim about Islam recruitment only starting when potential followers saw the attraction of slaughtering innocent and defenceless caravaners.

Curiously, you ducked and weaved. Again.

Quote:

Are you still seriously arguing that Muhammad and his growing band of followers were acting in self defence when they murdered all those Meccan traders?

"murdered all those Meccan traders"? Really FD, before we get carried away with yet more hyperbole, exactly how many are we talking about? Was 'murder' and bloodlust really the primary objective here do you think? In the interests of ramping up the hysteria levels even more, perhaps you could adopt a new phrase - how about 'the appalling genocide of the Meccan traders'?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Muhammad sought revenge and order the deaths of those who ‘turned him out’.

You forgot to mention the whole community of followers that Muhammad was responsible for.

If it was really the case that Muhammad raised an army and attacked Mecca purely on account of a slight against his own person - then you would have a point.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Again, your source for Jesus's actions/thoughts is, what Augie? Oh, The Bible, of course. Well, we know who wrote and edited The Bible, now don't we? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Brian, were talking about what those religions profess, their tenets and theological claims. It doesn’t matter if you and I don’t believe it’s real, it matters that other people believe it’s real.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:26pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Muhammad sought revenge and order the deaths of those who ‘turned him out’.

You forgot to mention the whole community of followers that Muhammad was responsible for.

So, without attempting to propose a straw man argument, are you saying that Muhammad was under ‘pressure’ from his peers to seek vengeance? ie he might not have wanted to seek revenge personally but because his community did, he had to relent if he wanted their loyalty?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:29pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Muhammad sought revenge and order the deaths of those who ‘turned him out’.

Ah hah! So, it was the pressure of tb community around him which compelled him to seek revenge? So, how does this theory fit into the idea that Muhammad acted in accordance with God’s word/revelation if he was influenced by the community???

Surely, that Muhammad was the prophet of God would’ve been enough to have people follow him?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:31pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Again, your source for Jesus's actions/thoughts is, what Augie? Oh, The Bible, of course. Well, we know who wrote and edited The Bible, now don't we? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Interesting. So those Muslims who believe that Islam is a "religion of peace" have a valid argument in their favour then, Augie? Hmmm? What about the Christians who have turned their back on their leader's professions about his religion being "peaceful"? How does their argument stack up? ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:38pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:31pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Again, your source for Jesus's actions/thoughts is, what Augie? Oh, The Bible, of course. Well, we know who wrote and edited The Bible, now don't we? Tsk, tsk. ::)

What were talking about here specifically is the comparison between the two key religious figures of both religious traditions. I agree that there are other authoritative voices in both religious traditions that have preached a mixture of both hate and love, the Catholic Church being one example.

It’s akso true that Christianity was able to purge itself of its negative aspects and pave the way for the enlightenment and scientific revolution BECAUSE the religious tradition was moral enough to create that change. Ultimately people can look directly to Jesus and see what his teachings were.

Islam can be a peaceful religion but it requires a significant revision of certain inherent beliefs.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:54pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Muhammad sought revenge and order the deaths of those who ‘turned him out’.

You forgot to mention the whole community of followers that Muhammad was responsible for.

It is a point of historical fact that Muhammad's people felt aggrieved and put enormous pressure on him to act. Suggest you read Montgommery Watt or Karen Armstrong's books on Muhammad.

But even apart from that, he had a whole community to look after, who were completely destitute, trying to start a life in an agrarian community with zero knowledge or experience with the agrarian livelihood. Their options for making ends meet were clearly limited. The Quraysh obviously wouldn't allow them to trade in Mecca

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Muhammad sought revenge and order the deaths of those who ‘turned him out’.

You forgot to mention the whole community of followers that Muhammad was responsible for.

Ok, so how does that ‘pressure’ fit in to the fact that Muhammad’s commandments for society were dictated by God?? Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

Second, even if I’m willing to concede that his community was destitute, the revelations of the Quran don’t reflect that destitution. For eg, if God supposedly dictated the Quran, then why not say “Permission is you granted to you (O Muhammad) to raid caravans in order to feed people but know that such an act is evil in of itself; but so as to prevent starvation, this is allowed to you, only when I specifically command you...”

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:24pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:31pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Again, your source for Jesus's actions/thoughts is, what Augie? Oh, The Bible, of course. Well, we know who wrote and edited The Bible, now don't we? Tsk, tsk. ::)

"What we're talking about" or "what we were talking about"?

We were talking about what you claimed, Augie. Now, how it pertains to each group of believers is interesting. Muslims are often criticised here for believing their religion is a "religion of peace" while I am often criticised for pointing out large numbers of Christians appear not to believe that Christianity has messages of peace in it's belief system. That is where the conversation has gone. Please answer the point that if belief is valid as a means of assessing what people claim about their religion then both views are equally valid, right? ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:38pm

what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 5:39pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:24pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:31pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 2:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

one man =/= entire community

Again, your source for Jesus's actions/thoughts is, what Augie? Oh, The Bible, of course. Well, we know who wrote and edited The Bible, now don't we? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Now that was below the belt, that first point, Brian.

The answer is no: as Gandalf admitted before, you can’t have an ‘anything goes’ approach with religion. We have to identify certain objective beliefs about religion and about what those people believe.

Anything else is just a lie.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:03pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:18pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 5:39pm:

Now that was below the belt, that first point, Brian.

How is asking for clarification about what you have written "below the belt"?

Quote:

The answer is no: as Gandalf admitted before, you can’t have an ‘anything goes’ approach with religion. We have to identify certain objective beliefs about religion and about what those people believe.

Anything else is just a lie.

So, belief has nothing to do with religion? My, how interesting... ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:20pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.

The belief that the Quran is unalterable word of God.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:02pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.

The belief that the Quran is unalterable word of God.

Oh, come on. The Bible isn't?

You must have missed the opening verse, dear.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:22pm

Quote:

What is this FD - you can't argue against the moral legitimacy of their plight, so you're resorting to a technicality around the modern day definition of war?

Sure I can. You are the one who flip-flopped from "always in self defence" to "they dclared war against Muhammad and his non-existent community a few years earlier when he ran away from Mecca". If you'd like to have another go at arguing he spent years murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods in self defence, be my guest. But don't run away from it then say I was unable to argue against its moral legitimacy.

Furthermore, your absurd argument is in fact a brilliant demonstration of the evil of Islam and why the middle east is went from the cradle of civilisation to the most backwards place on earth - one man get's wronged, and according to Islam that justifies a lifetime of theft, murder and meting out whatever retribution is convenient to anyone who can be linked to that wrong in any way. How is this any different to the modern excuses Muslims offer for terrorism?

Quote:

Exactly what was a "state" in 7th century tribal Arabia FD? Care to have a crack at that one?

I use the same meaning that I do today. Muhammad running away from Mecca is not a state.

Quote:

There obviously was a leader

So obviously that you refuse to say how many followers he had at the time.

Quote:

And there was a small community

How small Gandalf? Was that community in fact much larger by the time the Muslims were done Murdering Meccan traders?

Quote:

No Gandalf. I asked you the question. I have asked it every time you use this excuse, to highlight the absurdity of your excuses. How does Muhammad's mistreatment by some people in Meccca justify an entirely different group of Muslims using it as an excuse to murder and steal from an entirely different group of Meccans? This is the evil of Islam.

Quote:

The primary objective of Muhammad's career murdering Meccan traders was to steal their goods. The booty was then used to grow the religion, by funding it and by attracting people to it with the promise of even mroe spoils of war.

Quote:

You forgot to mention the whole community of followers that Muhammad was responsible for. If it was really the case that Muhammad raised an army and attacked Mecca purely on account of a slight against his own person - then you would have a point.

So Muhammad murdered and stole for the common good? Or for the good of Islam?

Quote:

It is a point of historical fact that Muhammad's people felt aggrieved and put enormous pressure on him to act.

Crap. The ones who fled Mecca with him did, but you refuse to say how many there were. The ones who joined him from Medina outnumbered them but had not grievance, only lust for power and spoils of war.

Quote:

But even apart from that, he had a whole community to look after, who were completely destitute

More BS. And another flip-flop from Gandalf. Can you ever stick to just one excuse?

Quote:

trying to start a life in an agrarian community with zero knowledge or experience with the agrarian livelihood. Their options for making ends meet were clearly limited. The Quraysh obviously wouldn't allow them to trade in Mecca

Who says they had to farm? They could have traded also. What you really mean is that Muhammad was cut off from the pagan kaaba and the easy money it brought to his family, but instead of making an honest living he felt justified in murdering and stealing to get back what he considered his by God's decree.

Quote:

Muslims are often criticised here for believing their religion is a "religion of peace"

They are criticised for lying about what the Quran says.

Quote:

while I am often criticised for pointing out large numbers of Christians appear not to believe that Christianity has messages of peace in it's belief system

You are criticised for saying incredibly stupid things, such as that we have no right or ability to criticise Islam. And running away from every opportunity to comment on a comparison between Jesus and Muhammad, or the Quran vs the NT, or pretending you misunderstood the question and people were actually asking you about Joseph Kony.

Quote:

Please answer the point that if belief is valid as a means of assessing what people claim about their religion then both views are equally valid, right? Roll Eyes

If the belief involves lying about what a holy book says while claiming to adhere to it, then it is less valid.

Quote:

what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?
I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.

He was probably referring to the Quran, whose contents you lie about.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:32pm

FD, I thought you said you weren't allowed to quote bomb.

I want those Old Testament quotes on my desk by Monday morning, thanks.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:00am

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:22pm:

Quote:

No really FD, I asked you. 7 days ago, to be exact - here it is again:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:15am:

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:56pm:

Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina.

Quote:

For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

Oh surprise surprise, you ducked and weaved from it.

Why is this important? Because your BS claim that the caravan raids were carried out (at least in part) by a population that were not involved in the hijra - is completely baseless. But once again, as you always do, you state it as unquestioned fact.

As it happens, we know you are wrong. The caravan raids were carried out entirely by the emigrants (muhajirun) - which a simple search on wikipedia would have told you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhajirun

And while we're on the subject of BS claims, lets also dispense with your claim that it was "years" between the hijra and the first raids. The hijra happened in sometime between June and September 622, and the first raid happened between January and March the following year - well under one year later.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:03am

FD, a simple question:

do you think its important bringing actual facts to the table when debating actual history?

When you have been proven wrong so many times on specific points of historical fact, do you think it delegitimises your argument? Even just a little bit?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:10am

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:03am:

Not at all. FD uses alternative facts. FD upholds the use of porkies.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:21am

Karnal wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:02pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.

The belief that the Quran is unalterable word of God.

Oh, come on. The Bible isn't?

You must have missed the opening verse, dear.

The point is that there is a tradition of hermeneutics in Christianity which looks at each text as being written by specific followers of the disciples many years after the fact. Paul’s letters were written by him to different communities.

Now there are Christians who say that those people were divinely inspired; but there’s still wiggle room in interpretation.

The Quran on the other hand is considered to be the unalterable word of god. As a Muslim you can’t say that the texts were written by people after the fact (even though that is likely the case). To a Muslim the Quran is the literal word of God, chapter and verse.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:22am

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 5:39pm:

Now that was below the belt, that first point, Brian.

How is asking for clarification about what you have written "below the belt"?

Quote:

So, belief has nothing to do with religion? My, how interesting... ::)

I thought you were having a snipe at my incorrect grammar. If I’m mistaken, I apologise.

Second, I don’t believe I was saying that.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:23am

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God

Please address this point.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:40am

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:21am:

Karnal wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:02pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.

The belief that the Quran is unalterable word of God.

Oh, come on. The Bible isn't?

You must have missed the opening verse, dear.

So's the Bible. The Quran was written (or dictated) by one man: Muhammed. It's hardly the literal word of God - much of it is allegorical.

Because of this, Muslim scholars are tasked with interpreting the message of the Quran.

The Ahadith were written by others. They're second or third hand witnesses of Muhammed - maybe. They are not the literal word of God, as every Muslim schoolboy knows.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 12:42pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:00am:

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:22pm:

Quote:

No really FD, I asked you. 7 days ago, to be exact - here it is again:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:15am:

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:56pm:

Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina.

[quote]For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

do you think its important bringing actual facts to the table when debating actual history?

Yes Gandalf, that's why I have asked you so many times for the numbers of followers.

Quote:

When you have been proven wrong so many times on specific points of historical fact, do you think it delegitimises your argument? Even just a little bit?

Just as an example, is the wikipedia article you posted a link to an example of you proving me wrong on a specific point of historical fact?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:35pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:23am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God

Please address this point.

Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:43pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:22am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 5:39pm:

Now that was below the belt, that first point, Brian.

How is asking for clarification about what you have written "below the belt"?

Quote:

So, belief has nothing to do with religion? My, how interesting... ::)

I thought you were having a snipe at my incorrect grammar. If I’m mistaken, I apologise.

I was asking what you actually meant. It had as I suggested, two alternative versions. If I want to have a go at your grammar, I will.

Quote:

Second, I don’t believe I was saying that.

So, belief is important then? I am somewhat confused. You appear to be saying that belief has no place in ascertaining what religions believe in. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:49pm

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Just as an example, is the wikipedia article you posted a link to an example of you proving me wrong on a specific point of historical fact?

Yes.

Now drawing on your knowledge of that wiki article I posted, would you describe this claim of yours as accurate?

Quote:

For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

Also, do you acknowledge you were wrong to claim it was "years" between the hijra and the first caravan raid?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 4:29pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:23am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God

Please address this point.

Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.

So, the ‘kill them wherever you find them’ and ‘smiting at the neck’, were they commanded by God?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 6:08pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 4:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:23am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God

Please address this point.

Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.

So, the ‘kill them wherever you find them’ and ‘smiting at the neck’, were they commanded by God?

Are they commands to launch specific battles, or more general guidelines for the conduct of war?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by goldkam on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 6:13pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 4:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:23am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God

Please address this point.

Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.

So, the ‘kill them wherever you find them’ and ‘smiting at the neck’, were they commanded by God?

Of course they were not. When we imply rationality in these situations, these were commanded by ones education, ethics and morals.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 6:15pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:49pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Just as an example, is the wikipedia article you posted a link to an example of you proving me wrong on a specific point of historical fact?

Yes.

Now drawing on your knowledge of that wiki article I posted, would you describe this claim of yours as accurate?

Quote:

For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

Also, do you acknowledge you were wrong to claim it was "years" between the hijra and the first caravan raid?

Another grammatical issue, G. Most is only 4 letters, including the letter s.

Now come on. You stop being so mean to FD.

Can't you just blame Islam?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by goldkam on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 6:17pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:21am:

Karnal wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:02pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

what "inherent beliefs" Auggie?

I don't have to change any of my "inherent beliefs" to know my religion is a religion of peace.

The belief that the Quran is unalterable word of God.

Oh, come on. The Bible isn't?

You must have missed the opening verse, dear.

That notion of the unalterable word of God is not entirely accurate. Some elements or readings of the Quran are not looked upon or interpreted if there is no conflict of interest, rather if there is a conflict of interest occurs the following happens. The writings of the Hadith will be interpreted and examined by scholars. If this fails and a decision or interpretation cannot be met, it passes onto the Consensus of the Scholars who interpert both the Hadith and Quran to reach an amicable solution.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 7:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:00am:

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 7:22pm:

Quote:

No really FD, I asked you. 7 days ago, to be exact - here it is again:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 11:15am:

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:56pm:

Muhammad had bugger all followers until he started robbing Meccan trade caravans and murdering innocent traders from his base in Medina.

[quote]For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Just as an example, is the wikipedia article you posted a link to an example of you proving me wrong on a specific point of historical fact?

Yes.

Now drawing on your knowledge of that wiki article I posted, would you describe this claim of yours as accurate?

Quote:

For most of the Muslims, it was the first attack. They only became followers of Muhammad to join in the looting.

Also, do you acknowledge you were wrong to claim it was "years" between the hijra and the first caravan raid?

Gandalf, here are some examples of what the article actually says:

The fourth raid, known as the invasion of Waddan, was the first offensive in which Muhammad took part personally with 70, mostly Muhajir,troops.

The fifth raid, known as the invasion of Buwat, was also commanded by Muhammad.[3] A month after the raid at al-Abwa, he personally led 200 men including Muhajirs and Ansars

Those numbers seem to be starting out awefully small don't you think? 6 in the first raid, 20 in the second, 70 in the fourth (of which apparently the majority were original emigrants from Mecca), 200 in the fifth.

How exactly do you go from there to

Quote:

As it happens, we know you are wrong. The caravan raids were carried out entirely by the emigrants (muhajirun)

???

Did you read the article?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 7:49pm

Yes FD, evidently I was wrong to say they were all carried out by muhajirun.

Do you know how many emigrants there were? I'm not being tricky here - I genuinely don't know. I doubt you know either, which is why I asked you where you got your information that the raids were conducted mostly by non-muslims. I maintain still that you are wrong. I assume their numbers were in the order of a few hundred - enough, I would have thought, to qualify as a "community" that could legitimately feel they were in a state of war when they were evicted from their homes. But thats just my opinion.

Now your turn - where did you get "years" between the hijra and the first raid, when it was in fact a matter of months?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 9:20pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am:

Muhammad is literally the anti-christ.

There are many. Muhammed is one, probably the most significant so far.

canto 28 is marvelous and harrowing. Canto 28 is perfect.

He [Dante] begins by listing famous battlefields—if all the mangled bodies and limbs and guts from all these vicious wars were combined, he says, they would pale in comparison to the ninth pit of hell. The first thing he sees here is a man “cleft from the chin right down to where men fart.” What’s remarkable about this line is not that a poet as great as Dante would use the word fart—although, let’s face it, that is sort of funny—but that it’s almost identical to a line that Shakespeare would write many centuries later, in Macbeth: “unseamed … from the nave to th’ chops.”

Our unseamed sinner—with his entrails and “loathsome” “poo” sack torn asunder—is Mohammed, who tells Dante that this pit is reserved for those who “sowed scandal and schism.” The Hollanders point out that Dante must therefore have seen the prophet not as the founder of a new religion, but as the catalyst for the schism that would branch off from Christianity and become Islam.

Mohammed explains how punishment works around here. He and his fellow mangled sinners eventually find that their injuries have healed—but once they’re all closed up, they’re mangled yet again by a demon. The punishment is not simply about pain and suffering, to say nothing of the inconvenience of having to carry your colon in your hands; the indignity of being mangled is equally important. Mohammed believes, for some reason, that Dante and Virgil are dead and simply taking a tour of hell before being punished. Clearly, Mohammed hasn’t quite grasped the way hell works.

"sowed scandal and schism" - Dante is sharp and precise. Choosing to follow Mohammed is choosing scandal and schism. And carrying your shitful entrails before you for eternity.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:33pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Why did you push the excuse that they were merely retaliating for their mistreatment by the Meccans, for so many years, despite not knowing basic facts like how many there were, and despite me pointing out this flaw in your argument repeatedly? Do you think its important bringing actual facts to the table when debating actual history? When you have been proven wrong so many times on specific points of historical fact, do you think it delegitimises your argument? Even just a little bit?

https://www.al-islam.org/muhammad-yasin-jibouri/prophet-madina-622-ad

The immigrants, forty-five in number, were called “Muhajirun.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Medina

These attacks provoked and pressured Mecca by interfering with trade, and allowed the Muslims to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working toward their ultimate goal of inducing Mecca's submission to the new faith.

In March 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan.

the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty-five Meccans

The raiders had won a lot of treasure

Later that month:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud

A group of approximately 1,000 Muslim men set out

Muhammad was able to prepare a force of about 3,000 men.

In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number more than ten thousand men.

All in self defence eh? Or was it because they were starving? Or do you have some other excuse now?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 10:29am

Frank wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 9:20pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:28am:

Muhammad is literally the anti-christ.

Thanks, old boy, I'm full. I couldn't eat another thing.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:09pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 6:08pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 4:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:35pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:23am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 3:09pm:

Unless you’re saying that there were some things he did that weren’t commanded by God?

LOL of course there were. Do you think he waited for God's permission every time he needed to pee?

I’m talking about the laws and principles of behaviour. Are you saying that there some wars or battles he fought which were not commanded by God

Please address this point.

Precisely zero battles were 'commanded by God'.

So, the ‘kill them wherever you find them’ and ‘smiting at the neck’, were they commanded by God?

Are they commands to launch specific battles, or more general guidelines for the conduct of war?

So, Muhammad ‘started the battle’ and the God revealed to him how to conduct warfare?

Doesn’t make sense to me.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 2:43pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 11:22am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 6:18pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2018 at 5:39pm:

Now that was below the belt, that first point, Brian.

How is asking for clarification about what you have written "below the belt"?

Quote:

So, belief has nothing to do with religion? My, how interesting... ::)

I thought you were having a snipe at my incorrect grammar. If I’m mistaken, I apologise.

I was asking what you actually meant. It had as I suggested, two alternative versions. If I want to have a go at your grammar, I will.

[quote]
Second, I don’t believe I was saying that.

So, belief is important then? I am somewhat confused. You appear to be saying that belief has no place in ascertaining what religions believe in. ::)[/quote]

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

I am not suggesting that you don't. However, why is the belief of Christians about Christ existing and being the son of God acceptable but the Muslim's beliefs about Mohammad not acceptable?

Both are based upon fairy tales and myths, as far as I am concerned. Both are as equally valid therefore. Why do people get upset when I question Christianity in the same way they are questioning Islam? Could it be because they are Christians and not Muslims? Mmmm? ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:29pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

Because as I’ve said before, in this thread we’re talking about specifically the actions and teachings of both founders.

I’m willing to concede as you’ve mentioned that supplement teachings have been added into the religions, such as the just war theory.

But for now, we’re talking just about Jesus and Mohammad. That’s it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:55pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

And you know about Jesus and his "miracles", how, again, Augie? Oh, thats right, The Bible. Oh, dear, guess who wrote and edited The Bible? The Church(es). Funny how they control the only source of information about their Messiah, isn't it? Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:30pm

Funny how the only source of information on Jesus teachings portray him as a man of peace and love.

Hilarious how the only source of muhammads teachings about the revamped moon god allah, portray him as a thief liar pedophile rapist torturer and mass murderer.

Rib-tickling mirth that right now muslims are the worlds top 24 listed terrorist organizations.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:40pm

Quote:

How the Jews Invented God, and Made Him Great

Modern biblical scholarship and archaeological discoveries in and around Israel show that the ancient Israelites did not always believe in a single, universal god. In fact, monotheism is a relatively recent concept, even amongst the People of the Book.

Decades of research into the birth and evolution of the Yhwh cult are summarized in The Invention of God, a recent book by Thomas Rmer, a world-renowned expert in the Hebrew Bible and professor at the College de France and the University of Lausanne. Rmer, who held a series of conferences at Tel Aviv University last month, spoke to Haaretz about the subject.

The main source for investigating the history of God is, of course, the Bible itself.

When exactly the Jewish holy text reached its final form is unknown. Many scholars believe this happened sometime between the Babylonian exile, which began after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE (some 2600 years ago), and the subsequent periods of Persian and Hellenistic rule.

However, the redactors of the Bible were evidently working off older traditions, Rmer says.

Biblical texts are not direct historical sources. They reflect the ideas, the ideologies of their authors and of course of the historical context in which they were written, Rmer explains.

Still, he notes, you can have memories of a distant past, sometimes in a very confusing way or in a very oriented way. But I think we can, and we must, use the biblical text not just as fictional texts but as texts that can tell us stories about the origins.

What's in God's name

The first clue that the ancient Israelites worshipped gods other than the deity known as Yhwh lies in their very name. Israel is a theophoric name going back at least 3200 years, which includes and invokes the name of a protective deity.

Going by the name, the main god of the ancient Israelites was not Yhwh, but El, the chief deity in the Canaanite pantheon, who was worshipped throughout the Levant.

In other words, the name "Israel" is probably older than the veneration of Yhwh by this group called Israel, Rmer says. The first tutelary deity they were worshipping was El, otherwise their name would have been Israyahu.

The Bible appears to address this early worship of El in Exodus 6:3, when God tells Moses that he appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shaddai (today translated as "God Almighty") but was not known to them by my name Yhwh.

In fact, it seems that the ancient Israelites weren't even the first to worship Yhwh – they seem to have adopted Him from a mysterious, unknown tribe that lived somewhere in the deserts of the southern Levant and Arabia.

The god of the southern deserts

The first mention of the Israelite tribe itself is a victory stele erected around 1210 BCE by the pharaoh Mernetpah (sometimes called "the Israel stele"). These Israelites are described as a people inhabiting Canaan.

So how did this group of Canaanite El-worshippers come in contact with the cult of Yhwh?

The Bible is quite explicit about the geographical roots of the Yhwh deity, repeatedly linking his presence to the mountainous wilderness and the deserts of the southern Levant. Judges 5:4 says that Yhwh went forth from Seir and marched out of the field of Edom. Habbakuk 3:3 tells us that God came from Teman, specifically from Mount Paran.

All these regions and locations can be identified with the territory that ranges from the Sinai and Negev to northern Arabia.

Yhwhs penchant for appearing in the biblical narrative on top of mountains and accompanied by dark clouds and thunder, are also typical attributes of a deity originating in the wilderness, possibly a god of storms and fertility.

Support for the theory that Yhwh originated in the deserts of Israel and Arabia can be found in Egyptian texts from the late second millennium, which list different tribes of nomads collectively called "Shasu" that populated this vast desert region.

One of these groups, which inhabits the Negev, is identified as the Shasu Yhw(h). This suggests that this group of nomads may have been the first to have the god of the Jews as its tutelary deity.

It is profoundly difficult to sort through the haze of later layers in the Bible, but insofar as we can, this remains the most plausible hypothesis for the encounter of Israelites with the Yhwh cult, says David Carr, professor of Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.

The many faces of god

How exactly the Shasu merged with the Israelites or introduced them to the cult of Yhwh is not known, but by the early centuries of the first millennium, he was clearly being worshipped in both the northern kingdom of Israel and its smaller, southern neighbor, the kingdom of Judah.

His name appears for the first time outside the Bible nearly 400 years after Merneptah, in the 9th-century BCE stele of Mesha, a Moabite king who boasts of defeating the king of Israel and taking the vessels of Yhwh.

[cont'd]

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:42pm

Quote:

While Yhwhs cult was certainly important in the early First Temple period, it was not exclusive.

Jeremiah speaks about the many gods of Judah, which are as numerous as the streets of a town. There was certainly worship a female deity, Asherah, or the Queen of Heaven, Rmer told Haaretz. There was certainly also the worship of the northern storm god Hadad (Baal).

The plurality of deities was such that in an inscription by Sargon II, who completed the conquest of the kingdom of Israel in the late 8th century BCE, the Assyrian king mentioned that after capturing the capital Samaria, his troops brought back the (statues of) gods in which (the Israelites) had put their trust.

As the Yhwh cult evolved and spread, he was worshipped in temples across the land. Early 8th-century inscriptions found at Kuntillet Ajrud probably refer to different gods and cultic centers by invoking Yhwh of Samaria and his Asherah and Yhwh of Teman and his Asherah. Only later, under the reign of King Josiah at the end of the 7th century BCE, would the Yhwh cult centralize worship at the Temple in Jerusalem.

Nor, in ancient Israel, was Yhwh the invisible deity that Jews have refrained from depicting for the last two millennia or so.

In the kingdom of Israel, as Hosea 8 and 1 Kings 12:26-29 relate, he was often worshipped in the form of a calf, as the god Baal was. (1 Kings 12:26-29 explains that Jeroboam made two calves, for the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan, so the people could worship Yhwh there and wouldnt have to go all the way to Jerusalem. Ergo, in northern Israel at least, the calves were meant to represent Yhwh.)

In Jerusalem and Judah, Rmer says, Yhwh more frequently took the form of a sun god or a seated deity. Such depictions may have even continued after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile: a coin minted in Jerusalem during the Persian period shows a deity sitting on a wheeled throne and has been interpreted by some as a late anthropomorphic representation of Yhwh.

Rmer even suspects that the Holy of Holies in the First Temple of Jerusalem, and other Judahite sanctuaries, hosted a statue of the god, based on Psalms and prophetic texts in the Bible that speak of being admitted in the presence of the face of Yhwh.

Not all scholars agree that the iconography of Yhwh was so pronounced in Judah. The evidence for anthropomorphic depiction is not strong, says Saul Olyan, professor of Judaic studies and religious studies at Brown University. It may be that anthropomorphic images of Yhwh were avoided early on.

The God of the Jews

In any case, many scholars agree that Yhwh became the main god of the Jews only after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, around 720 BCE.

How or why the Jews came to exalt Yhwh and reject the pagan gods they also adored is unclear.

We do know that after the fall of Samaria, the population of Jerusalem increased as much as fifteenfold, likely due to the influx of refugees from the north. That made it necessary for the kings of Judah to push a program that would unify the two populations and create a common narrative. And that in turn may be why the biblical writers frequently stigmatize the pagan cultic practices of the north, and stress that Jerusalem alone had withstood the Assyrian onslaught – thereby explaining Israel's embarrassing fall to Assyria, while distinguishing the prominence and purity of Judahite religion.

Religious reforms by Judahite kings, mainly Hezekiah and Josiah, included abolishing random temple worship of Yhwh and centralizing his adoration at the Temple in Jerusalem, as well as banning the worship of Asherah, Yhwhs female companion, and other pagan cults in the Temple and around the capital.

The Israelites don't keep the faith

This transformation from polytheism to worshipping a single god was carved in stone, literally. For example, an inscription in a tomb in Khirbet Beit Lei, near the Judahite stronghold of Lachish, states that Yhwh is the god of the whole country; the mountains of Judah belong to the god of Jerusalem.

Josiahs reforms were also enshrined in the book of Deuteronomy – whose original version is thought to have been compiled around this time – and especially in the words of Deut. 6, which would later form the Shma Yisrael, one of the central prayers of Judaism: Hear, O Israel, Yhwh is our God, Yhwh is one.

But while Yhwh had, by the dawn of the 6th century BCE, become our national god, he was still believed to be just one of many celestial beings, each protecting his own people and territory.

This is reflected in the many biblical texts exhorting the Israelites not to follow other gods, a tacit acknowledgement of the existence of those deities, Romer explains.

For example, in Judges 11:24, Jephtah tries to resolve a territorial dispute by telling the Ammonites that the land of Israel had been given to the Israelites by Yhwh, while their lands had been given to them by their god Chemosh ("Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever Yhwh our god has given us, we will possess.")

[cont'd]

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:44pm

Quote:

Snatching God from the jaws of defeat

The real conceptual revolution probably only occurred after the Babylonians' conquest of Judah and arson of the First Temple in 587 B.C.E. The destruction and the subsequent exile to Babylon of the Judahite elites inevitably cast doubts on the faith they had put in Yhwh.

The question was: how can we explain what happened? Rmer says. If the defeated Israelites had simply accepted that the Babylonian gods had proven they were stronger than the god of the Jews, history would have been very different.

But somehow, someone came up with a different, unprecedented explanation. The idea was that the destruction happened because the kings did not obey the law of god, Rmer says. Its a paradoxical reading of the story: the vanquished in a way is saying that his god is the vanquisher. Its quite a clever idea.

The Israelites/Judahites took over the classical idea of the divine wrath that can provoke a national disaster but they combined it with the idea that Yhwh in his wrath made the Babylonians destroy Judah and Jerusalem, he said.

The concept that Yhwh had pulled the Babylonians' strings, causing them to punish the Israelites inevitably led to the belief that he was not just the god of one people, but a universal deity who exercises power over all of creation.

This idea is already present in the book of Isaiah, thought to be one of the earliest biblical texts, composed during or immediately after the Exile. This is also how the Jews became the chosen people – because the Biblical editors had to explain why Israel had a privileged relationship with Yhwh even though he was no longer a national deity, but the one true God.

Over the centuries, as the Bible was redacted, this narrative was refined and strengthened, creating the basis for a universal religion – one that could continue to exist even without being tied to a specific territory or temple. And thus Judaism as we know it was established, and, ultimately, all other major monotheistic religions were as well.

[url=https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-how-the-jews-invented-god-and-made-him-great-1.5392677]Source[/url]

So, it appears that the Jewish and hence the Christian God descended from a cult in the southern deserts of Palestine. I wonder, could it have been a moon deity? More investigation is required, it appears.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:47pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:55pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

You’re missing the point.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Sam Morris on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:47pm

Y'all realise that Dead is Dead and that there is no Heaven? You won't meet up with God or your long gone rellies when you die.

If you want people to say nice things about you after you have gone, do nice things while you are alive.

Do not pray to anybody, there is nobody but yourself listening.

Be good, kind and generous because that is your nature not because it will gain favours.

Namaste

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:50pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:47pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:55pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

You’re missing the point.

Am I? How, Augie? We know nothing about Jesus except what The Bible tells us. Who wrote The Bible? The church(es). Who edited The Bible? The church(es). Who controlled the narrative? The church(es). Appears to me that the church(es) are the ones holding the reins of the religion, Augie. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 4:34pm

moses wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:30pm:

It is a jolly world, no?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 5:02pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

Because Jesus set a splendid example and Mohammed a dreadful one. Imitate Jesus and you'll be saintly. Imitate Mohammed and you will be a pryapic war criminal and mass murderer.

I know you can't see the difference, Bwian, that's why everyone has such deep contempt for you and laugh at you.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 5:06pm

Frank wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 5:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

Oh, I can see the difference. You believe in Christ. Muslims believe in Mohammad. Both are beliefs in a sky-fairy as far as I am concerned, Soren. I just don't want to believe anything about either of them. That appears to upset you. Where do I sign up to the worst believers' club? Mmmm? ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:07pm

@Brian.

So, according to you comparison between the actions and behaviours of the founders of religions is pointless??

Which means to say that you believe that the actions and behaviours of a founder has no founding in the theology of the religion.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:13pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

@Brian.

So, according to you comparison between the actions and behaviours of the founders of religions is pointless??

If there is independent documentary proof, no it isn't pointless. Is there independent documentary proof, Augie?

Quote:

Which means to say that you believe that the actions and behaviours of a founder has no founding in the theology of the religion.

Oh, no. Not at all. The problem is you're comparing the actions of two mythical figures. It is like comparing Odin with Zeus. Rather pointless, really, don't you think? ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:25pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

@Brian.

So, according to you comparison between the actions and behaviours of the founders of religions is pointless??

If there is independent documentary proof, no it isn't pointless. Is there independent documentary proof, Augie?

Quote:

Which means to say that you believe that the actions and behaviours of a founder has no founding in the theology of the religion.

Oh, no. Not at all. The problem is you're comparing the actions of two mythical figures. It is like comparing Odin with Zeus. Rather pointless, really, don't you think? ::)

Not it’s not if we’re talking about people who claim to be of those faith that has real consequences. Muslims make claims that Muhammad was peaceful. Was he? Likewise, some people make the claim that Jesus was violent, was he?

You seem to be shying away from this discussion because you don’t want to have to admit that Jesus was more peaceful than Muhammad.

Why not do me favour and let’s talk about fairytales? Was Jesus more peaceful than Mohammad?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:48pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:25pm:

Oh, I don't shy away. I just prefer to be there some proof what was claimed did occur, Augie. Unfortunately, there isn't. The believers in both cases have changed the perceptions of other believers to match their views of their religious leaders' actions and why they did what they did. For all we know, Jesus was like my namesake, Brian. Mohammad was the same. They were complete nincompoops who were turned into the founders of new religions after they died because it suited their followers to do so.

Quote:

Why not do me favour and let’s talk about fairytales? Was Jesus more peaceful than Mohammad?

Go right ahead. I'll read what you type and comment if I feel the need. Do not, however claim that what you're typing represents reality though. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by AugCaesarustus on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 7:17pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:48pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:25pm:

Why not do me favour and let’s talk about fairytales? Was Jesus more peaceful than Mohammad?

Go right ahead. I'll read what you type and comment if I feel the need. Do not, however claim that what you're typing represents reality though. ::) ::)

You certainly don’t need me to tell about the differences between both

So, on the assumption that both characters are fictional, with no basis in reality, and from what ‘stories’ we know of, which fictional character is more peaceful comparatively??

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 7:35pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:55pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 1:17pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 12:11pm:

Of course belief has a place in religion. That’s precisely my point. Christians believe that Christ existed and was the sin of god. That I don’t believe it doesn’t mean I can’t talk about it.

Perhaps Brian still thinks that the actions and words of the prophets have no impact at all on how followers interpret them. Comparing religions is nothing more than comparing different card tricks. This must be how he got his doctor of divinity.

Brian, you could always try thinking for yourself rather than copying and pasting endless tracts.

Quote:

Oh, no. Not at all. The problem is you're comparing the actions of two mythical figures. It is like comparing Odin with Zeus. Rather pointless, really, don't you think?

Not if the two mythologies are different and encourage different actions in the followers. You can deny Odin and Zeus are real all you want, but you cannot deny that the consequences of following them are real, and different. Or perhaps you can, but only if you are the sort of person who thinks we have no right or even ability to criticise other nations and religions.

Quote:

Not it’s not if we’re talking about people who claim to be of those faith that has real consequences.

That's pretty much what Brian believes. Or says, at least.

Quote:

Oh, I don't shy away. I just prefer to be there some proof what was claimed did occur, Augie

.

What if we are not talking about what did or didn't happen, but about the real, modern consequences of what people believe happened? Why do you always retreat to the idiotic?

Quote:

So, on the assumption that both characters are fictional, with no basis in reality, and from what ‘stories’ we know of, which fictional character is more peaceful comparatively??

Brian can't tell you that. He can only tell you what is the same about them.

Quote:

Brian do you believe that what the Quran and Bible actually say has no impact on how the followers interpret it? Or is that too stupid even for you to actually say (more than once)?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 8:34pm

FD, do you uphold the use of lies or truth in your campaign against the Muselman?

Please explain.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 9:00am

Gandalf, where did you get these claims from that only Meccan emigrants were involved in the murder of Meccan traders and theft of their goods?

Or that Muhammad only killed people in self defence?

Or that they only killed to survive?

None of them come from wikipedia. But you never give your actual sources. Why is that?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 9:08am

[td]r[/td]
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

@Brian.

So, according to you comparison between the actions and behaviours of the founders of religions is pointless??

If there is independent documentary proof, no it isn't pointless. Is there independent documentary proof, Augie?

Quote:

Which means to say that you believe that the actions and behaviours of a founder has no founding in the theology of the religion.

Oh, no. Not at all. The problem is you're comparing the actions of two mythical figures. It is like comparing Odin with Zeus. Rather pointless, really, don't you think? ::)

Of course its not pointless, idiot. Mythology, literature, morals are not pointless. They teach sensibility and discernment, mong.

Not to you, of course, you are spineless and blind and eager to stay stupid.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:03pm

Frank wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

[td]r[/td]
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

@Brian.

So, according to you comparison between the actions and behaviours of the founders of religions is pointless??

If there is independent documentary proof, no it isn't pointless. Is there independent documentary proof, Augie?

Quote:

Which means to say that you believe that the actions and behaviours of a founder has no founding in the theology of the religion.

Oh, no. Not at all. The problem is you're comparing the actions of two mythical figures. It is like comparing Odin with Zeus. Rather pointless, really, don't you think? ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, Soren. Appears you still haven't learnt any morality or lessons from your education. Oh, well, off back to the little kiddies' playground where all your Racist/Xenophobic/Islamophobic mates play. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:07pm

karnal wrote: Reply #183 - Yesterday at 4:34pm

Quote:

It is a jolly world, no?

muslims and leftard apologists seem happy enough with the bloodshed of islamic terrorism.

They have no desire to take the positive step of questioning the cause/motivation of muslim terrorism (islam).

Slaughter over honesty, muzzies and their apologists have certainly got a queer sense of humour.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:37pm

karnal wrote: Reply #183 - Yesterday at 4:34pm

Quote:

It is a jolly world, no?

Christians and Right-wing apologists seem happy enough with the bloodshed of Christian terrorism.

They have no desire to take the positive step of questioning the cause/motivation of Christian terrorism (Christianity).

Slaughter over honesty, Christians and their apologists have certainly got a queer sense of humour. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:51pm

Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

Please inform the authorities about this secret knowledge of yours, tell them who and where are the Christian terrorists.

NATIONAL SECURITY HOTLINE 1800 123 400

Or are you lying again?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 5:13pm

moses wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:51pm:

Oh, I rang, Moses and I mentioned your name. They were very interested for some strange reason. I wonder why? Care to tell us what you've been doing down the Church on a Sunday? Mmmmm?

So, have you rang and reported all the world's Muslims? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 8:36pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:03pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

[td]r[/td]
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

@Brian.

So, according to you comparison between the actions and behaviours of the founders of religions is pointless??

If there is independent documentary proof, no it isn't pointless. Is there independent documentary proof, Augie?

Quote:

Which means to say that you believe that the actions and behaviours of a founder has no founding in the theology of the religion.

Oh, no. Not at all. The problem is you're comparing the actions of two mythical figures. It is like comparing Odin with Zeus. Rather pointless, really, don't you think? ::)

idiots like you must be called out, not accommodated.

More Churchill, less Chamberlain towards traitorous, idiotic and spineless underminers. Your endless blustering and ignorant yawning about 'phobias' is a give-away, Bwian.

You need to live UP to Jesus and live DOWN to Mohammed. That's the difference in a nutshell.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 11:34pm

Frank wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:03pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

[td]r[/td]
Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 6:07pm:

@Brian.

So, according to you comparison between the actions and behaviours of the founders of religions is pointless??

If there is independent documentary proof, no it isn't pointless. Is there independent documentary proof, Augie?

Quote:

Which means to say that you believe that the actions and behaviours of a founder has no founding in the theology of the religion.

Oh, no. Not at all. The problem is you're comparing the actions of two mythical figures. It is like comparing Odin with Zeus. Rather pointless, really, don't you think? ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, Soren, appears you're harking back to the attitudes of the old school Lutherans, hey? You know, all the Sturm und Drang you left behind in good ol' Denmark? You know, the 30 Years War Stuff? Or was it the Crusades? When Christians killed anybody who questioned their Christianity's attitudes towards well, anybody. Tough. I actually believe Christ had something to say about loving everybody and turning the other cheek or have you forgotten all those messages that he provided in The Bible? ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:09am

moses wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:07pm:

muzzies and their apologists have certainly got a queer sense of humour.

That's true, Moses. Do you?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:10am

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 3:37pm:

karnal wrote: Reply #183 - Yesterday at 4:34pm

Quote:

It is a jolly world, no?

Tsk tsk tsk.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:26pm

Oh dearie me.

In the jolly world the board liar apparently has got some secret womens' business, which he refuses to share with our terror authorities, he's in a real flap as our national security doesn't list his surreptitious knowledge on world terror.

Then again he could be up to his usual tricks, simply lying to excuse islamic terror.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:39pm

karnal Today at 9:09am

Quote:

That's true, Moses. Do you?

I certainly think it's a hoot how islam/allah/muhammad/qur'an tell muslims to kill the backsliders.

Then said backsliders/moderates bend over backwards, lie snivel and sneak, to portray islam/allah/muhammad/qur'an as perfect and benign.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 3:36pm

moses wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Moses loves to use the label of "liar" yet he has never once proved that I have "knowingly uttered an untruth". Funny that, hey? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 4:37pm

moses wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:39pm:

karnal Today at 9:09am

Quote:

That's true, Moses. Do you?

Doesn't sound like you have much of a sense of humour to me, Moses. If you don't mind me saying, you sound a little stern.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 5:03pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:

moses wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Moses loves to use the label of "liar" yet he has never once proved that I have "knowingly uttered an untruth". Funny that, hey? Tsk, tsk. ::) ::)

Do we have the right or even ability to criticise Islam Brian?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 5:58pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 11:34pm:

idiots like you must be called out, not accommodated.

You need to live UP to Jesus and live DOWN to Mohammed. That's the difference in a nutshell. How does your idiotic blathering relate to that point, Bwian??

There is no Christian commandment or doctrine to allow yourself, your children, family, town, country, people to be overrun and to betray and abandon all those you are supposed to defend in the face of an aggressive invading enemy.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:16pm

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 5:58pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2018 at 11:34pm:

Matt.22 Verses 34 to 40 suggests otherwise, Soren. Tsk, tsk, betrayed yet again by your own religion's teachings. Naughty, naughty, Jesus! ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:22pm

You are an idiot, Bwian.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1515476979/6#6

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:29pm

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

You are an idiot, Bwian.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1515476979/6#6

::) ::) I never even contributed to that thread, Soren. Tsk, tsk. Wasting our time? ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 1:52pm

Old board liar, dearie me tsk tsk secret womens business, the Australian National Security has got it all wrong, now is saying that verses which tell Christians to love the God of the living and love their neighbours, really means to let your enemies kill you.

No wonder he loves muslim killers and continually tries to excuse them.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 1:53pm

karnal; Reply #207 - Yesterday at 4:37pm

Quote:

Doesn't sound like you have much of a sense of humour to me, Moses. If you don't mind me saying, you sound a little stern.

muslims were huge perpetrators in the slave trade, African blacks used to enslave and sell each other, the muslims murdered millions of black males with their castration process for eunuchs, muslims murdered millions of babies born to their black female slaves.

I think it's really funny that today black people will bow down and accept islam.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 3:14pm

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:33pm:

Thats rich, from the guy who still hasn't conceded that his claim that it was "years" between the hijra and the first caravan raid is wrong. And still you duck and weave from it.

In my defense, wikipedia says (from memory) that the first 3 raids were by muhajirun. I was disputing your rather ambiguous claim that "it" was the first attack for most of them. How were we supposed to interpret "it" FD? It seems to be singular, as in the 'first' attack - rather than the plurality of all attacks.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 4:41pm

moses wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 1:52pm:

Where have I ever excused any killers, Moses? Here you are, here is a space where you can quote me excusing the death of anybody:

Quote:

Of course, it will forever remain blank because just like your charge that I "lie", which you have never proved, you will never prove I have apologised for the killing of anybody.

How typical of a Christian to lie though. Tsk, tsk. It's almost as if you're lying your self, hey, Moses? ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 7:27pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2018 at 10:33pm:

The Hijra was 622. Muhammad (and his followers) did not manage to murder any Meccans in the name of Islam until raids in 624.

Now that you are aware of the basic historical facts, would you like to revisit my claim that Muhammad had very limited success with his religion until he started stealing and murdering innocent people?

Would you like to revisit the various excuses you have offered for Muhammad's career murdering innocent traders and stealing their goods?

Here is a list of them:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#A_brief_History_of_Muhammad.E2.80.99s_Militant_Aggression

Only the original Muslims who fled Mecca and were thus wronged by the Meccans took part in murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods. Muslims will even back this up with a link to a wikipedia article clearly saying the opposite. [8][9]
Muhammad was merely taking revenge for the Meccan emigrants. [10]
Muhammad only ever killed people in self defence. [11]
Muhammad was leading a nation when he fled Mecca and a state of war thus existed from then until he started murdering Meccan traders. [12][13][14]
There must be a different definition for nation in 7th century Arabia. [15]
Muhammad was only concerned for the welfare of 'his people'. [16]
Muhammad only ever killed people to survive. [17][18]
Mecca was the only commercial centre in the area. [19]
The people of Medina were non-farmers in a farming area. [20][21]
It was the only option Muslims had for survival. [22]
Murder and bloodlust were not the 'primary' objective of the raids. [23]
Muhammad was under political pressure from his followers to take revenge. [24]
They were not allowed to trade in Mecca. [25]
Muhammad first raided Meccan traders and stole their goods within a year of fleeing Medina. [26]

Also, where did you get your "alternative facts" from?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 8:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Where have I ever excused any killers, Moses?

When have you ever condemned Islamic motivations for crimes, Bwian?

Never.

You have had thousands of opportunities but in every case your response was ALWAYS - 'what about Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc".

You have never ever found ANYTHING to be critical about in iSlam. Your spineless excuse is known to all - 'I am not a Muslim'. But you are not a Christian either, Bwian, or a jew, yet you are frothing about Christians and jews at ever discussion about islam.

You lying, spineless, squishy little piss-soaked old woman.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 9:00pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:29pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:22pm:

You are an idiot, Bwian.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1515476979/6#6

::) ::) I never even contributed to that thread, Soren. Tsk, tsk. Wasting our time? ::) ::)

Yet you are an idiot. Thinking, as you feign, that any contribution to a particular thread would be a decisive or relevant just confirms the proposition: you are an idiot.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 9:37pm

Frank wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Where have I ever excused any killers, Moses?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren. Tsk, tsk, off back to the little kiddies' playground. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 10:13pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 9:37pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Where have I ever excused any killers, Moses?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren. Tsk, tsk, off back to the little kiddies' playground. ::)

Is he right Brian? Have you ever criticised Islam? Or do you lack both the right and ability to do so?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Mar 14^th, 2018 at 7:52pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 9:37pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Where have I ever excused any killers, Moses?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren. Tsk, tsk, off back to the little kiddies' playground. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 14^th, 2018 at 8:13pm

Frank wrote on Mar 14^th, 2018 at 7:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 9:37pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 4:41pm:

Where have I ever excused any killers, Moses?

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren. Tsk, tsk, off back to the little kiddies' playground. ::)

Brain's still tossing up whether he should roger you, dear boy, but when he finally goes in, you'll cheer up no end.

You'll squeal like a pig for hours, you naughty old thing. We'd all like a picture of your enlarged, lipstick-smudged sphincter when you're done, thanks.

No more words, old boy, it's time for action.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 8:10am

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 7:27pm:

The Hijra was 622. Muhammad (and his followers) did not manage to murder any Meccans in the name of Islam until raids in 624.

The first raid was less than a year after the hijra.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 12:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 8:10am:

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 7:27pm:

The Hijra was 622. Muhammad (and his followers) did not manage to murder any Meccans in the name of Islam until raids in 624.

The first raid was less than a year after the hijra.

What did they steal in that raid Gandalf? How many innocent Meccan traders did they murder?

Now that you are aware of the basic historical facts, would you like to revisit my claim that Muhammad had very limited success with his religion until he started stealing and murdering innocent people?

Would you like to revisit the various excuses you have offered for Muhammad's career murdering innocent traders and stealing their goods?

Here is a list of them:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Deception_and_the_Just_War_Doctrine#A_brief_History_of_Muhammad.E2.80.99s_Militant_Aggression

Only the original Muslims who fled Mecca and were thus wronged by the Meccans took part in murdering Meccan traders and stealing their goods. Muslims will even back this up with a link to a wikipedia article clearly saying the opposite. [8][9]
Muhammad was merely taking revenge for the Meccan emigrants. [10]
Muhammad only ever killed people in self defence. [11]
Muhammad was leading a nation when he fled Mecca and a state of war thus existed from then until he started murdering Meccan traders. [12][13][14]
There must be a different definition for nation in 7th century Arabia. [15]
Muhammad was only concerned for the welfare of 'his people'. [16]
Muhammad only ever killed people to survive. [17][18]
Mecca was the only commercial centre in the area. [19]
The people of Medina were non-farmers in a farming area. [20][21]
It was the only option Muslims had for survival. [22]
Murder and bloodlust were not the 'primary' objective of the raids. [23]
Muhammad was under political pressure from his followers to take revenge. [24]
They were not allowed to trade in Mecca. [25]
Muhammad first raided Meccan traders and stole their goods within a year of fleeing Medina. [26]

Also, where did you get your "alternative facts" from?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 1:41pm

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 12:32pm:

Now that you are aware of the basic historical facts, would you like to revisit my claim that Muhammad had very limited success with his religion until he started stealing and murdering innocent people?

"very limited success with his religion" - is just waffle that could mean anything and nothing. It would be reasonable to intepret the conversion of the entire aws and khasraj tribes into Islam before any caravan raid, before any blood was spilled (under Muhammad) - as something other than "very limited success". But as I said, the phrase is deliberately meaningless, so you can twist it into whatever meaning you wants. Thats how FD manages the skillful juggling act of making up crap all along the way, while simultaneously lecturing on "basic historical facts".

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 6:53pm

Quote:

"very limited success with his religion" - is just waffle that could mean anything and nothing.

Fortunately, we now have an exact number with which to quanitify it.

Quote:

It would be reasonable to intepret the conversion of the entire aws and khasraj tribes

More mindless collectives eh?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 8:27pm

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:

Quote:

"very limited success with his religion" - is just waffle that could mean anything and nothing.

Fortunately, we now have an exact number with which to quanitify it.

800 at last count.

So unfair.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 11:09am

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:

Quote:

"very limited success with his religion" - is just waffle that could mean anything and nothing.

Fortunately, we now have an exact number with which to quanitify it.

Is that so FD? Well don't be shy, lets have it - what is this "exact number" of muslims before any caravan attack, or any other blood was spilled. Remembering to include the entire aws and khasraj tribes (and possibly others)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 11:34am

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 11:42am

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 11:34am:

Sounds like a mindless collective to me.

You?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 3:21pm

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 11:34am:

Incorrect FD, that is the number of male (excluding women and children) muslims who took part in the Hijra.

The leader of the Aws, Sa’ad ibn Muadh converted when he was sent as part of a delegation to meet Muhammad in Mecca. This was even before the hijra. Most of the members of the Aws and Khazraj converted shortly after, and became protectors of the emigrants when they arrived. The ansar were referred in the treaty of Medina as being part of "one nation/community with the believers" This all happened well before any caravan raid, or any other murdering/robbing.

Care to have another crack at the numbers?

You can also try another quip about "actual facts" too if you like.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 5:20pm

Quote:

Incorrect FD, that is the number of male (excluding women and children) muslims who took part in the Hijra

.

Where did you get this from?

Quote:

The leader of the Aws, Sa’ad ibn Muadh converted when he was sent as part of a delegation to meet Muhammad in Mecca. This was even before the hijra. Most of the members of the Aws and Khazraj converted shortly after, and became protectors of the emigrants when they arrived. The ansar were referred in the treaty of Medina as being part of "one nation/community with the believers" This all happened well before any caravan raid, or any other murdering/robbing.

How big was this tribe? If they were so good at protecting the emigrants, why were they so destitute two years later that they had to start murdering innocent traders and stealing their goods to survive?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 7:14pm

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 5:20pm:

If they were so good at protecting the emigrants, why were they so destitute two years later that they had to start murdering innocent traders and stealing their goods to survive?

Stay focused FD, we're focusing on the veracity of your claim that there were precisely 45 muslims at the time of the first caravan raid. How's it looking do you reckon? There was a delegation of 75 Aws and Khasraj alone who came to meet the prophet in 622 while he was still in Mecca - to reaffim their commitment to taking him in and protecting him.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegira

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 17^th, 2018 at 9:57am

Quote:

Incorrect FD, that is the number of male (excluding women and children) muslims who took part in the Hijra

Where did you get this from?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 2:15pm

I assumed you were talking about the number of male emigrants. I believe the number was around 50, but I could be wrong.

Where did you get 45 from? You didn't actually say.

The point is, there were a lot more than 45 muslims at the time of the first caravan raid - agreed?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 6:40pm

I gave a link and quote the first time I gave you the number Gandalf. It was very recent.

And no I do not agree. You were recently demanding I go and find all this info for you.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 22^nd, 2018 at 8:53am

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 6:40pm:

I gave a link and quote the first time I gave you the number Gandalf. It was very recent.

And no I do not agree. You were recently demanding I go and find all this info for you.

It is not correct, because we know many of the Aws and Kazhraj had already converted - which obviously takes the total number at the time of the first raid to more than 45. 75 of them met with the prophet even before he emigrated to reaffirm their support for him:

Quote:

The next year, at the pilgrimage of 622, a delegation of around 75 Muslims of the Banu Aws and Khazraj from Medina came, and in addition to restating the formal promises, they also assured Muhammad of their full support and protection if the latter would migrate to their land. They invited him to come to Medina as an arbitrator to reconcile among the hostile tribes.[18] This is known as the "second pledge at al-Aqabah",[19][20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegira

That was 622 FD, even before the hijra. The first caravan raid was in 623. Can you explain exactly how you are not wrong to state that the muslim population at the time of the first caravan raid was 45 (the emigrants and no one else)?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Mar 22^nd, 2018 at 4:04pm

allah was the minister for immigration back in those days;

Quote:

qur'an 2.218: Indeed, those who have believed and those who have emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah - those expect the mercy of Allah . And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

qur'an 3.195: And their Lord responded to them, "Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated or were evicted from their homes or were harmed in My cause or fought or were killed - I will surely remove from them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow as reward from Allah , and Allah has with Him the best reward."

qur'an 4.100: And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many [alternative] locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him - his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah . And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.

qur'an 8.72: Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do.

qur'an 8.74: But those who have believed and emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - it is they who are the believers, truly. For them is forgiveness and noble provision.

qur'an 8.75: And those who believed after [the initial emigration] and emigrated and fought with you - they are of you. But those of [blood] relationship are more entitled [to inheritance] in the decree of Allah . Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things.

qur'an 9.20:The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah . And it is those who are the attainers [of success].

qur'an 22.58: And those who emigrated for the cause of Allah and then were killed or died - Allah will surely provide for them a good provision. And indeed, it is Allah who is the best of providers.

emigrate and fight in the cause of allah

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 22^nd, 2018 at 7:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2018 at 8:53am:

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 6:40pm:

I gave a link and quote the first time I gave you the number Gandalf. It was very recent.

And no I do not agree. You were recently demanding I go and find all this info for you.

45 was given as the number who emigrated from Mecca to Medina. You introduced this conceptual grouping of people remember, when you falsely claimed that it was only those emigrants who murdered Meccan traders and stole their goods.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 23^rd, 2018 at 9:24am

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2018 at 7:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2018 at 8:53am:

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2018 at 6:40pm:

I gave a link and quote the first time I gave you the number Gandalf. It was very recent.

And no I do not agree. You were recently demanding I go and find all this info for you.

Oh wow FD, what a trauma to admit you were wrong. Especially after being such a smart arse about "bringing facts to the table" ;D

My question:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 11:09am:

what is this "exact number" of muslims before any caravan attack, or any other blood was spilled.

Your answer:

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2018 at 11:34am:

You were flat out, 100%, unambiguously wrong.

Are you going to be a man and just concede that?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 24^th, 2018 at 10:09am

Do you have an alternative number Gandalf?

How legitimate do you think the mass conversion of an entire tribe all at once is?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 8:36am

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Do you have an alternative number Gandalf?

Yes - more than 45.

75 alone visited Muhammad in Mecca before he left. I gave you the wiki article.

Can you do the sum FD? Is 75+45 more than 45? Take your time.

The point is, you clearly have no idea about the actual history of events. No idea that contact had been made with Medina months before the actual hijra, and the documented cases of conversion by members of the Aws and Kazraj, most notably Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who yes, the historical accounts assert got his Aws people to convert. You clearly had no inkling of the concept of the 'Ansar' - Medinans who had already converted who were tasked with accommodating the emigrants when they arrived. Clearly, there is no doubt that before the 45 emigrants left Mecca, there were muslims in Medina, waiting for the emigrants to arrive.

Your kindergarten version goes like this:
1. 45 muslims - the entire muslim population show up, out of the blue, in Medina
2. Muhammad says "garr - lets rape and pillage" - and everyone joins Islam for no other reason than to have a jolly rape and pillage romp. ~ the spread of Islam, by FD.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 12:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 8:36am:

1. 45 muslims - the entire muslim population show up, out of the blue, in Medina
2. Muhammad says "garr - lets rape and pillage" - and everyone joins Islam for no other reason than to have a jolly rape and pillage romp. ~ the spread of Islam, by FD.

Moh did this? That's appalling, it really is the end.

Put this one in the Wiki, FD. G's finally confessed. People join Islam to have a jolly rape and pillage romp, as you've always said.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 9:50pm

Quote:

The point is, you clearly have no idea about the actual history of events.

I did spend quite a long time asking you to provide the numbers, prior to you demanding that I do it.

Also, Abu had a completely different narrative to you. His was that Muhammad was invited to Medina by non-Muslims to be some kind of impartial judge. You'll have to forgive our confusion when every Muslim tells a different story.

Quote:

You clearly had no inkling of the concept of the 'Ansar' - Medinans who had already converted who were tasked with accommodating the emigrants when they arrived.

Ah - so they did not become destitute and have to murder Meccan traders?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 10:30pm

You'll have to forgive FD's confusion, G, when he makes up stuff Abu said.

Google: taqiyya.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Mar 31^st, 2018 at 2:13pm

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 9:50pm:

I did spend quite a long time asking you to provide the numbers, prior to you demanding that I do it

Thats your excuse for making up crap without bothering to check whether its true, passing it off as "actual facts", and not even acknowledging it as wrong when proven so?

That there were more than 45 could easily have been discovered with the most simple google search. I even provided you with your favourite (only) source on all things on Islamic history - wikipedia. Now you seem to be excusing yourself by saying 'its ok I made up crap without even bothering to find out whether it was true - because gandalf wouldn't tell me the numbers.'

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2018 at 9:50pm:

Also, Abu had a completely different narrative to you. His was that Muhammad was invited to Medina by non-Muslims to be some kind of impartial judge. You'll have to forgive our confusion when every Muslim tells a different story.

Good point FD. Far better to rely on your proven unreliable memory of what Abu said, many years ago - rather than do a 5 second google search and find the readily-available facts for yourself.

Also, what did Abu actually say? That there were exactly 45 muslims at the time of the hijra? Why don't we see the actual quote eh FD? It is not disputed that the delegation of Medinans were non-muslims when they first met the prophet - its likely they were still non-muslim when they invited him to Medina. But I'll bet you anything Abu doesn't disagree that the Aws and the Kazraj converted to Islam in the period between the first meeting and the actual hijra. In which case, it makes quite a mockery of your claim that it was a "completely different narrative" to mine.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 7:16pm

Gandalf, is the mass conversion of a whole tribe of Medina Pagans to Islam prior to even meeting Muhammad another example of a mindless collective, or do you think it may have been more of a political allegiance?

Quote:

Thats your excuse for making up crap without bothering to check whether its true, passing it off as "actual facts", and not even acknowledging it as wrong when proven so?

Tell us again why you said that only the emigrants from Mecca were involved in murdering innocent Meccan traders and stealing their goods.

Quote:

Also, what did Abu actually say? That there were exactly 45 muslims at the time of the hijra?

I just finished telling you what he said.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 6:53pm

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 7:16pm:

Oh my FD - are you actually saying there is a difference between being a muslim and subscribing to a "political allegiance"? Hilarious. I'll be sure to remember the distinction the next time you rabbit on about Islam being nothing but a political ideology, and how all converts back then were nothing but opportunistic thugs after some slaughtering and pillaging.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2018 at 7:16pm:

I just finished telling you what he said.

right, which even if true, is on face value not a "completely different narrative" to mine, as you claim - given that the claim that the people who invited him to Medina were non-muslims does not contradict anything I said. All I'm saying is that in the time between first contact and the actual hijra, a lot of Medinan's converted - thus easily refuting your BS claim that there were a sum total of 45 muslims at the time of the first caravan raid.

So feel free to have another go FD, do you have any evidence that suggests that Abu's narrative was a "completely different narrative" to mine?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 6:55pm

Quote:

Would you like to have a go at answering the question Gandalf?

Quote:

Sure, the Muslims didn't want Muhammad in Medina, just the non-Muslims. More of that Islamic logic.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 7:20pm

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 6:55pm:

Would you like to have a go at answering the question Gandalf?

Whether or not it was mere 'political allegiance' is neither here nor there. Who is going to read the true motives of a group of 7th century arabs? The point is they were clearly identified as muslims - by your very own gospel truth source - Wikipedia.

Do you agree its quite rich for you of all people to try and make a distinction between true believing muslims, and people who merely subscribe to a 'political allegiance'?

Do you at least concede that the most implausible and unbelievable of these scenarios is that precisely zero of them converted (including the ones that met with Muhammad) in the months between the invitation and first caravan raid, and that the entire muslim population during that time remained at exactly 45?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 6:55pm:

Sure, the Muslims didn't want Muhammad in Medina, just the non-Muslims. More of that Islamic logic.

I know right - what ridiculous logic that says that only non-muslims wanted Muhammad in Medina ;D - oh wait, thats your logic FD.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 8:24pm

Quote:

Fine. I'll rephrase my statement. Muhammad had bugger all success converting people to his religion until he started slaughtering innocent people and growing wealthy from the spoils.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 7^th, 2018 at 5:45pm

I'll take that as conceding you were wrong to state the number as 45. Good.

But there are still some unanswered questions here. Firstly, do you acknowledge the inconsistency in you attempting to make a distinction between converting to Islam and merely declaring a "political allegiance" - given all your previous arguments about adherance to Islam being not much more than a political thing?

And secondly, do you understand how ridiculous it is to say that Abu's alleged claim about Muhammad being first invited by a group of non-muslims is a "completely different narrative" to mine - given that it says nothing about my actual "narrative" - which was merely to say that a lot of Medinan's converted between the time of the first invite to the first raid.

And thirdly, exactly how is getting entire tribes loyal to your "religion" (even if its a political allegiance, which I assume you still consider as synonymous with being muslim - despite your most recent attempts to backpeddle on that), even before you move in to their community equate to having "bugger all success converting people to his religion"?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 7^th, 2018 at 6:38pm

Quote:

But there are still some unanswered questions here. Firstly, do you acknowledge the inconsistency in you attempting to make a distinction between converting to Islam and merely declaring a "political allegiance" - given all your previous arguments about adherance to Islam being not much more than a political thing?

No Gandalf. If you are happy to concede that there is no difference between declaring political allegiance to Islam and converting to the religion, I am happy to leave it at that. If not, my question about the distinction still stands, and I permit myself to ask you about it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 12:13pm

FD, I already answered the distinction thing.

You speculated that it was merely political allegiance, based on no evidence whatsoever. The fact is, all the sources (including wikipedia, your "go to" source) clearly and unambiguously identify them as "muslims". What that actually means in terms of the personal beliefs of the 7th century individuals in question is completely speculative, and therefore neither here nor there.

Also, you are wrong to say your "question stands" on what I consider what is and what isn't a "legitimate" muslim. It is *YOU* who set a bar of what is, in your words "bugger all success" in converting people, it is *YOUR* measure, not mine. Therefore it must necessarily be based on what *YOU* consider to be a "legitimate" muslim and what is not. And the fact is, you have rabbited on for ages about how 'being muslim' is essentially nothing more than a political allegiance. So no FD, it has nothing to do with what I think about the distinction, its all about your definition of a) what it means to convert to Islam and b) what does and doesn't constitute "bugger all success" in gaining converts.

So I'll ask again - 1. are you now backpeddling on your long-held belief that 'being muslim' is not much more than a political allegience?, or if not, 2. if we accept that all those aws and kazrajh tribe members (numbering well into the 100s) "converted" to Islam, as in pledging political allegience to Muhammad - how exactly is converting all those people - even before you have even met most of them, equate to having "bugger all success" in converting people to your religion?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 1:15pm

Quote:

FD, I already answered the distinction thing.

I must have missed that bit.

Quote:

You speculated that it was merely political allegiance, based on no evidence whatsoever. The fact is, all the sources (including wikipedia, your "go to" source) clearly and unambiguously identify them as "muslims". What that actually means in terms of the personal beliefs of the 7th century individuals in question is completely speculative, and therefore neither here nor there.

When you described them as a mindless collective, were you also speculating? Or do you have proof?

Quote:

Also, you are wrong to say your "question stands" on what I consider what is and what isn't a "legitimate" muslim.

I am not saying anything at all about legitimacy.

Quote:

It is *YOU* who set a bar of what is, in your words "bugger all success" in converting people, it is *YOUR* measure, not mine.

Converting people to his religion Gandalf. I even rephrased it for clarity.

Quote:

Therefore it must necessarily be based on what *YOU* consider to be a "legitimate" muslim and what is not.

Why is it necessary to pass that sort of judgement in order to discuss the nature of their allegiance?

Quote:

And the fact is, you have rabbited on for ages about how 'being muslim' is essentially nothing more than a political allegiance

Can you quote me?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 2:48pm

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

Converting people to his religion Gandalf. I even rephrased it for clarity.

He converted people to his religion - hundreds of them, before the hijra, and especially before proposing any violence. Do you agree with that? If not, then you need to explain what you mean by "converting", and why it doesn't apply here. If you do agree, then you need to explain how that can be described as having "bugger all success" in converting people to your religion.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

Why is it necessary to pass that sort of judgement in order to discuss the nature of their allegiance?

To spell it out again - because its *YOUR* claim that he had "bugger all success" in converting people - despite the fact that, according to wikipedia, the majority of 2 entire tribes converted. So its on you FD, to explain what you actually mean by that. Because at face value, I'm sure you would agree, it sounds strange to describe the mass conversion of all or most of 2 entire tribes as having "bugger all success".

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:

Can you quote me?

I'm sure I could. But before I go to the trouble, are you denying it?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:36pm

Quote:

He converted people to his religion - hundreds of them, before the hijra, and especially before proposing any violence. Do you agree with that?

I am skeptical of your claim that an entire tribe converted to his religion before they even met him.

Quote:

If not, then you need to explain what you mean by "converting", and why it doesn't apply here.

Are you pulling an Aussie?

Quote:

I'm sure I could. But before I go to the trouble, are you denying it?

Yes Gandalf, I am denying it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 9:10pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 12:13pm:

So I'll ask again - 1. are you now backpeddling on your long-held belief that 'being muslim' is not much more than a political allegience?, or if not, 2. if we accept that all those aws and kazrajh tribe members (numbering well into the 100s) "converted" to Islam, as in pledging political allegience to Muhammad - how exactly is converting all those people - even before you have even met most of them, equate to having "bugger all success" in converting people to your religion?

'Converting to Islam' has been for a very long time a simple political expediency. Do you want to be killed or do you want to pay extra tax or perform a ritual? Not exactly a spiritual choice. What is in your heart means nothing to a Muslim, it is all about how you perform in public.

Utter the shahada
be seen to be prostating yourself five times a day
be seen to give alms
Don't be seen to be eating in daytime during Ramadan
Go to Mecca

Contrast it to the two most important commandments in Christianity: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

You can fake what you say and what you perform but you can't fake what's in your heart.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 10:49am

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

I am skeptical of your claim that an entire tribe converted to his religion before they even met him.

Sorry FD, but your skepticism in the absense of any actual evidence means diddly squat. It also betrays an ignorance of arab history. Pre-Islamic arabs were basically following the religion of Abraham, but with a few extra gods thrown in. It is also a matter of historical fact that the arrival of the next prophet of God was widely anticipated at the time. That people were so willing to accept Muhammad's prophethood, and 'covert' to his religion - even without meeting him, is not a stretch at all. The fact is they were identified as muslims by all the sources, and they certainly pledged their loyalty to Muhammad, or else he wouldn't have been able to migrate. 75 of them alone travelled to Mecca to meet him and perform the hajj. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the leader definitely did wholeheartedly convert after meeting with Muhammad, and he obviously had a lot of influence over his people.

Long story short, extremely unlikely to be zero converts, wouldn't you agree?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Yes Gandalf, I am denying it.

Don't be cute FD. We all know you have stated that Islam blurs the line between religion and politics. Its therefore reasonable to question you about what you actually consider a 'legitimate' conversion to Islam, as opposed to a mere pledging of political loyalty - and why you are now making this distinction at all. But not only that, you are now running with the line that people really only 'converted' in order to let them go raping and pillaging. How is 'converting' as an excuse to go raping and pillaging somehow more legitimately 'converting' to Islam than the 'mere' pledging of political loyalty to Muhammad (for pragmatic purposes)?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

translation: I'll duck and weave from the actual point here.... in classic FD style.

Feel free to have another go FD: How is 'converting' as an excuse to go raping and pillaging somehow more legitimately 'converting' to Islam than the 'mere' pledging of political loyalty to Muhammad (for pragmatic purposes)?

were there still exactly 45 muslims at the time of the first caravan raid?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 6:41pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

translation: I'll duck and weave from the actual point here.... in classic FD style.

You accused me of saying it. I asked you to quote me. You responded by asking if I was denying it. I said yes. Seems pretty straightforward to me Gandalf. You lead us down this tangent. You are welcome to get off it at any time.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:57pm

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 6:41pm:

You are welcome to get off it at any time.

Good point FD - can I do that by asking you to address the actual point - say like this question that I just asked you, and you ignored?...

How is 'converting' as an excuse to go raping and pillaging somehow more legitimately 'converting' to Islam than the 'mere' pledging of political loyalty to Muhammad (for pragmatic purposes)?

Would you like to answer now, or would you prefer to revert back to tangents again while whinging about me going down tangents?

I've pretty much given up on trying to extract an answer from you about the Abu claim, and how it is a "completely different narrative" to mine - when it clearly isn't.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:22pm

Quote:

Good point FD - can I do that by asking you to address the actual point - say like this question that I just asked you, and you ignored?

You can do anything you set your mind to Gandalf.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:34pm

You know that saying FD - if you don't have anything useful to say...

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:44pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:34pm:

You know that saying FD - if you don't have anything useful to say...

...don't accuse people of saying things they didn't say?

Just saying, Gandalf.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by gandalf on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:46pm

Oh look, you're reverting back to the tangent - after whinging about reverting to tangents. In order to duck and weave from my question.

Ready to answer the question yet? No, never mind then.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by freediver on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:28pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:46pm:

Oh look, you're reverting back to the tangent - after whinging about reverting to tangents. In order to duck and weave from my question.

Ready to answer the question yet? No, never mind then.

Tell me more about this tangent Gandalf.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 12:19am

FD, are you free to answer questions, or has the Muselman taken this right away?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Auggie on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 2:51pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 12:19am:

FD, are you free to answer questions, or has the Muselman taken this right away?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Or a simple 'na'am' or 'laa' will also suffice.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

Islam is about what you DO and seen to be doing. What's in your heart is totally irrelevant. That's why lying is sanctioned. No Muslim will be martyred for his beliefs, he will just lie his way out of a tight spot because that's OK under Islam.

Nobody ever converted to Islam for spiritual uplift. Plenty converted for reasons of booty/rape/spoils, spite, rancour - and coercion. There is actually no other reason to adopt Islam and nobody has ever had any other reason to sign up.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:42pm

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, and this from the man who doesn't even know any Muslims and just expresses his Islamophobia with every post. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:02pm

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:42pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, and this from the man who doesn't even know any Muslims and just expresses his Islamophobia with every post. ::) ::)

You have not disproved or even countered my points, dicko. Because you cannot. Like karnal, you start talking about something else.

Do you need to know particular adherents of the flat earth theory, say, to be able to say anything about it, spineless apologist worm?

Elsewhere you criticise America even though you are not an American, big brown freckle (back, Karnal, back, I say!) Why? Beause you are a two faced hypochritical, spineless worm.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:11pm

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:42pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, and this from the man who doesn't even know any Muslims and just expresses his Islamophobia with every post. ::) ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren, resorting to ad huminem arguments to deny that he doesn't know any Muslims. Tsk, tsk. You attempt to speak with authority about a subject you have absolutely no knowledge about. Your ignorance is astounding but as an expression of Islamophobia, I suppose it is perfect. You fear Muslims and their religion so you make up all sorts of bullshit about them. Things which could be dispelled with a five minute conversation - something which you refuse to do because you fear what you'll hear. Run along, Soren, I hear your day-carer calling you back to the little kiddies' playground where you belong. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:20pm

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:42pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, and this from the man who doesn't even know any Muslims and just expresses his Islamophobia with every post. ::) ::)

You have not actually made any counter- arguments, bozo, you are just venting your emotional correctness. You are just having the vapours and so you yawn because you can neither think nor articulate.

Go and arrange some flowers. Knit. Mindless repetitiveness seems to be your personal gift and strength, Bwian. You are living it.

Carry on.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:34pm

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:20pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:42pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 9:34pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 1:30pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

Ask away gandalf, but if I didn't say it then I didn't say it. It's just yet another of your absurd strawmem.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Tsk, tsk, and this from the man who doesn't even know any Muslims and just expresses his Islamophobia with every post. ::) ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren, resorting to ad huminem arguments again? Move along folks, move along, nothing worth looking at here, just Soren expressing his hatred for anybody who dares to question his motivation. Tsk, tsk, such a poor little child. Off, back to the little kiddies' playground. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 10:05pm

No counter argument from you, then, yoni. Just dodge and eyerolling.

Carry on. I said you would.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:22pm

Frank wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 10:05pm:

No counter argument from you, then, yoni. Just dodge and eyerolling.

Carry on. I said you would.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren, when you put up an actual argument rather than relying on ad humanium insults, Islamophobia and actually is worth arguing against, I'll make my points. However as that appears impossible for you, all you get is yawning and eye-rolling. Tsk, tsk, I really don't know why you bother. I really don't. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:53pm

I really do feel sorry for them, Brian. I wonder why they bother.

Such a bore.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Grendel on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 10:56am

Shut up bwian... you continuously fail on so many levels to lift this topic out of ignorance (Dr of Divinity) and your ad hominen and ridicule is not only spurious and hypocritical its down right boring.

You have people talking about jesus and his death and not understanding why he died the way he did and for what cause.
You have people making claims about wrongdoings without a shred of proof to back their lies.

You have the OP which ignores the fact that similar more accurate claims have been made on this very site before.

Honestly you people and you know to whom I am referring... couldn't hold a sensible debate if your lives depended on it... on anything. :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 2:54pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:53pm:

I really do feel sorry for them, Brian. I wonder why they bother.

Such a bore.

Yes, he, like all the Islamophobes are boring, Karnal. Tsk, tsk. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 6:47pm

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

The entire world, for centuries now, has perceived Islam as an intolerant, expansionist creed - only because all those non-Muslim didn't have a 5 minute conversation with a Muslim. Of course, Bwian, everything about Islam is a giant misunderstanding simply due to not having a 5 minute chat with some effendi-this, effendi-that Muslim. 1400 years of historical problems, bloodshed solved. If only we could see them though your eyes, what? If only the world was like you, Bwian.

Next you will teach us how to play the flute in 5 minutes, Bwian. Blow in one end an move your fingers up and down on the holes - done.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:17pm

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:53pm:

I really do feel sorry for them, Brian. I wonder why they bother.

Such a bore.

Yes, he, like all the Islamophobes are boring, Karnal. Tsk, tsk. ::)

I know. They just put me to sleep, Brian. Why do you think they bother?

Yawn.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:26pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:53pm:

I really do feel sorry for them, Brian. I wonder why they bother.

Such a bore.

Yes, he, like all the Islamophobes are boring, Karnal. Tsk, tsk. ::)

I know. They just put me to sleep, Brian. Why do you think they bother?

Yawn.

Bwian, you lucky, jammy bustard!! You have the Paki trouser sniffer RIGHT behind you!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:30pm

Frank wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 11^th, 2018 at 10:11pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Poor, poor, Soren. Amazing how you mistake what single Muslims do now for what their rulers did, when they were powerless to stop them, hundreds of years ago. Tsk, tsk, such a foolish man you are, such a silly man. ::) ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:32pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:53pm:

I really do feel sorry for them, Brian. I wonder why they bother.

Such a bore.

Yes, he, like all the Islamophobes are boring, Karnal. Tsk, tsk. ::)

I know. They just put me to sleep, Brian. Why do you think they bother?

Yawn.

I have no idea. They are wasting their time. I am on automatic when I answer them. If they actually produced an argument worth answering, I would. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Brian Ross on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:32pm

Frank wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:53pm:

I really do feel sorry for them, Brian. I wonder why they bother.

Such a bore.

Yes, he, like all the Islamophobes are boring, Karnal. Tsk, tsk. ::)

I know. They just put me to sleep, Brian. Why do you think they bother?

Yawn.

Bwian, you lucky, jammy bustard!! You have the Paki trouser sniffer RIGHT behind you!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

At least I know I am safe with Karnal there. Now you, OTOH, I have to be careful because of the knife you have in your hand... ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Apr 14^th, 2018 at 12:28am

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:32pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 7:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 2:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 12^th, 2018 at 11:53pm:

I really do feel sorry for them, Brian. I wonder why they bother.

Such a bore.

Yes, he, like all the Islamophobes are boring, Karnal. Tsk, tsk. ::)

I know. They just put me to sleep, Brian. Why do you think they bother?

Yawn.

Bwian, you lucky, jammy bustard!! You have the Paki trouser sniffer RIGHT behind you!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

At least I know I am safe with Karnal there. Now you, OTOH, I have to be careful because of the knife you have in your hand... ::)

The worst I can do is sniff your trousers, Brian. The old boy could actually bore you to death.

Yawn. ::)

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Grendel on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 3:48pm

I see you've done nothing to improve your inane prattle Bwian...

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 10:56am:

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Unforgiven on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 4:33pm

Has Freediver resigned the Anti-Christ gig?

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Karnal on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 9:45pm

Unforgiven wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 4:33pm:

Has Freediver resigned the Anti-Christ gig?

No no, he's just picked up the right to be offended gig.

It's a tough job, Forgiven, but someone's got to do it.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by Frank on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 7:01pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 10:49am:

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:

I am skeptical of your claim that an entire tribe converted to his religion before they even met him.

Yeah, right. ;D ;D ;D
You'd better go and update Wikipedia because they obviously got it completely wrong and make no mention of Abraham:

the dominant form of religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, was based on veneration of deities and other rituals. Gods and goddesses, including Hubal and the goddesses al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt, were worshipped at local shrines, such as the Kaaba in Mecca. Different theories have been proposed regarding the role of Allah in Meccan religion.[1][2][3][4][5] Many of the physical descriptions of the pre-Islamic gods are traced to idols, especially near the Kaaba, which is said to have contained up to 360 of them.

Pre-Islamic Arabian deities
A'ra
Abgal
Aglibol
Allah
Al-Lat
Al-Qaum
Amm
Anbay
Astarte
Atargatis (Syrian)
Atarsamain
Athtar
Baalshamin
Basamum
Bēl
Bes (Egypt)
Dhul Khalasa
Dushara
Ēl, Ilāh (NW Semitic)
Haukim
Hubal
Isāf and Nā'ila
Ishtar
Jesus
Malakbel
Manaf
Manāt
Nabū, Nebo
Nasr
Nergal
Nuha
Orotalt
Ruda
Sa'd
Shams, Samas
Sīn
Suwa'
Theandrios
Al-‘Uzzá
Wadd
Ya'uq
Yaghūth
Yarhibol
Yatha
demons

Your silly assertion of 'basically following the religion of Abraham" is nothing but Islamic self-deception and mythologising and dare I say 'cultural appropriation' about Abraham being the builder of the Kaaba. Total nonsense like the rest of Mohammed's misunderstandings and appropriations.

Title: Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Post by moses on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 4:19pm

Quote:

including Hubal and the goddesses al-Lāt, Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt, were worshipped at local shrines, such as the Kaaba in Mecca.

from the qur'an:
53:11 The heart did not lie [about] what it saw.

53:12 So will you dispute with him over what he saw?

53:13 And he certainly saw him in another descent

53:14 At the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary -

53:15 Near it is the Garden of Refuge -

53:16 When there covered the Lote Tree that which covered [it].

53:17 The sight [of the Prophet] did not swerve, nor did it transgress [its limit].

53:18 He certainly saw of the greatest signs of his Lord.

53.19: So have you considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza?

53.20: And Manat, the third - the other one?