Searching for proof of God/Islam - Tell me why I'm wrong

[HonestJoe]

It's all a matter of where you set your threshold for belief.

You were asking about proof. The whole point of faith is to account for the lack of proof.

It would be great to hear your thoughts on whether or not point 4 of my original post successfully makes the case that Muhammed was very unlikely to be crazy. If not, I'd really (genuinely) appreciate your views on why it doesn't prove he wasn't crazy, with your alternative explanation.

I don't think your points establish it to be unlikely Mohammed had some form of mental illness and certainly doesn't prove it to any extent. Basic statistics make it likely that he didn't have any relevant mental health issues (though I'd question whether anyone could raise to such a position of extensive power and adulation without either starting with or developing some psychological issues).

2. I'd also really appreciate your views on whether or not you agree with the rationale behind my assertion that Muhammed genuinely believed in what he said (see point 3 of my original post). Is my tree of potential motives comprehensive? Do you think other motives were more likely?

Yes. I think you dismiss a general desire to be powerful and influential and to provide that for "his people". Plenty of people have sought similar positions without any obvious immediate benefit to themselves.

3. I used the word 'supernatural' incorrectly - I guess what I really meant is 'external intervention'. It doesn't matter if you call them angels or aliens, the point is that Muhammed seems to have believed that he received the Qur'an from someone calling himself the angel Gabriel.

It matters to Islam. I'd suggest there would be a massive difference if the "revelations" had come from other beings with unknown motives or honesty.

4. I take your point on the human mind's ability to rationalise our observations. However, two points: a) this kind of 'supernatural' experience is normally a one-off type of event, not repeated many times over >20 years, and b) this is not a hallucination & therefore shouldn't be as well developed as what Muhammed claims to have seen (i.e. meeting Gabriel, physical contact, etc.)

Without accurate and unbiased details, it's impossible to know what he actually experienced, how he interpreted it and how he later rationalised it. This is also a good point to add that I think you're giving too much credit to the accuracy and completeness of Islamic scripture. Just because it seems to have remained constant since shortly after Mohammed's death, it's kind of an example of victors writing the history and would have already have been written by people with the intention and motives to present a specific image of Mohammed and the ability to move away from the entire truth of his life.

5. On your point about other faiths meeting the same criteria, I'm assuming you are referring to the post about Mormonism.

That was an example given here but similar claims can be (and are) made for loads of other faiths. I don't think Islam has any special place in this context.

 

[Arkannine21]

Thanks for your input.

You were asking about proof. The whole point of faith is to account for the lack of proof.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if you regard the belief that a historical event (e.g. World War 2) actually happened as 'faith', then yes, my first post is about faith. In that case, I'm looking to get your views on whether or not it's logical to have faith in Islam.

I don't think your points establish it to be unlikely Mohammed had some form of mental illness and certainly doesn't prove it to any extent. Basic statistics make it likely that he didn't have any relevant mental health issues (though I'd question whether anyone could raise to such a position of extensive power and adulation without either starting with or developing some psychological issues).

The rationale was that, in the context of someone who believes they met an angel, the possibility of severe mental illness is more likely than the general population. It would be great to hear why you think mental illness is still a realistic consideration, and your rationale for believing this.

I agree that a desire for power/adulation is a potential motive for Muhammed. I've tried to analyse the different potential motives in point 3 of my original post, copied here for your ease of reading. It would be great to hear your thoughts on my rationale, and if you believe there is good reason to believe Muhammed was motivated by power/influence.

Yes. I think you dismiss a general desire to be powerful and influential and to provide that for "his people". Plenty of people have sought similar positions without any obvious immediate benefit to themselves.

I felt I had captured this under "Altruism to benefit those around him" (see below). Do you think I need to add an additional category to the tree of potential motives? What would be the key questions to ask about Muhammad's behaviour to validate the hypothesis?

It matters to Islam. I'd suggest there would be a massive difference if the "revelations" had come from other beings with unknown motives or honesty.

The point I was making is that "angel" and "alien" are just names, the actual content of what happened remains the same. You picked an interesting example, because angels are aliens (not from this planet). Both terminologies are accurate.

The physical nature of whoever visited Muhammed is irrelevant, it is the content of the interaction that matters.

Without accurate and unbiased details, it's impossible to know what he actually experienced, how he interpreted it and how he later rationalised it. This is also a good point to add that I think you're giving too much credit to the accuracy and completeness of Islamic scripture. Just because it seems to have remained constant since shortly after Mohammed's death, it's kind of an example of victors writing the history and would have already have been written by people with the intention and motives to present a specific image of Mohammed and the ability to move away from the entire truth of his life.

I get you. There is a remarkably consistent trail from ~10-20 years post-arrival of the Qur'an. As for before that, it might have been altered.

Here's my thoughts. Considering the rapid growth of Islam in the early days, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the initial Muslims genuinely believed in their religion. They would have been alive at the time of the Qur'an's compilation and would, presumably, be furious if the contents were significantly different to what they know to have been revealed to Muhammed. As a result, it seems unlikely that a complete counterfeit could have been approved. Do you still think it's likely that the Qur'an was altered in that period of 10-20 years? If so, why?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks for the reply. Interesting points.

Would be great to understand more about point 2, "I see a need for people to accept the finality of death". What is the reasoning behind this? My suspicion is that one of your underlying assumptions is that God does not exist. That makes it a circular argument.

You presume to tell me that a final death is inconsistent with God. We die naturally which suggests God does not need us. No, it is you who are denying God by presuming that God needs you -- in my opinion. No, it seems that God needs nobody.

Also, since you've quoted Sleepy,

If you ever lump me together with Sleepy again I will lay an egg, and I will blame you for it for the rest of my life.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Quran was always genuine. What happened is that at Muhammad's death bed for various reasons He was unable to leave a Will. Both Sunni and Shiah blame each other. Shiah say He was denied a pen He requested and Sunni say He died before He could name an heir. Shiah point to various sayings where He had appointed Ali but as there was no document, the eldest took power after He died. From that period there were Caliphs and the first four Caliphs were considered 'rightly guided caliphs'. But after this period the Caliphs began to go against the explicit laws of the Quran and plundered and killed for power, ambition and wealth. At that point true Islam had been subverted. The Umayyads and Abbasids ruled and conquered against the laws of the Quran and represent Sunni Islam today, the branch which Isis appeared.

Much of what is seen today is not what is originally taught in the Quran if one knows the Quran well.

 

[Tumah]

Who said that I am?

You did.
The same claim that you are making to him about how Muhammad doesn't follow the Gospels, I can make to you about Jesus not follow the Torah.
You have an answer for why that isn't true and so does he. But don't forget that your guy is guilty of the same thing no matter how you slice it.

 

[Sleeppy]

The given conditions are insufficient in implicating external intervention. None of them actually have anything to do with external intervention.

 

[HonestJoe]

I guess what I'm saying is that, if you regard the belief that a historical event (e.g. World War 2) actually happened as 'faith', then yes, my first post is about faith. In that case, I'm looking to get your views on whether or not it's logical to have faith in Islam.

I don’t refer to belief in historical events as “faith”, certainly not with the same meaning as religious faith. The whole point of religious faith is that it replaces the factual evidence that exists for historical events.

The other key difference is that it doesn’t really matter if I believe in WW2, if I just accept it probably happened the way depicted or if I personally believe most of it but think some elements are misrepresented or misreported. With religious beliefs (certainly monotheistic ones like Islam), believers are meant to be 100% definitively committed, where any doubt or question is considered a failing or even a sin. Not believing (or not believing in the same way as everyone else) is even worse and had led to continued division and violence throughout human history.

It would be great to hear why you think mental illness is still a realistic consideration, and your rationale for believing this.

My main point was that it’s wrong for you to state that Mohammed can’t have had any kind of mental illness because you don’t think his experiences are consistent with that. He could have but even if he did, we can’t know how it might have impacted his life, including the key parts of it we’re discussing.

I do think Mohammed probably had some of the general psychological components common among those who seek and achieve positions of such power and adulation, not mental illness as such but still a significant influence of behaviour and worldview.

It would be great to hear your thoughts on my rationale, and if you believe there is good reason to believe Muhammed was motivated by power/influence.

The same reason other people in similar positions are. It’s a fundamental element of human nature so it would actually be unusual for him not to be influenced to some extent in that manner. Again, I’m not making definitive claims, just challenging your position of definitively dismissing the possibilities.

What would be the key questions to ask about Muhammad's behaviour to validate the hypothesis?

I don’t think what you’re trying to achieve is possible because the information we have about Mohammed’s behaviour is incomplete and largely biased. You can’t analyse someone on the basis of what his devoted followers say about him alone.

The physical nature of whoever visited Muhammed is irrelevant, it is the content of the interaction that matters.

Really? So you don’t think the difference between a real Allah sending angels to Mohammed to reveal the truths of the universe and (for example) a time traveller going back to Mohammed to troll him with tricks and lies would make any difference to the legitimacy of the Muslim faith?

Here's my thoughts. Considering the rapid growth of Islam in the early days, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the initial Muslims genuinely believed in their religion. They would have been alive at the time of the Qur'an's compilation and would, presumably, be furious if the contents were significantly different to what they know to have been revealed to Muhammed. As a result, it seems unlikely that a complete counterfeit could have been approved. Do you still think it's likely that the Qur'an was altered in that period of 10-20 years? If so, why?

Most early Muslims would have never met Mohammed and certainly wouldn’t have been present for all of the events in his life so they wouldn’t know if the early teachings were accurate or not. Even within his lifetime I’ve no doubt events could have been exaggerated and selected for propagation. I’m also not sure how much the average person would actually be involved in the detailed teachings anyway with the practicalities of surviving daily life being the priority for most.

 

[Prestor John]

Every Word of the Bible the Quran supports unconditionally.

It only does not support individual interpretations.

However, we would also need to believe that he was the final and greatest prophet right?

 

[loverofhumanity]

However, we would also need to believe that he was the final and greatest prophet right?

The Quran makes no such statement. That is an interpretation.

 

[Tumah]

I'll need to read up on Mormonism - at work right now, will look at this in the evening/tomorrow.

Hi. Not sure if you ever responded to my question. But I'm still here.

Just to reiterate. How does your proof not work for other prophets who began new movements as well?

 

[Arkannine21]

Hi. Not sure if you ever responded to my question. But I'm still here.

Just to reiterate. How does your proof not work for other prophets who began new movements as well?

Yes, I've not forgotten your post and aiming to reply on the weekend. It's hard to respond whilst at work.

Apart from Mormonism, which other prophets are you referring to?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Thank you!

We say They were both sent by the same God to different people with different Missions. Christ was sent to the Jews and Muhammad to the Arabs. Both societies were in a state of ungodliness and corruption and in Muhammad's case savagery was the norm.

Ah, the classic 'Muhammad was perfect but let's excuse his intolerance and violent bigotry by using the immoral heathens around him as a benchmark for excusing the immorality of his actions' argument. Few things are more hypocritical.

Christ primarily taught the individual while Muhammad's focus was community.

Christ said "on this rock I will build my church". Community was very much in his thoughts; I'm certain the Christians here will agree.

Christ didn't bring a Book in His time but Muhammad brought the Quran over a 23 year period with laws and teachings and the first constitution for a religious based society.

A book containing a remarkable number of flaws for one alleged to have been handed down by the all-knowing Maker. And "the first constitution for a religious based society"? The Cyrus Cylinder beat Muhammad to the punch by approximately 1,000 years.

Their Missions were complimentary not in competition with each other. Muhammad taught to accept Christ and all the prophets before as well as the new social teachings.

Muhammad taught people to accept his alternate version of Christ which is not the same thing. If I'm friends with Joe, then you come along and tell people a whole load of nonsense about Joe, making claims about his personality that were contrary to who he really is, then said Joe was your friend, do you really think we were friends with the same Joe; or one you had made up?

While Christ focused on love one another Muhammad focused on belief in One God as the Meccans worshipped 360 idols so Muhammad abolished idolatry which Christ was against too.

Christ didn't need to focus on belief in One God because the Jews already did. Just to clarify, the Meccans worshipped 360 gods, not idols. Muhammad abolished any other belief that ran counter to his own. Jesus did not.


Christ taught the individual and said if you were smote on the left cheek to offer the right. But in His time families and women and children were not being persecuted.

Muhammad and Muslims were persecuted for 13 years after which, when Muhammad had enough followers He taught them self defense not offense was permissible but only if attacked first (see Quran Sura 2:190.) Muhammad's Faith was the first religion to teach freedom of religion and Muslims had to defend themselves or have their rights to freedom of religion, along with their religion destroyed. We would call it genocide today what the Meccans tried to do, Muhammad had no choice but to defend the innocent women and children. Christ was against injustice also.

Muhammad spent 10 years in Mecca saying the Meccans worshipped false gods and basically pissing on their forefathers' traditions. The Meccans were surprisingly tolerant of him. If they were so intolerant he would have been silenced long before that. Further, the Meccans exiled Muhammad rather than executing him. Doesn't exactly sound intolerant compared to people who kill others for being non-Muslims. And no, Islam was not the first to teach freedom of religion. Achaemenid Persia was a Zoroastrian state and was incredibly tolerant of other faiths for it's time because one of the faith's core tenets is the human ability to choose.

But all Christians accept Christ and the Bible while Muslims accept the Old and New Testament and the Quran as well as Christ. Christians do not accept Muhammad but Muslims cannot be Muslims without accepting Christ.

Muslims don't accept Christ; they accept a redacted version of Christ. Again, my 'friends with Joe' analogy comes in to play. If you tell a contradictory story about the same person as me and claim to be his friend, are you and I really friends with the same Joe?

This is only a very small summary. If we can cut through the man made dogmas we can accept both. I accept both Faiths but not the interpretations of their followers as this is where they've gone wrong.

The problem is both faiths are man-made dogmas. Christianity at least has the saving grace that Jesus was nothing but a compassionate pacifist who tried to heal the suffering around him. Muhammad, on the other hand, aided the suffering by perpetuating it, creating a religion based on slavery and denying other people the freedom of religion you claim Islam was the first to teach. Some teaching...

 

[Shad]

If Muhammed genuinely believed he was meeting the angel Gabriel and receiving Qur'anic revelation, then either a) he was mad or b) this actually happened. If he wasn't mad, then it actually happened.

False dilemma. The source could have been change. The verse could be an addition. Your interpretation could be wrong. Gabriel could been a man rather than an angel. He could have been lying. He was mistaken. Genuine belief does not mean it is true.

This is merely a repackaging of CS Lewis but for Islam. Look up CS Lewis' argument. If you think your argument is valid then so is his own leaving you in a contradiction since both religious view Jesus differently. One could also just pick the mad option and be done with it. However this would be accepting a fallacious argument.

3. The conclusion is only that there was a supernatural element to the Quran's appearance. The Qur'an says of itself that it's from God, so that step is just about having faith that it doesn't lie about where it came from.

Circular reasoning thus fallacious.

I am God, I have said it on this forum. Done.

 

[Shad]

1.7 billion people today believe in Jesus because of Muhammad. Muhammad was the greatest Teacher of Christ humanity has ever known.

There are 2 billion Christians, so if you want to play the numbers game Islam is losing. The numbers game also fails within time and place context as Islam emerged as a minor religion compared to those that existed at the time. You point is nothing but an ad populum fallacy

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ah, the classic 'Muhammad was perfect but let's excuse his intolerance and violent bigotry by using the immoral heathens around him as a benchmark for excusing the immorality of his actions' argument. Few things are more hypocritical.




Christ said "on this rock I will build my church". Community was very much in his thoughts; I'm certain the Christians here will agree.




A book containing a remarkable number of flaws for one alleged to have been handed down by the all-knowing Maker. And "the first constitution for a religious based society"? The Cyrus Cylinder beat Muhammad to the punch by approximately 1,000 years.




Muhammad taught people to accept his alternate version of Christ which is not the same thing. If I'm friends with Joe, then you come along and tell people a whole load of nonsense about Joe, making claims about his personality that were contrary to who he really is, then said Joe was your friend, do you really think we were friends with the same Joe; or one you had made up?




Christ didn't need to focus on belief in One God because the Jews already did. Just to clarify, the Meccans worshipped 360 gods, not idols. Muhammad abolished any other belief that ran counter to his own. Jesus did not.


Christ taught the individual and said if you were smote on the left cheek to offer the right. But in His time families and women and children were not being persecuted.




Muhammad spent 10 years in Mecca saying the Meccans worshipped false gods and basically pissing on their forefathers' traditions. The Meccans were surprisingly tolerant of him. If they were so intolerant he would have been silenced long before that. Further, the Meccans exiled Muhammad rather than executing him. Doesn't exactly sound intolerant compared to people who kill others for being non-Muslims. And no, Islam was not the first to teach freedom of religion. Achaemenid Persia was a Zoroastrian state and was incredibly tolerant of other faiths for it's time because one of the faith's core tenets is the human ability to choose.




Muslims don't accept Christ; they accept a redacted version of Christ. Again, my 'friends with Joe' analogy comes in to play. If you tell a contradictory story about the same person as me and claim to be his friend, are you and I really friends with the same Joe?




The problem is both faiths are man-made dogmas. Christianity at least has the saving grace that Jesus was nothing but a compassionate pacifist who tried to heal the suffering around him. Muhammad, on the other hand, aided the suffering by perpetuating it, creating a religion based on slavery and denying other people the freedom of religion you claim Islam was the first to teach. Some teaching...

Your sources of your knowledge of Islam and Muhammad no doubt come from biased western propaganda.

You are just repeating what the enemies of Islam say. Biased sources of information are never trustworthy or reliable.

You only quote your bias not two sides of the story. There is another side of this story. That Muhammad was indeed a Prophet of God prophesied by Christ Himself and that He never sinned but you don't want to hear that side of the story. You only want to promote your own bias.

I know Who Muhammad was and what He did and it was all good.

Muhammad never lowers the station of Jesus that's the biased side of your story that Christians want people to believe. That's the brainwashing that goes on.

People have been so brainwashed over the centuries and by the media that even when we present them the truth they scoff and treat it as a lie.

I'm a Baha'i. Not a Muslim, yet even I know the truth about Muhammad. It's a real pity westerners swallow propaganda so easily. I'm a westerner too. But I don't fall for the anti-Islamic rubbish because that's what it is - rubbish and brainwashing against a true Prophet of God.

The information westerners have relied upon for centuries about Muhammad has been lies and bias.

Here are some examples....

Hundreds of years our knowledge of Muhammad, the Holy Qur'án, and Islam in general, has come to us through biased intermediaries. Literary geniuses such as Dante, Shakespeare, Gibbon, Sale, Thomas Carlyle, and Washington Irving, have transmitted to us opinions of the Arabian Prophet which at best can be described as 'damning with faint praise' and at worst to believing Him worthy of Hell's greatest torments.

As an example; for nearly a century Sir William Muir's (1819-1905) four volume biography, The Life of Muhammad, was held up (and to some it still is!) as the principal English language authority on the life of the Arabian Prophet. Muir said, 'The sword of Mahomet and the Coran [Qur'án] are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known.'

Dante is another case in point. He placed Muhammad and 'Ali (Muhammad's successor) in the ninth hell of the Inferno in his epic poem, The Divine Comedy.

Philip Hitti explains that the very earliest Western sketch of Muhammad by a ninth-century Greek writer portrayed Him 'as a false prophet and imposter'; He 'was later embellished with the bright colors of oversexuality, dissoluteness, bloodthirstiness, and brigandage. In clerical circles Muhammad became the antichrist. ...

Western fablers used Maumet as one of forty-one variants of Muhammad's name listed in the Oxford English Dictionary in the sense of idol. It came to mean 'puppet' or 'doll.' In this sense Shakespeare used the word in Romeo and Juliet. Another variant of the same name Mahoun, was used in English medieval encyclical plays as an object of worship.'

 

[YmirGF]

To be fair, Mohammad isn't viewed as a savior in Islam.

While technically true, it really cannot be argued that he has achieved something of a demigod status in the eyes of the believers.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are 2 billion Christians, so if you want to play the numbers game Islam is losing. The numbers game also fails within time and place context as Islam emerged as a minor religion compared to those that existed at the time. You point is nothing but an ad populum fallacy

Baha'is believe that both Christ and Muhammad were sent by the same God.

That Muslims and Christians are both human beings. And that now is the time to try and creating understanding between these two great Faiths. We've had enough conflict for centuries. We want peace.

We believe we are all one human family and that no race or religion is superior to another and to promote understanding between peoples, races, religions and nations is the most important duty of every human being on this planet.

It is detrimental to the peace, well being and security of all people to exalt or degrade any race, religion, nation or people as this only leads to prejudice and disunity.

 

[YmirGF]

4. The Qur’an, along with its effects on people, are beyond what can realistically be expected from the products of someone with mental illness

• Schizophrenic patients or those with schizophrenic traits will often display ‘Knight’s move thinking’ – switching between ideas with little or no connection without warning. Those with schizotypal personality disorder also often exhibit unusual speech structures & unnatural shifts between ideas. On the other hand, the Qur’an is able to deliver coherent stories & makes a clear transition from one idea to the next
  
• Manic disorder/bipolar disorder is often characterised by hyperexcitable speech & flight of ideas. As explained above, the Qur’an is able to hold an idea/story & explain it, and there is a clear transition from one idea to the next. Furthermore, the tone of the Qur’an is consistent throughout, which indicates an absence of bipolar wild mood swings in the compilation of the Qur’an
  
• Muhammed claimed to interact directly with Gabriel when receiving Qur’anic revelations, including visual, auditory & physical contact. Schizophrenic hallucinations are usually only auditory, and usually have a negative connotation. In general, hallucinations are nowhere near as well developed as the experiences which Muhammed is claimed to have gone through.
  
• Epileptic hallucinations are even less likely to cause the combination of visual, auditory & physical contact with a person, especially not on a recurrent basis
  
• Furthermore, the Arabic Qur’an recitation demonstrates signs of having been written by someone with considerable intelligence. It has a certain rhythm which many find appealing, and a sense of authority which many find makes it easy to believe. These features are not easy to imitate. Most mental illnesses, including epilepsy, are correlated with a lower IQ, which makes it less likely that the Qur’an could have been produced by someone with a mental disorder

This is little more than an appeal to ignorance. We know next to nothing about Muhammad's actual state during his lifetime and to posit the above as proof that he did not suffer from any given mental illnesses is almost absurd. Clearly, he was suffering from depression when he contemplated suicide. That IS a mental illness. What is very hard to gauge is if his depression was a lifelong battle or a mere side trip. Likewise, having conversations with hallucinations is not exactly a sign of stellar mental health, especially when Gabriel was so forceful with him. That isn't a very good sign however one wishes to paint it.

Your first point is rubbish. The fact is that the Qur'an was not arranged in the order it was recieved. Muhammad did not begin with "Sura 23:13" and then begin his rambling. The order was done from the longest to the shortest, by the compilers of the Qur'an (not Muhammad) because when read in the order it was received it IS a Hodge-podge, hop-scotch affair... much as one would expect from a schizophrenic mind.

Point 2 is also less than accurate. Though it would tend to indicate an absence of bipolar disorder it simply does not rule it out. Be honest, at the very least, as implying otherwise is quite disingenuous.

Point 3 also fails the smell test. Let me get this straight. You are actually claiming that because of the depth of the hallucinatory event it is unlikely to be a delusional event. Seriously?

Point 4 is stating the obvious. Big deal.

Point 5 sounds nice, but means little. I've often described Muhammad as both a genius, far more intelligent than those around him, as well as suffering from mental illness (acute depression and likely schizophrenia) to the point of intending suicide. Your lack of candor, while pretending to be knowledgeable about the mental illnesses described is seriously deficient and therefore little more than proselytizing propaganda.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are 2 billion Christians, so if you want to play the numbers game Islam is losing. The numbers game also fails within time and place context as Islam emerged as a minor religion compared to those that existed at the time. You point is nothing but an ad populum fallacy

That was indeed a strange statement to make, since they wouldn't have known about Christ in the first place without Christians spreading the word.

 

[Tumah]

Your sources of your knowledge of Islam and Muhammad no doubt come from biased western propaganda.

You are just repeating what the enemies of Islam say. Biased sources of information are never trustworthy or reliable.

You only quote your bias not two sides of the story. There is another side of this story. That Muhammad was indeed a Prophet of God prophesied by Christ Himself and that He never sinned but you don't want to hear that side of the story. You only want to promote your own bias.

I know Who Muhammad was and what He did and it was all good.

Muhammad never lowers the station of Jesus that's the biased side of your story that Christians want people to believe. That's the brainwashing that goes on.

People have been so brainwashed over the centuries and by the media that even when we present them the truth they scoff and treat it as a lie.

I'm a Baha'i. Not a Muslim, yet even I know the truth about Muhammad. It's a real pity westerners swallow propaganda so easily. I'm a westerner too. But I don't fall for the anti-Islamic rubbish because that's what it is - rubbish and brainwashing against a true Prophet of God.

The information westerners have relied upon for centuries about Muhammad has been lies and bias.

Here are some examples....

Hundreds of years our knowledge of Muhammad, the Holy Qur'án, and Islam in general, has come to us through biased intermediaries. Literary geniuses such as Dante, Shakespeare, Gibbon, Sale, Thomas Carlyle, and Washington Irving, have transmitted to us opinions of the Arabian Prophet which at best can be described as 'damning with faint praise' and at worst to believing Him worthy of Hell's greatest torments.

As an example; for nearly a century Sir William Muir's (1819-1905) four volume biography, The Life of Muhammad, was held up (and to some it still is!) as the principal English language authority on the life of the Arabian Prophet. Muir said, 'The sword of Mahomet and the Coran [Qur'án] are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known.'

Dante is another case in point. He placed Muhammad and 'Ali (Muhammad's successor) in the ninth hell of the Inferno in his epic poem, The Divine Comedy.

Philip Hitti explains that the very earliest Western sketch of Muhammad by a ninth-century Greek writer portrayed Him 'as a false prophet and imposter'; He 'was later embellished with the bright colors of oversexuality, dissoluteness, bloodthirstiness, and brigandage. In clerical circles Muhammad became the antichrist. ...

Western fablers used Maumet as one of forty-one variants of Muhammad's name listed in the Oxford English Dictionary in the sense of idol. It came to mean 'puppet' or 'doll.' In this sense Shakespeare used the word in Romeo and Juliet. Another variant of the same name Mahoun, was used in English medieval encyclical plays as an object of worship.'

I dont really get what you're doing here. The poster you're responding to advanced a number of logical arguments.
Your response to him could be summed up as "your arguments against Muhammad ans Islam are wrong because people have been arguing against Muhammad and Islam for over a thousand years".

I don't understand what type of counter argument that is.