Gabriel again

Submitted by Joe (United States), Mar 5, 2006 at 15:28

Lionheart is right. Even you, Jeffery, contradict yourself. Every time you mentioned Gabriel, it was about his messenger duty, a message that told of BIRTH of a new child. Muhummad does not fit into that category of giving birth to a new child with influence. In fact, most of Muhummad's children (actually surviving grandchildren and only descendants) were slaughtered by Sunni Muslims.

Moreover, Gabriel has never given multiple lessons to a single individual, over and over again, as he purpotedly did with Muhummad, which makes it even less likely.

Jeffery, your stories about the crucifixion from the Qur'an portray God as more of a hypocrite, only adding to the idea that it was not Gabriel, but Satan, the Lord of the Flies (also meaning prince of devils by the ancients: Muhummad said to eat "flies"). Here God only contradicts his omni-goodness and merciful nature with saying like I will chastise them in this life and the next. I don't think the All-good God is that insecure. However, it does fairly represent Satan's decietful hypocrisy. Murder is left up in the air, treatment of women is of subjugation,etc.

It also says that Jesus is at variance. Now why not say exactly what Jesus was at variance about? It is just another blanket statement with no backing. Something Satan could say to sway the weak minded. And furthermore, Satan would love to portray Jesus as something less than he was.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".