What do Muslims think about Jesus?

[Qasim786]

"No one else was ever born without a father."

Might be a bit off subject but Who was Melchizedek?

"For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."

Hebrews 7:1-4

If you say that Jesus was the son of God or God just because he had no earthly father, you should be worshipping this man according to your standards.

From:

http://members.aol.com/IslamTeam/great.htm

 

[DivineNames]

For all those who think that we cannot deal kindly, with the Jews and the christians, or any non-muslim for that matter!

Perhaps I am wrong, but I have read that Islam (or the major historical interpretation) demands war against Jews and Christians. If this is the case, to talk of Muslims being kind to them is fairly ridiculous. (At the level of doctrine anyway).

 

[Qasim786]

No thats wrong, In Islam we are not permitted to demand war on any group, unless we are forced to, i.e if we are being fought against. And even then, with strict conditions and rules, no woman or children or any non-combatants must be hurt. With regards to how Muslims should treat the people of the scripture, read the following.

http://www.faithfreedom.com/essential_l ... stians.htm

Plus remember what God states in the Quran:

"God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just. "(Quran 60:8)

"God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong." (Quran 60:9)

 

[DivineNames]

No thats wrong, In Islam we are not permitted to demand war on any group, unless we are forced to, i.e if we are being fought against. And even then, with strict conditions and rules, no woman or children or any non-combatants must be hurt. With regards to how Muslims should treat the people of the scripture, read the following.

I hope you are right, but I have my doubts.


http://answering-islam.org.uk/Hahn/jihad.htm


What do you make of this?

 

[evanman]

1Jo 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

This is what separates Moslems from the Father.

 

[Muhsen]

No thats wrong, In Islam we are not permitted to demand war on any group, unless we are forced to, i.e if we are being fought against. And even then, with strict conditions and rules, no woman or children or any non-combatants must be hurt. With regards to how Muslims should treat the people of the scripture, read the following.

I hope you are right, but I have my doubts.



What do you make of this?

It is known that all the wars which Muslims waded was for the defense themselves from the aggression.

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had said for commanders of an enemies when he opened Mecca
" go away then you are the frees ". and they are who killed his families and his companions ?.
And Salaheddin let the crusaders inside of Jerusalem after her openings are without to sacrifice them as what they killed his families and his brothers

 

[Qasim786]

Is anyone going to answer my question about Melchizedek?

http://members.aol.com/IslamTeam/great.htm

He is apparently, without father, without Mother, without beginning, or end. Does that not make him even more worthy of worship than jesus, since he has qualities that should be attributed to only God himself.

"Say: He is God the One and Only. God the eternal absolute. He does not beget, nor is he begotten. And thier is nothing like unto him." Surah 112

 

[DivineNames]

It is known that all the wars which Muslims waded was for the defense themselves from the aggression.

How did Muslims end up fighting in India? Were they fighting in self-defence?

 

[evanman]

Melchizedek was the Prince of Salem. in the Book of Genesis he visits Abraham.

His name means prince of peace, which is also one of the titles bestowed upon Jesus Christ. So we see melchizedek as one who prefigures Christ.

Some believe that it is possible that he was an angelic visitor. Others believe that he may have been Shem, a son of Noah (Father of all Semitic peoples), some even believe him to have been a manifestation of The Son of God.

Not much is known as there are only a couple of references to him in the Old Testament.. The second being in the Book of the Palms of King David.

 

[Muhsen]

It is known that all the wars which Muslims waded was for the defense themselves from the aggression.

How did Muslims end up fighting in India? Were they fighting in self-defence?

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

 

[DivineNames]

It is known that all the wars which Muslims waded was for the defense themselves from the aggression.

How did Muslims end up fighting in India? Were they fighting in self-defence?

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years.

How did Muslims end up ruling India? by fighting in "self-defence"?

Can you not see a discrepancy ?

 

[DivineNames]

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

"The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword."


From- http://www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/sword.htm



Are you-


(a) Dr Zakir Naik ?

or

(b) a plagiarist ?

 

[DivineNames]

Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaughter

By Shrinandan Vyas


http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/m ... _kush.html

 

[DivineNames]

The Magnitude of Muslim Atrocities


http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/m ... _atro.html


"The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history".

India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.

Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet."

 

[DivineNames]

Destruction of Hindu Temples by Aurangzeb

By Rajiv Varma


http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/m ... ngzeb.html



"Islamic literary sources provide far more extensive evidence of temple destruction by the Muslim invaders of India in medieval times. They also cover a large area, from Sinkiang and Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, and from Siestan province of present day Iran in the West to Assam in the East. This vast area, which was long the cradle of hindu culture, came to be littered with the ruins of temples and monasteries, belonging to all schools of Santana Dharma - Baudhha, Jaina, Shaiva, Sakta, Vaishnava, and the rest. Archeological explorations and excavations in modern times have proved unmistakably that most of the mosques, mazars, ziarats and dargahs which were built in this area, stood on the sites of and were made from the materials of deliberately demolished Hindu monuments.

Hundreds of medieval muslim historians who flourished in India and elsewhere in the world of Islam, have written detailed accounts of what their heroes did in various parts of the extensive Hindu homeland as they were invaded one after another. It is alear from the literary evidence collected alone that all Muslim rulers destroyed or desecrated Hindu temples whenever and whereever they could. Archeological evidence from various Muslim monuments, particularly mosques and dargahs, not only confirms the literary evidence but also adds the names of some Muslim rulers whom Muslim historians have failed to credit with this pious performance.

Some of the literary evidence of temple destruction during Aurangzeb's rule is listed below..."

 

[Muhsen]

I think Dr Zakir has explained these misconceptions you already have read it:


1. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peaceand harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and antisocial elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The
fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

2. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book “Islam at the cross road†(Page 8):
“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.â€Â

3. Thomas Carlyle.
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book “Heroes and Hero worshipâ€Â, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: “The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.â€Â

4. No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from
errorâ€Â
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]


5.Sword of the Intellect.
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:
“Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.â€Â
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

6. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.
An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

 

[evanman]

The greatest message of Peace is the Gospel of the Prince of Peace -Jesus Christ. By seeking to silence those that proclaim this message is NOT to be for peace, but to reject peace from God.

 

[DivineNames]

I think Dr Zakir has explained these misconceptions you already have read it:


1. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

What we are talking about is murder, pillaging, enslavement, destruction of Hindu temples, destruction of Buddhist Monasteries and Universities...


You made the claim-

"It is known that all the wars which Muslims waded was for the defense themselves from the aggression."



You are either a liar or an idiot.

 

[DivineNames]

I think Dr Zakir has explained these misconceptions you already have read it:


4. No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from
errorâ€Â
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

Is Islam Tolerant?
By Daniel Pipes

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15263

"In fact, this deceptively simple phrase historically has had a myriad of meanings..." (Qur’an 2:256)



Anyway, we are not even talking about forced conversions, we are talking about offensive war.

 

[Muhsen]

What we are talking about is murder, pillaging, enslavement, destruction of Hindu temples, destruction of Buddhist Monasteries and Universities...


You made the claim-

"It is known that all the wars which Muslims waded was for the defense themselves from the aggression."



You are either a liar or an idiot.

You are only the liar or the idiot

read

For all those who think that we cannot deal kindly, with the Jews and the christians, or any non-muslim for that matter!

Perhaps I am wrong, but I have read that Islam (or the major historical interpretation) demands war against Jews and Christians. If this is the case, to talk of Muslims being kind to them is fairly ridiculous. (At the level of doctrine anyway).

No thats wrong, In Islam we are not permitted to demand war on any group, unless we are forced to, i.e if we are being fought against. And even then, with strict conditions and rules, no woman or children or any non-combatants must be hurt. With regards to how Muslims should treat the people of the scripture, read the following.