Muhammad The Greatest: A comparative study

[gnostic]

Response: And only a non-muslim would say he's not.

You're the one who say he is the greatest, not me. I can admit that he was great, but saying that he is the greatest is superfluous statement that you can't prove.

So are you saying that he is the greatest, as being greater than Noah? Greater than Abraham? Greater than Moses? Greater than Joshua? Greater than David? Greater than Jesus?

Apart from creating a new religion based on older religions, did he really did something better than all of those figures above.

I don't think he did. And he certainly didn't help the Jews. He made wars upon them and had them massacred, because they couldn't accept him as being a prophet. That to me, sounds more like a great warlord than a prophet. A man who think about achieving greatness, can never be the greatest, especially when you use swords and fear upon the neighbours.

 

[Sahar]

I don't think he did. And he certainly didn't help the Jews. He made wars upon them and had them massacred, because they couldn't accept him as being a prophet. That to me, sounds more like a great warlord than a prophet. A man who think about achieving greatness, can never be the greatest, especially when you use swords and fear upon the neighbours.

What was the status of Muslims in Mecca and Medina before Mecca opening?

 

[Sahar]

Was he the greatest prophet? Certainly not. He was not innovative, nor revolutionary. As I said early he had mixed some of the teachings from both Judaism and Christianity. He was a copy-cat and adapt his religion to Arabic culture.

Then how can you explain the Arabs' hostility to him?

 

[gnostic]

What was the status of Muslims in Mecca and Medina before Mecca opening?

We only the Muhammad and his Muslim followers' side of the story, not the other side.

The other side seemed to be silenced by the Muslim aggression and crushed for the so-called rebellion, just like when he had the Jewish poet assassinated. So much for tolerance for other religion or culture. The only culture they would accept is the Islamic one.

Did Muhammad have the assassin arrested and charged for murder? No.

 

[Sahar]

We only the Muhammad and his Muslim followers' side of the story, not the other side.

The other side seemed to be silenced by the Muslim aggression and crushed for the so-called rebellion, just like when he had the Jewish poet assassinated. So much for tolerance for other religion or culture. The only culture they would accept is the Islamic one.

Did Muhammad have the assassin arrested and charged for murder? No.

Oh, I am certainly still waiting for the answer to my question.


Waiting....:cover:

 

[gnostic]

Then how can you explain the Arabs' hostility to him?

Oh, I am certainly still waiting for the answer to my question.


Waiting....

But I did answer your question.

The so-called history of Muhammad is so one-sided, that we only know his side of what you called the "truth". We don't have any historical accounts by the pagan Arabs, and the only hostility mentioned are written by Muhammad's friends, who claimed that the pagans were hostile to him.

Where are the evidences of their claims? And if there are claim, then where are the counter-claims? There are none, because anyone opposing Muhammad were dead by his hand or that of his followers.

 

[Kodanshi]

Killing apostates? Anyone? Everyone but me thinks it's fine to kill someone because of what they believe?

Nope. I got your back.

As an apostate from Islâm, me too!

 

[Autodidact]

hi Autodidact
and what exactly do you beleive in?

Among other things, I believe in respecting other human being's rights to freedom of belief. I don't believe it's a sign of good character to kill people based on what they do or don't believe.

 

[Autodidact]

Still waiting for one of Muhammed's followers to explain to me how slaughtering other human beings because of what they believe is a sign of good character.

 

[Kodanshi]

I wrote a tract about this on my blog and I’d like to reproduce it here. It did have a couple of extra points on it, but I have removed those because they don’t apply… until some muslim brings up a rather silly analogy. At any rate:

A Treatise Against the Punishment and Execution of Apostates


1. A person forms a belief when (s)he reaches a conclusion after a specific observation of events, ideas in action, natural phenomena, and suchlike. This person does not form this belief purely out of spite, vindictiveness or immorality, but by sincere contention. I therefore consider it unreasonable, unrealistic and utterly fascistic and totalitarian to punish someone for a conclusion they cannot help but reach.

2. Deciding that Islâm carries as much truth as any other man–made religion, and thereby labelling it ‘false’ after believing it as true, represents nothing more than a change of belief.

3. Agreeing with the concept of execution for apostates means advocating (state–sanctioned) murder of people who reject what they now believe as nothing more than legends, fairytales and ancient fables.

4. Receiving punishment for changing your belief means that an ex–muslim ends up compelled by force to remain — at least for show — in that specific belief. This I would describe as nothing other than compulsion, and renders the famous ayat at 2:256 in the Qur’ân patently false.

5. Death for apostates merely extends the charade of Islâm — utter hypocrisy, and the Qur’ân itself denounces hypocrisy. Killing in the name of hypocrisy simply turns fundamentalism into another idol, and sacrificing apostates to this idol represents ‘shirk’ — worshipping others as God, and effectively dismantling the tawhîd of Allâh.

6. Punishing someone with execution for apostasy from Islâm (or any other cult) remains, in my opinion, a fundamentally despicable concept. It displays a complete and shocking lack of empathy and understanding as to what motivates someone’s convictions (in other words, something they cannot help but believe, and not necessarily a free choice).

7. This makes it a complete attack on freedom of thought, on freedom of speech and as such we, as rational and straight–thinking people, must speak out and act against it wherever we encounter it. It deserves nothing else but utter contempt and scorn.

8. Brutally murdering a murtad does not prevent harm in the slightest. The affected victim’s family and friends, his/her workplace, and so on, all lose someone dear or essential to them simply because that person had the audacity to believe something and change their mind.

9. Additionally, how does this affect a person’s position in the (I believe non–existent) Afterlife? Executing the apostate will not absolve him/her of supposed sinfulness, which means (s)he will not go to heaven. Threatening someone with death does not cause them suddenly to change their deep–seated philosophical views. Any claim to the contrary by the apostate in question amounts to blatant insincerity and, therefore, we can discard the sentiment as meaningless.

 

[Autodidact]

The fact that it's necessary to persuade Muslims that it's not O.K. to murder other people because you disagree with them speaks volumes about the character of the founder of that religion, and the perniciousness of the resulting belief system.

 

[Kodanshi]

At the start the muslims had very few numbers. People apostating (as a few did) would have caused uncertainty and changes of belief to run rampant through the ummah like cancer. Accordingly, Muhammad had to institute terrible punishments to prevent this. Instead of tying this to a context of the time people STILL accept those notions today.

I honestly consider Muhammad a product and man of his times — and to those times we should leave him. I don’t consider him anything to emulate now.

 

[sandandfoam]

The fact that it's necessary to persuade Muslims that it's not O.K. to murder other people because you disagree with them

How did you establish this as a fact? It comes across as mere bigotry.
I find it disturbing.

 

[Autodidact]

How did you establish this as a fact? It comes across as mere bigotry.
I find it disturbing.

I was referring to the fact that Rf member Kodanshi felt it necessary to actually write a piece trying to persuade Muslims NOT to kill apostates. The fact that this conversation even takes place is outrageous--it should go without saying that murdering people for their beliefs is not acceptable.

You will also notice that not a single Muslim in this thread has responded in any way to the charge.

 

[Imagist]

so what exactly did Muhammed (saws) do that was so bad and he had to be kicked out? he loved his land just as you do, would you not avenge the person that takes it all away from you. and Muhammed (saws) never did anything to them, i've mentioned it before, here i go again. he let the meccans free, they willingly converted to islam.

Twenty-eight Meccans were killed in the taking of Mecca, and many others fled.

This is very simple: killing is wrong. This wasn't self-defense; it was aggression. The fact that the Meccans kicked out Muhammed doesn't justify murder.

The fact that I even have to explain why this is murder and wrong shows the negative influence of Muhammed.

well why should i trust the links, you don't seem to be trusting me nor the true character of the prophet.

It's not that I don't trust you, it's that I can show your statements to be incorrect. As for trusting the character of the prophet: there is very good reason not to trust his character.

and who exactly is going to do the talking, the links, or you.

Who "does the talking" is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the facts presented are true.

you know i really hate reading, mentioned it to every RF member so if you wish to bring up a point then please don't copy, paste any links.

I didn't know that, nor do I care. If you hate reading, that's not my problem. Reading is necessary to become an educated and logical individual.

Furthermore, text is the means of communication on this forum. If you do not like reading, find a venue which allows discussion by a means other than text.

 

[Imagist]

can i ask a question, is there a special website just for non muslims or something, every non muslim comes up with these same arguments always.

It doesn't matter who comes up with the arguments; it only matters whether or not they are true.

were you or were you not present when Muhammed (saws) "had" sex with a nine year old girl.

I wasn't there. Were you there when Allah spoke to him? No? I guess that disproves it, then!

yes he did move back to his own home, his mother land, i would too. and it was religious related yes, so if he went there for a religious reason then what place does killing have in it. you say this happened then you say that happened.

28 people were killed in the invasion of Mecca. Muhammed's eviction does not justify killing.

did he really recomend camel urine as a medicine? well i guess he had never heard of aspirin. have you evver heard of "space aspirin"

Well, space aspirin might work better than aspririn, but aspirin works pretty well. Camel urine, on the other hand, does not work at all, and is in fact cytotoxic (kills cells).

 

[Imagist]

Q who was Muhammed (saws)
A he was the messenger of Allah
Q what bussines did he have with the quran
A Allah revealed it to him and he was the reciter of it, taught it to people
Q did Muhammed (saws) follow the quran
A NO (this is what you are saying, it is not true though) , what, he didn't? then why did he say to follow the quran, for it is the law of Allah.

can you please tell me why he would do such a thing

Because he's a hypocrite. This is hardly a concerning problem, given that he also killed people and had sex with little girls.

didn't the english kill every native american that they saw. are you sying that they never harmed anyone with weapons in his hand?

and i quote my own statement "if my country and yours are at war, would you or would you not be feeding me bullets in the head if you saw me and i was carrying a weapon?"

if there is no evidence to support my claim that they have to be armed then here is a question for you
Q how many US troops are not armed in Afghanistan?

Yes, horrible things have happened in the world. That does not mean that it's okay for Muhammed to do horrible things.

 

[Imagist]

Killing apostates? Anyone? Everyone but me thinks it's fine to kill someone because of what they believe?

Nope, I'm here for you. Feel the love!

 

[Imagist]

As an apostate from Islâm, me too!

I really admire your achievement. As an ex-Christian, separating myself from Christianity was without question the most difficult thing I have ever done. From what I have seen of Islam, the difficulty of separating oneself from Islam must have been incredible.

 

[Fatihah]

You're the one who say he is the greatest, not me. I can admit that he was great, but saying that he is the greatest is superfluous statement that you can't prove.

So are you saying that he is the greatest, as being greater than Noah? Greater than Abraham? Greater than Moses? Greater than Joshua? Greater than David? Greater than Jesus?

Response: I never claimed that he was the greatest. What I do claim is that Muhammad left behind the greatest examples of guidance for us to follow if a person wishes to become righteous. (The qur'an and the sunnah) Not that he is the greatest person ever.

Quote: gnostic
Apart from creating a new religion based on older religions, did he really did something better than all of those figures above.

I don't think he did. And he certainly didn't help the Jews. He made wars upon them and had them massacred, because they couldn't accept him as being a prophet. That to me, sounds more like a great warlord than a prophet. A man who think about achieving greatness, can never be the greatest, especially when you use swords and fear upon the neighbours.

Response: I'm reading statements. Where is the proof that these claims are true?