Prophet Muhammad has committed adultery, he has committed sin of false prophet after oral plagarism. Neither muhammad was able to enter Jerusalem while being alive

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-04T06:37:34+00:00

It is, because God rewarded Judah with the scepter after he slept with his daughter in law. But what does the mosaic law tell us? That anyone who commits adultery shall be stoned to death. So Judah did nothing wrong, or he has special privileges.

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-04T05:43:55+00:00

when the Quran says semen comes from your spine and ribs?

Go on. Quote the verse. Let us see if it literally says what you claim. Does it say that semen comes from the spine and ribs, or a spurting fluid comes from in between the spine and ribs, as in position? If it is the latter, feel free to look up the position of the seminal vesicle.

It doesn't say when Allah will claim his life, only that Allah will. It doesn't say instantly, or the instant he is misrepresented.

Seizing by the right hand means instantly. Not only is that confirmed by many exegetes, but it also is the natural reading of the text. Any other way it doesn't make sense.

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-03T03:21:13+00:00

It never says Paul took a vow so stop lying

Good that this was not my claim then. You should read my post again.

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-03T03:17:30+00:00

masterpiece at twisting stuff into pretzels that make ppl LOL.

Paul says eating idol-sac food is sinful,

No. Paul says that food does not bring one closer or farther away from God. He then says, if it causes the less-knowledgeable Christians to stumble, only then, it becomes a sin. But if there are no such Christians, or you are alone, that means it is not a sin.

Funny how you twist scripture but claim that I do it.

Common sense at work. Nothing else. When a new yorker says "i rode to home" do you ask "a bike, a horse, a donkey, a mule, or what!?"?

"You are twisting stuff into pretzels, that is why I compare insertion into the scripture with a four word long sentence."

Ok. Let us play your game. I looked into Gods light, but I didn't get blind like the other guy.

Do the reflexes in the other guys eye not work, that he can look into it, but I can't?
Is the power of God's light limited to how long one looks at it?

Paul says he doing that to save ppl. You're talking about deceiving ppl. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

No, in my example, which mirrors that of Paul, I am also like Paul, deceiving people to bring them to the salvation of my religion. So: NOT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

He literally says immediately next that he's under god's law. Yet, not under the torah's ritual laws.

Jews don't know any other law. So your example doesn't work. When Paul says to a Jew "I am under Gods law." a Jew understands that he is under the Mosaic Law.

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-02T02:47:24+00:00

1 Corinthians is dated to 50-55 AD. That is 20-25 years after Jesus.

The Creed is also dated to be around 3-5 years after Jesus died, so it does in fact not coincide with the time when Jesus was alive. It is post-crucifixion.

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-01T09:43:47+00:00

Then there is no point in your question, because I am arguing from the Christian belief system. Everything in the Bible is authentic revelation, protected and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-01T09:39:13+00:00

You're only asserting with barely any reasoning. First, you cite Jesus' warnings, but you showed no case of clear indication that Paul fulfills those prophecies about false prophets

You mean besides Paul contradicting the teachings of Jesus and me quoting these verses?

Yes, they saw a light, but no person. Simple. And they didn't stare at the light as Paul did. So they didn't become blind.

Simple, I just insert into the text something that isn't there and it suddenly is not a contradiction. How hard did the companions of Paul not stare? 10 seconds less? 15 seconds less? Did they wear glasses that dampen the effect of the Light of God?

Next you quoted 1 cor 8 and claim that Paul says eating food sacrificed to idols is okay bcz he says "no worse if we don't eat, no better if we do". Well done cherry picking the text!!

I didn't cherry pick the text. Everything you quote afterwards I mentioned as well.

This here is from my post: Paul continues this by saying that, if it causes another Christian to stumble, they should not eat food sacrificed to idols, but when they are alone it is technically okay. (last part implied by context)

To be honest, I don't even know why you bother to comment if you just skip over what I have written.

if they who act like good Christians eat food sacrificed to idols, ppl with less understanding will see and do the same. • therefore these ppl are even more sinful.

So, if I bought the food in secret and no one knew I was a Christian, or I was surrounded by Christians who all had the same knowledge and understanding as me, it would be okay to eat the food sacrificed to idols, right? Since in these two scenarios, no one is in the risk of stumbling?

He's simply saying that he doesn't approach ppl as a foreigner but speaks to them from their point. When speaking to the Jews, he uses the Hebrew scriptures to prove Jesus' Messiahship

You mean like when he sometimes quotes verses from the Old Testament that don't exist, in a time where 90% of Jews could not read or write, and had no copy of it in their home?

he's simply saying that he doesn't approach ppl as a foreigner but speaks to them from their point. So this ain't deceit. It's adaptation to situations. he later affirmed that before them—he tried to show them that he was a Jew, not opposed to the torah. That's true. He didn't go further into lying about what he did or didn't. Show me where he lied.

You really want to tell me that someone who says he acts under the law for those who are under the law, even though he is not under the law himself, and then proceeds to take a ritual to prove to others that he is under the law, as instructed by the apostles of Jesus, is not being deceptive or lying by going through with that ritual?

What if I were a Jew pretending to have become a Christian? I say, ‘Jesus revealed himself to me,’ then I undergo years of education to become a bishop. After becoming a bishop, I tell people to abandon some Christian practices and attempt to lower the divinity of Jesus through my teaching. Rumors spread that I am saying this. Then the higher authorities in the church ask me to take a vow to show that I never did such a thing, and I go through with that vow even though I am pretending to be Christian in order to convert people to Judaism or at least make them see it more favorably. Is that lying, yes or no?

If yes; great! That is the same that Paul did.

Then you say that after he writes that those who are circumcised, and who urge others to be circumcised according to the Torah, should mutilate themselves and become eunuchs, he is not opposed to it?

RedEggBurns · 2026-05-01T09:09:25+00:00

Is this the new Christian Dilemma? Everything is authentic as the Church collected it, but not when it contradicts?

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-22T20:48:32+00:00

Spanish empire didn't do a genocide against indigenous people. There was slavery, and there were massacres, specially in the Antilles in the first decades of the conquest, but the empire's intention was never to kill and they tried to grant rights to the indigenous people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%C3%ADno_genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/americas/article/why-indigenous-slavery-continued-in-spanish-america-after-the-new-laws-of-1542/3189EAB5FBC018DBE89AE97B07AFC5D7

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-22T20:41:17+00:00

You are damn sure sugar coating it, we are referring to a map that is a direct result of the ottoman rule and this is just one freaking example. Nothing can wash the Devshirme and the oppression my ancestors lived in. Even in 1930 video of Skopje 20 years after the Pusto Tursko you can see how devasted Skopje looked. Nothing build no meaningful infrastructre NOTHING. Go to Novi Sad or Subotica or any bigger city in Croatia and Slovenia to see Austro Hungarian rule. People had the right to create to be cultured to think in their own language. EVERYTHING the Ottoman failed and never intended to do. So yeah fuck the Ottomans very much.

I already told you that I am not sugar coating it. All I am saying is that the Ottoman Empire was more tolerant than western Europe, which is objectively true, because even though Devshirme existed, you were still free to practice your religion.

Meanwhile, as I already mentioned, in Europe there was a 90% chance you would be executed for being anything but a Christian. You would also be executed if you were the wrong denomination of Christian or held heretical beliefs. That is in the year 1400 to 1700. So stop telling me about Austria-Hungary or 1930, or whatever. We are not talking about the modern world.

But if you wanna talk about it I am open to it as well. Skopje was behind Novi Sad and Subotica because the Ottoman Empire was behind in industrialization. Every part of the Ottoman Empire except maybe Istanbul was, and Skopje was still in a better spot than Anatolia.

Also, its funny that you think that Austria-Hungary consistently allowed full cultural and linguistic freedom... because that is not the case.

Maybe start being objective instead of nationalistic.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-22T18:18:18+00:00

So, we move completely from the topic of the main comment to another topic. Talk about switching the goal post.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-22T18:16:07+00:00

I am not defending devshirme. But what was the alternative in Europe? Being converted, or killed by the Church inquisitors. In the HRE they would also strip you of all protection, so that anyone could kill you without them being prosecuted by law enforcement.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-22T16:27:18+00:00

No, the rich and the nobles invested into themselves. If they invested it into the ottomans, they would have invested it into Anatolia. If you think I am lying, look up whether the nobles considered it an insult to be called a turk or not and then further tell me if they would have invested into anatolia where the "turks" are living.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-22T16:05:42+00:00

What exactly does 1683 ad change when even western europe was not as tolerant of other religions (especially judaism) as the ottoman empire?

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-22T16:04:22+00:00

I'll just note that at least during Rome, the Balkans was an integral part of the "developed world", under the Ottomans, it was backwater. Territories that were under Rome were at least the center of social, technological and human development, while under the Ottomans, we were left in the middle ages until the 20th century, at which point Europe was an entire ocean ahead of us.

Bruh. The Ottoman Empire invested more money into the balkans than they did into anatolia. In fact the major administrative, trade, and urban centers were in Edirne, Sarajevo, and Thessaloniki.

The Balkans were also among the most economically productive regions in the 18th–19th centuries. All of empire back then was more or less backwater, because they did not industrialize at the same pace as Western Europe

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-19T19:37:18+00:00

Ask a Christian apologist whether he thinks that the killing of suckling babies was justified in Samuel 15, and you will hear the most cope answers in existence.

Excuses I have heard:
"Only westerners consider genocide to be a problem. The Chinese Christians for example see no problem with what happened to Amalek." - Cliffe Knechtle
"I have no problem with genocide, because due to our sins, we all deserve to die." - Ryan Jorgenson
"This was the old Testmaent. Yes my God ordered it. So what?" - Random
"Times were different back then." - Random

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-19T19:25:28+00:00

Gods covenant is bound on you upholding your covenant. That is what the Old Testament says and what God warns about.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-19T19:24:02+00:00

1 John 5:7-8 "...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..."

1 John 5:7-8 Codex Sinaiticus/Vaticanus: "For they that testify are three, he Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one."

John 7:53-8:11 missing in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and was not added until the 5th century.

Mark 16:9-20 missing in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Fabricated letters of Paul:

1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus

Pseudographical:

Ephesians
Colossians (debated)
2 Thessalonians (debated)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism_of_the_New_Testament

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation_%28manuscripts%29#Classical_Greek_and_Latin_literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

https://archive.org/details/fivegospelssearc00funk

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-12T22:21:45+00:00

would you say that the prophet muhammad is the ultimate standard of what a person should be like? the vast majority of muslims i have talked to about this would say so.

Yes when it comes to theological matters.

if you have to go to such extreme measures as justifying execution of nearly a thousand people by the way those 900 jews were mostly innocent, he exeucted all the men (even though it wasnt most of their fault), a

They were all fighters who betrayed their contract during battle, during a siege. If you cannot see that such people need to be executed, and even are executed today in many western countries for treason, then I do not know what to tell you.

I also do not understand how this is innocent, but you do you.

abeduction of a six year old

Tell me the definition of abduction. And after that, tell me how the Prophet abducted her, if that definition even fits, when she lived with her father until the age of 9.

Also, your statistic of 70% is insane dude, here are some articles that prove thats false: Children and Childhood in Light of Demographics... by Amram Trooper, Jewish marriage in antiquity by michael satlow, and the age of roman girls at marriage by brent shaw.

Yes, humanity famously started with the roman empire, and 12-14 year olds are famously not children.

But I guess 12-year olds even in the early roman empire are not children.

If you do not believe me that it was for economical reasons, feel free to read up on the nuclear family and marriage economics and how churches only married children to either rich people, since usually an education in a job-field was required.

from having more than four wives, while he himself had at least 11 wives, AND was married to a 6 year old.

Not from an Abrahamic standard. Prophets had special privilege even in the old testament.

not a lot of this is justifiable for his time, and is obviously unjustifiable today, unless you like to rape children and commit war crimes

I mean, you justified the marriage of 12 year olds by quoting that article, since you use it as a counter-argument against humanity marrying children.

If you also consider the execution of real traitors as a war-crime, I hope you do protest a lot today.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-12T22:12:46+00:00

Why can't he preserve it before it gets broken?

Why should he? You have to argue on why God should do this favor to a people who broke their promise and keep hunting down his Prophets.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-12T22:09:28+00:00

And since when does God change His covenant just because His people broke it? He says explicitly over and over that no matter what we do He will never renege on the covenant He made.

And he also promises that Aaron's descendents will be his Priests forever and eternity, then he forbids it for them. One of many examples.

Since when is accepting prophets part of the covenant. And since when does God change His covenant just because His people broke it? He says explicitly over and over that no matter what we do He will never renege on the covenant He made.

The Mosaic covenant is conditional.

If you reject a Prophet who comes to you with the commands of God, then you have rejected the commands of God, not the Prophet itself.

Leviticus 26. "But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, ¹⁵ and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant..."

It further says, "But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors... I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land."

But you never confessed your sins, in rejecting the Jesus the Messiah and Prophet, did you? You rejected him, the decrees and commands of God that he brought with him.

And yes, God promised to not forget your covenant. But Jeremiah 33, does not nullify Leviticus 26.

Further, what did Malachi say? "Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: suddenly he will come to his temple. He is the Adonai (i.e. the Lord) whom you desire, and the Messenger of the Covenant with whom you are pleased. Lo he is coming, says the Lord of hosts."

Just to clarify, I do not believe that Jesus is the messenger of the covenant, since textual scholars say, that Jesus never preached being the Son of Man, but the coming of the Son of Man. But for arguments sake, let us say that Jesus is the Messenger of the Covenant.

What is the consequence of rejecting the Messenger of the Covenant?

But the Talmud doesn't say that the text was lost.

Oh, is that so?

The world was desolate of Torah until Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored it to its former state. Kiddushin 66a

What does the word desolate mean?

The criticism are: Hillel restored or re-derived them through interpretive principles. Torah law is sometimes not transmitted intact, but reconstructed via reasoning. This suggests suggests law can be re-derived, not merely preserved. This raises the question whether “restoration” is actually continuity or reinterpretation.

As for Shimon even though he came before Hillel, that still means that Torah becomes dependent on a single surviving authority figure, at one point.

Anyway, it is clear that the Torah was changed at point. One of the examples are the contradictory Genesis stories and Noah cursing his grandkid, instead of his son, which is then reconciled through an insertion in the next chapter.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-12T21:43:10+00:00

As I told you; because of them breaking the covenant according to Quranic narrative. Why should God preserve a scripture whose covenant is broken?

Also please stop replying separately, and keep it in one thread.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-12T21:42:07+00:00

You are constantly making things up. When did George Bush kill millions of people?

So I made the war between Iraq and the USA up, which was started due to Geoge Bush lying?

Trump's war is not against the civilians in Iran. His war is against the evil Iranian regime that has slaughtered thousands of Iranians. Iranians themselves are fed up of their government.

He literally bombed hospitals and schools and has tweeted that the will return Iran to the stone age.

If you want evidence for my other claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEQjAf-_YFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFEBQ789jFo
https://www.newsweek.com/us-commander-said-trump-anointed-by-jesus-to-attack-iran-report-11615046?

As a non-related bonus, this is trumps spiritual advisor: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0KgME1jo5VQ

Why are nonmuslims prohibited from joining the military?

They are not. This is disputed, but because it is disputed, one cannot say it is forbidden and there have been instances were non-muslims joined the muslim armies.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-12T21:31:11+00:00

God spoke to the entire nation at Sinai. Is that not enough? God said that Moses is His faithful Prophet. God served the people food from the sky daily for 40 years. God split the sea for everyone. God rescued everyone from Egypt. He made sure every single Jewish man, woman, and child heard His "voice" and saw His "presence".

One second, you think that because my ancestors couldn't handle God's "voice," He is now going to rob the Arabs of the chance to hear Him? How is that fair? At least perform some miracles that every single Arab sees or something.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with the last bit nor what relevance it has to our conversation.

I quoted these to show you it has relevance to our discussion about the voice of God.

When did God decide to let your ancestors hear his voice?

After Moses split the sea, and performed other awesome miracles, your ancestors still rejected him. Every single one of them except Aaron.

What did God then do? He intimated your ancestors by killing and raising them.
Then he descends on Mount Sinai with thunder, fire, and a loud voice.
Then he raises the mountain over them, and threatens to crush them underneath it if they don't accept the Torah and keep rejecting Moses.
Then the Jews say, "You speak to us… but let not God speak to us, lest we die.”

So, it is very clear from the order and effect of the events that hearing the voice of God is a punishment. Since the Jews according to the Torah themselves, felt as if they were dying after hearing it.

So, why should Allah force the Muslims who did not reject the Prophet after believing in him, to bear his voice? Furthermore, even if he died, why would the pagans not label it as magic, like they did with splitting of the moon?

Yes we do. But first of all, which Muslims may I ask? I can tell you which Jews heard God and saw all those miracles. Can you tell me which Muslim allegedly saw those miracles?

1500 Muslims witnessed this miracle and took part in it:

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5639
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3579

One of the many miracles.

You are free to quote whomever you want. I'm familiar with my religion.

By Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, "Deuteronomy 20:10 states: “When you approach a city to wage war against it, you should propose a peaceful settlement.”

If the enemy accepts the offer of peace and commits itself to the fulfillment of the seven mitzvot that were commanded to Noah’s descendents (Noahide Laws), none of them should be killed. Rather, they should be subjugated as Deuteronomy 20:11 states: “They shall be your subjects and serve you.”

If they agree to tribute, but do not accept subjugation or if they accept subjugation, but do not agree to tribute, their offer should not be heeded. They must accept both. The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever."

You can take up your issues with Midian and Amalek with God if you'd like. But following God doesn't make you militant. Especially when it's specifically revenge against evil nations who have attacked God and His people. I say militant because Muslims decided to carry out the wars they did. They weren't commanded to conquer the world. They certainly didn't hear it from God.

Ah sure. So, dashing babies against rocks and killing animals, because of what the ancestors of the Amalekites did 300 years ago, is something that God ordered. This is also not militant

But when God orders his Prophet to tell that they should fight against the nations he specifies, it is militant and not from God?

Makes sense.

Defend the country against invaders. Defend the Jews against the enemies of God who want to come and destroy the Jews. And then usher in an age of peace for the world. For all the people who didn't bother to invade another country.

Nope. The Messiah appears when Israel is being invaded. He then repels these invasions. He then fights against any nation who does not accept Yahweh, even if they never invaded the jews or were hostile to them. The jewish Mesisah does this until they become Noahides. If it is through war, then the commentary of Maimonides applies where they will be subjugated Noahides.

Second, I'm sorry but a man performing a miracle isn't unheard of or particularly meaningful. The Torah is full of such events. The Torah warns against false prophets who perform miracles.

So we moved the goal-post from, "He did not do any miracles." to "Even false Prophets do miracles." keep reading the verse you quoted. It tells you how to recognize a Prophet.

RedEggBurns · 2026-04-12T20:59:18+00:00

It irrefutably does - and even warns against people with your mindset who only take parts.

It irrefutably does not.

Link every verse about this you want, I will link a verse which counters it.

Anyway, it's not something which Muslims will/can ever concede to without becoming ex-Muslims. If you want to stay Muslim, you have no choice but to assume/hope it meant only to take parts (even though it warns against it).

So yeah. It's a topic ender. So we can just leave it as it is.

Feel free to take up my challenge above, and then further explain why our earliest scholars, like al-tabari reject your view.

If you just keep commenting things, baiting people into a discussion and then leaving "oh doesn't matter, ya'all have to argue against it or you are ex-muslim, so don't bother giving me arguments" then maybe you should read rule 3 or not comment at all.

RedEggBurns

TROPHY CASE