The Story Of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled.

Islam and Christianity are virtually polar opposites of each other.

According to Islam

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 26: Narrated Abu Huraira*)
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 (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."

According to Christianity

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments

 

I didn't say they were the same as each other. I said they share doctrine. Way to misrepresent my argument.

 

Actually biblical Christianity and kornaic Islam are very similar, except Islam is less racist. The commandments are almost identical in intent even though they are worded differently.

 

That is interesting. Is Mohammad as fictitious as Jesus? I think it's more tempting to accept Mohammad because no significant miracles are associated with him. He appears like any other would-be prophet, a fellow who took a wife (however young) and died as normal people do. I've always regarded him as something of a Middle Eastern Joseph Smith.

 

Yet the "Law and the Prophets" were as bigoted and brutal as Islam. An Islamic Jesus character might as well have come along and said the same exact things about the Quran and Hadith.

 

No reliable person ever saw Mohammed or Jesus. They are imaginary characters designed to act as front men for new religions created by con men. The Paul character created the Jesus persona and Uthman created the Mohammed character to unify the Arabs. The only one of the three who can be declared a real person is Uthman. Paul may or may not have been real but Jesus and Mohammed are fakes.

 

I never claimed you did.

 

Christians have the NEW testament

Matthew 5:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.…

Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

 

I wouldn't put Jesus squarely on Paul. We don't even have evidence that Paul (himself questionable, yes) had the gospel narrative of Jesus' life in mind. Someone else seems to have come up with that. Given the variety of canonical and non-canonical texts we have about Jesus, I'm thinking that a lot of people contributed to his development.

 

That's what I'm talking about - Christianity is based on basically tossing out the most odious parts of the so-called Old Testament texts and replacing them with something more pleasant and universally appealing and accepting.

 

So you didn't argue against my point?

 

Contrasting it. That while they "share a lot of it", the same original history, they are polar opposites as far as their prescriptions for guiding ones life and governing society.

 

Yes that is why I said it was their ideology. That is what governs societies.

Not doctrine.

 

Their doctrine dictates how ones life is to be lived and society is to be governed. That's why weve had Islamic Caliphates applying Islamic doctrine as law for 1300 of the 1380 years of Islamic history.

 

Yes, that isn't ideology.

As does Judaism and Christianity. However our ideology is the opposite. Theirs is not.

That is an ideological act.

 

Why are you so defensive of Islam?

 

???? You are the only one defending the doctrine of Islam. The doctrine that inspires the slaughter of 10s of 1000s of innocent civilians

 

It is both doctrine and ideology. Regardless, both the doctrine and the ideology dictate how ones life is to be lived and society is to be governed

Christian doctrine doesn't concern itself with governance. "My kingdom is not of this world"

Call it whatever you like but it is STILL an act, dictated by the doctrine.

 

You imagined that. Further Islam is an ideology.

That is an ideology.

 

Doctrine is fairytales and make believe without ideology.

That is incorrect. Doctrine is just mindless scribbles in books without ideology.

Because chritianity exists in secular ideology.

Doctrine is meaningless without ideology.

 

An ideology spelled out in the written doctrine of the quran and hadiths

An ideology spelled out in the written doctrine of the quran and hadiths

 

So what? The problem still is ideology. Doctrine is nothing.

 

It is the very source of their ideology.

 

It's meaningless without ideology.

 

It DEFINES their ideology.