The Story Of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled.

It doesn't. Ideology defines doctrine.

 

What nonsense. The ideology that leads them to believe they must "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until... religion is only for Allah", is defined in the doctrine that commands them to "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until... religion is only for Allah"

 

You are wrong. Doctrine does not come from God it comes from ideology. They had their ideology and they just made up the doctrine to justify ideology.

Who in the f*** do you think wrote the doctrine?

 

Whether it's Doctrine or Ideology is secondary to the reality that this very backward and hateful religion, which has succeeded mightily in keeping its practitioners backward, is a threat to civilized, free, and rational people everywhere.

 

The West have a better understanding of Islam or the story of Mohammed than Muslims because Muslims are not allowed to question, study or research about Mohammed or his teachings. In that link it is missing the fact that Mohammed believe the spirit that appeared to him was a genie it was his wife Khadija that convince him it was Gabriel. Also as indicated in the story by John Walton in that link was that Mohammed twisted everything about the Bible. The Arabian region was inhabited by several heretical Christian sects that influence Mohammed's revelation and the creation of Islam.

In an open forum Muslim scholars have no foot to stand on that is why Muslim countries have strict laws against questioning the legitimacy and historicity of Islam. In the Koran alone, God clearly commanded Mohammed to consult with the Jews and Christians. Mohammed could have traveled to Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem to consult with the Christian scholars but he did not in stead he declare war on them.

If we look at Islam carefully it resemble early heretical Christian teachings such as the Nestorians, Aryanism teachings that Jesus is not the Son of God. What Mohammed did also was to exert his tribal religion about the Black Stone or Kabaa.

 

Agreed

 

I'm not sure that we even have to look closely at the Koran, ridiculous in itself, as much as its consequences.

We see clearly that it leaves people impoverished spiritually as well as financially, that it makes women and children subservient, ignores basic human rights, and that it does not allow a broad-based education for its followers. It should be condemned for these reasons alone, as well as its teaching of hatreds and, of course, the terrorism which it inspires..

 

Have you read the Koran or lived around any Muslims, Fred?

 

I never claimed it did. It comes from the Koran and Hadiths. I see you've moved on from your pointless semantic games and moved to strawmen.

 

And who wrote that? It was based on their ideology.

Sigh... A strawman fallacy is when somebody misrepresents an argument.

Which argument did I misrepresent?

Or are you just saying "duh strawman" because you can't come up with anything?

I know this is out of character for you but it would show some maturity and growth of you just accept your defeat.

An ideal has to be in place to fabricate doctrine. The ideology hasn't changed. It spawned the doctrine. You can say no but you're wrong, you have been this whole time. I don't know why you are that stubborn.

 

Spoken by Muhammad, written by scribes.

This one

Quote Originally Posted by Polydectes View Post
You are wrong. Doctrine does not come from God....

I never claimed it came from god. Got anything relevant to the topic of discussion, as opposed to trying to avoid the discussion.

 

One of the major problems of Muslims is their inability to rationally argue Islam that is why they always turn to radicalism, force of arms remember it is written in their Koran and it is their law their right to defend their faith, their right to defend Mohammed anything that they can not rationally justify they treat it as an attack and Muslims must respond violently and justify it as a mean of self defense. This is why Muslim countries have very strict laws and their educational system do not allow Muslims or none Muslims in learning the true history of Islam and or Mohammed this is why Islam mean submit they are only to submit and accept no question ask.

 

The Koran is their backbone and it is up to the West to educate Muslims so that they can take the necessary correction that Mohammed was not a holy man rather he was a Warlord.
We already see just how other Muslims worship they concentrate on Mohammed's early teachings that was very similar to Christianity all about peace, tolerance, acceptance and respect and not about his second half teachings which was all about hatred, wars and violence. The problem is that Muslim scholars have failed to use Mohammed's early teachings to abrogate his later teachings instead it is accepted that his later teachings' abrogates his early teachings.

If we research Mohammed and his history carefully we will conclude that he was a preacher a prophet whose original mission was to spread Christianity to the desert tribes and not to create his own religion called Islam. It was after he was exiled to Medina that he became a changed man he started to deviate from his original mission and started to preach about himself this is why Islam have the crescent moon as their emblem and symbol of faith it is the religion of Mohammed the Kabaa.

 

So poeple worth ideology.

I didn't say you did. So that isn't a misrepresentation of your argument.

Yes Ideology creates doctrine to justify it's thesis.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree

 

What is your point here? That not all Muslims are terrorists? If so I'm quite familiar with that meme.

 

I'm not sure that researching the life of Mohammed is of much use today as the many flaws in the Koran are self evident. In today's world we have to deal with what is and act on that which is, at the moment, a defensive position

Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim, outlines the present problem quite well..https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9379/cultural-imbalance

 

Sooooooo what was I "wrong" about when you said
"You are wrong. Doctrine does not come from God...."

 

See post 189 i explained why you were wrong

 

Not even a single word identifying what I was wrong about.

 

Play dumb all you want.

 

Here is my statement you labeled "wrong"

And here is your explanation of what was wrong.

So full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Like I said. Not a single word identifying what was wrong.

 

Yes there is. Fourth sentence

 

Fourth sentence is where you AGREED with me Einstein, when you said-

"Yes Ideology creates doctrine to justify it's thesis." Along with the 5th where you responded "I agree". AGAIN, what was I wrong about?

 

No it wasn't.

You have to be delusional if you think that is agreement.

I agreed with WanRen, not you.

AGAIN the fourth sentence of post 189.

If you can't or won't understand how that is disagreement with your statement we've come to an impass.

The simplest I can make it, is that statement indicated that what you said was incorrect. If you reject that out of stubborn pigheadedness or the rejection of reality in favor for your own, there is nothing more I can say to make it more clear.

 

Have you been drinking? The definition of "yes" escaping you? Or you just trying to pretend you have anything relevant to contribute?