There’s a guy who comes into one of the local coffeeshops – 40ish, a businessman, and speaks with a foreign accent. I had met him a few months ago. I didn’t know he was a Muslim until a few weeks ago when he mentioned fasting for Ramadan. Last night, I was working on my laptop at the seat next to him, and he said something to the effect that the US should withdraw from Iraq and let the Sunnis and Shia fight it out. I just kind of nodded, not really intending to get into a political discussion. I don’t recall exactly how we got on the subject, but we started talking about Islam. He was from Palestine and was a Sunni – although, he had a number of conservative Christian business partners and friends. He seemed moderate enough, didn’t have the “I’m a fanatic” beard, had lived in the US for 20+ years, but he prayed five times a day and had socially conservative views.
I was interested in hearing his view of Islam, though, so I was asking him some questions about it.
He started talking about the differences between Sunni and Shia, and Middle-Eastern politics. He (a Sunni) didn’t like the Shia and considered them to be militaristic and willing to kill themselves whenever their leader commands. He did seem to like Hamas and Hezbollah – even saying that Hezbollah were “good Shia”. It wasn’t hard to see the underlying political bias that could lead him to this view – since Hezbollah supported the Palestinians against Israel.
I asked him what he thought of the Wahabbis. (Wahabbis are fanatical Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The 9/11 terrorists, as well as Osama Bin Ladin are Wahabbis. They are behind Saudi laws that women must be completely covered, can’t drive or vote, don’t allow people to take their picture, etc.) He said that Sunnis have no problem with Wahabbis, but they were more conservative than most Sunnis. He didn’t agree with laws that women should be completely covered, and didn’t think women needed to cover their hair, either. But, he thought women shouldn’t be walking around in bikinis.
A little later, he was trying to convince me that Islam was the third and final revelation of God (Judaism and Christianity being the first two). He began claiming that the Islam and Christianity had a great deal in common, but Islam was the more accurate and recent revelation. I questioned that assertion with by contrasting New Testament teachings with Islam, but said I thought the Old Testament and Islam had more in common. I think he assumed I was a Christian (and I must admit, bringing up Christian teachings did play into that perception), and was trying to convince me that Islam was better than my (presumed) Christian beliefs. I ended up telling him that I was actually an ex-Christian and that I didn’t believe in God.
He began trying to convince me of the existence of God. First, he he told me that the Koran states that there are 99 names for God (the Merciful, the Creator, etc.) He then told me to hold my hands in front of me. Apparently, some of the lines in your right hand look like the arabic numerals for 1 and 8. The lines in your left hand are the same, but reversed: 8 and 1. He said to add them up (18 + 81), and, of course, they add up to 99. I think he was trying to make an argument that the result somehow validates the Koran, which says there are 99 names for God. Did God write 99 on our hands to tell us the Koran was true? This seemed like an odd argument. Not only is the method of coming up with 99 questionable, but, more importantly, I told him that I could form my own religion, tell people that God had 99 names, and use the same argument – would that validate the truth of my religion, too?
(Wikipedia: 99 Names of God + Palm of the Hand)
He also tried to convince me with Pascal’s wager, although he had never heard of “Pascal” or “Pascal’s Wager”. My guess is that he heard this argument used by a Muslim, and they had stripped-out the Christian origin of the argument. I told him that I didn’t buy that argument because it’s easy to manipulate people with that argument (any false religion can use that argument), and I didn’t want to confer legitimacy on false religions or be complicit in supporting a false religion for my own self-interest. I also told him that I thought it would be cowardly and intellectually dishonest to believe in a God I didn’t think existed simply for my own self-interest. It’s important for humanity to move towards truth – and that might involve risking personal harm to erase false religions from the world. The cowardly and spineless, on the other hand, are the prime “converts” for Pascal’s Wager. Ultimately, rejecting Pascal’s Wager is an act of courage in service of supporting what is true, despite potential personal harm – perhaps in the same way that being a soldier in a just war is personally risky, but a necessary step in fighting for what is true and right.
He claimed that the Koran was too complex to have been written by an uneducated man (Mohammed), therefore he had to get the words from someone else – and that someone else was presumed to be God. Not knowing arabic and being unable to judge the sophistication of the Koran, I simply couldn’t accept his claim based on “say so”.
He also claimed that Mohammed was fortold in the Torah (the Jewish holy book, ostensibly written by Moses), and that, according to the Torah, Islam was the last revelation of God. This story sounded like complete fiction. I asked him where in the Torah it said that, because the Torah is the first five books of the Christian Old Testament, and I certainly never read anything about Mohammed there. I said that his story sounded suspect, but if he had a verse that we could lookup, we could verify that claim. He couldn’t give me any reference, but in an attempt to shore-up this story, he claimed that, a few years ago, all the religious scholars of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism got together for a conference. Already, this story sounded highly suspect. “Really? All of them?” I asked. This story seemed simply to fantastic to believe, but I let him go on. He said that the Islamic scholars confronted the Jews with this information in their own Torah. At this point, I simply had to stop the story. It was simply too fantastic to believe. I can certainly understand why such a rumor would spread through the Muslim community, however. The story – that Mohammed was foretold in the Torah – not only validated their own religious claims, but it also made the Jews appear as if they were unwilling to acknowledge the superiority of Islam despite their own holy books teaching. Even further, if it was in the Torah, it would have significant implications for Christianity. I’ve heard of a lot of urban legends in the Muslim community, but this is certainly one I’d never heard before. Funny how fictions end up playing an important role in supporting pre-existing beliefs.
He claimed that the reason I didn’t believe in God is simply because I got busy in my life and forgot about Him. He said people don’t pray when everything is going well, they only remember God when things are going badly. I told him that it wasn’t true at all. I was a little too tired at this point to fully explain my disbelief, but I did tell him that when I was about 18 or 19 that I began to realize that the world made a lot more sense if we assume God isn’t involved in it. It’s funny when religious people believe ficticious accounts of why unbelievers don’t believe. There is always an easy explanation that discredits the basis of an unbeliever’s unbelief – something that is easy for them to deal with intellectually, and has a ready-made fix.
I asked him about the teaching that Christians would go to hell. He said that the Koran never teaches that. I told him that I thought he was mistaken on that point, but there was nothing more to say about it, since I couldn’t look up the verse in the Koran (like I can do now): “The unbelievers among the [Jews and Christians] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” (Koran 98:1-8) / “They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.” (5:17) He did say later that the only unforgivable sin was worshipping a God other than Allah. I asked him about people born in other countries – they followed the beliefs of their culture and their family – would they were somehow guilty of the unforgivable sin? He backed off from the ‘unforgivable sin’ claim and said he really didn’t know how God would judge people. I saw this again a little later, too — he would make a claim that the Koran says X, I would bring up a situation that would be unfair and unjust if his claim were true, and he would suddenly change his position to be agnostic about that particular point.
A little bit later, he was telling me that Islam is a religion of peace – and to backup his point, he said that the Koran teaches that whoever kills one person is as guilty as killing the whole world. So, I asked him about his earlier statements about Abu Bakr (a close friend of Mohammed who became leader – at least according to Sunnis – after Mohammed’s death). After the death of Mohammed, a number of people de-converted from Islam and Abu Bakr had them killed (this is where Muslims have their belief that apostates should be killed). Further, Sunnis regard him as the first of four righteously guided Calphates (leaders of the Islamic community).
Doesn’t the fact that Abu Bakr killed lots of apostates make him guilty of killing the whole world many times over? Ismael got evasive again. He didn’t know how God would see those killings, although he did agree that it was legitimate to kill Muslim apostates. Which gets us back to the old religious bait and switch. When a Muslim wants Islam to be perceived as peaceful, they can quote various sections of the Koran, but then ignore them or claim agnosticism whenever it comes to religiously-sanctioned murder. I dropped the “Islam is peaceful” claim and started asking him about the legitimacy of killing apostates. He said it was legitimate to kill apostates because they had disrespected their community and their teaching. I tried to turn it around and help him look at the nastiness of that idea from outside his religion. I asked him what he would think if Christians killed ex-Christians who had converted to Islam. Would he think that was okay? He shrugged and said that would be okay if Christians did that. I asked him if he could see that the practice of punishing or killing people for their beliefs will cause all kinds of strife and problems – and that this is the major lesson of European religious wars centuries ago. In fact, I had some ancestors who fled Catholic France to escape persecution because they had converted to Protestantism. I was trying to get across to him the fact that trying to control people’s religious beliefs leads to societal problems, endless fighting, and strife.
He claimed that Afghanistan under the Taliban were the only country on earth to actually attempt to practice true Islam. (And he didn’t mean that as an insult to Islam. He meant it as a compliment to the Taliban.) I asked him if he knew of all the violations of basic human rights that went on under the Taliban – having non-Muslims wear certain clothing, having women completely covered – including a mesh over their eyes so people couldn’t see their eyes, that music was banned. He relented a bit and said they were excessively conservative in making women cover everything. He believed that women didn’t need to cover their faces, or even their hair. However, he believed that music was justly banned under the Taliban because music – at least music with singing – was wrong according to the Koran. Music without vocals was okay under Islam, however. He also thought it was justifiable for the Taliban to enforce the death penalty on apostates. He didn’t worry too much about the “death for apostasy” idea because, he said, very few Muslims convert to other religions anyway. Well, yes, I told him – but many countries have laws against preaching anything but Islam. Saudi Arabia, for example, doesn’t allow anyone to preach a non-Islamic religion, they don’t allow religious minorities to show any religious symbols, they punish on any Muslim who de-converts from Islam. He seemed shocked by the idea that I would even suggest that a non-Islamic religion be allowed to preach in Saudi Arabia. Afterall, he said, Mecca was the home of the prophet. I asked him what he would think if Israel made it illegal to preach any religion except Judaism – afterall, Israel is the birthplace of Judaism. Would he like it if preaching Islam was outlawed in Israel? He said something about Israel being only 50 years old, and somehow it didn’t apply. Anyway, he said that in the Middle East, even if there wasn’t a government law against apostasy, that if any Muslim converted away from Islam and they made it known, that someone would certainly kill them. It didn’t matter if there was an actual law or not. There would be vigilante attacks.
His whole idea of true Islam just seemed so medieval and barbaric. The Taliban had a long list of basic human rights violations, and I told him this but he didn’t seem that bothered by most of it. He did say he didn’t think women needed to be covered to the extent that the Taliban laws required, but that was about it. Yet, in other ways, he seemed rather open-minded. For example, letting his son read some pro-Christian material that one of his Christian business partners gave him. He certainly didn’t want his son to believe it, but he wanted his son to at least know about it and be exposed to it. He did say that he thought Al-Queda were wrong, even if he seemed to admire the rule of the Taliban. In fact, he claimed that the reason the Taliban was destroyed was precisely because they were practicing true Islam. It’s always amazing to hear Muslims try to position their religion (for public relations reasons) as a religion of peace, but then be taken aback when they express opinions that rightfully belong in the 15th century. They love to say that the Koran teaches that there should be no compulsion in religion – although, the actual meaning of that phrase is subject to interpretation. Yes, there are religious minorities in every Muslim country. But, to control the education system to reinforce Islam, prevent people from preaching non-Islamic religion, and have laws (or vigilante “justice”) applied to Muslim apostates means that Muslims are under *compulsion* to remain within Islam. I also asked him if potential converts to Islam should be worried about the “death for apostates” idea, because it seems that they won’t be allowed to change their minds later. He said that it wasn’t really a problem because countries didn’t enforce it (or at least, countries outside the Middle East didn’t enforce it) – which makes me pity any country that becomes more and more Islamic because the draconian laws are sure to follow once Islam has converted the majority of the population. Based on his opinions, I got the feeling that he would support Islamic rule over the United States – if there were enough American Muslims to actually make that a feasible possibility.
He also said that, according to Mohammed, that Islam would branch into 77 different sects before “the prophet” returned, but that 70 of these sects would end up in hell. I had to wonder what kind of infighting this teaching would cause. Muslims could be “justified” in branding other Muslims as heretics with that idea. It also gave me a bit of insight into why people like Al-Queda see most Muslims as enemies.
He said that in Islam the church and the state are merged. I said that the idea will lead to all kinds of strife and conflict, because people will want their version of Islam in control. It would bring back all the problems of the european religious wars. The West has learned it’s lesson about the foolishness of that idea. Yet, this idea is entrenched in Islam. I couldn’t help but think there were a lot of things in Islam that would lead to permanent internal and external conflict.
He said that Mohammed had made a prediction about Persia (present-day Iran) becoming an Islamic country, and that it came true. He also said that Moahmmed predicted that the Vatican/Rome would fall under Islamic power. Again, I couldn’t help but think these predictions were formenting conflict. While the Islamic world is currently too weak to capture Italy, this “prediction” could become a self-fulfilling one if enough Muslims take it upon themselves to make it happen. Again, it was an case where Islamic teaching could stir up conflict and strife.
I asked him how Muslims/the Koran would view me as an ex-Christian who no longer believed in God. He just shook his head. Apparently, to him, I had learned God’s second revelation (Christianity) and rejected it. I kind of figured I was only one step better than an Muslim apostate who had become an atheist, and his reaction seemed to confirm that view.
In the end, I thought it was an interesting conversation. I wish I hadn’t been quite so tired, or else I might’ve remembered more and made some better points. We left on friendly terms. I’m still a little bit taken aback by how he – a seemingly moderate muslim in many ways – could also endorse death for apostates, and admire the Taliban. And, as I said earlier, he certainly didn’t look like a crazy fundamentalist. I didn’t even know he was a practicing Muslim until recently. But, it’s odd how people can hold nasty views like that and have their religion completely blind them to the nastiness of their ideas. I’m also convinced that an Islamic world means a world of strife – because they believe most so-called “Muslims” are not following “True Islam” and will end up in hell (which seems a step away from punishing them here on earth), and the very idea of punishment and death for people who convert from Islam seems like medieval and barbarianic. He seemed to endorse even the parts of Islam that conflicted with basic human rights. The mixture of church and state seems a very potent mixture of conflict – as everyone would want the government to enforce their version of “true Islam”. Yet, he’s quite convinced all these things are an essential part of his religion.
Personally, I view Mohammed as no better than countless other people who have created power, wealth, and adoration for themselves by creating their own religion. He is simply in the same category as Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Li Hongzhi (Falun Gong), Joseph Smith (Mormonism), L Ron Hubbard (Scientology), Sun Myung Moon (the Moonies), etc. It’s unfortunate that we are still living with and fighting against the ghost of this hoax over a thousand years later.
I always enjoy the posts, but I’m wondering what is going on with the first two comments?
Again, insightful and well-written, I’ll be curious to hear if you have any other interaction with the guy. If so, hopefully you’ll post again on this.
Looks like the first two comments are blog spam. They’re trying to drive traffic to their sites, and it usually involves a generic comment (e.g. “You have a nice work here friend”) which let’s them post a link without needing to read the article. They have now been deleted.
I really enjoyed this. If you’re willing, I’d like to cross-post this on http://exchristian.net. Let me know if that is something you’d be interested in.
You can contact me by clicking here.
What is Islam based on?
Mohammed went into “trances” and fits (like epileptic fits) when he was given the “word of God” and would shout out what he was told. These would be written down by his followers. This is the makeup of the Koran.
When Mohammed was just walking and talking and acting like “normal”, his words and deeds were written down by his followers and this went into the Hadith. Now, acting “normal” for Mohammed was taking 12+ wives (including a 6 year old when he was 51), taking slaves (including sex slaves), executing infidels, conducting raids for treasure, etc.
Now, this is where it gets complicated.
A large part of the words he spoke in trances were “taken back” by Mohammed. He determined them to be the work of the devil (thus they are called the “Satanic Verses” and these are the same verses that Mr. Salman Rushdie got in trouble for writing about).
Now, how Mohammed determined which verses were from God and which were from Satan I do not know.
Also, there were literally dozens of widely different versions of the Koran and Hadith floating around for several hundred years after Mohammed death until a Fatwah was decreed to destroy all but one version. Now, even Mohammed could not remember what he was told by God and forgot it (those are his words as written in the Hadith) so I do not know how the powers in charge decided which was the correct version.
Also according to the Hadith, Mohammed turned people into monkeys, you can determine a child’s sex depending on whether the male or female has an orgasm first (that advice came directly from the Angel Gabriel), dogs are evil and should be killed, that the devil lives in your nose at night (and how to get rid of him in the morning), chess is forbidden, muslims have one intestine while infidels have seven, don’t pray looking up or your eyes will be snatched away, that one wing of a fly is poison but the other is the cure, that drinking camel urine is good for you and I could go on.
And that Mohammed himself didn’t even know if he was going to heaven. If even Mohammed doesn’t know, what chance does the average muslim have?
And for some non-PC info, Mohammed was described as a white man.
Now, if you can bear it, to compare to the Gospels of New Testament.
Jesus was someone who lived a very humble life and was killed for basically saying he was a King and Son of God (blasphemy) by the powers in charge (Roman and Jewish). The government wanted Jesus destroyed and wanted his growing movement destroyed (as it threatened their power). If, after 3 days, the followers of Jesus proclaimed he has risen from the dead, (just as he predicted), and is truly our Savior, the High Officials would have wanted to destroy such a “myth.” They could have easily done this by producing the dead body of Jesus and saying “Your Messiah is still dead and so is your movement” or producing many eye witnesses of the dead Jesus. But they couldn’t.
The letters that make up the core of the New Testament were written by the eye witnesses of the events of Jesus or by their associates. They were written in just one generation when many other eye witnesses were still alive. They were written without collusion from other Apostles. Even if any of the Apostles wanted to “add” to the “myth” of Jesus, they would have done so in a very disjointed and easily detectable fashion. Yet, the main Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that describe the life of Jesus are amazingly in harmony with one another and the small differences are consistent with what we would see today if four people witnessed a major event and wrote about the event apart from each other. The Gospels can be traced back to their sources and are basically unchanged from their originals.
The Bible (especially the New Testament) is the most investigated historical document in the history of the world. It has been investigated by scientists, philosophers and archeologists using technology undreamed of when the Bible was written. It is been desperately tried to be “disproved” for over 2000 years, yet, the Bible still stands as the truth.
The stories of Jesus still make sense to us today. It may be because they are true, it may be because they are based in love or it may be because they were written to tell the people of the Word of God.
Regards,
Mark
——————————-
PS – There are many topics that could be compared – The stories of a adulterous woman is found in both the Bible and Koran. They seem to sum up each religion.
Christianity
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:1-11)
Islam
There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Gamid and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me.’ He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: ‘Allah’s messenger, why do you turn me away? … By Allah I have become pregnant.’ He said ‘Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth.’ When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag, and said ‘Here is the child whom I have given birth to.’ He said ‘Go away and suckle him until you wean him.’ When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said ‘Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food.’ He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. (Sahih Muslim 4206)
Jesus
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
“Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:28-34)
Mohammed
Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next in goodness? He replied, “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s Cause.” The questioner again asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To perform Hajj Mubrur.”
Hi Mark. Interesting stuff about Mohammed. I had heard stuff about drinking camel’s urine before, but not the other stuff. I didn’t know about dogs being evil – though, I was aware that dogs were looked down on in Islam. (In fact, a few years ago, some muslim clerics banned the owning of dogs in Iran because it was deemed ‘unislamic’.)
there were literally dozens of widely different versions of the Koran and Hadith floating around for several hundred years after Mohammed death until a Fatwah was decreed to destroy all but one version
Interesting. Although, there was a similar thing going on in Christianity – hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, there was a meeting to determine which books made it into the New Testament. As I recall, the book of Revelations almost didn’t make it.
The letters that make up the core of the New Testament were written by the eye witnesses of the events of Jesus or by their associates. They were written in just one generation when many other eye witnesses were still alive. They were written without collusion from other Apostles.
Well, the books written by Paul were not written by an eye-witness. As far as the gospels, it’s been suggested that the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all came from a common source (referred to as Q), because they tend to contain an unusual amount of similar information which differs from the book of John. At the very least, Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to have gotten together and talked about things – how else to explain the number of times they write about “events” that aren’t contained in John, or where the three have common details not contained in John. I think that disputes your claim that they “wrote about the event apart from each other”, and “without collusion from other Apostles.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
If, after 3 days, the followers of Jesus proclaimed he has risen from the dead, (just as he predicted), and is truly our Savior, the High Officials would have wanted to destroy such a “myth.”
Given that the High Officials probably wouldn’t have heard about the resurrection until sometime after 3 days (as, I’m sure, most of Jesus followers went into hiding), there would’ve been an additional delay after the supposed resurrection before the High Officials would’ve learned of the claim.
They could have easily done this by producing the dead body of Jesus and saying “Your Messiah is still dead and so is your movement” or producing many eye witnesses of the dead Jesus. But they couldn’t.
Well, I don’t really know how quickly dead bodies change, but I would think a dead body would bloat up, become discolored, and probably look nothing like the living form after 3+ days. And, as I said, it might’ve been several days after the “resurrection” before High Officials would’ve even heard of the claim. So, they very well might’ve produced a body that was five days dead, but given the expected bloating, discoloration, cuts, and bruises, I’m sure people could’ve easily disputed the claim that the dead body was Jesus — even if it truly was.
The Gospels can be traced back to their sources and are basically unchanged from their originals.
Perhaps. I remember hearing a claim by Bart D. Ehrman, author of “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” that of the thousand or so early copies of the New Testament, that virtually none of them are the same. There were even some passages that were apparently added several centuries later. He said that the exchange between Jesus and the prostitute (involving “casting the first stone”) didn’t appear in any of the early versions. I should also add that Ehrman was a New Testament scholar who worked with these early versions of the Bible, and he was also a Christian who eventually lost his faith partially because he came to realize the New Testament wasn’t at all the perfectly-preserved document that he had been taught it was.
You may also be interested in this wikipedia entry on Mark’s account of the resurrection:
It is been desperately tried to be “disproved” for over 2000 years, yet, the Bible still stands as the truth.
Well, I think the main problem is that there’s so little outside information to validate or disprove it. I’ve heard of certain Christian “skeptics” (e.g. Lee Strobel) who claim to have started out trying to debunk the New Testament story, although he is largely regarded as a faux skeptic among non-believers. He expresses enough skepticism to pass as “skeptical” among Christians, but we all shake our heads at the kinds of softball questions he asks and answers he accepts.
dude… were you writing this up as he was speaking
No, I was just having a conversation. I wrote it afterwards.
This mark guy has said almost all lies here. he can not produce one reference to what he has said. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Hello, it appears that the person named Mark and Mint might be the same person, and contradicting his own first statement so that people visit the link he gave in the second post (a site that contains nothing but lies and hate). You see, it is very easy to deface Islam by quoting many things out of context, but the truth is far from what you percieve. I will clear up what he said:
About Muhammad being into a trance or fit when recieving a revelation, there is absolutely no mention of that in any historical scripture at all. None. However, there is one hadith (prophetic traditions written by his companions), which describes his face as becoming serious when he recieved a revelation and later on, he would recite that to his people who would memorize it and write it down. Mark thinks that something as simple as his face becoming serious meant that was in an epileptic fit and yelling what was told.
About his wives, the total he had was 11. according to some sources he had 12. When Muhammad was not chosen by god as a messenger, he married khadijah, with whom he spent 25 years until her death (when he was 50 years old). And when people told him to remarry, he was reluctant. His other marriages occured only because of political reasons or social reform. As an example, he married Maria al-qibityyah so that from their marriage, his and her tribe would cease to become hostile and the security of muslims would be maintained. All of his other marriages also had some reason behind them and it does not make sense for a man to be married to one woman for almost all his life, and then at age 50+, where his sexual desires are long gone, he decides to marry 10 other women, who by the way were all non-virgin middle aged widows, some who already bore children. The only exception was Aishah, who was the daughter of Abu Bakr (the man who went on to become the first caliph of the muslims). Some sources say she was 13, some say 17, some say 15, some say 9. She might have been 9 years old, but her age is still really unknown. The time period in which muhammad lived had a culture in which people married at a very young age, so it might seem like a shock to those who live today. In those times, even marrying a girl who had just passed puberty was considered normal and common. Compare Muhammad`s life with pagan arabs at the time, who used to “own” many wives – some even 50. It was muhammad who married only one, and then married others for the sake of the muslims and he who preached rights for women – something very new and unknown to the people.
As for him going to war and taking sex slaves and treasures, there is no account for this in any source anywhere. I do not understand why Mark would say such a thing off the top of his head. There was an incident with Maria the Copt, who was not a concubine; she was a slave owned by Egypt’s Christian governor, who offered her and her sister Serine—among other presents—as a “gift of good will” to the Prophet in reply to his envoys inviting him to Islam. On her way from Egypt to Madinah, she was curious to learn about “her new master” and listened to his Companions talk about him. As a result, she became Muslim even before meeting Muhammad. Muhammad immediately removed her title of slave – as he did with all other slaves gifted to him – and married her with her full rights. During that time, a marriage would necessarily cultivate good relations between the husband and wife`s family and tribe. Muhammad never conducted a war for personal treasures, because he always lived a life of ascetcism who so much of his money to the poor that there would be no fire to cook food in his house for days. (as stated by his wife in Sahih Bukhari Hadith). Whatever war booty he got, he let the muslim soldiers divide it among themselves and give the rest to charity.
As for the verses he took back when he considered them Satanic, nothing even remotely close to this occured. This is a sensation that some non-muslims blindly adhere to that was started by salman rushdie in his book Satanic Verses (bravo, at least something Mark named correctly). All revelations were from god, and not a single incident like this every occured. All claims opposing this statement show no sources to back them up.
As for having the different versions of Qurans, there never were different versions of them in the first place. Many muslims had already memorized the Quranic text and it would have been impposible to create a new addition into it without the people immediately noticing it. The people had small segments of the quran in their homes with their own personal quran texts written on paper rocks, etc. they got from Muhammad. The caliph then ordered all people to destroy what they had to avoid disorder in their texts and distributed the complete compiled quran so that the people had the complete quran now, even though most of them had learned it by heart anyway.
About Muhammad turning people to monkeys or the gender of the child based on which parent feels climax first, I do not know whether to laugh at this statement or the person’s ignorance. Nothing like this happened, as a person as humane as muhammad would never to something like this to someone. Dogs are not considered evil, the only thing about them is that their saliva is considered impure, which is why muslims do not like to get near them. But they are not evil; take an example from a hadith (both sahih muslim and sahih bukhari in “Manners” chapter), in which the a prostitute gave water to a thirsty dog. the prophet told that that women will ge to heaven for that act. And for looking down while praying to avoid your eyes being snatched, any sane person can tell you this a fantasy created by only the most ignorant ones. As for drinking camel’s urine, it had nothing to do with Islam or Muhammad. During Muhammad’s life, there was a disease which was known to be cured by camel’s urine. There had never been a mention to that by the prophet, but people like Mark insist otherwise.
As for Muhamamd not knowing if he was going to heaven, it is false. Muhammad once made mention of God’s mercy on humans and said that no one could expect to go to heaven if it werent for his mercy. The people asked him if it was the same for him, and he said even him.
Muhammad was a man who brought a complete turnaround to a large region of the world, where adultery was the norm, women were treated like slaves, and people worshipped lifeless statues and icons for protection and prosperity. An immoral society became the most supreme in a matter of a few years. There are people who take things out of context and present them in a manner which depicts islam as violent, such as taking verses in a wrong order to create a different meaning or presenting a verse without showing its reason. Some people simply say whatever nonsense is found in their heads, as you can see with Mark above, who can not even produce a single authentic source to his statements. On the other hand, Christian and non-muslim historians themselves have dispelled many of the myths about Islam that people like Mark propogate. Take for example George Bernard Shaw, I cant think of the numerous other names, but you will find them if you just seach for the guy I mentioned right now. Do not believe anything unless it is supported by proof. and who better to go to than the mosque leader at your local mosque. non muslims, especially are encouraged to come there to ask about islam or things that are confusing them.
Wow! You write a very interesting and topical account of your conversation with a ‘regular’ man of islamic faith, all the more interesting because you yourself are an ex-christian athiest, and almost all of the comments people have posted after reading this account are from fairly radical sounding christians and muslim defending their faith with verbal bladery!
Who’dathunk it!
I suppose actually we’d all of us athiest’s have thunk it in a way, but it’s still mildly shocking when played out in such obvious back and forth as in these comments.
Still, one very useful education I was given through reading your initial post was that of the “Atheist’s Wager” which I found through your link to “Pascal’s Wager” during your remembered conversation.
That was a welcome nugget of confirmation, thanks!
Mardana M:
As for drinking camel’s urine, it had nothing to do with Islam or Muhammad. During Muhammad’s life, there was a disease which was known to be cured by camel’s urine. There had never been a mention to that by the prophet, but people like Mark insist otherwise.
I looked up this claim, and found:
As for Mark’s other claims – I take them with a grain of salt. I neglected to mention it in my original post, but I had once heard a Christian claim that Muslims believe all prophets were sinless. Ismael said that the claim was false. So, when I hear claims made about Islam, I do take them with a grain of salt – because I’ve seen them be wrong before. However, I also know that Christians cling to myths about Christianity, as well (as I pointed out in an earlier comment). I would be surprised if Muslims didn’t also have a number of supporting myths about Islam, as well. And, of course, not everyone is knowledgeable about their own religion (I sometimes surprise Christians with information they didn’t know about writings in the Bible). Apparently, the camel’s urine claim falls into the same category – something that not all Muslims know.
About Muhammad turning people to monkeys … I do not know whether to laugh at this statement or the person’s ignorance. Nothing like this happened, as a person as humane as muhammad would never to something like this to someone.
Speaking of Muhammed and how “humane” he is, here’s the section on camel’s urine in full context:
And a similar story about what seems to be the same incident:
Reading about branding their eyes with hot iron makes me question Mohammed’s humaneness. Given that information, I’m doubtful that he was too “humane” to turn people into monkeys.
As for him going to war and taking sex slaves and treasures, there is no account for this in any source anywhere. I do not understand why Mark would say such a thing off the top of his head… Muhammad never conducted a war for personal treasures, because he always lived a life of ascetcism who so much of his money to the poor that there would be no fire to cook food in his house for days.
I’ll have to look this one up to verify it, although I do recall Mohammed owning lots of slaves – and that he bought more slaves than he sold – so he must’ve had some kind of money, and those slaves were probably doing something for him.
Muhammad was a man who brought a complete turnaround to a large region of the world, where adultery was the norm, women were treated like slaves, and people worshipped lifeless statues and icons for protection and prosperity.
Perhaps. Like I said – Christians have their supporting myths, and I have to wonder if this is a supporting myth of Islam. No doubt, Muslims had plenty of time to vilify the pre-Islamic society and erase any history of virtue there. Like the old phrase: the winners write the history books, historical revisionism is probably going on in Muslim society. I remember reading a story about Iranian religious clerics, that they hate the Iranian pre-Islamic society, and seem to be happy with erasing Iran’s Persian past. The Iranian people were opposed to that, however, and the clerics have backed off a bit when it comes to destroying/preserving ancient pre-Islamic ruins. Similarly, the Taliban destroyed ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. I don’t find it hard to believe that die-hard Muslims have created myths to demonize pre-Islamic society (and thereby, elevate Islam).
Hi Tyny frog.
I am impressed by your sens of discovery or analysis. By the way I learnt a lot about musilim here on your blog. It is good you found Ismael confused. Even majority of them are convinced what they are doing doesn’t come from GOD. I would like you to continue doing research you will find HIM,
“And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” Jeremiah 29:13. I am confident you find GOD one day because He doesn’t lie about His Word. Make sure you don’t get deceived by any devil or demon. Christianity will not force you. Be free to find the truth.
By the way please view these links and believe Jesus-Christ is risen, this is just a pastor who was lead 3 or 4 days in a mortuary after accident…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNaoDyV-PJ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc6EGHhyUeY