-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think Pope is wise in making this statement even in quote?
- Thread starter greatcalgarian
- Start date
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
The following is the text of Pope Benedict XVI's remarks regretting causing offence to Muslims in his 12 September speech in the Bavarian city of Regensburg.
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
The pastoral visit which I recently made to Bavaria was a deep spiritual experience, bringing together personal memories linked to places well known to me and pastoral initiatives towards an effective proclamation of the Gospel for today.
I thank God for the interior joy which he made possible, and I am also grateful to all those who worked hard for the success of this Pastoral Visit.
As is the custom, I will speak more of this during next Wednesday's general audience.
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
I do not see any repentence in Pope's statement. Do you guys think the Pope is sincere in his apology?
If the quote "do not in anyway express my personal thought", what is his personal thought then? What is the reason to introduce that inflammatory quote from the 14th century emperor if Pope is not having some resonance with that statement?
The Pope has to come up with a stronger denial, like, " I the Pope, declare that I disagree the quote, I strongly declare that Mohammed is a man of peace ". If he made that statement, I think the Muslim world will consider him to be a good religious leader.
The pastoral visit which I recently made to Bavaria was a deep spiritual experience, bringing together personal memories linked to places well known to me and pastoral initiatives towards an effective proclamation of the Gospel for today.
I thank God for the interior joy which he made possible, and I am also grateful to all those who worked hard for the success of this Pastoral Visit.
As is the custom, I will speak more of this during next Wednesday's general audience.
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
I do not see any repentence in Pope's statement. Do you guys think the Pope is sincere in his apology?
If the quote "do not in anyway express my personal thought", what is his personal thought then? What is the reason to introduce that inflammatory quote from the 14th century emperor if Pope is not having some resonance with that statement?
The Pope has to come up with a stronger denial, like, " I the Pope, declare that I disagree the quote, I strongly declare that Mohammed is a man of peace ". If he made that statement, I think the Muslim world will consider him to be a good religious leader.
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Look at this analysis from BBC, and you will understand better why the Muslim world reacted so strongly with his lecture:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5349808.stm
During his time as a cardinal, Pope Benedict opposed Turkey's bid to join the European Union, saying it belonged to a different cultural sphere, adding that its admission would be a grave error against the tide of history.
And in 1996, he wrote that Islam had difficulty in adapting to modern life.
Last year he accused Muslim leaders in Germany of failing to steer their youth from what he described as the darkness of a new barbarism.
I would say the current Pope is not very diplomatic, and his approach towards settling differences among religion is like Bush "YOU ARE EITHER WITH US, OR AGAINST US"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5349808.stm
During his time as a cardinal, Pope Benedict opposed Turkey's bid to join the European Union, saying it belonged to a different cultural sphere, adding that its admission would be a grave error against the tide of history.
And in 1996, he wrote that Islam had difficulty in adapting to modern life.
Last year he accused Muslim leaders in Germany of failing to steer their youth from what he described as the darkness of a new barbarism.
I would say the current Pope is not very diplomatic, and his approach towards settling differences among religion is like Bush "YOU ARE EITHER WITH US, OR AGAINST US"
kai
ragamuffin
and if the muslims said we agree you are gods emissary on earth we would all be hunky dorygreatcalgarian said:The following is the text of Pope Benedict XVI's remarks regretting causing offence to Muslims in his 12 September speech in the Bavarian city of Regensburg.
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
The pastoral visit which I recently made to Bavaria was a deep spiritual experience, bringing together personal memories linked to places well known to me and pastoral initiatives towards an effective proclamation of the Gospel for today.
I thank God for the interior joy which he made possible, and I am also grateful to all those who worked hard for the success of this Pastoral Visit.
As is the custom, I will speak more of this during next Wednesday's general audience.
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
I do not see any repentence in Pope's statement. Do you guys think the Pope is sincere in his apology?
If the quote "do not in anyway express my personal thought", what is his personal thought then? What is the reason to introduce that inflammatory quote from the 14th century emperor if Pope is not having some resonance with that statement? read the speech agian its very academic i had to read it several times to get its meaning
The Pope has to come up with a stronger denial, like, " I the Pope, declare that I disagree the quote, I strongly declare that Mohammed is a man of peace ". If he made that statement, I think the Muslim world will consider him to be a good religious leader.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
if people cant understand that they have no hope of understanding his speech
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Full Text from CNN:
(CNN) -- Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday he regretted that his speech on Islam offended Muslims and expressed his respect for their faith. Here is the Vatican's statement, according to a translation posted on its Web site:
Given the reaction in Muslim quarters to certain passages of the Holy Father's address at the University of Regensburg, and the clarifications and explanations already presented through the Director of the Holy See Press Office, I would like to add the following:
The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: "The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting" (no. 3).
The Pope's option in favor of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with representatives of Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on 20 August 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and Muslims "cannot be reduced to an optional extra," adding: "The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity".
As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: " ... demonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. ... In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions".
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom".
In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that, quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment, witness to the "Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men" may be reinforced, and collaboration may intensify "to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom" (Nostra Aetate no. 3).
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/16/pope.statement/index.html
(CNN) -- Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday he regretted that his speech on Islam offended Muslims and expressed his respect for their faith. Here is the Vatican's statement, according to a translation posted on its Web site:
Given the reaction in Muslim quarters to certain passages of the Holy Father's address at the University of Regensburg, and the clarifications and explanations already presented through the Director of the Holy See Press Office, I would like to add the following:
The position of the Pope concerning Islam is unequivocally that expressed by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate: "The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting" (no. 3).
The Pope's option in favor of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue is equally unequivocal. In his meeting with representatives of Muslim communities in Cologne, Germany, on 20 August 2005, he said that such dialogue between Christians and Muslims "cannot be reduced to an optional extra," adding: "The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity".
As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. On this point, it is worth recalling what Benedict XVI himself recently affirmed in his commemorative Message for the 20th anniversary of the Inter-religious Meeting of Prayer for Peace, initiated by his predecessor John Paul II at Assisi in October 1986: " ... demonstrations of violence cannot be attributed to religion as such but to the cultural limitations with which it is lived and develops in time. ... In fact, attestations of the close bond that exists between the relationship with God and the ethics of love are recorded in all great religious traditions".
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom".
In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that, quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment, witness to the "Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men" may be reinforced, and collaboration may intensify "to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom" (Nostra Aetate no. 3).
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/16/pope.statement/index.html
divinemission
Member
The Pope shall phrase his words different way, such as, " Violence and murder are against the Almighty Eternal God creation of human life on earth." And let people think about their actions.
The trouble here is religion against religion!
I bet you things will get worst before get better.
The trouble here is religion against religion!
I bet you things will get worst before get better.
GloriaPatri
Active Member
sindbad5 said:
Muhammed did conquer the Arabian peninsula. Everyone knows it happened, including Muslims.
I'm sorry if you're offended, but that's what Muhammed did. Islam in and of itself is not evil or violent.
sindbad5
Active Member
If you read the history exactly in this point - not after that, and didn't satisfy with biasd tellings (and how many it is) you'll find a great example of how to live a high quality life, full of dideaction and faith, full of helping others to make it further better.GloriaPatri said:
most of respectful academic researchs about the prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) agreed on his greatness in all aspects of life, and war doubtlessly part of the life.
war is bad, nobody love wars.
but what do you do if it's imposed on you? i bet most of u will say: we fight back.
prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) was in charge of reaching the people to tell them the Allah message.
some tribes (from hundreds of tribes on the arabia, mainly his tribe Qurish) prevented him from that.
he asked them not to belive if they don't, but let him reach other tribes to do his duty, they refuse and start to fight muslims.
Mohamed has to defend the new religion from the aggression of qurish and some other tribes that make allies with it, and to make a path to reach other tribes,
he always said to qurish : "don't be in the middle between me and others" [or as he said].
after qurish realised that it can't defeat the new state of islam, qurish asked for a treaty, the prophet stopped the war at once (by the way, he was opposed by some of Sahaba, the elites of muslims), the prophet realized that the treaty will make the message reach others not only in aribia, but in persia and byzanta.
another face of the prophet wars i want to enlight: how muslims were fight?
most of the time, the prophet look at the non muslims as a potential muslim or a peacable non-muslim, and so, it's not so wise to go deep in fight.
another thing: the prophet ordered the fighters only to fight who fights them, not to kill a woman, a child, olders, and non-armed man, even he ordered the muslims not to cut a tree, or to fill up with earth wells, except if the combat demand that kind of action.
so also its messanger, Mohamed [peace be upon him and upon all prophets till Adam]GloriaPatri said:
Who might they be? Who are the independent scholars who might expose the errors in the following from the Mohammed and Mohammedanism?sindbad5 said:
The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career. His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq (A.H. 151=A.D. 768), Wakidi (207=822), Ibn Hisham (213=828), Ibn Sa'd (230=845), Tirmidhi (279=892), Tabari (310-929), the "Lives of the Companions of Mohammed", the numerous Koranic commentators [especially Tabari, quoted above, Zamakhshari 538=1144), and Baidawi (691=1292)], the "Musnad", or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241=855), the collections of Bokhari (256=870), the "Isabah", or "Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed", by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the so-called Hadiths, or "traditions", the historical value of which is more than doubtful.
These traditions, in fact, represent a gradual, and more or less artificial, legendary development, rather than supplementary historical information. According to them, Mohammed was simple in his habits, but most careful of his personal appearance. He loved perfumes and hated strong drink. Of a highly nervous temperament, he shrank from bodily pain. Though gifted with great powers of imagination, he was taciturn. He was affectionate and magnanimous, pious and austere in the practice of his religion, brave, zealous, and above reproach in his personal and family conduct. Palgrave, however, wisely remarks that "the ideals of Arab virtue were first conceived and then attributed to him". Nevertheless, with every allowance for exaggeration, Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. And yet he was ruthless in his dealings with the Jews, when once he had ceased to hope for their submission. He approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime.
Concerning his moral character and sincerity contradictory opinions have been expressed by scholars in the last three centuries. Many of these opinions are biased either by an extreme hatred of Islam and its founder or by an exaggerated admiration, coupled with a hatred of Christianity. Luther looked upon him as "a devil and first-born child of Satan". Maracci held that Mohammed and Mohammedanism were not very dissimilar to Luther and Protestantism. Spanheim and D'Herbelot characterize him as a "wicked impostor", and a "dastardly liar", while Prideaux stamps him as a wilful deceiver. Such indiscriminate abuse is unsupported by facts. Modern scholars, such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme, Margoliouth, give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Mohammed's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity. The various estimates of several recent critics have been ably collected and summarized by Zwemer, in his "Islam, a Challenge to Faith" (New York, 1907). According to Sir William Muir, Marcus Dods, and some others, Mohammed was at first sincere, but later, carried away by success, he practised deception wherever it would gain his end. Koelle "finds the key to the first period of Mohammed's life in Khadija, his first wife", after whose death he became a prey to his evil passions. Sprenger attributes the alleged revelations to epileptic fits, or to "a paroxysm of cataleptic insanity". Zwemer himself goes on to criticize the life of Mohammed by the standards, first, of the Old and New Testaments, both of which Mohammed acknowledged as Divine revelation; second, by the pagan morality of his Arabian compatriots; lastly, by the new law of which he pretended to be the "divinely appointed medium and custodian". According to this author, the prophet was false even to the ethical traditions of the idolatrous brigands among whom he lived, and grossly violated the easy sexual morality of his own system. After this, it is hardly necessary to say that, in Zwemer's opinion, Mohammed fell very far short of the most elementary requirements of Scriptural morality. Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents. . .And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him".
... certainly not the kind of guy I'd want as a neighbor in civilized society.These traditions, in fact, represent a gradual, and more or less artificial, legendary development, rather than supplementary historical information. According to them, Mohammed was simple in his habits, but most careful of his personal appearance. He loved perfumes and hated strong drink. Of a highly nervous temperament, he shrank from bodily pain. Though gifted with great powers of imagination, he was taciturn. He was affectionate and magnanimous, pious and austere in the practice of his religion, brave, zealous, and above reproach in his personal and family conduct. Palgrave, however, wisely remarks that "the ideals of Arab virtue were first conceived and then attributed to him". Nevertheless, with every allowance for exaggeration, Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. And yet he was ruthless in his dealings with the Jews, when once he had ceased to hope for their submission. He approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime.
Concerning his moral character and sincerity contradictory opinions have been expressed by scholars in the last three centuries. Many of these opinions are biased either by an extreme hatred of Islam and its founder or by an exaggerated admiration, coupled with a hatred of Christianity. Luther looked upon him as "a devil and first-born child of Satan". Maracci held that Mohammed and Mohammedanism were not very dissimilar to Luther and Protestantism. Spanheim and D'Herbelot characterize him as a "wicked impostor", and a "dastardly liar", while Prideaux stamps him as a wilful deceiver. Such indiscriminate abuse is unsupported by facts. Modern scholars, such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme, Margoliouth, give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Mohammed's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity. The various estimates of several recent critics have been ably collected and summarized by Zwemer, in his "Islam, a Challenge to Faith" (New York, 1907). According to Sir William Muir, Marcus Dods, and some others, Mohammed was at first sincere, but later, carried away by success, he practised deception wherever it would gain his end. Koelle "finds the key to the first period of Mohammed's life in Khadija, his first wife", after whose death he became a prey to his evil passions. Sprenger attributes the alleged revelations to epileptic fits, or to "a paroxysm of cataleptic insanity". Zwemer himself goes on to criticize the life of Mohammed by the standards, first, of the Old and New Testaments, both of which Mohammed acknowledged as Divine revelation; second, by the pagan morality of his Arabian compatriots; lastly, by the new law of which he pretended to be the "divinely appointed medium and custodian". According to this author, the prophet was false even to the ethical traditions of the idolatrous brigands among whom he lived, and grossly violated the easy sexual morality of his own system. After this, it is hardly necessary to say that, in Zwemer's opinion, Mohammed fell very far short of the most elementary requirements of Scriptural morality. Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents. . .And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him".
I haven't a clue what this means ...Booko said:
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
That is a source from the semi official Catholic mouth piece. Can we hear perhaps from Wiki?
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Like this:
Overview
Born to ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib, Muhammad initially adopted the occupation of a merchant. The Islamic sources indicate that he was a charismatic person known for his integrity. [8] The sources frequently say that he, in his youth, was called with the nickname "Al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين ), a common Arab name, meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and even was sought out as an impartial arbitrator. [4] [8] Welch, noting the frequency of Muhammad being called as "Al-Amin", suggests the possibility of "Al-Amin" being Muhammad's given name as it is a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name, A'mina [4] (Arabic:آمنه. Muhammad often retreated to a cave on a mountain outside Mecca called Hira for contemplation. In the year 610, when Muhammad was about forty, he said he had been been visited in the cave by the Angel Gabriel who commanded him to recite verses sent by God. These revelations continued, he said, for the next twenty-three years, until his death. The collection of these verses is known as the Qur'an.
He expanded his mission as a prophet, publicly preaching strict monotheism and warning of a Day of Judgment when all humans shall be held responsible for their deeds. He did not wholly reject Judaism and Christianity, two other monotheistic faiths known to the Arabs, but said that he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect those teachings.
Many in Mecca resented his preaching and persecuted him and his followers. Eventually, in 622, he was forced to move out of Mecca in a journey known to Muslims as the Hijra (the Migration). He settled in the area of Yathrib (now known as Medina) with his followers, where he was the leader of the first avowedly Muslim community.
The Meccans started attacking Medina. Even though the attacking armies were several times stronger in numbers and in weaponry, Muslims defeated these invaders every time they attacked.[citation needed] Muslims finally took back Mecca under the leadership of Muhammad after eight years of exile and took control of the city. Not a single drop of blood was shed in the process of taking over Mecca by Muhammad. The Muslims subsequently removed all pre-Muslim religious objects, which they considered idols, from the Kaaba. Most of the townspeople accepted Islam. Deputations began to come in from other Arabian tribes. The conditions for their adherence were: the acceptance of Islam, the destruction of pre-Muslim religious objects, and the payment of the 'zakat' (tax) for the support of the poor community. In March 632, Muhammad led the pilgrimage known as the Hajj. On returning to Medina he fell ill and died after a few days, on June 8.
Under the caliphs who assumed authority after his death, the Islamic empire expanded into Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, much of the Iberian Peninsula, and Anatolia. Later conquests, commercial contact between Muslims and non-Muslims, and missionary activity spread Islam over much of the Eastern Hemisphere, including China and Southeast Asia.
Overview
Born to ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib, Muhammad initially adopted the occupation of a merchant. The Islamic sources indicate that he was a charismatic person known for his integrity. [8] The sources frequently say that he, in his youth, was called with the nickname "Al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين ), a common Arab name, meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and even was sought out as an impartial arbitrator. [4] [8] Welch, noting the frequency of Muhammad being called as "Al-Amin", suggests the possibility of "Al-Amin" being Muhammad's given name as it is a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name, A'mina [4] (Arabic:آمنه
. Muhammad often retreated to a cave on a mountain outside Mecca called Hira for contemplation. In the year 610, when Muhammad was about forty, he said he had been been visited in the cave by the Angel Gabriel who commanded him to recite verses sent by God. These revelations continued, he said, for the next twenty-three years, until his death. The collection of these verses is known as the Qur'an.He expanded his mission as a prophet, publicly preaching strict monotheism and warning of a Day of Judgment when all humans shall be held responsible for their deeds. He did not wholly reject Judaism and Christianity, two other monotheistic faiths known to the Arabs, but said that he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect those teachings.
Many in Mecca resented his preaching and persecuted him and his followers. Eventually, in 622, he was forced to move out of Mecca in a journey known to Muslims as the Hijra (the Migration). He settled in the area of Yathrib (now known as Medina) with his followers, where he was the leader of the first avowedly Muslim community.
The Meccans started attacking Medina. Even though the attacking armies were several times stronger in numbers and in weaponry, Muslims defeated these invaders every time they attacked.[citation needed] Muslims finally took back Mecca under the leadership of Muhammad after eight years of exile and took control of the city. Not a single drop of blood was shed in the process of taking over Mecca by Muhammad. The Muslims subsequently removed all pre-Muslim religious objects, which they considered idols, from the Kaaba. Most of the townspeople accepted Islam. Deputations began to come in from other Arabian tribes. The conditions for their adherence were: the acceptance of Islam, the destruction of pre-Muslim religious objects, and the payment of the 'zakat' (tax) for the support of the poor community. In March 632, Muhammad led the pilgrimage known as the Hajj. On returning to Medina he fell ill and died after a few days, on June 8.
Under the caliphs who assumed authority after his death, the Islamic empire expanded into Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, much of the Iberian Peninsula, and Anatolia. Later conquests, commercial contact between Muslims and non-Muslims, and missionary activity spread Islam over much of the Eastern Hemisphere, including China and Southeast Asia.
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Actually, Jesus also falls into the same category
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
http://ca.geocities.com/greatcalgarian/IngersollBible.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
kai
ragamuffin
greatcalgarian said:Actually, Jesus also falls into the same category
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
http://ca.geocities.com/greatcalgarian/IngersollBible.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
its not a competition ! i am interested in any historical information on the prophet
Booko
Deviled Hen
Jayhawker Soule said:I haven't a clue what this means ...
You asked for an indepdendent scholar who might expose the errors in what you posted.
I gave you the name of an independent scholar capable of addressing what you posted.
I don't know that there's anyone on RF with the sort of credentials you're looking for. If there is, I haven't seen them posting yet.
From a Review on Muhammad and the Course of Islam, by H.M. Balyuzi:Booko said:
H. M. Balyuzi has made a name for himself as a charming and persuasive apologist for the Bahá'í faith, and his trilogy on the great figures of that religion (JRAS, 1973, 2; 1975, 1) has not only set out in easily read and assimilated form the official Bahá'í view of the historical beginnings of their faith, but has also brought to light a good deal of hitherto unpublished information. Now, however, he has turned his hand to a much wider canvas, the whole course of Islamic civilization from its inception up to the first half of the 19th century. His justification for undertaking such a task is that (just as Muslims recognize Jesus, and Christians Moses) he as a Bahá'í "believes in the God-given mission of Muhammad". So one might hope for a new slant on Islam to set against the convinced Muslim view that it is the only and final truth, and the equally convinced Christian view that it is, in the last resort, a false faith (I leave out of account here more eccentric interpretations such as the atheist and the sociological).
It is sad, therefore, to have to report that the task has proved well beyond Balyuzi's capacity. He is no historian; he shows no ability to grasp the sweep of events, to sense the underlying trends and forces, to analyse and synthesize his material. ...
Your suggestion seems neither appropriate nor promising ...It is sad, therefore, to have to report that the task has proved well beyond Balyuzi's capacity. He is no historian; he shows no ability to grasp the sweep of events, to sense the underlying trends and forces, to analyse and synthesize his material. ...