The dark truth behind MUHAMMAD AND ISLAM

INTRODUCTIONI decided to take this debate on to be a debate, not in comparative religion, but in religious interpretation. We are debating two views of interpreting the Islamic religion. I shall, hence, like to start off with a brief overview of the main tenants of the interpretation of the opposition. I would like to call the opposition's views the "Christian" view of Islam, whilst calling mine the "Secular" view of Islam. The Christian view asserts three things: That ultimately, the Bible is the ultimate and final answers in theological issues That ultimately, the Islamic view of Christianity is unjustified That ultimately, Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity (or ultimately, Islam is a religion of violence) The Christian view holds Lord Jesus to be, not only the Prophet, but also the greatest (albeit not the last) Prophet. [1] This makes all other Prophets who diverge from Christian teachings ultimately suspicious in the eyes of traditionalist Christians. The Qu'ran gladly warns Christians and Jews not to impede and neutralize Tawhid, or "oneness." [2] They ultimately see this as "Shirk," or polytheism. And this is where the confusion starts. The Secular view I would like to present states three things: That ultimately, all religions are based on perspectivism That ultimately, the Islamic view of Christianity is not more correct objectively than the Christian views That ultimately, Islam must be viewed with general respect Hence, in this discusssion, I will refrain from, unless absolutely necessary, interpreting Islam from a viewpoint of Hinduism etc. I will necessarily affirm that this interpretation, which I see as the objective interpretation, is better than the Christian interpretation of the religion. Ultimately, I do not present the secular view as the contingent alternative, but rather a necessary alternative-for it is the original way to interpret every religion. This leads to BoP lying on the opposition solely. With this, I would like to refute all of the opposition's main points. REBUTTALS a.) Muhammad as a False Prophet The opposition starts here with quoting the Bible. From a Christian perspective, this is justified. But this debate weights two views of the religion-the Secular and the Christian. Hence, objectively, the Bible cannot provide any justification to prove that Muhammad is a false Prophet. Hence, upon further interpretation, the verses the opponent gives cannot provide justification whatsoever for rejecting Muhammad, for it is based mainly on his perspective, not not the objective perspective. The opposition then attempts to go within the framework of the Islamic religion to prove that Muhammad was a false prophet-this is what, if necessarily done, could carry some weight. The opposition cites historian al-Tabari as saying "I have fabricated things against god and have imputed to him words which he has not spoken." Content with this, the opposition says that "the prophecy in the bible appeared." How vile and utterly revolting this is-since al-Tabari is not the word of Muhammad at all, as the opposition states, and since al-Tabari never said this. Within the whole jurisdiction of the Islamic religion, only the Qu'ran is accepted to be verbatim. al-Tabari provides no insight (apart from commentaries) whatsoever on the teachings of the Qu'ran-he neither writes a chapter, nor a verse in the Qu'ran, ultimately leading this to reject the vile attempts of sophistry which the opposition employs. But even if al-Tabari was a Surah in the Qu'ran, he never did say those words. In the quoted passage, he (intends as a disclaimer to his histories) to say that "this writing of mine may [be found to] contain some information, mentioned by us on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable." He never means to destroy and corrupts the whole word of the Holy Qu'ran. [3] b.) Qirfa The opposition presents the story of Qirfa as a story of an innocent old women being killed via the orders of the Prophet Muhammad. But historical records are still more or less confused about who "Qirfa" really was. Some books published after the death of the Prophet ultimately showed that she might have been killed during a raid led by Abu Bakr. Others narrate that Muhammad sent his companions on a traditional raid. However, the opposition's views that the Prophet Muhammad ordered Qirfa to be killed is preposterous. We have no evidence of that. Apart from that, her daughter was indeed captured, but she was not prostituted. Islamic histories narrates that Muhammed "sent her to the people of Makkah, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners." [4] c.) The Bible is Corrupted For once in the whole of the rant, the opposition correctly interprets Islam. Islam does claim that the Bible is indeed "corrupted." However, the Bible was not corrupted in the sense that the opposition thinks of it to be. The Bible as we know it now is a collection of writings from St. Paul etc. The Islamic religion thinks that the spreading of Christianity led to the ultimate degeneration of the Bible-leading to doctrines that were never taught and spread by Jesus apparently true. For example, the doctrine of Trinity was an addition: accordingly to Adolf Harnock, "[in the 2nd Century] Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion." [5] This is the view that Islam takes regarding the Gospels (Injil). Keeping true in the spirit of secular analysis, I would like to start off by saying that Jesus did not write anything-we know teachings from a huge collection of speeches and letters that were recorded down. Because of this, we can never be sure of the de facto word of Jesus himself-and the Muslims have a very good bet, as Jesus was a monotheist. If Jesus was a monotheist, then he cannot justifiably claim that God is infested within his body, for God cannot be two-God is indivisible, and He is indeed one. Again, Injil refers to the original dictations and speeches (even writings) of Jesus. The opposition then asks me to show "the original quran that been wretten on rocks and leaves" (emphasis added, horrid spelling original). The opposition then agains goes to his dogmatic way of arguing-the Qu'ran was dictated verbally by God to Muhammad, and it was only shortly after Muhmmad's death that the first copy of the Qu'ran was printed. The oldest Qu'ran we know of was printed in 649-75AD, mere decades after Muhammad's death. [6] Since then, it has remained unchanged. d.) Peace vs. Context Ultimately, the opposition says that ISIS are "doing as Muslims were doing before." This is absurd-the opposition presents no supporting claim to it, and the fact that throughout history Islam protected and respected Christianity in the region proves this to be so: in fact, was it not vile that Islam protected Jews in Jerusalem before it fell, but these same Jews were brutally slaughtered when, in 1099, the Crusaders sacked it? Muhammad led by the sword, because if he did not lead by the sword, he would've died. But Muhammad led by love-after taking Mecca, he spared every Fitnah within the city to show that his army was not a barbaric cult. Ultimately, I do not claim that Islam is a religion of peace or violent-people are violent. Religion is neutral. [7,2] CITATIONS: [1] http://www.biblestudytools.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...[4] http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...[5] http://www.ccel.org...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...