Was Muhammad a good man?

[kashmir]

Peace to all.
Why attack a religion for which you lack knowledge off?
Now read the ff verses.
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’;and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household".
Now what peace you talking about?
Do you know whose words are these?
Please go and study your own bible.
There is plenty that i can give you but what is the point if you suffering from Islamophobia.Now go and clense your heart of this flith before it destroys your soul.
Peace
Farouk

yah ok brother, nice way to twist what Jesus said.
I wont go round and round, your life is what you want to believe.
Jesus is of God and muhammad was a false prophet is what I believe.

The best way to tell, is with life itself, look around you, which religious people are still fighting even with each other after thousands of years and using barbaric laws?
and which one is at peace and not warring in their own country and trying to take others lands and put people into slavery?

I am suffering from nothing, but the love that Jesus Christ taught.
Jesus said to love thy neighbor


Do we have slaves in USA?
Do we hang people for leaving the christian faith?
Do we murder innocent people in our own land because they are of a different faith?
Do we take kids and sell them for sex slaves?
Do we flog and crucify people for trivial crimes?
Nope, who does that, surely not Christians.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to - farouk
<I did not come to bring peace but a sword.><For I have come to &#8216;set a man against his father>
yes Yes, Christ said these words ----
But you do not know how to interpret the Bible ----
His words in the Bible is not intended in the literal meaning of the word ----
Because the word of Christ is the proverbial ----
Christ's teachings are the teachings of the parables in a way ---
And also metaphorical sense ----
That's the word sword here is not to fight -----
But is the boundary between good and evil, between the past and the future are carrying metaphorical sense, not the literal word -
Do you understand the

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Because Christ said of taking the sword with the sword taken Here does not mean the sword, but only intended to force represented by the sword ---
And also when we say the Son of God to Angsd filiation physical resulting from sexual intercourse
But we mean spiritual sonship -
This is a metaphorical sense ----
Who do not understand Dear Muslim ---
You have to abide by the explanation, according to our faith ---
And no explanation
When I write a story about Islam committed interpretation of Islamic ---
Committed to Islamic rules in the interpretation of the text of the Islamic ---
This is the scientific method and the fair ---
But misinformation style hypocrites

 

[Sabour]

to - farouk
<I did not come to bring peace but a sword.><For I have come to ‘set a man against his father>
yes Yes, Christ said these words ----
But you do not know how to interpret the Bible ----
His words in the Bible is not intended in the literal meaning of the word ----
Because the word of Christ is the proverbial ----
Christ's teachings are the teachings of the parables in a way ---
And also metaphorical sense ----
That's the word sword here is not to fight -----
But is the boundary between good and evil, between the past and the future are carrying metaphorical sense, not the literal word -
Do you understand the

Yeah, they were on a game show. Sword doesn't mean sword.

Oddly enough we don't know how to interpret the bible but you guys know how to interpret the Quraan.

And one more thing, truth is not your enemy. I think you heard this before.

Have a nice day

 

[Sabour]

and this is why you are on my ignore.
In case you're wondering why I didn't answer the last post.
Was going to, but, naaa, you talk around the subject, rather than discussing it, and just post cute puns.
Waste of time, maybe later, when you can have a real debate, I will engage you.
I'll check back in a week or two and open a post of yours.
as of now, all your posts are not worth my audience.
Plenty others give me something to discuss.

Lol... Well you have a unique style of running away from things.

I will be waiting for your "1-2 weeks". At some point, we will meet I can assure you that I am begging to wonder if you are part of a "trinity", and I don't mean the trinity of the Christians.

 

[Sabour]

Do we have slaves in USA?

Yeah sure, we are living in the exact same century to compare the slave issue.

Islam didn't come up with the slave issue, Islam gave a way to deal with the issue.

Do we hang people for leaving the christian faith?

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Do we murder innocent people in our own land because they are of a different faith?

Maybe for different race?

Do we take kids and sell them for sex slaves?

Islam didn't come up with these.

Do we flog and crucify people for trivial crimes?

We don't crucify, we give instant punishing instead of making them rotten in jail. Easy for you to speak, but go down to jails and ask them what do they prefer, instant punishing or prison life. You will be amazed by the results.

Case closed

Case opened

 

[Sabour]

Btw Kashmir, what happened to this reply?

and this is why you are on my ignore.
In case you're wondering why I didn't answer the last post.
Was going to, but, naaa, you talk around the subject, rather than discussing it, and just post cute puns.
Waste of time, maybe later, when you can have a real debate, I will engage you.
I'll check back in a week or two and open a post of yours.
as of now, all your posts are not worth my audience.
Plenty others give me something to discuss.

This was your original comment.

Did you change your mind ?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to -one answer --
yes --that is right ==
i do not interpret the qouran text ---
but i am use the islamic rule when i am k about qouran -- qouran down with Character and shape--For this reason, the interpretation of the Koran can not be challenged through construingHowever, if the text is not clear ----
And also must use measurement ---
And also must know the verse Is copier or replicated

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

This so-called doctrine and jurisprudence----
for example ---
if i a interpret---
State inheritance can not explain the kind of interpretation -----
But there is a special case called the reliability of an inheritance in the discretion of Omar ibn al-Khattab ---
God did not know the meaning of reliability and writes but Omar ibn al-Khattab was able to solve the reliability of inherita

 

[gnostic]

The more I read about Muhammad's life, even from Muslim sources, the more I have to say he wasn't a good man.

There are positives points of his character, but there are also negatives.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to gnostic
i think all negatives.
What is good in the actions of Muhammad--&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;&#1567;

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

His actions and sexual adventures ---
Or orders to kill racism ----
Or mislead people ---
And falsifying the truth ---
Or to offend God also ---

 

[YmirGF]

What the people of knowledge say such as Henry (Hillel) Abramson.


[youtube]1OnArXdHQdc[/youtube]
The Golden Age of Spanish Jewry (Essential Lectures in Jewish History) Dr. Henry Abramson - YouTube

I'm wondering if you even watched the video, FearGod? Did you miss the point where the first great Jewish luminary he mentions "fled" to Tunisia and later Egypt, but never says why he fled? Fascinating, no?

The first person he mentions was indeed Moses Maimonides.

During the reign of the Almoravids, the position of the Jews was free of significant abuses,[16] but after another Berber dynasty, the Almohads, conquered Córdoba in 1148, they abolished the dhimma status (i.e. state protection of life and wealth) in some of their territories. The loss of this protected status threatened the Jewish and Christian communities with conversion to Islam, death, or exile.[15] The historical records of abuses against Jews in the immediate post-1148 period are subject to different interpretations.[17] Many Jews were forced to convert, but due to suspicion by the authorities of fake conversions, the new converts had to wear identifying clothing that set them apart and made them available to public scrutiny.[18][19]

Maimonides's family, along with most other Jews, chose exile. Some say, though, that it is likely that Maimonides feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping.[16] This forced conversion was ruled legally invalid under Islamic law when brought up by a rival in Egypt.[17]

<Source>

 

[FearGod]

I'm wondering if you even watched the video, FearGod? Did you miss the point where the first great Jewish luminary he mentions "fled" to Tunisia and later Egypt, but never says why he fled? Fascinating, no?

The first person he mentions was indeed Moses Maimonides.

<Source>

It seems that you spent 2 days searching for a reply and sorry to say it was a silly one.

You can't refute the history of the golden age of Jews during the Islamic invasion to Spain, that really looks stupid and silly.

Turning point (1212–1300)


The Spanish kingdoms in 1210


The Crusaders were hailed with joy in Toledo, but this joy was soon changed to sorrow, as far as the Jews were concerned. The Crusaders began the "holy war" in Toledo (1212) by robbing and killing the Jews, and if the knights had not checked them with armed forces all the Jews in Toledo would have been slain. When, after the sanguinary battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212), Alfonso victoriously entered Toledo, the Jews went to meet him in triumphal procession. Shortly before his death (Oct., 1214) the king issued the fuero de Cuenca, settling the legal position of the Jews in a manner favorable to them.
A turning-point in the history of the Jews of Spain was reached under Ferdinand III (who united permanently the kingdoms of Leon and Castile), and under James I, the contemporary ruler of Aragon. The clergy's endeavors directed against the Jews became more and more pronounced. The Spanish Jews of both sexes, like the Jews of France, were compelled to distinguish themselves from Christians by wearing a yellow badge on their clothing; this order was issued to keep them from associating with Christians, although the reason given was that it was ordered for their own safety.
The papal bull issued by Pope Innocent IV in April 1250, to the effect that Jews might not build a new synagogue without special permission, also made it illegal for Jews to making proselytes under pain of death and confiscation of property. They might not associate with the Christians, live under the same roof with them, eat and drink with them, or use the same bath; neither might a Christian partake of wine which had been prepared by a Jew. The Jews might not employ Christian nurses or servants, and Christians might use only medicinal remedies which had been prepared by competent Christian apothecaries. Every Jew should wear the badge, though the king reserved to himself the right to exempt any one from this obligation; any Jew apprehended without the badge was liable to a fine of ten gold maravedís or to the infliction of ten stripes. The Jews were forbidden to appear in public on Good Friday.


Reference: History of the Jews in Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[YmirGF]

It seems that you spent 2 days searching for a reply and sorry to say it was a silly one.

You can't refute the history of the golden age of Jews during the Islamic invasion to Spain, that really looks stupid and silly.

Um, my dear near-sighted friend, I did bold the passage, right at the start, "During the reign of the Almoravids, the position of the Jews was free of significant abuses" for good reason. Whatever abuses the Christians inflicted on the Jews later does not erase the reality that the position of the Jewish people was already under attack by their new Muslim overlords.

 

[Moishe3rd]

You guys are so cute!
Now, I have to say, in this contest of yours - Who Killed the Jews More?, it is pretty much a fact that it was Christian doctrine that Jews killed the Christian god so, therefore, ipso facto, Jews deserved to be humiliated; scorned; tortured; isolated; and, yes, killed!
Whereas Muslims only humiliated, scorned, tortured, isolated and killed Jews as a matter of course just because they weren't Muslims... or when a new Muslim death cult arose that demanded they kill Jews.... or when a Jew ticked off some Muslim and he decided that all the Jews should be murdered... or, if they happened to be in the way....
But! It really isn't part of Islamic theology as much as some folk (mostly fascist Islamists) love to quote the rock hiding the Jew thing...

All in all, as I have noted somewhere previously, when the Abbasids murdered the Ummayads and took over the Muslim Empire, the Ummayyad remnant that conquered Spain was pretty equitable to both Christians and Jews in particular. After all, they were establishing a heretic kingdom in their own right.
And, as noted, that lasted until the new fascist Islamists invaded to murder everybody who disagreed with them.
This, of course, ticked off the Christians and they eventually murdered and pillaged their way into control of Spain and reinstated the doctrine that the only good Jews was a dead Jew... Or something like that.

Nowadays Christianity has officially and spiritually rejected the doctrine that the Jews killed their god and thus believing Christians tend to like Jews and, the secular Jewish State of Israel.
Whereas sane Muslims have decided to stick their heads in the sand hoping that their Islamist Jew hating fascist brothers will not actually kill them if they just pretend that everything is fine... move along... nothing to see here...

But - you guys should go ahead and play through. Let's see who wins the game of "Who Killed the Jews More!!?"

 

[FearGod]

Um, my dear near-sighted friend, I did bold the passage, right at the start, "During the reign of the Almoravids, the position of the Jews was free of significant abuses" for good reason. Whatever abuses the Christians inflicted on the Jews later does not erase the reality that the position of the Jewish people was already under attack by their new Muslim overlords.

And still the fact stands that the golden age of Jews started with the muslim invasion to Spain and even ended with the end of the Islamic empire in Spain.

I ain't discussing the reasons and the causes of ending the golden age of the Jews in Spain during the Islamic empire or even the ending of the Islamic empire itself.

 

[kashmir]

You guys are so cute!
Now, I have to say, in this contest of yours - Who Killed the Jews More?, it is pretty much a fact that it was Christian doctrine that Jews killed the Christian god so, therefore, ipso facto, Jews deserved to be humiliated; scorned; tortured; isolated; and, yes, killed!
Whereas Muslims only humiliated, scorned, tortured, isolated and killed Jews as a matter of course just because they weren't Muslims... or when a new Muslim death cult arose that demanded they kill Jews.... or when a Jew ticked off some Muslim and he decided that all the Jews should be murdered... or, if they happened to be in the way....
But! It really isn't part of Islamic theology as much as some folk (mostly fascist Islamists) love to quote the rock hiding the Jew thing...

All in all, as I have noted somewhere previously, when the Abbasids murdered the Ummayads and took over the Muslim Empire, the Ummayyad remnant that conquered Spain was pretty equitable to both Christians and Jews in particular. After all, they were establishing a heretic kingdom in their own right.
And, as noted, that lasted until the new fascist Islamists invaded to murder everybody who disagreed with them.
This, of course, ticked off the Christians and they eventually murdered and pillaged their way into control of Spain and reinstated the doctrine that the only good Jews was a dead Jew... Or something like that.

Nowadays Christianity has officially and spiritually rejected the doctrine that the Jews killed their god and thus believing Christians tend to like Jews and, the secular Jewish State of Israel.
Whereas sane Muslims have decided to stick their heads in the sand hoping that their Islamist Jew hating fascist brothers will not actually kill them if they just pretend that everything is fine... move along... nothing to see here...

But - you guys should go ahead and play through. Let's see who wins the game of "Who Killed the Jews More!!?"

Yah, it's pretty disturbing that debating this topic keeps turning into the pot calling the kettle black.
Ironically I just watched a Hitchens debate and pretty much it was the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMraxhd9Z9Q

 

[Moishe3rd]

Yah, it's pretty disturbing that debating this topic keeps turning into the pot calling the kettle black.
Ironically I just watched a Hitchens debate and pretty much it was the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMraxhd9Z9Q

I am listening to this video now as I write.
Whereas, I fully appreciate the brilliant rhetoric of the late Mr. Hitchens, he uses his rhetoric abilities to try and abrogate G-d by his personal, intellectual belief that logically, there should be no "religion" and that religious belief is false.
He does this by false comparisons. In this case, he makes comparisons between Islam and Christianity and Judaism where he declares that Muslims believe in one way that Christians and Jews believe in another way.
He jumps around in history and jumbles up the various ideas and time frames in trying to prove Islam is "wrong."
This is a disingenuous approach on Hitchen's part which, as a result, gives Hitchens no argument at all...

Anyway - you are correct -this video is another version of "the pot calling the kettle black."

 

[kashmir]

I am listening to this video now as I write.
Whereas, I fully appreciate the brilliant rhetoric of the late Mr. Hitchens, he uses his rhetoric abilities to try and abrogate G-d by his personal, intellectual belief that logically, there should be no "religion" and that religious belief is false.
He does this by false comparisons. In this case, he makes comparisons between Islam and Christianity and Judaism where he declares that Muslims believe in one way that Christians and Jews believe in another way.
He jumps around in history and jumbles up the various ideas and time frames in trying to prove Islam is "wrong."
This is a disingenuous approach on Hitchen's part which, as a result, gives Hitchens no argument at all...

Anyway - you are correct -this video is another version of "the pot calling the kettle black."

No, the purpose of the debate was "is islam a religion of peace"
Since you spoke for Hitchens, I will speak for the other guy

Since he knew it was impossible to call islam a peaceful religion, he said it was both a religion of peace and war.
And constantly played the goal posting game and more or less, on the peace thing, he basically said "takes time just wait"