Was Muhammad a good man?

[Aquitaine]

Robin your biggest mistake:



In the 23 years that Mohammed(saws) lived only 1500 people died this includes hes side and the enemy wherein the Bible commanded Moses(pbuh) to kill 3000 people in one single day.

Ironically right after bringing down two heavy tablets with a list of Commandments on them. One of them being "Though shall not kill".

LOL!

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ironically right after bringing down two heavy tablets with a list of Commandments on them. One of them being "Though shall not kill".

LOL!

This is one of those iconic awkward moments in internet forum history

 

[Aquitaine]

This is one of those iconic awkward moments in internet forum history

:angel2:

 

[F0uad]

Ironically right after bringing down two heavy tablets with a list of Commandments on them. One of them being "Though shall not kill".

LOL!

Well i don't condemn Moses(pbuh) or condone for the things he (allegedly) did because i am pretty sure there is a context behind certain events and why it happened that i am not aw-here of (If it did really happen).

When looking into history one has to remove ones own social reference, when one is examining a other culture. Because its unfair to superimpose ones own prejudice upon a other culture, you have to recognize each culture has its own tradition and its own way of doing things and if you try to force upon them your own ideals and own principles and your own acceptability then what you end up doing is being unjust towards a other tradition but i guess people tend to forget this.

 

[Aquitaine]

Well i don't condemn Moses(pbuh) or condone for the things he (allegedly) did because i am pretty sure there is a context behind certain events and why it happened that i am not aw-here of (If it did really happen).

Indeed there is a context, when Moses went up the mountain his followers got bored, got nekkid and started making a Calf statue out of their jewelry. Moses then came down from the mountain (with his "Though shall not kill" tablets) and became enraged at the sight of his follwers dancing around the Calf statue bollock-naked.

He then ordered his enforcers to slay the Men, Women (and possibly children) for their "crime". The OT states that "around 3000" perished in the massacre.

When looking into history one has to remove ones own social reference, when one is examining a other culture. Because its unfair to superimpose ones own prejudice upon a other culture, you have to recognize each culture has its own tradition and its own way of doing things and if you try to force upon them your own ideals and own principles and your own acceptability then what you end up doing is being unjust towards a other tradition but i guess people tend to forget this.

I 100% agree with you here, F0aud. But with people, not prophets.
Prophets are supposed to be an extension of God's will, not just some ordinary uneducated, unenlightened, frightened, superstitous peasant starving in the desert.

 

[FearGod]

Muhammad at BADR​

I have been avoiding this as it will take forever to evaluate Muhammad’s violent behavior but unfortunately I promised to do it, so I must.
My argument is based on three claims.

1. There is far too much violence perpetrated by Muhammad and his companions and associates than any kind of “defense only” or “in the service of God defense will explain”.
2. The motivation for much of what Muhammad did is obviously in some cases, and more likely than not in others, his own idea and personal motives not Allah’s.
3. That much of the violence Muhammad had a hand in has no significant similarities in the Bible’s OT violent events.

I will list some of his countless violent acts and where possible give a Muslim source and any details that are important. Muslims keep in mind I do not claim omniscience but I do claim sincerity. There may be some of these claims that are debatable but even if I conceded every one there is still so many left that have no reasonable explanation my claims above still stand. I am not bounded by any Islamic Hadiths or accepted scholars. I am only bound by what I find credible.

Badr was called the Day of Furqaan and which means the day that Allah clearly distinguished truth from falsehood.

Allah supported the army of muslims where they were very few compared to the disbelievers and it was the first victory which has gave more power to Islam and people started to have the confidence that Mohammed PBUH was the real messenger of God.

The disbelievers declared the war against prophet Mohammed PBUH because he was guiding his people to the truth whereas their leaders wanted them to live in ignorance.

Prophet Mohammed PBUH was defending the poor and the oppressed.

Prophet Mohammed fought to stop burying the innocent girls while they were alive.

When any of them is given the good tidings of a girl, his face is darkened and he chokes inwardly, as he hides himself from the people because of the evil of the good tidings that have been given to him, whether he shall preserve her in humiliation, or trample her into the dust. (al-Nahl, 16.58-9)

[FONT=verdana,arial]When the female (infant) buried alive is questioned - for what crime was she killed? (al-Takwir, 81.8-9)
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial]Do not slay your children because of the fear of poverty: We provide you and them. (al-An‘am, 6.151)[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial]One day, after Muhammad’s declaration of his Prophethood, one of his Companions came to him and narrated what he had done with his little daughter:[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial]O Messenger of God, I had a daughter. One day I told her mother to dress her as I was taking her to her uncle - the poor mother knew what this meant, but she could do nothing but obey and weep. My wife dressed the infant, who was rejoicing at the news of going to the uncle. I took her near a well, and told her to look down into the well. While she was looking into the well, I kicked her into it. While she was rolling down, she was shouting ‘Dad, Dad!’[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial]As he was recounting this, the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, sobbed as if he had lost one of his nearest kinsfolk [/FONT]

First I find it very strange the Muhammad only received permission to fight when he was strong. He was quite peaceful and never had to defend himself by killing hundreds of people when he was week. The God of the Bible was able to give VICTORY even when his human resources were very weak. David drove of an entire army off by killing a giant. Gideon was told to send 99% of the army home and the rest drove away a massive army because God was actually with them. However with Muhammad, as in many other instances, he is not acting in the same way.

The army of muslims were few in numbers and not as you claimed to be stronger,so it is a lie to say that Mohammed PBUH fought because he was stronger,that is a false information.

If you asked many scholars what the Quran says, many would ask, which one? They actually speak of a Meccan Quran and a Medina Quran. Most of the peaceful verses are from the Medina timeframe when he was weak. The terribly violent ones come from the later Medina period when Muhammad was strong. BTW the later violent verses abrogate (over turn) the earlier peaceful ones so many of those verses used in defense of Islam and its peacefulness are actually invalidated by the violent verses.

Again you are showing that the prophet fought only because he was strong at the time of Badr and that isn't true,because muslims were few in number.

But yes after long period of time,islam became the strongest army in the world and the Islamic Empire reached Spain in the west and China in the east.

 

[FearGod]

As scholars and Islamic Jurisprudence experts well know:

Rather than explain away inconsistencies in passages regulating the Muslim community, many jurists acknowledge the differences but accept that latter verses trump earlier verses. Most scholars divide the Qur'an into verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca when his community of followers was weak and more inclined to compromise, and those revealed in Medina, where Muhammad's strength grew.
Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam :: Middle East Quarterly

The grouth of power and strength of muslims is an evidence that they were supported by the power of God as they started from weakness to the well known and most advanced powerful Empire in the world which the last was the ottoman empire

Now would any unbiased person think that Muhammad was told by an almighty God to get along until he was strong and then he was told to assassinate, oppress, invade, and retaliate in battle after battle. This looks exactly like a man trying to unite a bunch of separated tribes under a single unifying theology that he invented. God does not need Muhammad’s henchmen to accomplish what he wishes. He could destroy Muhammad’s enemies in a nano-second even if Muhammad was on vacation and had no followers. The biblical God accomplished tasks vastly grander with no army at all. Again this looks like a man not a God writing this stuff. It will not work to suggest that he did not have any offenses to defend against until he got to Medina either. He was resented in both places and he started many of the fights in Medina as I will shortly demonstrate.

i can't find anything in your words except that Mohammed was strong at the time of wars,all your post can be shorten to few sentences.

You're saying that God doesn't need Mohammed PBUH to fight but god can kill the disbelievers without fighting.

Then explain to us what is armageddon,as your God will be descended from heaven to fight all nations,why your God need the battle

I guess Chronology is the way to go, although the Quran’s writers thought mixing everything up a better way.

The context of Muhammad’s followers immediately before his career of violence began was he had moved to Mecca because a tribe there had offered him their fighters in trade for him becoming their leader. Up until this time he had been resented by most of Medina and he had few followers. (BTW I am sure there were wrongs on both sides in Medina). He and his men were poor, hungry, apparently frustrated with some wrongs suffered in Medina at the hands of the Quraysh, and looking for revenge. The significant tribes and families of Yathrib wished him to unite them and bring peace to the feuding there. They got the exact opposite. This is a good place to include the fact that for the first peaceful 13 years of Islam, Muhammad had around 150 followers and over the next 10 violent years that increased to around 100,000. It seems Islam thrives on violence.

I will post these chronologically but not exhaustively.

1. The first significant action was the AL IS Caravan raid. Muhammad set out to attack and plunder a caravan led by Abu Jahl. Apparently the 300 people with the caravan were too many for the Muslims as a third party talked both sides out of fighting.
Source: Indian Muslim author Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Comments: Now if Allah had ordered this raid what are the Muslims doing giving up? If not then why were they attacking to begin with? Most sources say loot and pleasure.

Continued below:

All what you brought here is a silly propaganda against Islam.

The truth is that Islam is forbidding prostitution,murdering,stealing,wines and all awful things in life and as i can see that most christians nowadays are preferring atheism because they found no differences between both except that you need Jesus for heaven and that to me looks ridiculous.

it is as to say " live the life of the atheist,but just trust Jesus for salvation "

 

[1robin]

Robin your biggest mistake:



In the 23 years that Mohammed(saws) lived only 1500 people died this includes hes side and the enemy wherein the Bible commanded Moses(pbuh) to kill 3000 people in one single day.

I certainly expected more from you than this. I thought I would be bogged down in intellectual and historical gymnastics in an attempt to make a raid for money and vengeance look like self-defense. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by "much". I did not mean the amount. I meant the percentage of acts that cannot be attributed to God, but to the man involved. What Moses did (while very disturbing and regrettable) bears every mark possible of a God initiated action. It was not in Moses interest to kill these people. He gave them the simplest and easiest way possible to get out of this penalty. He asked anyone who was on God's side to come to him. The rest signed their own death warrants. You have shown nothing beyond what I would have conceded from the start (and in fact have done so), that there is much violence in the OT. However as in this case it is God ordered and done for spiritual reasons not as in the Battle of Badr for loot and revenge for wrongs suffered in countless back and forth raids (which evidence suggests and was posted that Muhammad began himself). If you notice I never mentioned the numbers killed because if God killed us all it would be just. My point was that most of what Muhammad did does not look anything like something God would do. It looks exactly like what a violent, petty, and greedy man would do. That is the difference. However your numbers are wrong. The single massacre at Qurayza was about 800. I can post numbers far beyond your but this is not necessary. Islam has a single prophet and it is a very sacred teaching that his actions are to be repeated by his followers. His violent example (whether 100 or 100,000) has led to millions of deaths at the hands of Muslims since Muhammad’s time and the excuse given for most is Muhammad’s example. So far no one has actually offered a challenge to what I posted but if someone actually does then we will eventually get into exactly what Muhammad's example began. The very sad and sadistic example he set is still seen on the news every night. His legacy is currently the worst threat to security and peace on the Earth.


Moses story:
New International Version (©2011)
So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!" Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'"
http://bible.cc/exodus/32-27.htm
Not for loot.
Not for any vengeance Moses wanted to carry out. (Moses had in fact pleaded with God to spare them many times).
Not after a long string of terrorist actions instigated by Moses.

No petty human reason, but because the people had abandoned the God that had delivered them from Egypt and had made a useless chunk of Gold their new God the minute Moses was away. I do not like stories like this or the battle of Badr, but it is hard to blame God and it is impossible to excuse Muhammad. BTW Moses demonstrated more than necessary that he was truly a prophet from God and spoke God's actual words and carried out God's actual commands. If Muhammad parted the Red Sea, Brought a Pharaoh to his knees, or produced water from a rock then he might be believable when he says he talks for God. He did not, and there for I do not believe he did so (for countless other reasons as well).


You told me to focus, and then in a post about Muhammad's raid you talked only of the Bible.

 

[1robin]

The growth of power and strength of muslims is an evidence that they were supported by the power of God as they started from weakness to the well known and most advanced powerful Empire in the world which the last was the ottoman empire

What? The only thing the Islamic empire (there is really no empire to it) is known for these days is oppression, violence, and dysfunction. Are you referring to its climax in the 7th and 8th century? I have studied military history my entire life and the Islamic contribution is barely a brief footnote unless the Middle East only, is being discussed. The real players were Rome (The Muslims only defeated a shell of one half of their disintegrating empire long after they had fallen apart) Greece, Persia, China, Russia, Germany, Britain, and the US. I have a lot to say on this but you will have to first tell me what it is you are talking about. By the way why isn't Allah helping the Muslim armies that outnumber the tiny nation of Israel by 10 times over when they have lost in a embarrassing way every war they started and Israel finished? Why is the Middle East among the most dysfunctional areas on Earth? I can see it coming that is somehow someone else’s fault.

i can't find anything in your words except that Mohammed was strong at the time of wars,all your post can be shorten to few sentences.
You're saying that God doesn't need Mohammed PBUH to fight but god can kill the disbelievers without fighting.

No. I said God is recorded in the Bible as being able to take care of business without needing a strong army. In fact he seems to prefer a small and week one. That is what seems like what a God would do. Muhammad had to get along when week and went medieval on anything that moved (or wrote poetry it seems) when he became strong. That is what men do not God.

Then explain to us what is Armageddon, as your God will be descended from heaven to fight all nations, why your God need the battle

This is absurd.
1. First my point was that since God is fighting the size of the human army matters little. Specifically because it is God that is fighting or causing victory to occur.
2. You then ask why does God fight at Armageddon. That makes no sense. That is an example of exactly what I said God does but Muhammad does not. He fights for his Children, Muhammad fights for Muhammad.
3. Armageddon is a perfect example of what I said. Israel is attacked by the enemy nations of God and God does not tell Israel to simply get along like Muhammad had to because no God was available to him. No Israel is said not to worry that God will fight for them.
4. By the way every single nation mention in the Bible that Christ goes to war with in Armageddon is a Muslim nation at this time.
5. You brought up the best proof for my case you could have. Nice job. I may just let you make my arguments for me.

All what you brought here is a silly propaganda against Islam.

You know this tired mantra just gets old and has long ago made Muslims loose credibility. Most of my statements came from secular historians, Muslim scholars, and well respected researchers on Islam. I am sorry you find historical facts inconvenient but this tired excuse will not help. If so biased why did you not give a single example of a mistake in the entire two posts on one battle. In any post that long there is always a mistake or two. Do you not even try before you give up and yell bias?

The truth is that Islam is forbidding prostitution,murdering,stealing,wines and all awful things in life and as i can see that most christians nowadays are preferring atheism because they found no differences between both except that you need Jesus for heaven and that to me looks ridiculous.

As another Muslim poster likes to say. Stay focused. I can debate any of those issues but right now we are discussing two examples of Muhammad's violence for personal and dishonorable reasons. I will discuss any other points you wish later or somewhere else but I will not be distracted here.

it is as to say " live the life of the atheist, but just trust Jesus for salvation "

Is that why it is always the western Christian nations that are first on the scene when natural disasters strike (even their enemies) and many times no Islamic or atheist nations anywhere to be seen. Let's get back to Muhammad, please.

 

[Assad91]

HA! Talk about "intellectual and historic gymnastics" :rollseyes:

 

[1robin]

Badr was called the Day of Furqaan and which means the day that Allah clearly distinguished truth from falsehood.

Sorry I responded out of order. What a bunch of Biased people call a day well after the events take place is hardly an argument.

Allah supported the army of Muslims where they were very few compared to the disbelievers and it was the first victory which has gave more power to Islam and people started to have the confidence that Mohammed PBUH was the real messenger of God.

Why is he doing the exact opposite in Israel time after time? Generals Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Cromwell, Napoleon and countless others won far more battles while far more understrength I suppose God liked them better. Badr is called a Battle but Muslims have no idea what a Battle actual is. There were approx. a thousand men on both sides. In WWI just the list of missing in one Battle on one side was 60,000. Muslims may call this a battle, Americans, Britains, Germans, and Russians would call it a light skirmish before breakfast. The issue was the motivation, not who won or the numbers involved.

The disbelievers declared the war against prophet Mohammed PBUH because he was guiding his people to the truth whereas their leaders wanted them to live in ignorance.

No they did not declare war. They did not like him because he was dishonorable and both sides performed cowardly and dishonorable raids and assassinations on each other. Muhammad with the most by far. I am not on Muhammad's enemies side and condemn them as well but they are not claiming to be prophets are they?

Prophet Mohammed PBUH was defending the poor and the oppressed.

This is not what history tells us and simply asserting it is no argument. When we get to the men and women he assassinated in cold blood for no better reasons that writing poetry he did not like then this assertion can be defended in detail if you wish.

Prophet Mohammed fought to stop burying the innocent girls while they were alive.

The mark of a prophet is not doing something good every once in a while. Hitler even acted benevolently at times. BTW do you know how many divisions of the Wauffen SS were Islamic and the number of genocides they committed for Hitler? Prophets should only do God's will. I do not think killing 8oo Jews because they would not do what a treaty forced on them by Muhammad, is Godly. I do not think killing children, the elderly, and women because Muhammad was insulted, Godly.

When any of them is given the good tidings of a girl, his face is darkened and he chokes inwardly, as he hides himself from the people because of the evil of the good tidings that have been given to him, whether he shall preserve her in humiliation, or trample her into the dust. (al-Nahl, 16.58-9)
When the female (infant) buried alive is questioned - for what crime was she killed? (al-Takwir, 81.8-9)
Do not slay your children because of the fear of poverty: We provide you and them. (al-An‘am, 6.151)
One day, after Muhammad’s declaration of his Prophethood, one of his Companions came to him and narrated what he had done with his little daughter:
O Messenger of God, I had a daughter. One day I told her mother to dress her as I was taking her to her uncle - the poor mother knew what this meant, but she could do nothing but obey and weep. My wife dressed the infant, who was rejoicing at the news of going to the uncle. I took her near a well, and told her to look down into the well. While she was looking into the well, I kicked her into it. While she was rolling down, she was shouting ‘Dad, Dad!’
As he was recounting this, the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, sobbed as if he had lost one of his nearest kinsfolk

I have never said Muhammad only did evil. Stalin did not do only evil, Genghis Khaun did good at times. However a prophet is supposed to be better than killing for personal reasons and assassinating people the simply disagree with them in cold blood. In fact in Islam a prophet is supposed to be sinless That is wrong but it is what Muhammad's standard is claimed to be.

The army of Muslims were few in numbers and not as you claimed to be stronger,so it is a lie to say that Mohammed PBUH fought because he was stronger,that is a false information.

I never said they were stronger than the people they attacked. I said they were stronger than Muhammad was in the previous 13 years. An army that bushwhacks another (as is Islams tactics many times) is worth 5 times their numbers. However in this battle the Muslims did fight well but that has nothin to do witth anything and not what I posted.

Again you are showing that the prophet fought only because he was strong at the time of Badr and that isn't true,because muslims were few in number.

They were not few though the participants in this battle were few on both sides. Muhammad had been given the use of all the tribes warriors for his leadership and uniting of the clans. Once again I said stronger than previously not stronger than any particular enemy.

But yes after long period of time,islam became the strongest army in the world and the Islamic Empire reached Spain in the west and China in the east.

They reached Spain and were defeated by Christian knights and fell apart after a short climax an lost most of what the had taken from primitive tribes around the Med. Islam conquered people that were not united, had a small if any army, or were shadows of empires that if in THEIR prime could have conquered every Muslim country on Earth. That is not to say Islam was never a powerful force, but it was brief and in no way compares to the great armies of history. What does any of this have to do with Muhammad and his violent acts commuted on his own desires? If the culture with the best army is Godly then currently the US is 100 greater than any other culture in human history, or in their day the Spartans, the Macedonians, the Roman legions, the Persian hordes, and countless other armies were far better that any Islamic army ever was for their day. So far no one has said anything that effects what I originally posted and believe me this was one of the easiest ones to attack compared with the later more despicable ones.

 

[1robin]

Ironically right after bringing down two heavy tablets with a list of Commandments on them. One of them being "Though shall not kill".

LOL!

He brought down tablets that said thou shall not Murder (kill without justification). Your version is about a 2000 years later and incorrect. When God kills, it is justified and not murder. In fact he is the only entity that can know for certain if any act is ever actually just. He is also the one that had freed them from bondage through all kinds of wonders and power worked through Moses. Moses had demonstrated that he was from God in no uncertain terms. Muhammad refused to demonstrate it even when asked to do what the real prophets had done to prove what his source was. The instant Moses was gone the very people he had saved created a false God and worshiped it. God still did not wipe them out (though even if he killed them then, who can say he was not just). He asked them who was on his side (using Moses) and the ones who CHOSE not to be were killed. I also imagine even this would not have been done with the exception that at this crucial point he did not want dissention watering down the faithful. It is the context that makes all the difference at least that is my contention.

 

[1robin]

This is one of those iconic awkward moments in internet forum history

Not if the claim made was accurate or examined properly. There is no contradiction to be found, however irony is certainly present. See my previous post. I fully expected to stir up a hornets nest but I expected it to argue with the evidence I gave about Muhammad (in a Muhammad thread) not the Bible.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Not if the claim made was accurate or examined properly. There is no contradiction to be found, however irony is certainly present. See my previous post. I fully expected to stir up a hornets nest but I expected it to argue with the evidence I gave about Muhammad (in a Muhammad thread) not the Bible.

? You are aware I am referring to the irony of Muhammad killing and yet it is written in the OT that thou shalt not kill. That is the irony. This has nothing to do about Moses as it is about Muhammad and his alleged continuity of the Christian and Judaic faith.

 

[1robin]

? You are aware I am referring to the irony of Muhammad killing and yet it is written in the OT that thou shalt not kill. That is the irony. This has nothing to do about Moses as it is about Muhammad and his alleged continuity of the Christian and Judaic faith.

I agreed that irony abounds in this instance. I could not make the argument that Muhammad killed so he must not be from God. I can't do that because the OT is full of killing and there is no denying it. What I am arguing is God motivated all legitimate killings in the OT and Muhammad motivated the killings in Islamic history. There are illegitimate killings in the Bible as well but they are never sanctioned by God and even punished severely by him. It is the context that makes the difference. I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[FearGod]

What? The only thing the Islamic empire (there is really no empire to it) is known for these days is oppression, violence, and dysfunction. Are you referring to its climax in the 7th and 8th century? I have studied military history my entire life and the Islamic contribution is barely a brief footnote unless the Middle East only, is being discussed. The real players were Rome (The Muslims only defeated a shell of one half of their disintegrating empire long after they had fallen apart) Greece, Persia, China, Russia, Germany, Britain, and the US. I have a lot to say on this but you will have to first tell me what it is you are talking about.

You re even trying to falsify the fact of the great empire of Islam while Europe was in full darkness.

The prophet PBUH was just one,and his followers were very few,then in very short period of time Islam reached Spain in the year 711 and to the far east "China".

[youtube]OGhr0eZGdio[/youtube]
The Golden Age of Islam under Khilafah

By the way why isn't Allah helping the Muslim armies that outnumber the tiny nation of Israel by 10 times over when they have lost in a embarrassing way every war they started and Israel finished? Why is the Middle East among the most dysfunctional areas on Earth? I can see it coming that is somehow someone else’s fault.

Yes Israel nowadays are strong and that is already mentioned in the quran,and yes muslims will be in a weak position till god's promise is fulfilled and jews will be gathered and trapped in Palestine and Jesus PBUH will lead muslims in the final war and the god of the disbelievers (antichrist) with his army will lose forever.

[youtube]hu5py5rUCQk[/youtube]
Hadith: Return of the Khilafah - YouTube

No. I said God is recorded in the Bible as being able to take care of business without needing a strong army. In fact he seems to prefer a small and week one. That is what seems like what a God would do. Muhammad had to get along when week and went medieval on anything that moved (or wrote poetry it seems) when he became strong. That is what men do not God.

This is absurd.
1. First my point was that since God is fighting the size of the human army matters little. Specifically because it is God that is fighting or causing victory to occur.
2. You then ask why does God fight at Armageddon. That makes no sense. That is an example of exactly what I said God does but Muhammad does not. He fights for his Children, Muhammad fights for Muhammad.
3. Armageddon is a perfect example of what I said. Israel is attacked by the enemy nations of God and God does not tell Israel to simply get along like Muhammad had to because no God was available to him. No Israel is said not to worry that God will fight for them.
4. By the way every single nation mention in the Bible that Christ goes to war with in Armageddon is a Muslim nation at this time.
5. You brought up the best proof for my case you could have. Nice job. I may just let you make my arguments for me.
You know this tired mantra just gets old and has long ago made Muslims loose credibility. Most of my statements came from secular historians, Muslim scholars, and well respected researchers on Islam. I am sorry you find historical facts inconvenient but this tired excuse will not help. If so biased why did you not give a single example of a mistake in the entire two posts on one battle. In any post that long there is always a mistake or two. Do you not even try before you give up and yell bias?
As another Muslim poster likes to say. Stay focused. I can debate any of those issues but right now we are discussing two examples of Muhammad's violence for personal and dishonorable reasons. I will discuss any other points you wish later or somewhere else but I will not be distracted here.
Is that why it is always the western Christian nations that are first on the scene when natural disasters strike (even their enemies) and many times no Islamic or atheist nations anywhere to be seen. Let's get back to Muhammad, please.

Israel isn't in need for god to protect it and you have said it yourself that Israel is much stronger than all islamic nations,so why they are in need for your God to fight and protect the children of Israel whom are the best people in our world.

So you are the one contradicting yourself by saying that god can destroy in millisecond while in armageddon as it is known as a war,a battle and armies and why not your god doing it in millisecond and why he has to fight as humans do.

Your logic is absurd and your propaganda against Mohammed PBUH and Islam is so weak.

 

[Aquitaine]

He brought down tablets that said thou shall not Murder (kill without justification). Your version is about a 2000 years later and incorrect. When God kills, it is justified and not murder. In fact he is the only entity that can know for certain if any act is ever actually just. He is also the one that had freed them from bondage through all kinds of wonders and power worked through Moses. Moses had demonstrated that he was from God in no uncertain terms. Muhammad refused to demonstrate it even when asked to do what the real prophets had done to prove what his source was. The instant Moses was gone the very people he had saved created a false God and worshiped it. God still did not wipe them out (though even if he killed them then, who can say he was not just). He asked them who was on his side (using Moses) and the ones who CHOSE not to be were killed. I also imagine even this would not have been done with the exception that at this crucial point he did not want dissention watering down the faithful. It is the context that makes all the difference at least that is my contention.

With all due respect, if you think Moses was justified in executing 3000 people for worshipping a "statue" made from their own jewellery - then you demonstrate the ethical and enlightened capacity of a Goldfish. That is my contention.

 

[F0uad]

I certainly expected more from you than this. I thought I would be bogged down in intellectual and historical gymnastics in an attempt to make a raid for money and vengeance look like self-defense. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by "much". I did not mean the amount. I meant the percentage of acts that cannot be attributed to God, but to the man involved. What Moses did (while very disturbing and regrettable) bears every mark possible of a God initiated action. It was not in Moses interest to kill these people. He gave them the simplest and easiest way possible to get out of this penalty. He asked anyone who was on God's side to come to him. The rest signed their own death warrants. You have shown nothing beyond what I would have conceded from the start (and in fact have done so), that there is much violence in the OT. However as in this case it is God ordered and done for spiritual reasons not as in the Battle of Badr for loot and revenge for wrongs suffered in countless back and forth raids (which evidence suggests and was posted that Muhammad began himself). If you notice I never mentioned the numbers killed because if God killed us all it would be just. My point was that most of what Muhammad did does not look anything like something God would do. It looks exactly like what a violent, petty, and greedy man would do. That is the difference. However your numbers are wrong. The single massacre at Qurayza was about 800. I can post numbers far beyond your but this is not necessary. Islam has a single prophet and it is a very sacred teaching that his actions are to be repeated by his followers. His violent example (whether 100 or 100,000) has led to millions of deaths at the hands of Muslims since Muhammad’s time and the excuse given for most is Muhammad’s example. So far no one has actually offered a challenge to what I posted but if someone actually does then we will eventually get into exactly what Muhammad's example began. The very sad and sadistic example he set is still seen on the news every night. His legacy is currently the worst threat to security and peace on the Earth.


Moses story:
New International Version (©2011)
So I told them, 'Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off.' Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!" Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies. So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him. Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'"
http://bible.cc/exodus/32-27.htm
Not for loot.
Not for any vengeance Moses wanted to carry out. (Moses had in fact pleaded with God to spare them many times).
Not after a long string of terrorist actions instigated by Moses.

No petty human reason, but because the people had abandoned the God that had delivered them from Egypt and had made a useless chunk of Gold their new God the minute Moses was away. I do not like stories like this or the battle of Badr, but it is hard to blame God and it is impossible to excuse Muhammad. BTW Moses demonstrated more than necessary that he was truly a prophet from God and spoke God's actual words and carried out God's actual commands. If Muhammad parted the Red Sea, Brought a Pharaoh to his knees, or produced water from a rock then he might be believable when he says he talks for God. He did not, and there for I do not believe he did so (for countless other reasons as well).


You told me to focus, and then in a post about Muhammad's raid you talked only of the Bible.

O please show me the numbers.. please do.
You have made so many claims in this thread that are wrong so i hope you can give me the correct number if i am incorrect.

You still didn't condemn

Exodus 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died

 

[F0uad]

I agreed that irony abounds in this instance. I could not make the argument that Muhammad killed so he must not be from God. I can't do that because the OT is full of killing and there is no denying it. What I am arguing is God motivated all legitimate killings in the OT and Muhammad motivated the killings in Islamic history. There are illegitimate killings in the Bible as well but they are never sanctioned by God and even punished severely by him. It is the context that makes the difference. I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

Nope god also motivated the all legitimate killings in the hadith why can the god of the old-testament legitimate it but when its about the hadith it cant? The Quran is clear on this when it says "Fight Back" and not "Fight"

 

[F0uad]

the koran is very clear..
Allah has destined them to wander the hot wind in the hereafter

alive..
lol
behead the leader of church..
write him off..
not literally kill idiots.

jesus is head of body of church..
treat them as if they are dead..
they are dead to you..
not your right to tear down what Allah put up.
they are here to aid you..
your trial includes doubts because the infidels justice has not been dealt..
then you play god.
"those who believe fear neither harm nor injustice"
sura 72:13

What?