Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Tryingtolearn

Christianity vs Islam

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

I dont recall the Holy Spirit being called unlettered or being called Muhammadim in Hebrew. Also Isa having the Holy Spirit being put him was simply him being powered by Rūh [Angel Gabriel] so that he could reveal revelation in Youth and Adulthood. 

This is your interpretation of these passages. Placid has already provided you with an alternative view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ron_Burgundy said:

Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Spirit. They fail to realise that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus (pbuh) departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus (pbuh), in the womb of Elizabeth, and    again when Jesus (pbuh) was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Prophet  Muhammad (pbuh).

I already explained that. I don't think Christians " fail to realize" anything. They know their scriptures. This is about the working of the Holy Spirit after the Ascension. No problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

I wasn't asking you but...think about what you just wrote.

You can obviously benefit from a Prophet of old, how do you benefit from a prophet that won't exist for another millennia? It's quite simple. With no foresight into what he might say...

We went over Isaiah and my post was just a space between "answers". If that's the case, why continue? I showed you guys with context that the unlearned guy was just some guy. If you want to insist he's Muhammad then you must know what book was given by which people to the learned and unlearned. It's such a long reach for such a tiny straw.

How can one read and write yet be unlettered? Have we modified the definitions? 

 

Yeah. Unlettered as in didnt recieve education such as never went to school. I provided you many verses that strongly counter you opinions as well as my companions yet you produce weak statements Brother and have not properly analyzed the verses provided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

This is your interpretation of these passages. Placid has already provided you with an alternative view.

Its not interpretation. Its facts. Read the verses provided if you dont believe me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

I already explained that. I don't think Christians " fail to realize" anything. They know their scriptures. This is about the working of the Holy Spirit after the Ascension. No problem.

Christians cant even explain or properly break down the verses of their own book Sister. Look at Ahmed Deedats debates for example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

Yeah. Unlettered as in didnt recieve education such as never went to school. I provided you many verses that strongly counter you opinions as well as my companions yet you produce weak statements Brother and have not properly analyzed the verses provided. 

It's not a weak statement when I show you the black and white, (actual source). It's up to you to ignore it. 

I checked with Webster, the definition hasn't changed.

 

Quote

 

Definition of unlettered

  1. 1a :  lacking facility in reading and writing and ignorant of the knowledge to be gained from books

 

You can decide what words you use to mean whatever, but nobody gets it until they see your own dictionary.

Quote

The sayings in brackets in Quran are interpretations. 

The sayings in brackets are opinion. Opinion with an agenda. Sahih is the best modern example of such corruption. Ahadith contains much more.

Was Muhammad the one and only first Muhammad ever? 

"the one who praises" and "the praised one" are already two different things. Now it means comforter cuz someone said. You guys are all over the place, but you've been taught this so it's impossible for bare facts to distract you. 

You have to understand indoctrination. It's not hard to spot. Every religion has done it, every sub sect of every sect of every branch of every Abrahamic religion has that "special thing" that makes them righter. 

It's every story that ends with the unspoken words, "And that's why we are the only ones with the real truth" hinting all others are wrong, evil, stupid.

That's why some Muslims believe, if they die killing kafir, they get lunch with Muhammad, and 72 virgins for their trouble...and they know that every one of us on this site is kafir. 

My God is not a God of separation and segregation of believers, not in the Bible, not in the Quran, but every religion out there teaches it, and causes it, right out front. Why is that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

Okay now this is not even a logical argument anymore Brother. Arent you a Christian? Muhammad was able to read and write it is just that he didnt recieve any education. That is why he is called unlettered. 

??? Are you doubting me being Christian because I have realised that the books in the Bible are written by humans? Luke, Paul, John and others of wich some today are unknown. Would you also question a Muslim that does not believe that not all suras were written down by Muhammed himself,  but by unknown persons? 

The Bible and the Quran were written by men. Men make mistakes. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of Placid said:

It's not a weak statement when I show you the black and white, (actual source). It's up to you to ignore it. 

I checked with Webster, the definition hasn't changed.

 

You can decide what words you use to mean whatever, but nobody gets it until they see your own dictionary.

The sayings in brackets are opinion. Opinion with an agenda. Sahih is the best modern example of such corruption. Ahadith contains much more.

Was Muhammad the one and only first Muhammad ever? 

"the one who praises" and "the praised one" are already two different things. Now it means comforter cuz someone said. You guys are all over the place, but you've been taught this so it's impossible for bare facts to distract you. 

You have to understand indoctrination. It's not hard to spot. Every religion has done it, every sub sect of every sect of every branch of every Abrahamic religion has that "special thing" that makes them righter. 

It's every story that ends with the unspoken words, "And that's why we are the only ones with the real truth" hinting all others are wrong, evil, stupid.

That's why some Muslims believe, if they die killing kafir, they get lunch with Muhammad, and 72 virgins for their trouble...and they know that every one of us on this site is kafir. 

My God is not a God of separation and segregation of believers, not in the Bible, not in the Quran, but every religion out there teaches it, and causes it, right out front. Why is that?

 

Firstly you just proved my definition of unlettered. Secondly it is not opinion it is interpretation by scholars who studied Quran and Hadith for many years. Yes Muhammad was the first one to obtain the name Muhammad. No one had that before him. Give me verses from Sahih if it is so corrupted please because you havent even given me any proofs to counter mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, andres said:

??? Are you doubting me being Christian because I have realised that the books in the Bible are written by humans? Luke, Paul, John and others of wich some today are unknown. Would you also question a Muslim that does not believe that not all suras were written down by Muhammed himself,  but by unknown persons? 

The Bible and the Quran were written by men. Men make mistakes. 

 

 

Not infallible men but Allah taught Muhammad the words, and Muhammad wrote the same exact words into the Quran. Why do you think the Quran is so organized in terms of theology and jurisprudence, things that make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AfricanShia said:

Not infallible men but Allah taught Muhammad the words, and Muhammad wrote the same exact words into the Quran. Why do you think the Quran is so organized in terms of theology and jurisprudence, things that make more sense.

Far from all Muslims agree with you Muhammed could write and read. Are they not Muslims?

Had the Quran been "so organized in terms of theology and jurisprudence", there had not been so many very different interpretations and conflicts between these. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, andres said:

Far from all Muslims agree with you Muhammed could write and read. Are they not Muslims?

Had the Quran been "so organized in terms of theology and jurisprudence", there had not been so many very different interpretations and conflicts between these. 

I think you lost this agruement a long time ago. You failed to provide any proofs on your behalf.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AfricanShia said:

I think you lost this agruement a long time ago. You failed to provide any proofs on your behalf.

:)

Is it necessary to prove that there are Muslims (the majority?) that believe Muhammed could not write and read? 

Us it necessary to prove that Muslims understand the Quran very differently? 

You are simply avoiding unconveniant truths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, andres said:

God did not write the Bible. He did not write the Quran either. According to Muslim belief, God sent an Angel tthat on msny occasions during many years told Muhammed messages from God. Muhammed could not read or write himself, but some of his followers, people that believed the revelations were from God, wrote them down on whatever material available. After Muhammeds death, all these peaces were collected randomly in a Book called the Quran. This does not make the Quran easier to read. What are the chanses these pieces are identical with the words the Angel spoke? Or that nothing is missing? I say 0%.

Brother if you read quran to find truth you will see the authenticity in the quran. 

Now tell me anyone could tell this 1400 years ago.

SEX OF BABY

Females have XX chromosomes, that is, they can only give one X chromosome. But since males have XY chromosomes, then men can either give the X or the Y chromosome. This means, that it is actually the males who determine the sex of the baby (by giving either the X or the Y chromosome).
 

Quote

❝And He (Allāh) creates pairs, male and female, from semen emitted.❞
― Al-Qur'ān, sūrah al-Najm (The Star), Chapter 53, verses 45-46

 


The Qur'ān says that it is the semen that determines whether the baby is male or female. But since semen only comes from males then this means that it is the males who determine the sex of the baby.

EARTH - EGG SHAPED
 

Quote

❝And the earth, moreover. Hath He made egg shaped.❞
― Al-Qur'ān, sūrah al-Nāziʿāt (The Wresters), Chapter 79, verse 30

 


The word daḥāhā (Arabic: دَحاها), means ❛Egg Shaped❜. However, the other meaning of the same word is ❛Spread out❜. Even the translation ❛Spread out❜ is correct as it points towards increase in surface area. Our solar system is 4.57 billion years old. Earth started accreting concurrently with the sun and our neighbouring planets 4.57 billion years ago. However, during the accretion process, the radius of Earth was not spontaneously 6400 km; but rather started a few kilometers long and progressively increased. But the surface area is a function of the radius, that is, as the radius increases the surface area increases (surface area = 4πR2). So the Qur'ān correctly described the surface area as increasing.

This could tell you these words are not from a man. And Allah took the guarantee of it that words won't be changed. And he said if you think these are not the words of God than go an create a verse like this. Now tell me its a open challenge for entire word and if anyone wanna wipe islam from the face of earth they could have made something up but they couldn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

Is it necessary to prove that there are Muslims (the majority?) that believe Muhammed could not write and read? 

Us it necessary to prove that Muslims understand the Quran very differently? 

You are simply avoiding unconveniant truths.

If he couldnt read and write then he wouldnt have been able to write Allah words on paper. You have to look at this from a logical perspective. He was unlettered in the sense that he didnt recieve any education from books,etc. Brother honestly it doesnt matter if the majority thinks that he couldnt read or write and it depends on what type of Muslims we are discussing here Brother. It is very important to know that Muslims have different understandings of the same verses because it is a matter of accuracy and inaccuracy. Im not avoiding anything. If anything you are Brother because I gave you more than enough proofs to prove you wrong yet you cant even counter them and you want to accuse me of avoiding? Brother, bring your toughest questions and I will answer them if thats what it takes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron

Of course nobody knew about X and Y. Nobody knew that the female part contributes with an egg either. Seamen was visible however, so the belief that man created the baby and the woman just fed the mans seamen was quite normal back then.

Nobody knew that the poles are closer to the center of the earth than is the equator either. Dont know what Muhammed meant by eggshaped. The earth is much more of a globe than an egg. Had it been eggshaped, the Earths revolutions would not be as regular as it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AfricanShia said:

If he couldnt read and write then he wouldnt have been able to write Allah words on paper. You have to look at this from a logical perspective. He was unlettered in the sense that he didnt recieve any education from books,etc. Brother honestly it doesnt matter if the majority thinks that he couldnt read or write and it depends on what type of Muslims we are discussing here Brother. It is very important to know that Muslims have different understandings of the same verses because it is a matter of accuracy and inaccuracy. Im not avoiding anything. If anything you are Brother because I gave you more than enough proofs to prove you wrong yet you cant even counter them and you want to accuse me of avoiding? Brother, bring your toughest questions and I will answer them if thats what it takes. 

Why dont you try to prove to all of your fellow Muslims that Muhammed could write? I do not think you will succed, and I think we shall stop the discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

Firstly you just proved my definition of unlettered. Secondly it is not opinion it is interpretation by scholars who studied Quran and Hadith for many years. Yes Muhammad was the first one to obtain the name Muhammad. No one had that before him. Give me verses from Sahih if it is so corrupted please because you havent even given me any proofs to counter mine. 

I proved the actual definition of unlettered means can not read or write.

As for your definition... it seems you like to play word games.

You haven't given any proofs to counter, just posts on the typical student studies we see here continually, and the usual dance around the replies.

So far your closest source is the mention of some hadith. Proof for you is that you said it. Other posts are just spaces between your posts. You should stand outside your bubble and see what that looks like. 

Most scholars, (all religions) are funded by someone who has an agenda. I learned this 40 years ago. It's a prominent tactic still used by corporations willing to hide truth for their own increase.  The main Muslim scholar agenda is "Anything but what the Christians say"   Muhammad gave more credit to Christians than any Muslim since. Scholars instilled the contempt, not Muhammad. Not even Muhammad ibn Maslamah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

Its not interpretation. Its facts. Read the verses provided if you dont believe me. 

 

14 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

Christians cant even explain or properly break down the verses of their own book Sister. Look at Ahmed Deedats debates for example. 

I did read the verses. Your interpretation is not " fact". Debates depend upon the debaters. Lol. I've seen all kinds of religious folks win and lose in debates. Extrapolating that to all Muslims, Christians, etc. isn't necessary. My religion professors would probably give whoever-that-is an excellent drubbing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

❝And He (Allāh) creates pairs, male and female, from semen emitted.❞

No kidding. According to this God makes male and female. Men emit semen, but can not determine what sex the child is going to be, nor do they have any control over which it will be. They don't even have control over whether their semen will engage an egg. 

If Muhammad would have started with the X, Y, chromosome story we'd all say wow. This is no more than an observation that...babies come from semen.

Yes, the world is egg shaped...human egg shaped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took interest in Ahmed Deedat years ago, but was disappointed when he pulled the same scholarly stunt as so many.

As so often noted. "proof" comes from starting half way through a Bible chapter, ignoring prior context, creating an obvious gap between truth and what they want you to believe. (for a miserable gain)

It's not unique to Islam, every prior religion has done the same. Not sure why Muslims think they are immune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

Why dont you try to prove to all of your fellow Muslims that Muhammed could write? I do not think you will succed, and I think we shall stop the discussion here.

Good because everyone has their own opinions but as I mentioned I looked at it from a logical perspective as well as a number of well knowledgeable scholars too. Good day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

I took interest in Ahmed Deedat years ago, but was disappointed when he pulled the same scholarly stunt as so many.

As so often noted. "proof" comes from starting half way through a Bible chapter, ignoring prior context, creating an obvious gap between truth and what they want you to believe. (for a miserable gain)

It's not unique to Islam, every prior religion has done the same. Not sure why Muslims think they are immune.

Bible doesnt have the format of contex like the Quran whereby you have to read verses before and after. If you want I could actually give a number of verses where those verses explains themselves and if you still disagree then you could try to elaborate on it. Agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

@Son of Placid @andres Again, I find it interesting that Muslims are trying to proof-text with a book they think is "corrupted". Lol. Some very interesting eisegesis going on around here.

Think? Its fact my Sister. Would you like to learn the dark secrets of your Bible your congregation doesnt focus on? Every Sunday all congregations do is pick verses of the bible out of contex and talk about but these are verses in which they revised and seem quite acceptable rather than verses of that which are harsh. At least in Islam we can actually explain our Quran. In Christianity, Christians cant even properly answer a question about the Bible when you ask them instead they avoid it. Christianity is scrambled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Son of Placid . I think you forgot that there is hundreds of denominations in Christianity and all of them have their own Bibles and each of them say: Oh we are right and the other Christians are going to hell. In Islam there 72 sects but each sect has the same Quran with their own meaning of what each verse means. Also if you properly analyze each sect like Shia Islam and compare it with the others, you can obviously see which is most truthful if you research hard enough. At least Islam is simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AfricanShia said:

Think? Its fact my Sister. Would you like to learn the dark secrets of your Bible your congregation doesnt focus on? Every Sunday all congregations do is pick verses of the bible out of contex and talk about but these are verses in which they revised and seem quite acceptable rather than verses of that which are harsh. At least in Islam we can actually explain our Quran. In Christianity, Christians cant even properly answer a question about the Bible when you ask them instead they avoid it. Christianity is scrambled. 

No, actually, Catholics do not. We have a methodology and a lectionary. It covers the entire Scripture in a three year cycle. So if you are observant you will hear the Bible many times over in your lifetime. And homilies by qualified educated people on each part. Orthodox do the same. Most mainstream Protestants are similar. With whom are you hanging out ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AfricanShia said:

@Son of Placid . I think you forgot that there is hundreds of denominations in Christianity and all of them have their own Bibles and each of them say: Oh we are right and the other Christians are going to hell. In Islam there 72 sects but each sect has the same Quran with their own meaning of what each verse means. Also if you properly analyze each sect like Shia Islam and compare it with the others, you can obviously see which is most truthful if you research hard enough. At least Islam is simple. 

As I said, there are not " different Bibles". A great many Christians of any stripe  can use the same ones if they wish and it is usually not the KJV anymore. You are about sixty years behind the times with your info. The translations do not differ in terms of major theological concepts. Christians all have pretty much the same core beliefs. (This is why when a Catholic marries  a Baptist, it is still considered a sacrament by the Church.)

As well, most Christians get along fine and do not think the others are going to hell. You can see most pastors around here going to  interdenominational studies, meetings,  and celebrations all the time. They are good friends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

No, actually, Catholics do not. We have a methodology and a lectionary. It covers the entire Scripture in a three year cycle. So if you are observant you will hear the Bible many times over in your lifetime. And homilies by qualified educated people on each part. Orthodox do the same. Most mainstream Protestants are similar. With whom are you hanging out ?

I have hanged out with Catholics and Jehovahs Witness and Orthodox so I know well enough what im discussing about. I have compared Catholic Bible and Jehovahs Witness in Genesis and Catholic has a slight different story compared to the Jehovahs witness and also the fact that the Catholic Bible has more books than what the Jehovahs Witness' contains so clearly the Bible is quite corrupted just from knowing that. I also know that Catholics really like to enforce the whole Trinity belief when yet the Trinity is a form of associating partners with The Almighty God who created the Earth. Also Catholics like to Aleluia in their Churches and if you translate it will come up as defining the term: Praise Allah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

As I said, there are not " different Bibles". A great many Christians of any stripe  can use the same ones if they wish and it is usually not the KJV anymore. You are about sixty years behind the times with your info. The translations do not differ in terms of major theological concepts. Christians all have pretty much the same core beliefs. (This is why when a Catholic marries  a Baptist, it is still considered a sacrament by the Church.)

As well, most Christians get along fine and do not think the others are going to hell. You can see most pastors around here going to  interdenominational studies, meetings,  and celebrations all the time. They are good friends. 

You said pretty much have the same core beliefs but overall dont have the same beliefs. If im wrong then why does the Catholic version of the Bible have more books than the common Bible such the one Jehovahs witness' use ? Problem is with Christianity is that the beliefs are quite scrambled and all over the place and the picture is never quite clear. As I also recall, The Bible is quite sexist towards Women. May I provide proofs for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

As I said, there are not " different Bibles". A great many Christians of any stripe  can use the same ones if they wish and it is usually not the KJV anymore. You are about sixty years behind the times with your info. The translations do not differ in terms of major theological concepts. Christians all have pretty much the same core beliefs. (This is why when a Catholic marries  a Baptist, it is still considered a sacrament by the Church.)

As well, most Christians get along fine and do not think the others are going to hell. You can see most pastors around here going to  interdenominational studies, meetings,  and celebrations all the time. They are good friends. 

You said pretty much have the same core beliefs but overall dont have the same beliefs. If im wrong then why does the Catholic version of the Bible have more books than the common Bible such the one Jehovahs witness' use ? Problem is with Christianity is that the beliefs are quite scrambled and all over the place and the picture is never quite clear. As I also recall, The Bible is quite sexist towards Women. May I provide proofs for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

You said pretty much have the same core beliefs but overall dont have the same beliefs. If im wrong then why does the Catholic version of the Bible have more books than the common Bible such the one Jehovahs witness' use ? Problem is with Christianity is that the beliefs are quite scrambled and all over the place and the picture is never quite clear. As I also recall, The Bible is quite sexist towards Women. May I provide proofs for you

Just like there are Shias, Sunnies, Wahabies, Talebans and Boko Harams e.t.c within Islam, there are Catholics, Protestants, Jehovas Witnesses, Pentecostals, e.t.c within Christianity. The Bible and the Quran opens up for many different interpretations. No matter the the number of books.

I am not certain that the Bible is more sexistic against women than the Quran is. Not certain that the Quran is more opressive against women than the Bible is either. But Muslim women are in general much more opressed than Christian women. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, andres said:

Just like there are Shias, Sunnies, Wahabies, Talebans and Boko Harams e.t.c within Islam, there are Catholics, Protestants, Jehovas Witnesses, Pentecostals, e.t.c within Christianity. The Bible and the Quran opens up for many different interpretations. No matter the the number of books.

I am not certain that the Bible is more sexistic against women than the Quran is. Not certain that the Quran is more opressive against women than the Bible is either. But Muslim women are in general much more opressed than Christian women. 

 

Could you please explain to me how the Quran is sexist and oppresive against women because that is a big misconception that people get. First of all according to the Quran a Man has to take care of his wife, he has to provide everything for her which is food, clothes, shelter. He has to satisfy his wife's needs when she asks for it and she has to do the same as well. When a Woman is going through her menstruation, her periods, it is Haraam for the Man to have relations with her during those times as it is seriously harmful. Also a Woman is commanded to wear hijab so that her beauty is hidden from other Men so that those Men dont look at her in a sexual way. A Woman who covers herself to shield her beauty from other Men is actually having more self-respect for herself then if she was wearing short skirts and exposing her bra. A woman is allowed to reveal her beauty to her immediate family and her Husband. Men are also commanded to be Modest as well by wearing apparel that covers a good portion of their body but not as much as Women because Women have more private parts than Man and possess a stronger capability of attaining beauty than Man. Clearly you are ignorant of any of the laws of Islam.Your Bible literally commands Women to stay silent and only for Men to speak. In Islam we highly uphold respect for Fatimah, the daughter of Prophet Muhammad, we also believe in Prophet Elisha who was a female Prophet. Specifically in Shia Islam we show respect towards Fatima bint Assad who is the Mother to Imam Ali. Your statements are weak and you cant even bring references which proves your ignorance even more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AfricanShia said:

Could you please explain to me how the Quran is sexist and oppresive against women because that is a big misconception that people get. First of all according to the Quran a Man has to take care of his wife, he has to provide everything for her which is food, clothes, shelter. He has to satisfy his wife's needs when she asks for it and she has to do the same as well. When a Woman is going through her menstruation, her periods, it is Haraam for the Man to have relations with her during those times as it is seriously harmful. Also a Woman is commanded to wear hijab so that her beauty is hidden from other Men so that those Men dont look at her in a sexual way. A Woman who covers herself to shield her beauty from other Men is actually having more self-respect for herself then if she was wearing short skirts and exposing her bra. A woman is allowed to reveal her beauty to her immediate family and her Husband. Men are also commanded to be Modest as well by wearing apparel that covers a good portion of their body but not as much as Women because Women have more private parts than Man and possess a stronger capability of attaining beauty than Man. Clearly you are ignorant of any of the laws of Islam.Your Bible literally commands Women to stay silent and only for Men to speak. In Islam we highly uphold respect for Fatimah, the daughter of Prophet Muhammad, we also believe in Prophet Elisha who was a female Prophet. Specifically in Shia Islam we show respect towards Fatima bint Assad who is the Mother to Imam Ali. Your statements are weak and you cant even bring references which proves your ignorance even more. 

A woman is not a mans property. She is just as capable to take care of herself as a man is. Your views are very old fashioned. And opressive. 

I did not say the Quran or the Bible was sexistic. I said I was not certain the Bible was more sexistic than the Quran. I am not even certain one xan speak about sexism when it comes to the Bible or the Quran.

Christian women are not silent. Just have a look at European parliaments versus middle East ones. Many women are ministers and occupy leading positions in our countries. Our Swedish archbishop is a woman. Would that be possible in the Muslim world?

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AfricanShia said:

@Son of Placid . I think you forgot that there is hundreds of denominations in Christianity and all of them have their own Bibles and each of them say: Oh we are right and the other Christians are going to hell. In Islam there 72 sects but each sect has the same Quran with their own meaning of what each verse means. Also if you properly analyze each sect like Shia Islam and compare it with the others, you can obviously see which is most truthful if you research hard enough. At least Islam is simple. 

I have already mentioned this stuff in another post you did not read.

Please tell me how I could forget this. I toured more than 50 churches over two years. Some were even the same denomination, but were still better than the rest. I attended one church...You'd think a "Fellowship Baptist" would be up for fellowship, but there was only one other church in the entirety of Montreal they could have fellowship with, and even then it was with a wink. The politics in organized religion is hidden in doctrines, and traditions, but blatant to an outsider. 

You mean to tell me that the Quran, which is not put together in any chronological order and scattered stories must be read in context, but with the Bible you can pull out any old verse and make a claim?

"The same Qur'an" Some recite Haffs, some recite Warsh. Besides the dots and pronunciations, the sequence of ayats, are you going to tell me they are word for word? I bet you don't know which has more, which has less, save yourself the trouble and don't go there.

This you decide while telling me all Muslims read the same Qur'an, they just have different opinions on what it means. That is the real corruption of all Abrahamic religions. The meanings are given to you from a chain of narrations. Narrations meant to turn an opinion into a doctrine, or at least a tradition. Depends who they tell you to believe.

Tafsir al mizan, portrays Christians as lowest of the low. When did Muhammad ever do that?

He entrusted his followers to take asylum in a Christian kingdom until it was safe.  

Research hard enough? I have more years of study than you have life. Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...