The Original Sin

But I see that you do not look-up to anyone.

  I admire lots of people, but that has nothing to do with religion.

That according to your manifesto, there is no life after this life. That the purpose of life ceases the moment a Humanist dies?

There is no single "purpose of life".  The purpose of my life is whatever I want it to be.  As Carl Sagan famously put it, "if you want your life to have meaning, do something meaningful."  The same goes for you.  If you choose to serve an omnipotent God who obviously doesn't need servants even if He actually existed, then that's up to you; but personally I can't think of anything more meaningless.

But we are not talking about religious people? We are talking about seasoned and professional people who do not get swayed regardless of the content of their findings.

One might hope so; but I suspect that those journalists who choose to write about religion are probably religious.

I would say that Christianity itself is a failure, if its purpose is to create an ethical society. But IMHO Islam is worse. Why do you say that? Can you cite reasons for saying that?

I'm not sure if you are asking about Christianity or Islam, or the comparison, or what exactly.  But you know the issues: homosexuality, adultery, abortion, contraception, slavery, apostacy, freedom of speech, tolerance, misogyny, etc.  Islam in particular is still very tribal, despite its pretensions to the contrary.  It just doesn't work in a global village.

This happened in the case of Bin Laden as well. Because Bin Laden was once a darling of those very govts and media who later demonised him. Suspicion, therefore, is natural.

Things do change, you know.  People change.  Circumstances change.  Opinions change.  I don't see why change per se should arouse suspicion.

Also, at one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his beloved wife Aisha of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.

On the contrary, the timing is exactly what I would expect if Muhammad were making it up himself.  It would have taken a couple of days for him to realize that the controversy was not going away on its own, another couple to compose the verses, and perhaps a day or two more to arrange appropriate circumstances for them to be "revealed".  On the other hand, if it had come from an omniscient God, one would expect it to be revealed in advance of the incident, not in reaction to it.

I've always wondered, by the way: if Aiysha had not been accidentally left behind, would those verses have been omitted from the Quran?  So many of the things in the Quran are specifically in response to events in the Prophet's life that it's hard to see it as a timeless message for all humankind.

Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of his followers?

Really?  Most people find a dash of humility to be an admirable quality.  Tell me, do the verses you quoted cause you to lose respect for Muhammad?  Didn't think so.

How about his prediction about Rome. Was that a generality, too?

Yes it was, but not the way you quoted it.  You quoted verse 30:4 as saying the Romans will be victorious "within nine years".  I don't think you'll find a single authentic translation that implies such precision.  Most translations say either "three to nine years" or "a few years".  And Pickthall says "within ten years".

As usual, you failed to acknowledge your source (answering-christianity.com, right?); but more important, you're still not checking your sources.  Why on earth not?  Do you not have a copy of the Quran?

Okay, so let's look at this "prophecy".  First of all, it's remarkably vague.  I would expect that an omniscient God could do better than "in a few years".  Second, I don't know why you would think that "No one at that time could make such a prediction."  We're talking about the Roman Empire, for goodness sake!  I think it would be more remarkable if they didn't retaliate.

But how long was it, actually, before they were victorious?  Well, according to historyworld.net, the Romans were defeated in Jerusalem in mid-614 AD.  They didn't even begin their resurgence until 622.  Along the way there were numerous victories and defeats on both sides, but they didn't recapture Jerusalem until 628, fourteen years later.

So if it was truly a revelation from God, I would say that God was off by at least five years.

Assalaamualaikum Folks

I am back. Alhamdolillah.

I admire lots of people, but that has nothing to do with religion.

Of course, you do.

There is no single "purpose of life". The purpose of my life is whatever I want it to be. As Carl Sagan famously put it, "if you want your life to have meaning, do something meaningful." The same goes for you. If you choose to serve an omnipotent God who obviously doesn't need servants even if He actually existed, then that's up to you; but personally I can't think of anything more meaningless.

For a disbeliever the purpose of this life is to collect and amass great wealth, money, power and position, or........ Over indulging in eating, drinking, drugs, sex and gambling are a high priority to them. But all of this will not avail them anything good in the grave, on the Day of Judgment or in the Next Life. Eventually he will be faced with the question:
Now what?
What's Next?
Where am I going?
What will happen to me?

Believers know what is going to happen to them and who is going to take care of them.

Worship of the One True Almighty God of the Universe [Allah in Arabic> as a primary goal or aim in life provides a believer with everything he needs to succeed in both this life and the Next Life.

I'm not sure if you are asking about Christianity or Islam, or the comparison, or what exactly. But you know the issues: homosexuality, adultery, abortion, contraception, slavery, apostacy, freedom of speech, tolerance, misogyny, etc. Islam in particular is still very tribal, despite its pretensions to the contrary. It just doesn't work in a global village.

O, work it does! It is working with me and a couple of billions of more. I do not know what you mean by tribal? But if you mean it is somehow outdated or something like that then it is perhaps due to what is called a clash of civilization. You and your kind are being swept away by changing values while Islam is rooted in sources which were established long ago and they are forever.

Things do change, you know. People change. Circumstances change. Opinions change. I don't see why change per se should arouse suspicion.

If individuals can change, even govts can change. A look at America's foreign policies will tell you. So, why is the individual an outcast if he speaks a different language?

On the contrary, the timing is exactly what I would expect if Muhammad were making it up himself. It would have taken a couple of days for him to realize that the controversy was not going away on its own, another couple to compose the verses, and perhaps a day or two more to arrange appropriate circumstances for them to be "revealed". On the other hand, if it had come from an omniscient God, one would expect it to be revealed in advance of the incident, not in reaction to it.

The Quran, as you probably know, was revealed over a period of twenty three years. And the chain of revelation points to a running monologue from God Almighty commenting and legislating on incidents in the Prophet's life. Therefore, when the incident of Hazrat Aisha RA occurred, God Almighty commented on it. i do not see why He should have spoken about it before hand. If He had, the hypocrites of Mecca would not have indulged in their slander.

I've always wondered, by the way: if Aiysha had not been accidentally left behind, would those verses have been omitted from the Quran? So many of the things in the Quran are specifically in response to events in the Prophet's life that it's hard to see it as a timeless message for all humankind.

A lot, is indeed, about the Prophet's life. But then there is a lot about Ibrahim. Musa and Isa PBUT all, also

Really? Most people find a dash of humility to be an admirable quality. Tell me, do the verses you quoted cause you to lose respect for Muhammad? Didn't think so. Wink

But in your book, presumably, Muhammad PBUH was an ambitious and power hungry man. Hardly humble, then.

Yes it was, but not the way you quoted it. You quoted verse 30:4 as saying the Romans will be victorious "within nine years". I don't think you'll find a single authentic translation that implies such precision. Most translations say either "three to nine years" or "a few years". And Pickthall says "within ten years".

��The Romans have been defeated, in the land close by. And after (this) defeat of theirs, they will soon be victorious within a few years. To Allaah belongs the command before and after and on that day the Believers will rejoice in Allaah�s help�� [Quran 30:2-4]


Did I quote any different? Even if it is 'a few years' it is a still a prophecy that came true. so, you are actually hedging or dodging proper comment. Which is, to agree with and acknowledge the prophecy.

Let me give you the larger picture of this prophecy.

For those who were aware of the military situation concerning the Romans and Persians, this prediction was absolutely incredible. In fact, the Persians kept marching forward until they reached the city walls of the Roman capital, Constantinople. The renowned historian Edward Gibbon has commented on this prediction thus:

�When this prophecy was made, no prediction could be more unbelievable because the initial twelve years of Heraclius were evidently declaring an end to the Roman Empire.� [Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, p.73-74>

But exactly seven years after his first defeat, the Roman emperor sallied forth from the capital and inflicted crushing defeats on the Persians at several places, and after that the Roman armies were victorious everywhere.

Meanwhile, a large number of Muslims had migrated to Al-Madeenah and their wars with the idolaters of Makkah had already begun. The day on which 313 ill-equipped Muslims were decisively beating their enemy -- 1000 heavily armed Makkan warriors -- at the battlefield of Badr, came the news that the Romans had defeated the Persians. It was then realized that the Quranic verse, (which means): ��on that day the Believers will rejoice in Allaah�s help� [Quran 30: 4-5> was meant to denote the twin happiness of the Romans� victory as well as their own victory at Badr.

Okay, so let's look at this "prophecy". First of all, it's remarkably vague.

Hardly! That is more like wishful thinking on your part.

I would expect that an omniscient God could do better than "in a few years".

Are you asking God to conform to your standards or expectations? LOL

The Saint wrote: For a disbeliever the purpose of this life is to collect and amass great wealth, money, power and position, or........ Over indulging in eating, drinking, drugs, sex and gambling are a high priority to them.

This is utter nonsense, and slanderous nonsense at that.  Can you imagine if I said such things about you?  What if I told you that the purpose of a Muslim's life is to engage in permanent warfare against all disbelievers, to "fight them until acknowledge your superiority and are in a state of subjection"?

O, work it does! It is working with me and a couple of billions of more.

Define "work".  What significant human progress has been made by Islam in the past century or so?  Read any newspaper.  What notable successes can Islam claim, aside from flying planes into buildings, blowing up mosques and kidnapping young girls for sex slavery?

I do not know what you mean by tribal? But if you mean it is somehow outdated or something like that then it is perhaps due to what is called a clash of civilization. You and your kind are being swept away by changing values while Islam is rooted in sources which were established long ago and they are forever.

I mean that Islam is founded on an "us versus them" mentality.  I have never seen another religion that treats unbelievers ("infidels") with such disrespect and hostility.

Things do change, you know. People change. Circumstances change. Opinions change. I don't see why change per se should arouse suspicion. If individuals can change, even govts can change. A look at America's foreign policies will tell you. So, why is the individual an outcast if he speaks a different language?

Sorry, but I'm not following you at all.  Once again, this seems like a series of non sequiturs to me.  Yes, individuals and governments can change, and ought to change as circumstances change.  Yes, Bin Laden had American support when he was fighting against Russian occupation; but he became their enemy when he plotted against the Americans.  This makes perfect sense.  Why would it arouse your suspicion about his involvement in 9/11?

As for foreigners being outcasts, surely that is a far more severe problem in Islamic nations than in western ones.  Try being a Coptic Christian in Egypt.  Persecution of Jews is so rampant that there are hardly any left in the Middle East outside Israel.  Even Muslims are often outcasts if they are the wrong Sunni/Shiite/Sufi flavour.

The Quran, as you probably know, was revealed over a period of twenty three years. And the chain of revelation points to a running monologue from God Almighty commenting and legislating on incidents in the Prophet's life. Therefore, when the incident of Hazrat Aisha RA occurred, God Almighty commented on it. i do not see why He should have spoken about it before hand. If He had, the hypocrites of Mecca would not have indulged in their slander.

I think you just answered your own question.  He ought to have spoken about it beforehand precisely because it might have prevented the slander.  Why wait for a crime to be committed, and only then reveal a law against it?

But more to the point, you seemed to be trying to claim it as some sort of prophetic evidence of the authenticity of the Quran.  For that to work, the prophecy has to come before the associated event, not after.

But in your book, presumably, Muhammad PBUH was an ambitious and power hungry man. Hardly humble, then.

You presume incorrectly, or at least you overstate my position.  Muhammad was a complicated man, as are we all.  It is quite possible to be ambitious in some respects, and humble in others.

Did I quote any different? Even if it is 'a few years' it is a still a prophecy that came true. so, you are actually hedging or dodging proper comment. Which is, to agree with and acknowledge the prophecy.

A very specific prophecy of nine years would be much more remarkable than a vague "in a few years".  If it turned out to be true, which as I said, it really wasn't.  It took fourteen years to recapture the territory about which the prophecy was made.

Let me give you the larger picture of this prophecy. For those who were aware of the military situation concerning the Romans and Persians, this prediction was absolutely incredible. In fact, the Persians kept marching forward until they reached the city walls of the Roman capital, Constantinople. The renowned historian Edward Gibbon has commented on this prediction thus: �When this prophecy was made, no prediction could be more unbelievable because the initial twelve years of Heraclius were evidently declaring an end to the Roman Empire.� [Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, p.73-74>

Once again, your sources are lying to you.  There is no such comment in Volume Five of The Decline and Fall, and given Gibbon's comments in that volume about Muhammad's record of prophecy (search the second occurrence of the word "prophecy"), it is unlikely that he would have said it at all.  Here is a link to Volume 5 if you want to take a look for yourself --  which you should have done already.

How many times do you have to be lied to, before you begin to question whether you can trust anything these guys are telling you?