A simple and irrefutable evidence that Muhammad is last prophet of Allah

[Tayeb]

s3 and greetings,

I was asked by someone to give evidence that the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) is the last prophet of Allah.

I said that the evidence is simple and logical. Muhammad is the last prophet of Allah because with him the age of ignorance terminated.

How I was asked? The historical evidence is clear from the first message that the prophet received:

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
خَلَقَ الْإِنسَانَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ
اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ
الَّذِي عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ
عَلَّمَ الْإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ

Translation:

In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
[96.1] Read in the name of your Lord Who created.
[96.2] He created man from a clot.
[96.3] Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,
[96.4] Who taught (to write) with the pen
[96.5] Taught man what he knew not.

What is so great about it? Allah did not tell the prophet how Great He is, or that He should fear Him, or that He created everything, or how the Universe was created. No sir, He invited him to "Read!"(اقْرَأْ Iqrah!

Being illiterate the prophet said to the bearer of Message of Allah, the Angle Gabriel, that he knew not how to read!

On the aftermath of first battle against disbelievers, the battle of Al-Badr, a number of Meccan noble men were taken prisoners. At that time of history, the family, or tribe of the person taken prisoner had to pay a ransom for his release from captivity. Instead of asking for such a ransom, the prophet invited the Meccan prisoners (most of whom were from the aristocracy and ruling elite of Mecca) to teach 10 Muslims to read and to write, and thereafter they were free men.

What better example that the age of ignorance had dawned?

In fact the advent of Islam started a true revolution, as from then on, not only scribes and noble men knew how to read or to write, but everyone. The humblest of person had the incumbent duty to learn to read and to write.

History shows the result of end of ignorance. Elsewhere can be read all the contributions of Muslims towards all branches of human knowledge.

Any more proof is required?

The person who had asked me about the proof, acknowledged that a simple explanation I had given was enough. He was satisfied with the claim that the prophet Muhammad is indeed the Last prophet of God (Allah). With knowledge and end of ignorance there is no need indeed for a new prophet to guide the humanity.

Ma'a-salaama,

[Netcurtains3]

So you're saying, if Muslim lands increased their public spending on education they will be closer to "God". To my mind, this shows the weakness of this site. How many of the posts on this site, including your own, have been on trying to get muslim lands to increase the percentage of their GDPs on education? I'll tell you - there is only one poster - an Muslim based in London, who wants the UK govt. to spend more to help muslims of a pakistani background be taught in the "main" language of that country. He is the only one here that is a true muslim in the sense you describe....

[Tayeb]

Dear John,

I respect your opinion but I invite you to look beyond. Illiteracy or low education has to do with bad governance. You have agreed with me in other thread.

I mentioned here before that Sweden at turn of 1900s was one of the poorest country in Europe, having had more than 40% emigrating to USA, specially in California, behind the rush for gold. Today Sweden is one of the most advanced countries in the World. Why? Because their governments had the foresight of investing in education. You can be a professional student in Sweden, never leaving universitiesm and subsidised by the government.

You must have misread my post. I did not say anything about the actual state of literracy of Muslims all over the World. What I did, was to explain why there is no need for more prophets to guide the humanity.

You can accept it or rejct it. But it is a fact that no one came after Muhammad in last 1600 years to have an impact that the prophet Muhammd has had. This fact also explains itself.

Ma'a-salaama,

[Netcurtains3]

looking at what you have said only using algebra or set thoery (education if you will ) - well, to put it bluntly, it does not make rational sense.

You cannot say:

Likes Education so is Last Prophet.....

It would be like saying "I like Reading FC so I should get a Nobel Prize in Pickled Herring".

you cannot say Mohammed has had an effect if you claim that muslims are not following him - you can't have your cake and eat it.

From what I understand - you are saying Mohammed is so "great" because there are so many muslims. But if the key part of being a muslim is getting a good education then he clearly has not had this great effect - its a mere illusion. Its like saying Saint Peter is the second greatest man after Mohammed as Catholicism is the second largest religion. Its nonsense.

[Tayeb]

Dear John,

Words like "nonsense" are not argumenta. Anyhow perhaps because you have no academic background, like that of teaching, you fail to comprehend the importance of education in overcoming ignorance and to bring about enlightenment.

You fail really to understand, or you are being dishonest I dare to say. My explanation of the importance of first revelation and the shift from scribes and noblemen in terms of education, towards ordinary people and the obligation of being literate, is the cause of why there were no more prophets after Muhammad.

Show me any other holy text of other religions that starts with a first revelation with the obligation to read? If you were not so antagonistic against Islam, you wild have understood my simple explanation and the importance of end of ignorance.

But really I don't think you will understand, or you will be arguing for sake of arguing as usual side stepping the main point end of ignorance through education.

I have to be patient with you. One needs really to have stamina to overcome stubbornness.

Ma'a-salaama,

[Netcurtains3]

Tayeb,
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying, for example, because Sparta had the first "universal" state school system for boys and girls, therefore the prophets of the God(s) of Spata were right?

("universal" is in quotes as slaves did not get this free state education).

OR perhaps we should all become Scottish Presbyterians like Ian Paisley as Wikipedia says:
"
The Church of Scotland was established in 1560, during the Protestant Reformation period as the official state religion in Scotland, and in the following year it set out to provide a school in every parish controlled by the local kirk-session, with education to be provided free to the poor, and the expectation that church pressure would ensure that all children took part. In the year of 1633 the Parliament of Scotland introduced local taxation to fund this provision. Schooling was not free, but the tax support kept fees low, and the church and charity funded poorer students
"

1560 is an awful long time again - think about it.

[Tayeb]

You are comparing an uiversal religion to a people. Spartan education was military oriented not that based on learning as the word means. So you are wrong in comparing.

On reformation curch you are comparing XVI century with IV century? Afasin your argument is fallacious.

[Netcurtains3]

Tayeb,
I'm not sure about that. Sites I've read state that the literacy rates in Sparta were higher than anywhere else due to this public education and due to this education including girls. Alot of it was PE type stuff (nothing wrong with that ) but also reading and writing.
You stated that Mohammed was the last, but if the Scots did the same thing but better (scottish state education lasted 400 years now) then perhaps that makes the "prophets" of presbyternianism an improved version of the early ideas. If you read the works of "JOHN CALVIN" the chap behind it all, its quite interesting (all I remember is that he felt there was no free which as a child I felt was rubbish but as I grow older I can see that he might have a point ).

[fatimah]

Tayeb,
I'm not sure about that. Sites I've read state that the literacy rates in Sparta were higher than anywhere else due to this public education and due to this education including girls. Alot of it was PE type stuff (nothing wrong with that ) but also reading and writing.
You stated that Mohammed was the last, but if the Scots did the same thing but better (scottish state education lasted 400 years now) then perhaps that makes the "prophets" of presbyternianism an improved version of the early ideas. If you read the works of "JOHN CALVIN" the chap behind it all, its quite interesting (all I remember is that he felt there was no free which as a child I felt was rubbish but as I grow older I can see that he might have a point ). who is this calvin person

[Netcurtains3]

fatimah ,
Calvinism is a form of christian religion. If you are interested look it up in Google. If you believe in God using the "first cause" principle - eg everything has a cause, thus the "first cause" needs something extra special - something external eg God. However, if you believe in "free will" then you acknowledge that not everything has a cause and thus it breaks the theory God being the "first cause" because in a random universe (free will) there is no first cause - its random.

Tayeb,
I was thinking last night that you are not looking at like with like. In Islam you are not meant to be Mohammedians (followers of Mohammed), but rather you are meant to follow Mohammed's "rules". However, in Christianity you are meant to be followers of Jesus - be like him.

Thus, using this method, if you read the FIRST thing Jesus did using the eyes of a Christian reader you come to Luke Ch2 v46-v47. Here, Jesus as a young boy is shown wanting to learn more and shown already knowing a great deal. Thus to a Christian, if you want to be like Jesus you should desire for your children not just education, but the best education available - de lux education - and if you are a christian child you should likewise want to get this education. A christian parent, should spend nearly all their money on their kids education - using the rules of Christian bible reading.

[Tayeb]

fatimah ,
Calvinism is a form of christian religion. If you are interested look it up in Google. If you believe in God using the "first cause" principle - eg everything has a cause, thus the "first cause" needs something extra special - something external eg God. However, if you believe in "free will" then you acknowledge that not everything has a cause and thus it breaks the theory God being the "first cause" because in a random universe (free will) there is no first cause - its random.

Tayeb,
I was thinking last night that you are not looking at like with like. In Islam you are not meant to be Mohammedians (followers of Mohammed), but rather you are meant to follow Mohammed's "rules". However, in Christianity you are meant to be followers of Jesus - be like him.

Thus, using this method, if you read the FIRST thing Jesus did using the eyes of a Christian reader you come to Luke Ch2 v46-v47. Here, Jesus as a young boy is shown wanting to learn more and shown already knowing a great deal. Thus to a Christian, if you want to be like Jesus you should desire for your children not just education, but the best education available - de lux education - and if you are a christian child you should likewise want to get this education. A christian parent, should spend nearly all their money on their kids education - using the rules of Christian bible reading.

Jesus was a from the class of priests that were literate. Muhammad was an orphan and illiterate. In his early life he was a shepherd. And util advent of Islam christians were mostly illiterate and ignorant. Medieval Dark Age did not emante in Islam.

[Netcurtains3]

Tayeb,
I said LOOK at LIKE FOR LIKE.
To a CHRISTIAN NOT A MUSLIM
Jesus was the simple son of a carpenter.

This son of a priest stuff is a load of piffle to a Christian.
I'm pretty sure you knew that. God knows why you mentioned it.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,
If you want to play fair, do not mix Islam Jesus with Christianity, it leads no where. If you want to play like this you might as well start going on about Free Masons again. No one is interested.

[Netcurtains3]

...also, while you're at it, could you point me to the passage in the Qu'ran where it says Mohammed could not read or write

(Hadiffs, by your own admission do not count because, by your own admission, if they are written later they are useless - if paul does not count then the Haddiffs definitley count far far less as they were over 100 years after the events).

[Tayeb]

Dear John,

You seem to be visiting sites that tell you that in fact Muhmmad was not illeterate. Is that what you want to prove?

What difference will it make to you if I point you out that the Qur'an refers to the prophet being illeterate?

On hadices agian you are wrong. They were written during the time of prophet and memorised, they were compiled later because the immediate companions of the prophet were getting old and dieying. Now I conclude that you just argued with me in the topic of historicity of Jesus and Muhammad, you never read anything I wrote.

What is attributed to Paul has no sources, as it is required if you want to write history. In fact the Gospels also have no sources.

Ma'a-salaama,

[Tayeb]

Tayeb,
I said LOOK at LIKE FOR LIKE.
To a CHRISTIAN NOT A MUSLIM
Jesus was the simple son of a carpenter.

This son of a priest stuff is a load of piffle to a Christian.
I'm pretty sure you knew that. God knows why you mentioned it.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE,
If you want to play fair, do not mix Islam Jesus with Christianity, it leads no where. If you want to play like this you might as well start going on about Free Masons again. No one is interested.

He belonged to a priestly family, I didn't say he was the son of a priest. As a Muslim I believe he was born miracurously, that he had no father. His mother Mary was from a priestly family and spent a long time in the temple.

You might want to know from this source http://www.womenpriests.org/mrpriest/titles.asp:

-------------
The Fathers of the Church point out that Mary was of priestly descent. According to legend she had lived in the temple from early childhood. Her being part of a priestly family is seen as important since Jesus himself, the eternal High Priest, derived his priesthood from her.

“Today, in harmony with prophecy, the shoot of David has budded forth from the always blossoming staff of Aaron, the staff that announced the flower it would bring forth, the staff of power, Christ. Today has emerged from Judah and David a young virgin girl, presenting the face of royalty and the priesthood of Aaron, who has exercised the priestly functions according to the order of Melchisedech.” St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660 - 740), First Homily on the Nativity, PG 96, cols. 864B-865A.

“Hail Blessed Virgin . . . . ointment with which the royal priesthood has been anointed , . . . . royal seal, imprinting on the universal King who takes his substance from her, a body similar to that of his Mother, . . . . incorruptible wood from which the spiritual altar who is Christ, was made.” Theodore the Studite (826), 2nd Homily on the Nativity. PG 96, col. 693C-D.

‘There is no doubt that the Virgin Mary possessed not only royal, but also priestly blood’; ‘Mary drew her family ties both from a royal [=Judah] and a priestly tribe [=Levi]’: St. Augustine; also: St. Irenaeus; St. Hilary of Poitiers; St. Ambrose; Epiphanius; Severus of Antioch, etc.

‘Mary, the Mother of God, was of both royal and priestly descent’: John of Euboea.

‘Hail, o Queen, descended from kings, descended from priests!’: John the Geometer. See further the compendium of texts from the Fathers.

---------
Why were they calling him a rabbi? And stop side-stepping with freemasons and other topics.

[Netcurtains3]

rofl.
Thats the last time i discuss religion with you.
What a load of piffle.

[Netcurtains3]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Jesus_a_carpenter

"
His Father was, and from the cultural times we can assume he took up the trade until his 'ministry' began at around 30 years old.

The earliest reference to Jesus as a carpenter is found in Mark 6:3: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offence at him." (NRSV) This refers to Jesus preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth, where the people knew Jesus only as a carpenter, or son of a carpenter. The ambiguity is referenced as a footnote in the NRSV as "other ancient authorities read son of the carpenter and of Mary" instead of "the carpenter, the son of Mary". This simply means that certain ancient manuscripts of the Greek New Testament differ.

"

Either way his dad was a carpenter and the crowd were not amused at being taught by a "working class" chap.

[roleary]

what exactly are you rofl-ing about netcurtain? Just because jesus (as) was considered working class by his fellow men does not mean that his mother, mary, did not come from a "priestly" or respectable background and/or tribe...

[Netcurtains3]

Roleary,
Its not important whether he was a priest or not - the important point is that Tayeb is not being honest in his argument methods. He wants to discuss Mohammed using one method (Islam) but then does not discuss Jesus using Christianity. Its a sham.

How can you put yourself up as an honest teacher of religion if you cannot discuss religion in an honest manner?

The bible clearly states Jesus was considered by his bible neighbours as "ordinary joe". As far as being a "priest" is concerned he told his followers to literally drink blood (at least they felt that is what he meant) and many stopped believing at that point because that is a very non-Jewish belief (but a core belief of Christianity). Thus, for sure he might have some Jewish priestly ancestors (probabily half of palestine claims the same ancestors).

The point is, Tayeb, is WATERERING DOWN Jesus helped his co-religionists (christians) to become more literate (by leading by example) and PLAYING UP Mohammeds role.
Its fundamentally dishonest, and if I was being taught Islam by such a method I would feel totally cheated and made out to be a fool. Its a con.

[Tayeb]

Dear John,

Am I being a con? Do you really read what I write? I gave you references of Jesus being of a priestly family based in your own Fathers of Church, unless you consider them to be cons.

Why was Jesus called rabbi?

In fact Jesus is not a matter of discussion in this topic.

You as a defender of chrisitianity brought out Jesus here.

But it seems you refute the Father of Church or am I being wrong?

[roleary]

Roleary,
Its not important whether he was a priest or not - the important point is that Tayeb is not being honest in his argument methods. He wants to discuss Mohammed using one method (Islam) but then does not discuss Jesus using Christianity. Its a sham.

How can you put yourself up as an honest teacher of religion if you cannot discuss religion in an honest manner?

The bible clearly states Jesus was considered by his bible neighbours as "ordinary joe". As far as being a "priest" is concerned he told his followers to literally drink blood (at least they felt that is what he meant) and many stopped believing at that point because that is a very non-Jewish belief (but a core belief of Christianity). Thus, for sure he might have some Jewish priestly ancestors (probabily half of palestine claims the same ancestors).

The point is, Tayeb, is WATERERING DOWN Jesus helped his co-religionists (christians) to become more literate (by leading by example) and PLAYING UP Mohammeds role.
Its fundamentally dishonest, and if I was being taught Islam by such a method I would feel totally cheated and made out to be a fool. Its a con.

I didnt know that in the new testament Jesus is said to instruct his followers to drink blood... is this one of those accounts only present in one book and not the others or is it an established truth in Christianity?

[Netcurtains3]

The blood thing is off peste (but it is all over the new testament - not one place):

See, if I was teaching religion, first I would get a teaching certificate. After that my style would be focused on the specifics of the religion I was teaching and try not to bring other religions into it. For example I would not say Christianity bought in a "new age" of education, morality, science etc. I would state that Jesus made no short term noticable difference to the world at all. By saying "new age" it implies (quite strongly) that you are comparing your religion to the failure of other religions. It is not the job of a religious teacher to state that other religions fail - especially without discussing the other religions views on education IN DETAIL. If you cannot do this, then you should not make the claim about your own religion .

In my RI lessions in school I do not think any mention was made of the effect Christianity has made on the world - for either good or bad. The gospels are simply told - like English Literature - and you as a student must add in the bible quotes. There is no overt selling of the religion by stating the effect it has had on the world.... eg "new age" type stuff.

History, not religion, teaches us that at the time of the arab/muslim "conquests" of egypt some Christians fled (I guess the wealthy nobs) and some came to the UK and opened schools to educate some of the anglo-saxon population. Why Christians opened schools - well, my historical knowledge does not go down to that level. I don't think, as a teacher, it would be right to make bold claims concerning the affect Jesus had on the worlds eduation system. However, as an individual, with no teaching ability and little knowledge, I could offer an opinion. Certainly Jesus was shown as getting and giving education to a high degree.

I think that this approach is best for all concerned on this board. I do not think any of us here really are experts on Islam or Christianity. From the years I have been here it is pretty clear to me that we are all pretty "ordinary joes" from a lower middle to middle middle class backgrounds and are knowledge is mainly based around our jobs not are religious hobbies.

From an historical perspective, the rise of the arabs was due to the collapse of the roman west due to conquests by such people as Attila followed by the collapse of the roman east by fights with the Persians. The people left - Germans and Arabs took control.
Today, German type people still control much of Europe and Arab type people still control much of the middle east and north africa.
Mohammed rose at a time when this transition of power occured. However, if he did not exist its clear the Roman world could still collapse (eg the Germans had no Mohammed - they had various leaders with differing religions).

[Tayeb]

Dear John,

Once more you are jumping out of specific questions.

Really your track record has been of making claims on vhristianity that are easily debinked. Remember the shroud, for example? You jump around sayong you are agnostic/atheist yet you have shown to believe in myths.

What credibility can you offer when your track record is of belief in myths that are debunkable?

First put your thoughts in order than opinate on matters such as discussed here.

[Netcurtains3]

Perhaps you should keep up to date (well 2008)

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

If you looked at the SUM TOTAL of evidence, I think God, if he exists, would want us to be agnostic. Since we cannot see outside the system (the universe) and since the internal evidence is more or less non-existant (miracles) then agnostism is best.

Someone who likes westernism (me), will have a stronger like of Christianity then other faiths. This does not mean that a western person believes in Christianity, but rather he LIKES it BETTER than other belief systems because, in effect, westernism, came out of western european culture - and western european culture came out of a mix of many things but one of the ingredients was christianity - another being the eating and drinking of more or less anything - another (very ancient german) only one wife.
Thus westernism is always going to be more pro-christian in the sense of LIKE it BETTER or perhaps DISLIKE it LESS.

[Tayeb]

Dear John,

What is happening is that many white caucasians are leaving altogether christianity. Scandals like those of peadophile priests in Ireland, and the coverup by the Church don't help chrisitanity.

You won't tell me that those that convert to Islam here in Europe are not Westerners. Bosnians are europeans, so are bugarians, crotas, albanians etc.

Wake up to reality that white caucasians are also becoming Muslims and were Muslims say here in Portugal and Spain. Have you heard of new christians in past history?

Europeans also converted to christianity. They were pagans before. Chrisitianity originates from Middle East. Jesus never ate pork and have you heard of pigs he killed?

Matthew 8. 28-34

29 - At once they screamed, "What do you want of us, you Son of God? Have you come to punish us before the right time?"
30 - Not far away was a large herd of pigs feeding.
31- So the demons begged Jesus, "If you are going to drive us out, send us into that herd of pigs."
32 - "Go," Jesus told them; so they went off into the pigs. The whole herd rushed down the side of the cliff into the lake and was drowned.




So really you must to reality that Islam is also western just as is chrisitianity and white caucasians have converted to Islam in the past and are still converting.

Ma'a-salaama,

[Netcurtains3]

you always seem to bring colour into it? Ethiopian are about the oldest "christian" people.

What do I mean be "westernism" ?

Typical example, Japan. The Japanese are not Christian but they are western.
The young often like to marry in themed "christian" "churches" (buildings dressed up to look like christian churches) as it appeals to them. Why? Answer: because they like westernism.

I've met a couple of Iranian converts to Catholicm. I asked them why they converted and they said they loved French Existential movies and somehow they ended up being Catholics - an off shoot of French Westernism.

You're a muslim from an east african background but Freddie Mercury also came from east africa (probabily with some muslim friends somewhere) but he ended up fronting "Queen". All sorts of people become westerners and reject some of their old ideas in the process.

So how did Freddie end up being Freddie Mercury?
"
Mercury was sent back to India to attend St. Peter’s boarding school near Bombay (now Mumbai). It was at St. Peter’s where he learned to play the piano and joined his first band, The Hectics. He stayed in India for most of his childhood, living with his grandmother and aunt. Mercury completed his education in India at St. Mary’s High School in Mazagon before returning to Zanzibar.
"

[Tayeb]

Dear John,

Typical, you forget that christianity was born in Palestine, and that palestinians are the oldest christians. There is some denial in western christianity in recognising that up to 1/3 of palestinians are christians.

I knew Fred Mercury, so I hope you will not tell me his name was Fred, as that is an artistic name. His real name was Farrokh Bulsara. The Bulsaras, a parsi (ie Zoroastrian) family had moved from India to Zanzibar, as had my ancestors.

I was educated in a Catholic college, and did my O and A levels in UK and did my University there. I am as "western" as late Farrokh, ie Freddie was

Most of my friends are christians, and have befriended many christians members of the clergy.

Christianity has nothing to do westernism as it is known now. It is all fuzzy the westernism you know.

John I think this topic has reached an end and I will lock it in next few hours.

Let us discuss other things. I rest my views of firmly believing that after Muhammad there were no more truly prophets. Muhammad was and is the last prophet of God. We unlike Jews, believe in miraculous birth of Jesus, have a high regard towards his mother Mary and believe that Jesus existed and he was a prophet of God.

Ma'a-salaama,

[Netcurtains3]

apologies, I meant Christian nation (palastine was only a christian nation during crusades). Armenia and Ethiopia are concidered nations and thus the oldest.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_oldest_Christian_nation

The Qu'ran, I think, knocks music (apart from drum). Thus western music, I think, both classical and rock are non-islmaic. Perhaps I need to understand what you mean by "westernism" - it normally means the culture of the ...
eg CLOTHES, FOOD, and MUSIC......
as well as architecture, political structures, and main religious/non-religious beliefs. Clearly it is possible to be western and a muslim, but some muslims living in the west reject westernism - but I see your point, their overt rejection of westernism is a product of liberal westernism. In other cultures, such overt rejection would not be allowed - and thus, by their oveert rejection, they have become what they reject.

Any way , case closed, I think you have not proved your point. People of other faiths do not think Mohammed started a revolution in education. They think, if anything, that Islam preserved ancient knowledge. The people of the middle east CONTINUED to be educated while the Germans/saxons etc STARTED to get educated. One was new and the other not.

You have to compare like with like. Can you seriously compare the ancient culture of Iraq with its long history of learning with barbarian german tribes in europe that had more or less no ancient history of education?

Perhaps the remarkable achievement was the rise of the European education system from nothing - on the other hand there is also evidence that islam did also expand the education of the people in its lands.

I do not think EITHER OF US can SUCCESSFULLY claim that one religion had the better acheivement using a good deconstruction of that period of history.
Thus I think your claim can be refuted. Islam might have helped education but the evidence is not there to state it was BETTER at doing this then other religions.

[Tayeb]

Wrong again, the Holy Qur'an does not prohibit music. The traditions prohibit it. We as Muslims follow the Holy Qur'an and the traditions.

You were talking about people and not nations. It is pity you ignore the struggle of palestinians. Jews hate christianity and insult Jesus and his mother.

It is you who besides denying the historicity of Muhammad, refuse to accept anything good that he brought. You have no right to speak on behalf of other faiths, even more after having shown so much ignorance.

It seems I am humbler than you when discussing matters. I don't make claims on behalf of others, lik4 that of all other faiths.

I am locking the thread, unless you have something else to say.

Ma'a-salaama,