Jesus Led me to Islam

Jewels,

Islam has four sources of reference. In their order, they are:

1. The Holy Qur'an
2. hadith
3. Ijma (concensus among scholars)
4. Qiyas(analogy)

So, you have to go in this order. You cannot simply come and cite some scholar without referencing the first two preceding sources. If the scholars you are citing are using these sources, they must have referenced them in their work as well, so the reader can go back and check them. I have asked you to tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite, and you tell me in the Suyuti book. However, as you can see above, the Suyuti book is not an acceptable source of Islam, so the hadith must be found in the acceptable books of hadith. Furthermore, the hadith cannot negate the Qur'an and it must be a saheeh hadith. Saheeh meens that it has been proven to be valid (there is a whole science behind proving which hadiths are valid and which not; there are four classification but we don't have to go into detail about this). Suyuti could be an excellent scholar, but his book cannot be used by itself as a proof for anything. You need to provide valid references, and tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite (or where Suyuti has found those hadiths). As for Surah Al-Ahzab (33), I have never seen it translated as "parties", that is why the confusion. However, you still need to provide proof of what you are citing when you state that it used to be longer than it is.

"When you dont know about a book or a scholar, that doesnt necesarily mean that they are unexistent; it doesnt mean there any less accredited; that they are any less known (among those who want to seek their books that is)..."

I didn't say they were nonexistent, I simply stated that they have to be an authority in Islam, and that they have to cite from acceptable sources of Islam, such as the Qur'an or hadith to support their argument. Because in your citations you never state where the hadiths come from, I am asking you to provide me that information.

"If you know your religion well enough, you'd find God leaving room for "Ijtihad" (making effort in knowing and interpreting ISlam)..ANnd that is why we find books of interpretations, of History, and manyy many "accepted" hadiths sources..i.e sources other than Quran to be cited from..other books by sheikhs to be read..What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book..."

Ijtihad cannot be done by everyone. ;) Also, those who do ijtihad have to support their reasonings with Qur'an and hadiths.

"In case you read my posts carefully i have cited a few other sources which i'd be glad to re-cite..
-Author's name: taṣnīf Abī al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī (Wahdy in Egyptian dialect)
His Book: "Asbāb al-nuzūl" or The Reasons of the Quranic Verses including the Abrogator and Abrogated verses on the margin"

That is all good and nice, but these are not valid sources of Islam. If you cite these people and their books, then if they are valid and truthful, they have to provide references to whatever verse or hadith they are using in their books. If they cannot do that, then we cannot accept their argument as valid.

"What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book..."

Maybe you should start doing that for your own religion and provide us with some answers. ;) I mean, why is it that every time I ask a Christian about their religion, they start talking about Islam? Do you think that by proving Islam wrong, you will make your religion right? Why don't you talk to me about something you know, rather than copy and paste things that you don't fully understand? :confused:

"Islam has four sources of reference. In their order, they are:

1. The Holy Qur'an
2. hadith
3. Ijma (concensus among scholars)
4. Qiyas(analogy"

First of all when you say Quran you dont mean that i or you should go and interpret it our way for it is quite complicated and God's words are not be understood by common people such as ourselves, unless we've studied for years and years..So i also assume that some interpreters guide you. i.e you read the verses and their interpretation (by muslim scholars, people who've studied; such as)
Al JAlalayn
Al Zamakhshari
Ibn Kathiir
Al Tabary...

I assume that you're also aware that the books of ahadith do not quote dierctly from Mohamed pbuh but its like companions, who quote companions, who quote companions who finally quote the prophet. The books of ahadith do not only contain the sayings and doings of Mohamed pbuh but also the sayings and the historic accounts of his companions and MOhamed's wives as well as they give the Moslems a better and more complete idea of Mohamed whether in war, with his wives, at home etc... You can thus find campanions, quoting companions and stop at that..and find Mohamad's wives sayings; such as Aisha's sayings..You knwo that right??

Secondly you say
"I have asked you to tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite, and you tell me in the Suyuti book. However, as you can see above, the Suyuti book is not an acceptable source of Islam, so the hadith must be found in the acceptable books of hadith."

But then i remember stating Musnad Ahmed (about the lost verses of the "Parties" or chp 33 which i told you'd find in Suyuti's book); i even translated it for you. Musnad AHmed, is a book and guess what? there are ahadith in it and they are "Saheeh" (right/ official, "acceptable") and its not i who made that up..
The books of Hadith or Sunnah are mainly 9 (9 accredited and official and "Saheeh").. Any other books than these are called Isra'elyyat (books that had Jewish intervention)and thus neither acceptable nor reliable..

The 9 acceptable Books i'm talkin about, you can find in ARabic countries. in your case you can look them up on the net..
The Saudi ARabia ministry of Islamic affairs has them all (mentioned it hadith.al-islam.com
In that page you will find the writing كتب السنة التسعةits the list of the 9 books...
i can list them anyways:
"Saheeh Muslim", "SAheeh Bukhari", "Sunnan Ibn Majeh", "Sunnan el Tormozi", "Musnad Ahmed", "Sunnan al NIsa'i", "Sunnan Abi Dawood", "Mawta' Malek", "Sunnan Drami"
Note that the word "Saheeh" here is the name of the Book.

Bring someone to read tehm out for you..One of those books is called Musnad Ahmed; which is one of the Books of ahadith Suyuti has been quoting from..
So i'll give you the exact quote conserning the missing verses in ("The Parties" or Chapter 33)..That is the link..
hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=212

You have to be aware of the person saying the statement; Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab (may God Bless him) was one of the Prophets companions (i explained to you above, that you could find some companions sayings and Aisha's sayings in ahadith books or Sunna books)

So click on it and make an Arabic reader read it out for you and explain it (you must know someone; you can give to a translator) because you see, the English version of this website and even Al-Azhar website are poor and not all ahadith are translated and when a hadith is translated,the translators do not mention the book it is taken from..

there is another one; that gives the same meaning..(that verses were lost after Uthman burned the copies that is)the missing verses talk about the law of of stoning an old couple commiting adultery..

Another missing verse i forgot to mention...
Apart from the stoning verse, is the one that talks about the "Breast feeding of the old"..The story starts as follows (first i'll point to a hadith):
It talks about Mohamed telling a woman to breast feed her older adopted son becasue her husband has grown jealous after her adopted son has become a man..
In the Hadith Book i use at home (Saheeh Moslem; thast its name; one of the 9 books im telling you about) i found the story..
But i managed to locate it for you on the Saudi website:

Aisha thus tells us the same story in Saheeh Moslem, Musnad Ahmed, Sonn EL Nisa'i, Tormozi, Sonnan Ibn Majeh, Mawta' Malek..

The verse for "Breast Feeding of the Old" was supposed to be present in today's Quran had not Uthman burnt it. We find Aisha's testimony for that in a HAdith Book (Sunan Ibn Majeh); again one of the 9 Hadith Books accredited among muslims.
It is written here:
Aisha says it:
From (Sunnan Ibn Majeh):
From Musnad Ahmed:
It basically reads that Aisha had the verses for the law of "stoning of the old" and "breast Feeding of the old" written on a paper under her bed and when the Prophet died, they got busy and a came in "Dadjen" in the other books "Dowayba" (i.e Domestic animal) and ate the papers...

let a friend translate it for you...

So i dont understand where do u read your hadiths??(is it from one condensed book called "Saheeh"??) ANyhow the rest of th ahadith you want to know, you look for them yourself..they're all there...i gave you the websites, i cited the books..
so i'll let you Do your Ijtehad..and let me do mine as you said ;-)

You say "I mean, why is it that every time I ask a Christian about their religion, they start talking about Islam?"
But then why is it every time i ask a muslim about the Abrogator and Abrogated verses, they start askin me to quote them books and books instead of doin their own research, why do they simply say "its not true"!!sounds familiar???

In many of the posts i wrote i discussed christianity..and people were participating such as Wiffl..(sorry i'll re-check your name) and dark..But i mean you cant just say "i answered all the points you raised"..

You say: "Do you think that by proving Islam wrong, you will make your religion right?"

As i told u b4 i'm not trying to convert people here..you attempetd to do that first and i told that here is not the place..this is just a debate..its like we're debating any topic..we're arguing..i told you b4 such arguments help me more understand both of our religions and it helps me read more and research better "more or less" more objectively because all the questions about christianity that you and Shield&Sword have brought up, i wrote them down and i'm looking for the answers; i didnt say "Its not true" because they might be true..

you finally say "Why don't you talk to me about something you know, rather than copy and paste things that you don't fully understand?"
You keep on mentioning how impotant are ahadith and you dont even know the different books of Hadiths..You didnt even "understand" the meanings of the title to the Surahs and you simply said "there's no such thing as the chapter of Parties" i assume u havent checked b4 u made such a statement...

Neither you or me are know-it all people, thast the point of the forum..At least i have
to admit it myself...As much as it uses up my energy and time; it has been a very benefitial experience ;-)
I first registered in this website to talk about Peter Pan, never thought i'd end up spending days in continuous research..

Peace to you Amra..And thanks :-))

Salam
BISm ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

I just want to give a little notice,,i noticed that some ppl use books of history to judge islam.. I want to say that some of these books contian hadeeth that is not valid and they wrote it (the writers of histroy) without controling them, coz they r not from hadeeth scholars , they r history writers if they write history books, and they write all they find in thier hands and leave the work to other scholars to decide if this is a valid hadeeth or story or not.
Even in bukhari book there is part contain ahadeeth with isnad and all islamic world agreed they all r saheeh (valid), but in part of his book called Balaghat the hadeeth that located there is not all valid, and the work of scholars to control them according to hadeeth rules and decide which is valid, but Bukhari wrote them for something called in arabic "alamana alilmia" mean the honesty of the science (i guess). If u read hadeeth of this part (part of balaghat) u see the word balaghany min ( reached me (i guess)), this mean that this hadeeth reached him like news, like he hear this news from some one, even they r called Akhbar (news) not called hadeeth with sanad (the ppl who narraited it) and matn(the containing of the hadeeth and he didnt control if they r right or wrong, but wrote them for the honesty. In islam there r 2 books called Saheh, Saheh Albukhari, Saheh Muslim. The other 6 books of hadeeth r called Sunan and they can contain not valid hadeeth and they must be controled by scholars.
Lets go back to the history books, every muslim writer write for honesty and some times he write not valid hadeeth and then he give his own opinin as its not valid hadeeth , and some times not. The question how we know the valid and not valid hadeeth in history books? when u look at hadeeth wrote in the book u see before it a few names , this is called Roah-raoi (narraiters). In islam there is part of hadeeth science called "Jarh oa ta'deel", this part control the ppl who narraited the hadeeth (there r alot of conditions to be a valid narraiter), and decide according it if sanad (goup of narraiters of hadeeth) is valid or not valid. So when u write something here and say its hadeeth u must write the names before it, if hadeeth doesnt have the group who narraited it then its not accepted, and when u write the names we can say if this is valid or not according to the validity of naraiters decided by scolars.
Hadeeth science is so big in islam, and need alot of study, and even the history writers didnt check if this hadeeth is valid or not , but for honesty they wrote it and wrote the names of narraiters to let this job to scolars. So as we see all islam things is relaited to each other, no one can write from his own mind alone and other write other thing, all must be controled, if a history man write hadeeth he leave the work of validity to hadeeth scholar if other write some thing others control, all r well comtroled and well made.

i hope u got the idea.
Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
salam.

Assalamu aleikum Shield and Sword,

Jazzak Allah hairen for this explanation. Many people do not understand how complex Islamic law is, and how certain regulations are derived. Even though a hadith may be in those books, it may not be saheeh. A hadith cannot be interpreted on its own. It has to be interpreted within the context and it has to have the full sanad (chain of narrators), all of which have to be confirmed to have been truthful, honest people. Also, a hadith cannot negate the Qur'an. It is absurd to believe that there is a saheeh hadith stating that the Qur'an has been changed, when Allah s.v.t says Himself that the holy Qur'an will be guarded and protected. A hadith like that would be dismissed just based on this issue that it negates a Qur'anic verse. Hadiths are simply there to help us understand the Qur'an, to learn about the Prophet's life, to show us how to practice Islam. However, it can never be taken above the Qur'an, nor can any hadith negate an ayat. It is a very serious claim to state that Aisha r.a would claim that the holy Qur'an was changed, and to believe that a hadith stating just that would be considered saheeh is not logical to say the least. May Allah s.v.t save us from inventing lies on those honorable people. Amin.

Assalamu aleikum,

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

Jazak ALLAH khair amra,
قيل لأحمد بن حنبل : ابن اسحاق إذا تفرد بحديث تقبله ؟ قال : (( لا ، والله إني رأيته يحدث عن جماعة بالحديث الواحد ، ولا يفصل كلام ذا من ذا )) ( تهذيب الكمال ( 24 : 422
I wanted to begin my answer to jewels with this scentence its mean: They asked Ihmad Ibn Hanbal(big scholar) (the one who narrated the hadeeth that u posted in jewels previuos answer): "Ibn Ishaq (one of the ppl that narrated this hadeeth and u can see his name in the chain of narraters before the hadeeth) if he narrated hadeeth do u accept him? he said (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal): no, i swear i saw him narrating from a group in one hadeeth, and he dont separate the talk of ppl ( i think he mean he make the talk of ppl one talk and dont separate ppl talk)". Book "tahtheeb alkamal"
If u watch the chain of narraters of this hadeeth u see 2 names between Ibn Ishq and Aisha; i mean the chain is putten in this way begining from Ibn Ishaq(where the prob is located): Muhammed Ibn Ishaq narrated from Abd ALLAH Ibn Abi Bakr from Amra from Aisha, in the second chain is putted: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated from Abd ARRAHMAN Ibn Alqasem from his father from Aisha. we see that Ibn Ishaq when he narrated the hadeeth one time he said it from one and some times from other, he gathered the same hadeeth from a different narraters and this is his prob, Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is not a lier but its known about him that he mix ahadeeth (as scholars of hadeeth decided).
وقال عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل قيل لأبي يحتج به-يعني ابن اسحاق-قال(لم يكن يحتج به في السنن)
This sentence mean that Abd ALLAH Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal say that his father was asked do we take his ahadeeth-mean Ibn Ishaq-he said (Ahma Ibn Hanbal) we dont accept his ahadeeth in sunan (in laws of islam).

وقال الذهبي في السير(7/41)[وأما في أحاديث الأحكام فينحط حديثه فيها عن رتبة الصحة إلى رتبة الحسن إلا فيما شذ فيه،فإنه يعد منكراً]
Athahaby (scholar) said in his book assiar: in laws his hadeeth(Ibn Ishaq) go down from saheeh to good (hasan) (levels of hadeeth-as scholars gave), only the unusual of them they r ignored (not accepted).
The accepted hadeeth of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq r these about Alaghazy (dont know in english) and seera, but his hadeeth about laws in islam is not accepted, then how if the hadeeth about Holy Quran its for sure not accepted, and the hadeeth that he narrate alone is not accepted, the prob of this man is not that he is lier but he mix things, u see him once narrate hadeeth and cancel some one from the chain of naraters.
قال السرخسي: "حديث عائشة لا يكاد يصحّ ؛ لاَنّ بهذا لا ينعدم حفظه من القلوب، ولا يتعذّر عليهم به إثباته في صحيفة أُخرى، فعرفنا أنّه لاأصل لهذا الحديث .
Assarkhasy said words above i explain them with these words:
Another prob of this hadeeth is in matn(the contain of hadeeth), coz as its known that when prophet pbuh recite the verses that He pbuh get from ALLAH not only one write them but a group of sahaba every one of them on his own paper (saheefa), and also ppl put them in thier minds (keep verses in mind and untle now we can see this in all islamic words, that they put whole Holy Quran in mind), not only papers, and if the animal ate one paper then for sure we will find the verse in other paper not only in that eaten one, so no logic here, and not valid this hadeeth.
As i posted above even Ahmad Ibn Hanbal didnt accept Ibn Ishaq always and said wht is his prob also other scholas of hadeeth especially in Jarh oa ta'deel.
As i posted in my previous answeres, i wrote that there r 2 saheeh in islam(in which all hadeeth r valid) which is saheeh Albukhari and saheeh Muslim, and all other 6 books of hadeeth is called sunan (and one from them is sunan Ibn Majeh, where this hadeeth is located) and they contain the valid and not valid hadeeth and the work of hadeeth scholars is to decide which hadeeth is right and which hadeeth is wrong.
There is hadeeth that talk about breast feeding but its in group of nasekh oa mansookh (canceling a law by other) and its talk about other thing, and perhaps Ibn Ishaq mixed things and narrated it in this form, but as he got prob we leave his hadeeth about laws, even we can see his prob so clear because of his mixing in narraters before him.
I hope i answered ur question.

Jewels i hope u read my answer that i poested before about hadeeth, and also the one before this about John (10:30) and wht happened to King James version, and the canceling is so clear u can find it by reading now adays bible and King James version.

Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom oa rahmato ALLAH oa barakatihi

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

the smily that u see in my previous talk i didnt post it , i think it was because od puttin points and these things, only wanted to make u know this, i dont like to post them in a dialogue,

alhamdo LILLAH , thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom

Muslims do not believe in the Bible....whatever they you may say....the big difference between what they believe and what the Bible says is that Jesus is the son of God and that He died for our sins. That difference is everything.

As has been said before, the Bible was not tampered with by humans. It is a much more reliable documents (historically and otherwise) than the Qur'an. The Bible says nothing of Mohammad and Islam. The Qur'an was written much later than the Bible.

Make any sense?

I don't want to get involved in this debate but just wanted to put my two cents in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

the smily that u see in my previous talk i didnt post it , i think it was because od puttin points and these things, only wanted to make u know this, i dont like to post them in a dialogue,

alhamdo LILLAH , thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom

---

Hey, great smiley! :brow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amra

Assalamu aleikum Shield and Sword,

Jazzak Allah hairen for this explanation. Many people do not understand how complex Islamic law is, and how certain regulations are derived. Even though a hadith may be in those books, it may not be saheeh. A hadith cannot be interpreted on its own. It has to be interpreted within the context and it has to have the full sanad (chain of narrators), all of which have to be confirmed to have been truthful, honest people. Also, a hadith cannot negate the Qur'an. It is absurd to believe that there is a saheeh hadith stating that the Qur'an has been changed, when Allah s.v.t says Himself that the holy Qur'an will be guarded and protected. A hadith like that would be dismissed just based on this issue that it negates a Qur'anic verse. Hadiths are simply there to help us understand the Qur'an, to learn about the Prophet's life, to show us how to practice Islam. However, it can never be taken above the Qur'an, nor can any hadith negate an ayat. It is a very serious claim to state that Aisha r.a would claim that the holy Qur'an was changed, and to believe that a hadith stating just that would be considered saheeh is not logical to say the least. May Allah s.v.t save us from inventing lies on those honorable people. Amin.

Assalamu aleikum,

---

Just because the quran says it has a certain quality does not disprove a hadith reflecting its production.

Mohammad led me to Christianity. Funny old world, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Mohammad led me to Christianity. Funny old world, isn't it?

---

And you haven't opened a thread yet!?

There is oil to be had from such untapped resources!

The one who liked smily i pasted, If you want another smiley you can look in the mirror (but i cant guarantee you will smile).

I will respond last post in this thread which is putten by thevintagepiper.

If bible is older than Holy Quran it doesnt mean Holy Bible is right. By this meaning we should search for bible from Jesus pbuh time but they dont exist, bibles were written 20 years after Jesus (if we want to consider time, then we should look at time of the scriptures writings, for example old test. is written long time before new test. but it doesnt mean according you that we refuse new test.), and 4 of them were accepted at years 300 in nicea council and even book of Luke wasnt accepted first and then they accepted it. For example book of Mathew were written in hebrew, but the hebrew scriptures dont exist, we find only greek scripture, mean we find translations but not the original one original one. If all these things happened to Holy Quran believe me alot of critics will be made. But all what we find is that Muhammed was raised as jew and then became christians and all these lies, no one can ever try to talk about holy quran accuracy, because its same Holy Quran in all world word by word, and equal to the original scriptures, so they only try to attack prophet by saying lies without any proof.
They are ways to know if the book is accurate and came from God or not, are there verses contraddict between verses in bible? are there verses added canceled? what teachings there are in bible, and which language is used?
For 1400 years the Holy Quran is the only book in world that challenged people to bring one verse like it, and no other writer in world dare to write such thing, and then challenge people to find 1 MISTAKE in it, but no answer untle now. DO you think that enemys of islam didnt try, we know who are first enemys, no one ever came and said " i have Surah like holy quran its not a broblem to bring one verse like it", but they couldnt so they are using now the media to give bad image about the only man that gave Jesus pbuh his right as prophet, and gave a witness about his mother, and gave witness about raising of Jesus, prophet Muhammed that made 1300000000 believe in Jesus and honor him and believe that his mother is vergion who gave a child by a miracle without using any bible but by the holy quran which praised all other prophets that no other book did. Even Ali Bin Abi Taleb the 4th calipha said "if i hear someone say about prophet David what the bible believers say about him then i will slash him the punishment of liers..." (bible believers say that David made adultery with wife of chef of his soldiers. This is the teachings of Muhammed pbuh that put in minds of his believers, a man who ate fruits of coca (as a lier in this forum said about our prophet and his post wasnt canceled but was closed and left people to see it) doesnt say such thing about prophets, and doesnt mention Marry pbuh in this way, and doesnt call to worship the only God, God of honest prophets, pure prophets Abraham, Jesus Moses and all others peace be upon him.

thevintagepiper Will ask you a question about something i see it a historical mistake, perhaps i got it wrong and you can clear it for me, because you said bible is realable historicaly:

Lets begin with Daniel 1:1-2 "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand,"
We see that Jerusalem was sorrounded by king of Babylon in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. King of Babylon sorrounded Jerusalem in the year 596 B.C or 567, and the third year of the reign ot Jehoiakim was at 606 B.B
Lets take a look at Kings2 24- 6 So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. 7 And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt. 8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. 10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.
The story contraddict with what Daniel book say. In kings2 we see that Jehoiachin was the king of not Jehoiachim when king of Babylon attacked, and it was a short period of 3 months, and a writer of history cant mistake such a mistake by non knowing the king in his time and what heppened in that time especially when it heppen such a big thing like war, such a mistake happen when the writer didnt live in same time, when the write write long time after things happened, especially when its so short time, the writer cant notice it. In knigs2 the writer lived at that time and knew who was the king and gave so specific information that only who live at that time can know it or a short time after it happened.
There is another problem, the age of Jehoiachin in kings2 is 18 years, while it contraddict with what written in Chronicales2 36:9 "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: ", difference of 10 years in age, and 10 days more than what is written in knigs2 (the period he was king). The age was changed in now adays copies, it became 18 years, difference was so big, perhaps 10 days not so big. Another problem. In Jeremiah 22:18-19 "Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah; They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! 19 He shall be buried with the burial of an ***, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." It contraddict with Kings2 the end of Jehoiakim according Jeremiah was that he buried with the burial of an *** out of Jerusalem. A wrong prophecy, or Kings2 is wrong.

I just want to know what the hell is going on here? This thread is alien to this
web-site. The story, this thread begins with, is so obnoxious and nauseating that I almost...........

I'm a student of Human Rights and have done extensive research on Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddism and Hinduism and have objectively analysed the concept of religion. The stories in all sacred texts are little more than hog-wash. They were contrived in order to infuse morality into barbarians. Just like Aesop's fables, which were written to infuse wisdom into children. So, it is not the logicality or the varacity of the story which one must concern himself with, but the message which the story conveys.

I am a muslim turned agnostic. I don't understand why people are fighting for their Gods if they sincerely believe in his omnipotence? Is God so helpless that he wants his followers to fight for him?

There is nothing called Mohammedanism, it is called ISLAM, if you are not familiar with this word, well you are now. Or you give words thier right now or leave it.
No fight here its normal discussion, I dont know why always non believers when they see religious people talk they say fighting, if you consider this discussion fight, well forum is full with other threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

There is nothing called Mohammedanism, it is called ISLAM, if you are not familiar with this word, well you are now. Or you give words thier right now or leave it.

---

I don't know, which planet you come from and I don't care. Whether you like it or not, we humans, use the words Islam and Mohammedanism interchangeably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shield&Sword

No fight here its normal discussion, I dont know why always non believers when they see religious people talk they say fighting, if you consider this discussion fight, well forum is full with other threads.

---

1) I never said I'm a non-believer.

2) I've confined my commets, on the discussions happening here, to the first two paragraphs..........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

I just want to know what the hell is going on here? This thread is alien to this web-site. The story, this thread begins with, is so obnoxious and nauseating that I almost...........

I'm a student of Human Rights and have done extensive research on Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddism and Hinduism and have objectively analysed the concept of religion. The stories in all sacred texts are little more than hog-wash. They were contrived in order to infuse morality into barbarians. Just like Aesop's fables, which were written to infuse wisdom into children. So, it is not the logicality or the varacity of the story which one must concern himself with, but the message which the story conveys.

---

..........and the third is a general comment on religious extremism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

I don't understand why people are fighting for their Gods if they sincerely believe in his omnipotence? Is God so helpless that he wants his followers to fight for him?

---

I have expressed my contempt for both - religious extremism as well as this malicious propoganda which you call discussion.

I can see you are a Mohammedan. Look how Ahmaidiyyas are being persecuted in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Kurds in former Iraq and Syria and Turkey. Religious extremism begins by scandulous preaching and ends by mindless killing.

Please do not personalise your comments and/or discuss current politics.

Since this thread has outlived its purpose, it will now be closed.