Was Mohammed a man of peace ? - as his last words were to curse the Christians and the Jews

[Quagmire]

Moses however came around 1700 years before Mohammed. It's not unreasonable to expect an evolution in human behavior to take place within that time period. The bottom line is that Muslims no doubt have an explanation for every encounter Mohammed was in.

If you have and had no intention to consider the other side of this issue, why did you bother to get into a debate about it?

I mean, anyone can say "All "Worshipers of Jesus" believe in slavery and human sacrifice" and then just ignore any arguments to the contrary: "I'm sure all "Worshipers of Jesus" are just going to deny they practice all of the above".

I'm sure Muslims will claim that in each altercation it was "the other guy's fault". People who are divisive always say that FWIW.

Again: if you already have your mind made up that all Muslims are "divisive" and, apparently, dishonest about their history, why bother getting into a debate about it?

As we are 1300 years after the events it's going to be a little more difficult to verify these claims. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the historical accounts of these wars were written by Muslims meaning they surely presented Mohammed in the most favorable light possible, to say the least.

You "have no doubt", meaning "I'm not going to bother looking into it".

As I said before, I've learned to be very suspicious of people who can't live with their neighbors in peace.

Is that something you've learned? Or is it just something you've decided?

I can't help but feel that Mohammed represents a step backward to the example Jesus set who lived 33 years in total peace with wretched neighbors.

The Romans you mean? Yeah, wasn't it just the height of tolerance on his part that he didn't declare war on the Roman Empire.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Again: if you already have your mind made up that all Muslims are "divisive" and, apparently, dishonest about their history, why bother getting into a debate about it?

It didn't even occur to me to label all Muslims divisive. I was refering to the fact that I believe anyone who spends 10 years of their life in war to be divisive more often than not.

The Romans you mean? Yeah, wasn't it just the height of tolerance on his part that he didn't declare war on the Roman Empire.

Jesus could''ve taught his followers to have an under ground resistence movement or use gorilla tactics.

 

[F0uad]

I have no doubt that the vast majority of the historical accounts of these wars were written by Muslims meaning they surely presented Mohammed in the most favorable light possible, to say the least. As I said before, I've learned to be very suspicious of people who can't live with their neighbors in peace.

Hmm if we use the Gospels as historical accounts then your doing the same thing?

 

[F0uad]

It didn't even occur to me to label all Muslims divisive. I was refering to the fact that I believe anyone who spends 10 years of their life in war to be divisive more often than not.

Yet i was showing you that he was more merciful and friendly then other people ever could be without war or with war.

Jesus could''ve taught his followers to have an under ground resistence movement or use gorilla tactics.

''Could have'' but why would he there was no reason for it.

So my question remains if Mohammed(saws) was violent was Moses(p) violent?

 

[Quagmire]

It didn't even occur to me to label all Muslims divisive.

You said:

I'm sure Muslims will claim that in each altercation it was "the other guy's fault". People who are divisive always say that FWIW.

(emphasis mine)

I was refering to the fact that I believe anyone who spends 10 years of their life in war to be divisive more often than not.

Doesn't look at all like that's what you were referring to.

Jesus could''ve taught his followers to have an under ground resistence movement or use gorilla tactics.

And just how successful do you think that would have been (probably as successful as all the other under ground resistance movements using gorilla tactics).

Point is: you're talking about Jesus and Mohammed as if their situations were basically the same, and that one responded to it violently and the other didn't.

It's a false comparison.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Doesn't look at all like that's what you were referring to.

It was poorly stated. The people that wrote the original history books were the Muslims who actually fought the battle. They obviously claimed it was the "other guy's fault". I think Muslims today are just repeating a claim from 1300 years ago and trusting that it's correct because they trust in the integrity of those who originally made the claim. That doesn't make someone divisive. Naive? Maybe, maybe not, but not divisive.

 

[F0uad]

It was poorly stated. The people that wrote the original history books were the Muslims who actually fought the battle. They obviously claimed it was the "other guy's fault". I think Muslims today are just repeating a claim from 1300 years ago and trusting that it's correct because they trust in the integrity of those who originally made the claim. That doesn't make someone divisive. Naive? Maybe, maybe not, but not divisive.

Do you know how silly your comments are if you do not know anything about Hadiths, History or Historians? :slap:

First of all not all Hadiths are from Muslims and Secondly History comes from Non-Muslims, Muslims and other people that lived back then so your assumption is totally wrong i actually already answered this two times so stop repeating yourself.

My third point is that your own Gospels are from Christian sources so your accusing Muslims of doing something while your own Scripture ''Historical Evidence'' comes from Christians don't you see your being a hypocrite and next time do your research on how the Hadiths and History of Islam has been preserved and studied before making claims.

For example each Narrator had to have a trustworthiness, a biography and proof he heard it from person A or B study the criteria for Authentic Hadiths, while the Gospels don't even have anything to back it up that it really came from Oral tradition or anything else.