Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

Facts are incorrect since Roman records do not mention isa and these texts you speak of are only by the hands of Christians and were compiled much later and sometimes after/during the reign of Constantine.

You are entertaining if nothing else. Why in the world would you ever think that Roman records 2000 years later would contain the record of a teacher killed in a minor province over 1000 miles from Rome among the thousands they killed every year?

1. There are amazingly few manuscripts of ANY text written during Jesus’ time
2. Historians of this period wrote amazingly little about religious figures anyway
3. Jesus was active for an amazingly short period of time (just three years)
4. Jesus ministered in an amazingly remote corner of the Roman EmpireHowever
Please Convince Me

even though there is no reason there should be any "what do you know":

Probably the most famous non-Christian source used as "evidence" for a historic Jesus, is the Roman senator, consul, speaker, and historian Cornelius Tacitus ( 20 - 117 AD). In a passage in his "Annales, book 15, verse 44" from the year 115 AD concerning the Christians, he mentions the name "Christ" as the subject for the Christian's cult and worship:
"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of... Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

Not a Christian and written before Constantine's father was even born.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Not a Christian and written before Constantine's father was even born.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Then we have Tranquillus Gaius Suetonius ( 69 - 140 AD), a Roman historian and the personal secretary of emperor Hadrian. Suetonius also mentions the name Chrestus as the subject of the Christians worship.
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome".
("Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit".)
Not a Christian and written before Constantine's father was even born.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];



We also have Pliny, The Talmud, Lucian, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD), Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.), Celsus (175AD) etc....
All or almost all non-Christians and pre Constantine.
Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Please Convince Me
http://www.bandoli.no/historicalrecords.htm
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[/FONT]

So you made a major historical blunder.

I do not know what your religion is but you post like a Muslim and Muhammad believed he existed.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existedbiblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek.[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for historical blunders they are all on you brother.

We do not hesitate, from the outset, to say that insofar as Deedat has endeavoured to discredit the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life and personality he has failed dismally. A good example appears as early as page 6 of his booklet where he claims that the original name of Jesus was "Isa" (as it is the name given to him in the Qur'an) and that it derives from the Hebrew "Esau". He suggests that Esau is a "very common Jewish name" and that it is "used more than sixty times" in the first book of the Bible, namely Genesis (Christ in Islam, p.6). Deedat's overall ignorance of the Bible and Jewish history thus appears early in his booklet, for there is only one Esau mentioned in Genesis and he is the brother of Jacob, the true father of the Israelite nation. On every one of those more than sixty occasions it is this Esau alone who is spoken of, and there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of any descendant of Israel being called Esau. The Jews just simply did not call their children by this name.

John Gilchrist responded to Deedat’s assertions

I could add ten times as much but if this is dismissed then anything will be, no matter the length.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you.
1-It is needed that those who believe in Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) should learn about his life and answer the allegations peacefully. Protest is not the solution.

2-When the Holy Prophet pbuh reminded the people to pay rights of God and rights of people, various mafias got together to crush the Divine Message but Allah Almighty gave him the success. For 13 long years, he and early Muslims were persecuted in severe terms, when they migrated they were chased and then Allah granted him permission to defend, there were strict conditions. All fights were waged on him near his place of refuge Madina; shows he and followers were waged wars upon. There is no compulsion in religion.

In current era, opponents do not come with sword, thus defence is due with equal i.e. with pen. More with Prayers and good personal examples.

3- Resources:
Life of Muhammad Life of Muhammad

Allegations agaisnt Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. answered Muhammad Fact Check | Muhammad Fact Check

 

[1robin]

Peace be on you.

1-It is needed that those who believe in Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) should learn about his life and answer the allegations peacefully. Protest is not the solution.

Honorable, and well said.

2-When the Holy Prophet pbuh reminded the people to pay rights of God and rights of people, various mafias got together to crush the Divine Message but Allah Almighty gave him the success. For 13 long years, he and early Muslims were persecuted in severe terms, when they migrated they were chased and then Allah granted him permission to defend, there were strict conditions. All fights were waged on him near his place of refuge Medina; shows he and followers were waged wars upon. There is no compulsion in religion.

I do not necessarily use compulsion as an argument against Islam as it existed in Christianity at times and Islam as well (almost the entire 8th conquest included oppression) but I do claim Muhammad was a very violent man and for very petty reasons. I will re-post just a few examples and see what you can do with them as no else even tried.

Battle or raidname, The order orReason, Source
1. Al Cravan raid,To get money, Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasul Allah
2. Batn Rabigh caravan raid,To get money, Bukkari: Ibn sa'd
3. Kharar caravan raid,????, Ibn sa'd
4. Invasion of Waddan,Attack a Quraysh caravan which included camels, Hisham: Ishaq
5. Battle of Badr, Raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further Muslim political andeconomic and military position, Bukhari: Dawud.
6. Invasion of Buwat,Raid a Quraysh caravan which included 200 camels, Sahih Muslim: Hisham and Ishaq
7. Invasion of Dul Asher,Attack a Quraysh caravan, Hisham and Ishaq
8. Invasion of Safwan,To pursue Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri who led a small group that looted Muhammad's animals, Hisham and Ishaq
9. Assasination of Asma Bint Marwan,Kill 'Asma' bint Marwan for opposing Muhammad with poetry and for provoking others to attack him, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
10. Assasination of Abu Afak,Kill Abu Afak for opposing Muhammad through poetry, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
11. Assasination of Ka'b Ibn Al-Ashraf,According to Ibn Ishaq Muhammad ordered his followers to kill Ka'b because he "had gone to Mecca after Badr and inveighed against Muhammad. He also composed verses in which he bewailed the victims of Quraysh who had been killed at Badr. Shortly afterwards he returned to Medina and composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women, al-BuKhari and Sahi Muslim
12. Assasination of 'Abdullah Ibn Atik,Kill Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq for mocking Muhammad with his poetry and for helping the troops of the Confederates by providing them with money and supplies, al-Bukhari: Tabri

It will be refreshing to get a historical explanation instead of complaints about things which even if true the complainer would have had no way of knowing, but are untrue as well.

In current era, opponents do not come with sword, thus defense is due with equal i.e. with pen. More with Prayers and good personal examples.

Well said again and I wish more Muslims thought this way and maybe not so many WTC's or Boston Marathon's would have to happen nor our response to them.

3- Resources:

Life of Muhammad Life of Muhammad
Allegations against Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. answered Muhammad Fact Check | Muhammad Fact Check

I will look into your links but am pressed for time currently and wanted your response to just the few items I mentioned here in the mean time. Selah,

 

[YmirGF]

Peace be on you.
1-It is needed that those who believe in Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) should learn about his life and answer the allegations peacefully. Protest is not the solution.

I agree wholeheartedly. Venomous protests simply reinforce existing suspicions.

2-When the Holy Prophet pbuh reminded the people to pay rights of God and rights of people, various mafias got together to crush the Divine Message but Allah Almighty gave him the success. For 13 long years, he and early Muslims were persecuted in severe terms, when they migrated they were chased and then Allah granted him permission to defend, there were strict conditions. All fights were waged on him near his place of refuge Madina; shows he and followers were waged wars upon. There is no compulsion in religion.

On first reading, this sounds so wonderful and true. From one perspective, it probably is true. However when you drill down and analyze the idea being promoted one sees that it is merely a narrative not necessarily reflecting the truth. Let's deconstruct this idea, shall we?

When the Holy Prophet pbuh reminded the people to pay rights of God and rights of people

This sounds fine, and makes sense from the Muslim perspective. That I will agree, however, to the Christians, Jews and Pagans in Mecca at the time, they probably found Muhammad's message to be deeply disrespectful, if not outright insulting.

various mafias got together to crush the Divine Message but Allah Almighty gave him the success.

You go on to demonize the people who didn't feel the love of Muhammad's message. The reader has to remember that even when Muhammad fled Mecca he did not have very many followers, but it is likely the fact the Muhammad had begun to attract followers that worried the people of Mecca.

For 13 long years, he and early Muslims were persecuted in severe terms,

That may be one way to look at it, but it isn't very truthful, especially in the early years. What is amusing is that you never hear about how incredibly tolerant the Meccan's were of Muhammad. They let him rattle on and on and on and on for 13 YEARS, for pity sakes....

when they migrated they were chased and then Allah granted him permission to defend, there were strict conditions

Which amounted to when they stop fighting you, stop fighting them.

There is no compulsion in religion.

I always get a good laugh out of this one, as Muhammad himself was compelled three times, if the story is to be believe, of course - to "RECITE!" In no uncertain terms... Just sayin...

 

[F0uad]

Honorable, and well said.
I do not necessarily use compulsion as an argument against Islam as it existed in Christianity at times and Islam as well (almost the entire 8th conquest included oppression) but I do claim Muhammad was a very violent man and for very petty reasons. I will re-post just a few examples and see what you can do with them as no else even tried.

Battle or raidname, The order orReason, Source
1. Al Cravan raid,To get money, Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasul Allah
2. Batn Rabigh caravan raid,To get money, Bukkari: Ibn sa'd
3. Kharar caravan raid,????, Ibn sa'd
4. Invasion of Waddan,Attack a Quraysh caravan which included camels, Hisham: Ishaq
5. Battle of Badr, Raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further Muslim political andeconomic and military position, Bukhari: Dawud.
6. Invasion of Buwat,Raid a Quraysh caravan which included 200 camels, Sahih Muslim: Hisham and Ishaq
7. Invasion of Dul Asher,Attack a Quraysh caravan, Hisham and Ishaq
8. Invasion of Safwan,To pursue Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri who led a small group that looted Muhammad's animals, Hisham and Ishaq
9. Assasination of Asma Bint Marwan,Kill 'Asma' bint Marwan for opposing Muhammad with poetry and for provoking others to attack him, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
10. Assasination of Abu Afak,Kill Abu Afak for opposing Muhammad through poetry, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
11. Assasination of Ka'b Ibn Al-Ashraf,According to Ibn Ishaq Muhammad ordered his followers to kill Ka'b because he "had gone to Mecca after Badr and inveighed against Muhammad. He also composed verses in which he bewailed the victims of Quraysh who had been killed at Badr. Shortly afterwards he returned to Medina and composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women, al-BuKhari and Sahi Muslim
12. Assasination of 'Abdullah Ibn Atik,Kill Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq for mocking Muhammad with his poetry and for helping the troops of the Confederates by providing them with money and supplies, al-Bukhari: Tabri

It will be refreshing to get a historical explanation instead of complaints about things which even if true the complainer would have had no way of knowing, but are untrue as well.

Well said again and I wish more Muslims thought this way and maybe not so many WTC's or Boston Marathon's would have to happen nor our response to them.
I will look into your links but am pressed for time currently and wanted your response to just the few items I mentioned here in the mean time. Selah,

I have a question did you ever check out the context and story of one of those events? Why they took place and what actually happened? Or did you simply quote a Anti-Islamic website again?

 

[DawudTalut]

Honorable, and well said.
I do not necessarily use compulsion as an argument against Islam as it existed in Christianity at times and Islam as well (almost the entire 8th conquest included oppression) but I do claim Muhammad was a very violent man and for very petty reasons. I will re-post just a few examples and see what you can do with them as no else even tried.

Battle or raidname, The order orReason, Source
1. Al Cravan raid,To get money, Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasul Allah
2. Batn Rabigh caravan raid,To get money, Bukkari: Ibn sa'd
3. Kharar caravan raid,????, Ibn sa'd
4. Invasion of Waddan,Attack a Quraysh caravan which included camels, Hisham: Ishaq
5. Battle of Badr, Raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further Muslim political andeconomic and military position, Bukhari: Dawud.
6. Invasion of Buwat,Raid a Quraysh caravan which included 200 camels, Sahih Muslim: Hisham and Ishaq
7. Invasion of Dul Asher,Attack a Quraysh caravan, Hisham and Ishaq
8. Invasion of Safwan,To pursue Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri who led a small group that looted Muhammad's animals, Hisham and Ishaq
9. Assasination of Asma Bint Marwan,Kill 'Asma' bint Marwan for opposing Muhammad with poetry and for provoking others to attack him, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
10. Assasination of Abu Afak,Kill Abu Afak for opposing Muhammad through poetry, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
11. Assasination of Ka'b Ibn Al-Ashraf,According to Ibn Ishaq Muhammad ordered his followers to kill Ka'b because he "had gone to Mecca after Badr and inveighed against Muhammad. He also composed verses in which he bewailed the victims of Quraysh who had been killed at Badr. Shortly afterwards he returned to Medina and composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women, al-BuKhari and Sahi Muslim
12. Assasination of 'Abdullah Ibn Atik,Kill Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq for mocking Muhammad with his poetry and for helping the troops of the Confederates by providing them with money and supplies, al-Bukhari: Tabri

It will be refreshing to get a historical explanation instead of complaints about things which even if true the complainer would have had no way of knowing, but are untrue as well.

Well said again and I wish more Muslims thought this way and maybe not so many WTC's or Boston Marathon's would have to happen nor our response to them.
I will look into your links but am pressed for time currently and wanted your response to just the few items I mentioned here in the mean time. Selah,

Peace be on you.
Your sources seems to be List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and please see for yourself the tone of the this research.

Just for example what is reality is:

The Battle of Badr
Space would not permit of even the briefest reference to all the precautions that the Holy Prophet took, and all the measures that he adopted, for the building up of the Muslim community, for the security of Medina, and for the ultimate triumph of the faith. By way of illustration, however, a brief account might be set out of the first battle fought out in Islam. About a year after the Emigration, intelligence began to reach the Prophet that the Meccans were preparing a strong force to advance upon Medina. Their pretext was that one of their large caravans returning fromarms Syria was likely to be attacked by the Muslims at a point near Medina, and that an adequate force had to proceed north to secure its safe passage. They may have been genuinely apprehensive concerning the caravan, in view of their declared objective of putting and an end to the Prophet and the Muslims by use of force. It was a large caravan, carrying valuable merchandise and was accom- panied by a sizeable armed guard. By the time the Meccan army set out on its march north, however, news arrived that the caravan had passed safely through the danger zone. Nevertheless, the Meccan army continued its march in the direction of Medina.


On the side of the Muslims, permission to take up arms in defense having been accorded in Divine revelation (22:40-42), the Prophet assembled a force of just over three hundred Muslims from Mecca and Medina, and marched out with them. This heterogeneous body -- it scarcely deserved the designation 'force' -- was united only by the common bond of faith and the determination to die in defense of it. It included some of the older Meccan Muslims who were good fighters, but the greater number were young men who had had little, if any, combat experience. Their devotion to the faith and their zeal in its support were their only qualifications. Ill-armed, in poor physical condition, with but two horses, and.a few camels, they presented a pitiful contrast to the Meccan army, which consisted of a thousand tried warriors, well-armed, and well-mounted.


After a march of three days, the Muslims arrived at Badr and took up their position near a well. The ground underfoot was sandy and the few experienced fighters in the group were apprehensive that this would be a serious handicap during battle, as the sand would not permit easy and rapid movement. The Meccan army on its arrival took up a position opposite on firm clay soil.


Night set in. The Prophet spent the greater part of it in earnest prayer and supplication. He had firm faith in every Divine promise, but he also realized fully the complete supremacy of the Divine Being and the many weaknesses that beset mortals. He prayed for success; he prayed for strength; he prayed for steadfastness for himself and those with him. Part of his prayer during that fateful night has come down to us. It reveals the core of his anxiety: "Lord, if Thou wilt suffer this little band to perish, Thy Holy Name will no more be glorified on earth and there will be none left to worship Thy Majesty in true sincerity."


The morning approached. There had been a shower of rain which firmed the sand underfoot while turning the clay into slippery mud, and the Muslims were comforted and encouraged. They beheld, in hope and fear, the dawn of the day which was to decide the issue of the most fateful contest ever waged in the history of man between the forces of truth and righteousness, and those of falsehood and ignorance. The Prophet drew up his men in battle array and, leaving them with his instructions, retired again to supplicate the Divine. He was prostrate before his Lord in agony when the general fighting began. Abu Bakr approached him and put a gentle hand on his shoulder, saying: Messenger of Allah, thou hast prayed enough. The Prophet raised himself and announced that God had just given him to understand that the time had arrived for the fulfilment of the prophecy revealed sometime earlier at Mecca:

"The hosts shall be routed and will turn their backs in flight. Aye, the Hour is their appointed time; and the Hour will be most calamitous and most bitter. " (54:46-47).
CONTINUES.....

 

[DawudTalut]

CONTINUES....
The Muslims had their backs to the rising sun, while it shone on the faces of Quraish. For a short while the advantage appeared to be with Quraish on account of the superiority of their numbers and equipment. The Holy Prophet took up a handful of gravel and sand and threw it in the direction of the enemy. Immediately a fierce gust of wind began to blow gravel and sand into the faces of Quraish, which almost blinded them, and made their movements erratic and ineffective.



The issue now was no longer in doubt. The flower of chivalry of Quraish was soon left upon the field, dead and dying. Seventy, all leading men of Quraish, including Abu Jahl, were killed and an equal number taken prisoner, including the Prophet's uncle, Abbas, and one of his sons-in-law. Of the Muslims, fourteen, six Emigrants and eight Ansar, became martyrs but none was taken prisoner. The Prophet, while giving thanks to God for the great deliverance which He had vouchsafed, was deeply grieved that so many of Quraish had perished in pursuit of their vain purpose.


There was much debate as to the fate of the prisoners. According to Arab custom, they could have been dispatched imediately; but the Prophet determined that those who could offer suitable ransom would be released on payment of ransom, and those who could not offer ransom would be released as an act of grace. The ransom of such prisoners as were literate was fixed at teaching ten Muslim boys to read and write.



When the news of the catastrophe reached Mecca, there was mourning in every house. But all customary lamentations and other expressions and exhibitions of grief were forbidden by the Elders till Quraish had had time to reorganize their forces and to avenge the disastrous defeat. The profits gained by the caravan that had arrived safely in Mecca were not distributed, but were reserved for the purpose of equipping another force against the Muslims.


There is no other instance in human history of such a clear and decisive Divine Sign in support of truth against falsehood. The grave disparity in all respects between the opposing forces predicated the certain and utter ruin of the weaker side. Except for the succour and grace of God, there can be no feasible explana- tion of the disaster that overtook Quraish. The unequal struggle would continue for another four years, but there is no doubt that the spine of the vaunted might of Quraish was effectively broken in the field of Badr.

http://www.alislam.org/books/message/life.html

 

[Monotheist 101]

Damn..the polls so far confirms that alot of Muslims dont have computers or internet connections

 

[Quagmire]

Good night nurse. I have played along long enough. At least your first posts in response to mine so far have been disconnected to anything I ever said.

No, it's more like an intentional disconnect on your own part in regards to your own statements.

There is no argument to be made because there is no coherent claim that has anything to do with mine. It is as if I said 1 + 1 = 2 and you responded PIZZA.

No, it isn't anything at all like that. So far what's been going on here is this: I make a point, you can't refute the point, so you pretend you didn't understand the point.

Thought you said you were going to stop playing?

We have not a single time even mentioned my failures

So you don't consider unbridled sanctimony a failing?

nor has any context merited anyone to do so. I mentioned a few verses and you said I claim to be God.

Nope, never said that. Like I said before: you're hearing things.

If reading Holy Scripture makes one a God I never claimed so.

And I never claimed you claimed so. So?

That would also make there (in your own words) to be almost 20 billion Muslim God's and over 2 billion Christian God's.

Never said that either.

[*here's a hint for the new people who may not be familiar with internet debates: If you'll notice, every post has a quote button. That means if you want to show what someone said, all yo have to do is click a button and there it is.

That being the case, when you see someone just saying that so and so said such and such, rather than actually showing the quote, 99 out of 100 times it means they're making it up. ]

That violates your own faith claims a bit would not you say.

What claims have I made about my faith? What is my faith for that matter? I'm actually curious to know what faith I am in your world.

Please make statements at least a little applicable to mine.

That's all I've been doing. Your response so far has been to accuse me of saying things I never said, insist that I'm a member of a religion that I don't actually belong to, and various other forms of blatant dissembling.

My God values (even demands) honesty. Obviously, yours has other priorities.

Even though I have no idea why you said so,

Of course you don't. That's the whole point of denial, isn't it?

but in the land of faults I am king

LOL! I love it when people do this. They're more than willing to make a cheap bid for fake humility by admitting that they have faults (theoretically) , but just try and get them to admit it when you see one of them acting under the influence of one of these faults. Ain't going to happen.

however those faults do not include claiming a very sinfull and fallable man is a final prophet or was right about events 500 years previous to his even being born

So basically you're saying: "I may be faulted, but at least I'm not a Muslim".

and shown wrong by every contemporary author that wrote on them.

I have so far not seen a reason to believe you to be able to determine this and until I do I am not combing through a bunch of posts.

What are you talking about now? You said

Muhammad does not have a single requirement to do anything about the sins of another, and you are the only Muslim I have ever heard say he could have.

Since I never said anything like that, I said

btw, you're hearing things

You replied:

What does this mean?

I answered:

Go back and read the post that was in response to. You were telling me you "heard" me say something that I never said.

And (bafflingly) you responded to that with this

I have so far not seen a reason to believe you to be able to determine this

and

and until I do I am not combing through a bunch of posts.

Now, I don't know if that means "I'm too confused to remember what I said", or "I don't hold myself responsible for my own statements so neither should anyone else", or what. But now I have "determined it" and shown it to you. Which means that you'll find some other clumsy and over-obvious way to dance around it.

Until this post I have never commented on any capability or aspect you have.

No, you've merely lied about what I said.

You cannot even wait until you have something to falsely say is calling you purple. You are all over the place. Unless you can track the target a little better I am afraid I cannot long justify this all over the map conversation.

Translation "In spite of all my dissembling and obtrusiveness (which usually causes people to throw up their hands in disgust and just drop out of the conversation), you're insisting on holding me accountable for what I say. Therefore, I'm going to have to start looking for an excuse to drop out of this conversation myself".

My claim was Muhammad nor the Quran is from God and I have given countless examples. Please do something with that and stop this disjointed random response stuff.

Please get real.

I realize that since you're real boss is the Author of Confusion, asking you to get real is a bit optimistic, but I still have hope.

 

[1robin]

I have a question did you ever check out the context and story of one of those events? Why they took place and what actually happened? Or did you simply quote a Anti-Islamic website again?

I have already answered this twice and am not doing so again. Your last accusation (false again by the way, and no one would know better than I) convinced me that at least for now a discussion with you is meaningless and I am not interested in one.

 

[Aquitaine]

Damn..the polls so far confirms that alot of Muslims dont have computers or internet connections

Or that not everyone is a Muslim, and not everyone is compelled to respect and honour your beliefs. Honestly, don't try to dismiss criticism of your faith like that.

Some people are followers of Islam, some people aren't.

 

[1robin]

Peace be on you.

Your sources seems to be List of expeditions of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and please see for yourself the tone of the this research.

First of all Wikipedia is not a site that has a slant (unlike your Islamic source BTW, however I do not reject your site because of bias). It is a neutral site. You would have to demonstrate that the people who actually posted the page were bias and then prove that their bias produced false information significant enough to overturn the conclusion. Second there was not enough information on the page (it was simply a list of names, sources, and extremely brief context) to contain virtually any bias. Thirdly even if the site was biased that does not mean it was wrong. Fourth even if the site was biased, and the specific claim wrong, that does not mean the whole claim is wrong in a way that is meaningful, Fifth even if biased, and wrong, and the specific claim is meaningfully wrong that says nothing of the rest of the claims at the site.

Muslims have a well deserved reputation of finding the first insignificant issue that is even the slightest (not necessarily wrong) but simply a difference between their account and the one provided and yell bias and avoid the entire issue. If you review my thousands of posts here, you will find that I have almost never ever used bias to dismiss anything. If biased then the claim will be wrong and I show that, instead of yelling foul and punting. I think however you may prove to not be the stereotype as I noticed you actually provided information to challenge one of the claims I made. I will review what you posted and reply but it will take a little while. In the meantime note however that you only contended one claim among a dozen and even the dozen is only a very partial list of the violent acts of Muhammad. Even that list is a very small part of the case against Muhammad’s being of God. I appreciate your providing some actual historical detail and I will review it.

Just for example what is reality is:

On what basis is what you provided known to be factual? I will discover it's accuracy shortly but wondered why you claim this.

 

[FearGod]

Why looking to stories before more than 1000 years ago.

Lets see the effect of Mohammed PBUH and Islam in our present days to know how great the prophet is.

[youtube]BSYgxofw-b4[/youtube]
Islam Saved My Life - YouTube

[youtube]utcs1ixTLJ0[/youtube]
They told me Islam from the devil

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why looking to stories before more than 1000 years ago.

Lets see the effect of Mohammed PBUH and Islam in our present days to know how great the prophet is.

[youtube]BSYgxofw-b4[/youtube]
Islam Saved My Life - YouTube

[youtube]utcs1ixTLJ0[/youtube]
They told me Islam from the devil

This is nothing more but a poor case of dawah present on every Islamiyyah section of youtube. This only gives the false impression to westerners that Islam is gaining power in a country otherwise deemed as unIslamic. This is not dawah this is deception.
These men love their religion and their religions prophet as did I, and still do to some degree. You are essentially just proving Islam's superiority over Christianity which is rightly deserved but it is not a surprise obviously.
You are merely choosing bias examples to make positive claims about your religion.

 

[FearGod]

This is nothing more but a poor case of dawah present on every Islamiyyah section of youtube. This only gives the false impression to westerners that Islam is gaining power in a country otherwise deemed as unIslamic. This is not dawah this is deception.
These men love their religion and their religions prophet as did I, and still do to some degree. You are essentially just proving Islam's superiority over Christianity which is rightly deserved but it is not a surprise obviously.
You are merely choosing bias examples to make positive claims about your religion.

But its Ok to listen to stories before 1400 years which says that Ayesha was playing with her doll when married to Mohammed PBUH,i don't know for sure which companies was famous in manufacturing dolls in that time,but of course not "Barbie"

 

[1robin]

No, it's more like an intentional disconnect on your own part in regards to your own statements.

There is no motive for my disconnecting two connected things you said. I am here to debate not to dismiss but I could not even begin to figure out how you got what you claim to have from what I said. There is not enough coherence to argue with.

No, it isn't anything at all like that. So far what's been going on here is this: I make a point, you can't refute the point, so you pretend you didn't understand the point.

NO i make a point and you make a point that has nothing to do with my point whatever like saying "I am acting as if I am God because I quoted some verses." I want to understand what you said because it is so easy to contend but that is impossible.

Thought you said you were going to stop playing?

Once again I have not the slightest clue what this means or to what I said it applies to. Look at my previous posts it is only you I have said this to. Most others are clear and have an application to my claims even if wrong.

So you don't consider unbridled sanctimony a failing?

Find a single statement where I ever claimed I was holy and this might apply. As it is I have said the exact opposite.

Nope, never said that. Like I said before: you're hearing things.

You said I was playing God, now exactly how can I do that if I do not first think I am God Here is your statement:

And somehow, all of this gives you the right to play God.

This is just getting worse and I can't justify the time it would take to unravel what it is you are trying so hard to say. None of it helps Muhammad at all anyway, and that is the issue here.

 

[Sha'irullah]

But its Ok to listen to stories before 1400 years which says that Ayesha was playing with her doll when married to Mohammed PBUH,i don't know for sure which companies was famous in manufacturing dolls in that time,but of course not "Barbie"

I hope it wasn't Hasbro because those transforming toys they make can frighten a young girl

 

[1robin]

I hope it wasn't Hasbro because those transforming toys they make can frighten a young girl

I am still interested in your response to post #268.

 

[1robin]

But its Ok to listen to stories before 1400 years which says that Ayesha was playing with her doll when married to Mohammed PBUH,i don't know for sure which companies was famous in manufacturing dolls in that time,but of course not "Barbie"

Every story in the Quran right, wrong, or borrowed is from more than 1000 years ago. Are you saying anything that old is invalid? BTW dolls have been found from thousands and thousands of years ago.

 

[Aquitaine]

But its Ok to listen to stories before 1400 years which says that Ayesha was playing with her doll when married to Mohammed PBUH,i don't know for sure which companies was famous in manufacturing dolls in that time,but of course not "Barbie"

Dolls don't have to be manufactured plastic toys like they are nowadays. A "doll" could be any type of toy that a child plays with. People had toys, jewelry and trinkets 1400 years ago, just as they did swords, for example.