Was Muhammad a good man?

[Sha'irullah]

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

I have been absent for a few days sorry.

 

[1robin]

I have been absent for a few days sorry.

No problem, I just hoped you had not forgotten. It took a few minutes digging time to create that one.

 

[FearGod]

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.

The hadith is the sayings of the prophet which have been recorded long time after his death (more than 200 years) and Ayesha real age when married is just stories with no tangible evidences.

 

[sunni56]

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]


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.

Considering points 1-4, it pretty much renders the Bible obsolete, I mean there is absolutely nothing which remotely guarantees the preservation of any text from Christ by your own admission. No records, no chains, nothing. Were it not for the fact that Muslims believed that Christ was actually given a scripture, there'd be no hope of anything that would convince us that any teaching of Christ existed in the first place. It really was a sorry state of affairs from a documentation standpoint.

 

[1robin]

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

The site you used is exactly the same type of biased material Muslims accuse critics of using. Below is another account, it might very well have a slant but it can't possibly be as biased as the one gave, it even uses many Islamic sources. I however do not rule out information regardless of what site it comes from in almost all cases. I simply counter it as I have below. I also want to remind you only contended (not countered) a single one of the examples of Muhammad’s violence in my list, my list is only 1/10th of the whole list and that is only one aspect of many to challenge Muhammad's prophet hood. Also notice not one event similar to the hundreds for Muhammad does Christ need any explanation for.

If Muslims are only supposed to fight in self-defense, then the Battle of Badr would had to have been a case in which an enemy was attacking or marching on Muhammad at Medina. Of course, if this is what you want to believe, then stop right now and try to stay away from history books.

Muslim historians of the day meticulously documented the circumstances that preceded the Battle of Badr and there is not the least bit of wiggle room for anyone hoping to believe that Muslims fought in self-defense that day.

In the first place, the Meccans were not marching on Muhammad. They did send out an army - but it was to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders (who had recently killed Meccan caravan drivers defending their property). The Meccans were not interested in starting a war; only in seeing that their merchandise and drivers were unmolested by Muhammad’s pirates (see prior article on Muhammad's Caravan Raids).

According to the historians of the day:
Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men… When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
The account goes on to say that some of the Muslims were reluctant to participate in the attack because they did not want to go to war. Muhammad later refers to these peaceful Muslims as ‘Hypocrites’ in the Qur’an, where he also condemns them to Hell and demands that true Muslims deal with them harshly (66:9).
After Muhammad sent his men to attack the caravan, Abu Sufyan (his Meccan adversary) learned of his plans:
When he got near to the Hijaz, Abu Sufyan was seeking news and questioning every rider in his anxiety, until he got news from some riders that Muahmmad had called out his companions against him and his caravan. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)
Abu Sufyan did two things at this point to avert battle. He changed his route, so as to avoid Muhammad’s army, and he sent for help. The Meccans then sent out a larger force of about 900 men to rescue the caravan.

A lengthy cat and mouse game ensued between Muhammad and the Meccans, in which the latter do nearly everything they can to avoid a conflict and make their way home (Ishaq/Hisham 433 to 443). Eventually Muhammad successfully forces them into battle by deliberately stopping up the water wells on which they depended for the trek back to Mecca - and then planting his army between the remaining wells and the thirsty Meccans.

What part of this could possibly be confused with self-defense on the part of Muhammad?

At that point, the Muslims clearly had the advantage against the weary and reluctant Meccans, even though they were lesser in number. Initially, they amused themselves by killing the few men desperate enough to try and reach the water:

Al-Aswad, who was a quarrelsome ill-natured man, stepped forth and said, “I swear to God that I will drink from their cistern or destroy it or die before reaching it.” Hamza [a Muslim strongman] came forth against him and when the two met, Hamza smote him and sent his foot and half his shank flying as he was near the cistern. He fell on his back and lay there, blood streaming from his foot toward his comrades. Then he crawled to the cistern and threw himself into it for the purpose of fulfilling his oath, but Hamza followed him and smote him…” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 443)

The Muslims toyed with several other thirst-crazed Meccans in the same deadly manner before Muhammad finally gave the order to rout the “enemy.”

The period following the victorious battle was one of giddy celebration for the Muslims. The decapitated heads of Muhammad’s opponents from Mecca were presented to him, and their slayers honored. Live captives were brought before him as well, where he ordered some ransomed and others executed. In what seemed bizarre even to his own men, Muhammad walked among the bodies of the dead Meccans and taunted them, insisting that they could hear him in Hell (Bukhari 59:314).

The captured wealth of the Meccans was divided among the victors. Hamza, the man who had slaughtered the first Meccan attempting to reach water, turned his cruel amusement toward defenseless animals, cutting the humps off of camels and disemboweling them for no reason other than to relish their agony (Bukhari 59:340).
Amid the drunken carnage, Allah “spoke” to Muhammad and told him to make sure that the other Muslims gave him a fifth of the war booty. These words have become permanently recorded in the Qur’an (8:1), even though they have no relevance today.
The prophet of Islam also informed his men that their victory was actually due to a legion of angels sent down by Allah (8:9) - which were, of course, visible only to Muhammad (8:50). (For some reason, the angels didn’t show at the next battle, in which the Muslims were routed at Uhud).

Much of the 8th Sura, one of the Qur’an’s more violent chapters, was “revealed” following the aftermath of the Battle of Badr. Many of the verses make little sense outside of their historical context, proving that the Sira (biography of Muhammad) is necessary for interpreting the Qur’an.

In this case, the historical context is completely at odds with any misconception on the part of modern-day Muslims that the Battle of Badr was a defensive conflict. Only the Meccans fought in defense of their lives and property that day – and they did so reluctantly, after Muhammad took monumental steps to force them into battle.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm

The more I read about the people he ordered assassinated and the reasons for it the more disgusted I become. Even I who am no fan of Islam had no idea just how cruel he was. If Badr is a stalemate or if you wish to continue discussing it that is fine. When done with it I wish to discuss the people including women he ordered killed or approved of their killing.

 

[1robin]

Considering points 1-4, it pretty much renders the Bible obsolete, I mean there is absolutely nothing which remotely guarantees the preservation of any text from Christ by your own admission. No records, no chains, nothing. Were it not for the fact that Muslims believed that Christ was actually given a scripture, there'd be no hope of anything that would convince us that any teaching of Christ existed in the first place. It really was a sorry state of affairs from a documentation standpoint.

Hold the phone there sunni. There exists no contemporary writings of Muhammad either. I was discussing the incorrect statement someone had made that there is no extra biblical evidence for Christ. I was not attempting to verify or validate the Bible's impressive textual veracity (which exceeds the Quran in many ways). I would have posted far different information to show the validity of the Bible. You are having a different discussion that I or the author of what I quoted, was. He was speaking about historical records alone, and was saying that even though there are few that it is astounding how many of the few that exist record Jesus' existence. You, besides evaluating from a context neither I nor the writer had, have completely misunderstood what he was saying. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of ancient history of any kind in-spite of the fact there are relatively few documents on anyone including Caesars not to mention religious figures on the frontier of an empire centered 1000 miles away.

If you are interested I will be happy to contrast the Bible and the Quran concerning textual integrity and reliability. A new thread maybe necessary for that but you just let me know, I would look forward to it.

 

[F0uad]

Hold the phone there sunni. There exists no contemporary writings of Muhammad either.

False we even have belongings of him.

 

[1robin]

False we even have belongings of him.

F0uad, I do not intend to contend with your emotions at this time. I mentioned no belongings. I said none of his writings currently exist. If you disagree then supply evidence not rhetoric.

 

[sunni56]

Hold the phone there sunni. There exists no contemporary writings of Muhammad either. I was discussing the incorrect statement someone had made that there is no extra biblical evidence for Christ. I was not attempting to verify or validate the Bible's impressive textual veracity (which exceeds the Quran in many ways). I would have posted far different information to show the validity of the Bible. You are having a different discussion that I or the author of what I quoted, was. He was speaking about historical records alone, and was saying that even though there are few that it is astounding how many of the few that exist record Jesus' existence. You, besides evaluating from a context neither I nor the writer had, have completely misunderstood what he was saying. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of ancient history of any kind in-spite of the fact there are relatively few documents on anyone including Caesars not to mention religious figures on the frontier of an empire centered 1000 miles away.

If you are interested I will be happy to contrast the Bible and the Quran concerning textual integrity and reliability. A new thread maybe necessary for that but you just let me know, I would look forward to it.

Woah. You made some incredibly false statements there sir, not just that but the manner you wrote that really reflects your conviction-firm and unabashed. Your battle of badr monologue was pretty unbelievable as well, and I should know because I've studied the seerah with some considerable depth. It's unfortunate that I'm not the kind of forum user who spends hours typing out detailed arguments and the like, in fact, these kind of theological discussions are futile when typed out in my experiences. One other thing is that it sounds like you're ideological in your stance towards textual evidences, which leaves me wondering as to why you'd want to debate people who you will never agree with in the first place? Internet debates surrounding evidences are only fruitful if one can actually learn something from them in my opinion. I don't see the benefit here since we both seem to know what the facts (I hope) are but are adamant about what conclusions can be drawn from them... in any case, I won't be engaging in debate about this (I would argue that this isn't even up for debate... but that would lead to a debate)

 

[Quagmire]

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

I wonder if you have any idea just how transparent all of that is.

Look, it isn't at all complicated:

My opening post to you was this:

Good thing God has you to pass judgement on all this. I'm sure He's grateful for the day off. :yes:

This baffling mess was your response:

What does a more sinful man than I and most others have to offer to God for my sin? Nothing. No man with even a single sin may do anything to fix another’s sin. Christ was able to provide the perfect sacrifice (please note that even the animals sacrificed were to be perfect but even then they only pushed sin forward to Christ's death and never forgave anything). 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. Muhammad died by being poisoned by a women from a tribe he had destroyed, not as a sinless offering selected by God before the Earth was even made.

Note the part bolded: "and you are the only Muslim I have ever heard say he could have. [/B.

I'm not a Muslim (as you've been told four times now) and I never said anything even remotely like what you're claiming I said here.

Now, initially I assumed this could have just been a simple mistake on your part. Now, since, as I've said, you've been told multiple times that I'm not a Muslim, and you're still addressing me as if I were, and considering that you obviously consider "Muslim" an insult, obviously you're just playing a passive/aggressive little game.

Here's what really happened in this thread:

I caught you wallowing in a moment of self-righteousness induced auto-intoxication, and pointed it out....

. . .you realized there was no dignified way to pull that foot out of your mouth. . .

. . .so you've spend the rest of this conversation trying to call attention away from that incident by burying it under a mountain of nonsensical rhetoric, as well as trying to get even with me for pulling your covers in the first place.

I await your nonsensical, evasive, and passive/aggressively hostile reply.

 

[1robin]

Woah. You made some incredibly false statements there sir, not just that but the manner you wrote that really reflects your conviction-firm and unabashed.

What? Of course I am firm in my beliefs though I allow I may be wrong about some details. What false statements where?

Your battle of badr monologue was pretty unbelievable as well, and I should know because I've studied the seerah with some considerable depth. It's unfortunate that I'm not the kind of forum user who spends hours typing out detailed arguments and the like, in fact, these kind of theological discussions are futile when typed out in my experiences.

First, neither me nor you were there and we are at the mercy of historical records. I did not type out any description of the events. I posted them from a site. I gave the link. Second, simply asserting something is true or false is a meaningless exercise. Third, studying one side of a historical event is especially and notoriously when it is from the winning side, fraught with problems. I am sure you have read more on this battle than I but I can almost guarantee that you have not read a fraction of the military history that I have, and I have become quite familiar with battle reports and know how to weed out the reliable from the un-reliable. The Muslim account of this battle is about the most unreliable of its kind.

1. It was written by the victors.
2. It was a small event in which no large groups of people on both sides recorded it.
3. It comes from a notoriously one sided source.

These are strikes against your source that you posted no evidence from. It does not make it all wrong by any stretch but it does mean it fits the criteria of an inaccurate source.

One other thing is that it sounds like you're ideological in your stance towards textual evidences, which leaves me wondering as to why you'd want to debate people who you will never agree with in the first place?

This is absurd. There is nothing in my statement about texts that could even reveal I was ideological even if that was true. I listed a very few general academic concepts used by all textual scholars. However you did reveal your committed position apparently stuck with without even seeing what evidence I would supply. You said you would not agree with me no matter what. Now who is it that is ideological again? That is also a little hypocritical.

Internet debates surrounding evidences are only fruitful if one can actually learn something from them in my opinion. I don't see the benefit here since we both seem to know what the facts (I hope) are but are adamant about what conclusions can be drawn from them... in any case, I won't be engaging in debate about this (I would argue that this isn't even up for debate... but that would lead to a debate)

Well that was humorous and it is good to leave on a happy note. So I would appreciate it if you would review that previous post within its actual context but will of course respect you request not to debate this issue. Have a good weakened.

 

[Sha'irullah]

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?

why in the world would you think Romans only began writing 2,000 later after Jesus? That would mean that Romans never existed since the empire did not survive a period of over 2,000 years. You have made a major historical inaccuracy.

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

A man who was deemed so important that he had to be brought before a high ranking governor was not important all of the sudden?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

Sadly they do not Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because judging from your wikipedia usage there seems to be quite a lot who do not.

As for historical blunders they are all on you brother.

From an individual who believes the Roman empire lasted more then 2,000 years I could say the same.

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.

I do not see Ahmed Deedat's relevance to this debate. His opinions mean absolutely nothing to me since they do not even apply to me.

Getting back to your questions though which I find useless altogether. What makes you think I deny Jesus every existed? The post you are responding to is not based off my personal assumption, I am merely poking holes in your earlier arguments. The fact you wrote this lengthy argument is rather pitiful since you are very quick to prove to me that Isa existed.
As I have said before in an earlier debate on RF (I believe it was a thread to do with the trinitarian concept) that I believe Isa was merely a person who had a religion falsely associated with him. The deeds and actions told by the Christians about Jesus did not happen. The Gospel merely dictates the events of Jesus and many great wonders yet all of in which are not able to be found in significant non-Christian accounts. Jesus was merely a man and I am confident that no mass of individuals would conduct a story as vivid and mythological as the New Testament.
If these events were as described according to the NT then without a doubt evidence supports Jesus's existence would have been found. Your quoting of Christian sources proves nothing since it is like a Christian testifying that Christianity is the one true faith. I am going to have to side with the Qur'an despite its departure and say that Jesus at most only admitted to being the Messiah. But Hellenic deification is obviously pagan and often ruins the credibility of Jesus's existence.

 

[sunni56]

What? Of course I am firm in my beliefs though I allow I may be wrong about some details. What false statements where?
First, neither me nor you were there and we are at the mercy of historical records. I did not type out any description of the events. I posted them from a site. I gave the link. Second, simply asserting something is true or false is a meaningless exercise. Third, studying one side of a historical event is especially and notoriously when it is from the winning side, fraught with problems. I am sure you have read more on this battle than I but I can almost guarantee that you have not read a fraction of the military history that I have, and I have become quite familiar with battle reports and know how to weed out the reliable from the un-reliable. The Muslim account of this battle is about the most unreliable of its kind.

1. It was written by the victors.
2. It was a small event in which no large groups of people on both sides recorded it.
3. It comes from a notoriously one sided source.

These are strikes against your source that you posted no evidence from. It does not make it all wrong by any stretch but it does mean it fits the criteria of an inaccurate source.

This is absurd. There is nothing in my statement about texts that could even reveal I was ideological even if that was true. I listed a very few general academic concepts used by all textual scholars. However you did reveal your committed position apparently stuck with without even seeing what evidence I would supply. You said you would not agree with me no matter what. Now who is it that is ideological again? That is also a little hypocritical.

Well that was humorous and it is good to leave on a happy note. So I would appreciate it if you would review that previous post within its actual context but will of course respect you request not to debate this issue. Have a good weakened.

Have a good weekend as well

 

[1robin]

I wonder if you have any idea just how transparent all of that is.

Look, it isn't at all complicated:

My opening post to you was this:



This baffling mess was your response:



Note the part bolded: "and you are the only Muslim I have ever heard say he could have. [/B.

I'm not a Muslim (as you've been told four times now) and I never said anything even remotely like what you're claiming I said here.

Now, initially I assumed this could have just been a simple mistake on your part. Now, since, as I've said, you've been told multiple times that I'm not a Muslim, and you're still addressing me as if I were, and considering that you obviously consider "Muslim" an insult, obviously you're just playing a passive/aggressive little game.

Here's what really happened in this thread:

I caught you wallowing in a moment of self-righteousness induced auto-intoxication, and pointed it out....

. . .you realized there was no dignified way to pull that foot out of your mouth. . .

. . .so you've spend the rest of this conversation trying to call attention away from that incident by burying it under a mountain of nonsensical rhetoric, as well as trying to get even with me for pulling your covers in the first place.

I await your nonsensical, evasive, and passive/aggressively hostile reply.

Quagmire, I can't do this any longer. It's Friday, I do not agree with half of what you say and the other half makes no sense to me, nor do I see anything important enough to justify spending the time to resolve. Have a good weekend.
Just so you know there was never any manipulation of any kind on my part. I sincerely can't understand what you are talking about and have become weary of the accusations that you seem to get from a random assertion rolodex or something. I would like to know one thing though. What is WBHism?

 

[Quagmire]

Quagmire, I can't do this any longer. It's Friday, I do not agree with half of what you say and the other half makes no sense to me, nor do I see anything important enough to justify spending the time to resolve. Have a good weekend.
Just so you know there was never any manipulation of any kind on my part. I sincerely can't understand what you are talking about and have become weary of the accusations that you seem to get from a random assertion rolodex or something. I would like to know one thing though. What is WBHism?

Why do Hari Krishnas always ask me that?

 

[1robin]

Why do Hari Krishnas always ask me that?

I see you have ended with your most extreme disconnect so far. I do not even know what a Hari Krishna is. If you posted a recipe for mushroom soup next it will not suprise me.

 

[Quagmire]

I see you have ended with your most extreme disconnect so far. I do not even know what a Hari Krishna is. If you posted a recipe for mushroom soup next it will not suprise me.

And if God came down and posted all the answers to all the questions in the Universe, bet it wouldn't help you.

 

[1robin]

And if God came down and posted all the answers to all the questions in the Universe, bet it wouldn't help you.

I actually used the spiritual roadmap he gave in the most studied and cherished book of any kind in human history and met him (spiritually). I could have got more use out of the recipe. That's it I'm gone on that one.

 

[Quagmire]

I actually used the spiritual roadmap he gave in the most studied and cherished book of any kind in human history and met him (spiritually). I could have got more use out of the recipe.

I was being serious.

 

[F0uad]

F0uad, I do not intend to contend with your emotions at this time. I mentioned no belongings. I said none of his writings currently exist. If you disagree then supply evidence not rhetoric.

Well he(saws) never wrote himself he let people write for him.

You mean something like this?
[youtube]u0SsRmC6O5k[/youtube]
The Holy Prophet Muhammad 's Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine in Mt. Sinai - YouTube


Or this?
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/tabarruk/letter2.jpg

Or this?
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/tabarruk/letter1.gif


More:
Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I can probably find many more