You managed to jump two sharks in one leap with this one.
First: You do NOT make up quotes by another poster. I'm not going to report you, but if a mod sees this you should be suspended.
Second: How old are you? I've indulged your BS for far too long. I truly am done with you. Flame away, but you will be ignored.
For example, most of your arguments are akin to the following as they are based on you remixing fictional narratives based on your own prejudices:
Muslims: Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on Buraq
Steve: "OMG Muhammad was evil he abused an animal by making him fly vast distances without a rest. What a bad, animal abusing man!!!"
Note the word "akin"
- adjective [predicative] 1 of similar nature or character
Satire is not 'making up quotes' as every reader knows it is satire, not an attempt to make up quotes.
Just like no one thought a poster called "Muslims" might have said the first bit.
You can understand the absurdity of your logic with such an example, but confuse yourself when you use the same line of argumentation on events that are less supernatural.
use historical accounts that are accepted by the VAST majority of Muslims, and are based on 1400 years of study and scholarship conducted by untold thousands of scholars. BUT, I don't have to. I only use it as background to explain why the Qur'an says what it says, when it says it.
And the Bible has 2000 years of scholarship based around proving its truth, doesn't make it true or mean we should uncritically believe that over secular scholarship.
And using it to explain the Quran is precisely why much of it was made up, at least according to secular scholars (such as flying donkeys and splitting the moon). So to say "I only use it to explain the factual history behind the Quran", requires one to believe it true.
Hnece verse 54-1-2 which seems to a prophetic warning:
The Hour has drawn nigh: the moon is split. (1) Yet if they see a sign they turn away, and they say 'A continuous sorcery!' becomes a real, factual event in history where Muhammad literally split the moon in half.
Making the argument "OMG he split the moon, what a bad, evil man ruining such a beautiful natural object to show off to his followers!!!!" would make no sense unless you actually believed he did this in real life. Creating a nefarious motivation behind an imaginary event makes little sense after all.
Verses starting with 2:40, which begins "O children of Israel'', are not only the first revelations that Mohamed preached to the Jews of Yathrib, but are undoubtedly the most important, as they set the stage for the confrontational relationship between Muslims and Jews that exists to this day. The significance of the demands made in this initial address in terms of what Mohamed expected of the Jews cannot be overstated. He began innocuously enough by reminding them of their covenant of old with God, but immediately followed that with what modern media would call a 'bombshell'. In the next verse (2:41) he issued the stunning command for the Jews to "believe in what I reveal [the Qur'an] confirming the revelation which is with you [The Torah/Old Testament]." In the space of just one verse Mohamed told them that their religious beliefs of approximately 2,500 years were to be updated and henceforth to be viewed through the lens of the Qur'an under his guidance. And he was not asking - he was telling.
Next, their long-observed rites and practices were to be nonchalantly tossed aside in favor of Islam's pillars according to verse 2:43, which commanded them to "perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow" as though they were willing converts seeking instruction. This was the defining moment in the relationship between Muslims and Jews, as the latter's refusal to follow him led Mohamed to create a permanent atmosphere of hostility between the two that will become apparent in this summary.
See here your tactic as noted above.
You take the theological explanation from hadith and sirah that explains the Quran, but add a bad faith motive to Muhammad.
You accept the Islamic theological events as fact, then try to explain them as if Muhammad was an evil charlatan. You are railing against a purported historical Muhammad, not the Muhammad of Islamic belief.
If you reject the Islamic idea that Muhammad split the moon, you can't criticise the historical Muhammad for moon vandalism.
Your belief that the Islamic traditions are so accurate you can psychoanalyse the historical Muhammad, but are also wrong in every aspect of his motivation, contain numerous obvious scientific impossibilities and are obviously hagiographic tropes and post-facto theological constructs is incongruous.
In Islamic theology, the Jews and Pagans were transgressors, not innocent victims. The narratives were confected to make these points. Assuming they are accurate, other than choosing to decide it was the other way round is simply cherry picking according to prejudice.
It misrepresents the beliefs of Muslims, and makes no honest attempt to discover a historical Muhammad. It is just empty polemic.
