is Muhammad a good model for Muslims to imitate?

[Pegg]

I think you mean 100-200AD which is the second century.

The book of Acts, gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were all written before the destruction of Jerusalems temple in 70CE. And the Apostle Paul was put to death before that, so his letters were also written before that time.

 

[Pegg]

There is no absolute proof the Gospels were written down as opposed to orally transmitted in the first century, certainly no historical Gospel documents form the first century, its really all conjecture, although I'll admit its likely some of it was written down, even during Jesus's life, maybe.

Yes there is.
there are written instructions in Jewish law books such as the Tofsetta about destroying the chrisitans writings. The instructions inform jews hat before they burn the books they must first cut out the divine name from the writings... so yes, there is outside evidence of a written transmission of the Christian scriptures. There is also internal evidence that the Christians had written records in the writings of Paul and Acts of the Apostles where mention is made of letters and scrolls being delivered to certain congregations.

 

[Pegg]

Hes just as bad as Jacobs kids and Moses and Joshua and many many biblical figures.

The issue here is whether Mohammad was actually acting under Gods direction or whether he was simply exerting his own political aims on a population.

The big difference is that the Israelites were not attempting to convert the pagan nations to their religion. Rather the opposite was happening. They were told by God to remove the pagan nations from the land of Isreal because God had given that land to Abrahams descendants. The pagans were being moved out rather then conquered.

If Mohammad was acting under Gods direction, there would have been no forced conversions because Jehovah has never forced anyone to worship him. He never did in any time in history... so to claim that he informed Mohammad to enforce a new religion on a pagan nation is a little far fetched and imo it really makes it very apparent that Mohammad would not have been acting under Gods direction.

 

[JacobEzra.]

The issue here is whether Mohammad was actually acting under Gods direction or whether he was simply exerting his own political aims on a population.

The big difference is that the Israelites were not attempting to convert the pagan nations to their religion. Rather the opposite was happening. They were told by God to remove the pagan nations from the land of Isreal because God had given that land to Abrahams descendants. The pagans were being moved out rather then conquered.

If Mohammad was acting under Gods direction, there would have been no forced conversions because Jehovah has never forced anyone to worship him. He never did in any time in history... so to claim that he informed Mohammad to enforce a new religion on a pagan nation is a little far fetched and imo it really makes it very apparent that Mohammad would not have been acting under Gods direction.

Lol the Pagans were not simply moved out. They had genocide commited against them.

The real question is, qould God really command genocide?

And how can you be sure there was no political aim? Such as conquering land under the excuse tgat a Gid told you to? t

 

[arthra]

Pegg wrote:

If Mohammad was acting under Gods direction, there would have been no forced conversions because Jehovah has never forced anyone to worship him. He never did in any time in history... so to claim that he informed Mohammad to enforce a new religion on a pagan nation is a little far fetched and imo it really makes it very apparent that Mohammad would not have been acting under Gods direction.

Maybe Pegg you should read Qur'an Al-Baqarah Surih 2:256!

 

[Pegg]

Lol the Pagans were not simply moved out. They had genocide commited against them.

The real question is, qould God really command genocide?

And how can you be sure there was no political aim? Such as conquering land under the excuse tgat a Gid told you to? t

You can't call what happened in ancient Isreals time as genocide. The Isrealites were given the land, the pagan nations were forced to move out. Those who sought peace could have it, and those who refused to leave the land and stayed to fight did not know who they were fighting. They were not fighting isreal...they were fighting God.

It wasnt a political fight because Isreal were not attempting to subjugate other nations. They were doing as they were directed to do and that is they were taking the land given to their forefather. Mohammad was enforcing a religion on the pagan arabs of his time.

 

[JacobEzra.]

You can't call what happened in ancient Isreals time as genocide. The Isrealites were given the land, the pagan nations were forced to move out. Those who sought peace could have it, and those who refused to leave the land and stayed to fight did not know who they were fighting. They were not fighting isreal...they were fighting God.

Um, its still genocide, even if you think God commanded it.

What Jacobs two kida did to that village of circumcised men, what Joshua did to Jericho, etc

You're only defense is the words of the tanakh that claim God commanded it.

Just like the only defense for Muslims is tbe Quran say God commanded it.

Really no way to disprove either assertions considering there is no proof of the validity of either books as actual, factual proof.

 

[Pegg]

Um, its still genocide, even if you think God commanded it.

What Jacobs two kida did to that village of circumcised men, what Joshua did to Jericho, etc

You're only defense is the words of the tanakh that claim God commanded it.

Jacobs two sons were not commanded to kill anyone in the account you are referring to. They did that as a revenge attack due to their sister being raped by a man in that village. The bible account was not written because God endorsed their actions.

On the other hand, Jericho was invaded at Gods command because the city was located in the territory given to Abraham.

Just like the only defense for Muslims is tbe Quran say God commanded it.

Really no way to disprove either assertions considering there is no proof of the validity of either books as actual, factual proof.

every played the game 'spot the difference'?

 

[NB Ibrahim]

You can't call what happened in ancient Isreals time as genocide. The Isrealites were given the land, the pagan nations were forced to move out. Those who sought peace could have it, and those who refused to leave the land and stayed to fight did not know who they were fighting. They were not fighting isreal...they were fighting God.

It wasnt a political fight because Isreal were not attempting to subjugate other nations. They were doing as they were directed to do and that is they were taking the land given to their forefather. Mohammad was enforcing a religion on the pagan arabs of his time.

Pegg I will love to hear how one man can force an entire nation to abandon what they worship and believe in and start worshiping something that can't be seen. Trust me forcing people to have faith like the one required in Islam is impossible. And besides forcing people to accept Islam is against the teachings of the Quran example of which is as I mentioned earlier Spain. The Muslims ruled Spain for almost 700 years but still there were enough Christians to kick them out and Spain was left without a single person to call Adhan. If you were given 700 years to force people to do something and given the power of life and death over them they will do it.

 

[NB Ibrahim]

Jacobs two sons were not commanded to kill anyone in the account you are referring to. They did that as a revenge attack due to their sister being raped by a man in that village. The bible account was not written because God endorsed their actions.

On the other hand, Jericho was invaded at Gods command because the city was located in the territory given to Abraham.



every played the game 'spot the difference'?

I will love to play it with you, take the Bible and I take the Qur'an let's play.

 

[Pegg]

I will love to play it with you, take the Bible and I take the Qur'an let's play.

No thanks. The bible is not something to be toyed with... its much more valuable then that.

 

[NB Ibrahim]

No thanks. The bible is not something to be toyed with... its much more valuable then that.

One of the things history taught us is that statement is not entirely true.

 

[morphesium]

Islam definitely does not teach that Mohammed was the greatest prophet, in fact Issa or Jesus as we call him is the prophet most praised and talked about in the Holy Koran, Mohammeds claim to fame is that he was the most recent prophet, at least to Muslims, and the last prophet, unless his message fails and a new one has to come. So Muslims would not say that Mohammed was greater than Abraham, or Moses, or Daniel, or David, in fact each prophet has their own distinct and unique contribution to make. No one looks at Mohammed as perfect or sinless, the way Christians look at Jesus, the main difference is that Muslims see Jesus as a prophet also, not God.

Prophets are supposed to enlighten the society. So if a prophet himself lacks moral and is unethical than the previous prophets, he is pulling the society back to darkages. Prophets are supposed to be one with great virtues. If Mohammed is prophet, he is supposed to be perfect and sinless.

 

[Lyndon]

Prophets are not supposed to be perfect and sinless, the only prophet for which that claim was made is Jesus, where did you get that idea from???

 

[arthra]

For Baha'is there are at least two different kinds of Prophets... dependent and independent Prophets...as in the following noted by Abdul-Baha:

The independent Prophets are the lawgivers and the founders of a new cycle. Through Their appearance the world puts on a new garment, the foundations of religion are established, and a new book is revealed. Without an intermediary They receive bounty from the Reality of the Divinity, and Their illumination is an essential illumination. They are like the sun which is luminous in itself: the light is its essential necessity; it does not receive light from any other star. These Dawning-places of the morn of Unity are the sources of bounty and the mirrors of the Essence of Reality.

The other Prophets are followers and promoters, for they are branches and not independent; they receive the bounty of the independent Prophets, and they profit by the light of the Guidance of the universal Prophets. They are like the moon, which is not luminous and radiant in itself, but receives its light from the sun.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 164

 

[TheSounding]

I didn't see anyone cite this verse, although I did see the other:

“We preferred some prophets over others and brought David the Psalms. [17:55]”

It is undeniable that Jesus was the greatest prophet and whom Muhammad imitated. The character of the Holy Prophet followed that of Jesus.

Al-Masih tops them all:

Isaiah 12

At that time you will say:
“I praise you, O Lord,
for even though you were angry with me,
your anger subsided, and you consoled me.
Look, God is my deliverer!
I will trust in him and not fear.
For the Lord gives me strength and protects me;
he has become my deliverer.”

Joyfully you will draw water
from the springs of deliverance.

At that time you will say:
“Praise the Lord!
Ask him for help!
Publicize his mighty acts among the nations!
Make it known that he is unique!
Sing to the Lord, for he has done magnificent things,
let this be known throughout the earth!
Cry out and shout for joy, O citizens of Zion,
for the Holy One of Israel acts mightily among you!”

 

[TheSounding]

The issue here is whether Mohammad was actually acting under Gods direction or whether he was simply exerting his own political aims on a population.

The big difference is that the Israelites were not attempting to convert the pagan nations to their religion. Rather the opposite was happening. They were told by God to remove the pagan nations from the land of Isreal because God had given that land to Abrahams descendants. The pagans were being moved out rather then conquered.

If Mohammad was acting under Gods direction, there would have been no forced conversions because Jehovah has never forced anyone to worship him. He never did in any time in history... so to claim that he informed Mohammad to enforce a new religion on a pagan nation is a little far fetched and imo it really makes it very apparent that Mohammad would not have been acting under Gods direction.

“Pharaoh had grown high and mighty on earth. He had turned its inhabitants into diverse classes, holding a group among them to be weak, slaughtering their progeny and debauching their womenfolk. He truly was a corrupter.
We, however, wish to bestow Our favour on those held to be weak on earth. We intend to make them guides to mankind, and make them the inheritors. We intend to establish them firmly on earth, and to make Pharaoh, Haman* and their troops witness at their hands what once they feared. [28:6]”

“He said: ‘My people, tell me this. Though I am certain of my Lord, and He has granted me a fair livelihood from Him, I desire not to do the opposite of what I forbid you to do. I merely wish to reform you, as much as I can. My good fortune comes solely from God: in Him I trust, to Him I repent. [11:87]”

You are obviously misinformed about the character of Muhammad.