Was Muhammad a good man?

[FearGod]

So is the evidence for Caesar (He existed), so is the evidence for Thermopylae (it happened), so are the stories about Allah and Muhammad yet you believe both existed and that the stories are true. Why is it only historical claims that you do not like that all of a sudden become unreliable? My sources were either Islamic or professional historians. What they claimed is as historically valid (probably much more so that) anything in the Quran.

This is how Islam survives. It ignores or dismisses anything it does not like. It claims bias but does not prove it (or even attempt to in this case), then use biased sources themselves. They even dismiss their own hadiths if they do not like them, in fact I have seen them condemn one part of a sentence and accept the other part in a hadith. It claims inconvenient history to be just stories but never shows them inaccurate in any way. It claims facts are wrong but never posts the true facts. Claims the Bible is wrong but until recently had no way what so ever to determine which verses (if any) were corrupt. In other words it survives on non-truth. Everything I posted was as historically valid as anything in any Hadith or the Quran.

You have no made a counter argument you have refused to debate the issues. Why bother? Muhammad killed, assassinated, and tortured many people without ANY historical justification whether you dismiss it or not.

It is up to you what you want to believe and it is up to me what i want to believe,
it is just as simple as this.

Some believe that Jesus was a liar,othes believe he was the son of God and some others believe that he was a prophet,so there are many stories and there are several different beliefs.

You hate prophet Mohammed PBUH and you believe all bad stories about him whereas me and other muslims believe the good stories about him.

For example if i told you that Jesus is a myth and the NT is authored by men.

Can you prove to me that Jesus did exist and can you prove that all stories about him is a fact.

i think you're wasting your time and ours in discussing the nonsense.

 

[credance]

So how many lovers and followers are to Hitler ?

You didn't reply about yourself,if you think that you are better than Mohammed PBUH or maybe you can be a hero from now by typing some nonsense words while you're laying at bed.

Why do you use Hitler as an example?
Would it absurd to use to use examples such as Gandi, Mother Teresa, or Martin Luther King as comparisons.
And as for typing some nonsense words, how about these?
Do unto others as would have them do unto you.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hello Archer, you must have a rolodex of avatars became I keep thinking you are new here. You did not post this to me but I wanted to point out one thing here.

It does seem that way does it. I run through avatars faster than Bill Clinton runs out of women

I am not judging Muhammad verses other conquerors. He was neither the most brutal, the most militaristic, the most successful, nor the most skilled. Other conquerors did not claim to be prophets. I am comparing Muhammad with other prophets. Only Biblical prophets did historically reliable demonstrations of their supernatural source and they are the only one I believe were from God so it is them that I compare him to.

I am fully aware of this and my post was not entirely meant for you but just for people in general. I felt as if I had to defend Muhammad's name. Which I do not really know why perhaps. But quenching the fuel of Muhammad's actions in the views of non Abrahamic followers and non-theists is highly important as well. I do understand your views about Muhammad and the other prophets in the Bible. But Muhammad's character is being debated here not his authenticity as a prophet.

1. Muhammad did not come from the one and only line of prophets given in the BIble.

I find this irrelevant since it is more closely tied with Judaic nationalism with the Tanakh was founded upon.

2. Biblical prophets did miracle after miracle to validate their claims.

The fact Muhammad performed no such outrageous miracles only makes his word more credible to me.

3. Muhammad did nothing supernatural to justify his claim even when it was demanded of him.

Again this makes him more credible. The supernatural miracles described in other faiths are nothing but the works of men and their imaginations or misunderstandings of events. Miracles in the way described in mythology do not exist and never will.

4. Muhammad’s actions look exactly like what a violent, power hungry, tyrannical 7th century Arabian would. Half the time there it is not even possible to argue Allah had anything to do with what his violent acts.

Muhammad's action look more like a civil conquerer. His acts of violence stopped ongoing feuds and leveled out much of the continuing battles between tribes. He provided a unified Arab world.

5. The Quran without any doubt what so ever borrowed literally word for word from gnostic and pagan texts known to exist during his time.

Very little of the Qur'an consists of Wathaniyya analogy as it mostly derives itself from the Tanakh and Gospels. The Qur'an is without a doubt the improvement of the collective OT and NT. But it does contain ritualistic pre-Islamic practices and concepts but they are immediately meshed within the Judaic collective thought.

6. Virtually every ceremony (prayers, pilgrimage, kissing the stone, circling the Kaaba) all were adopted from pagan practices in exact detail.

This is irrelevant to Muhammad's character

7. He suffered symptoms (admitted by his companions and wives) that are an exact match to what the Bible describes as consistent with demonic influence or possession.

Demons never possessed Muhammad nor are they proven to exist. The cases of these occurrences are false and have been weak speculation which have also lead people to declare he had epilepsy.
I believe in a possibility that god creates other beings besides humans, perhaps in what we call spirits. But to give them the power to have dominion over us is utterly ludicrous. I also find it surprising that in the Bible mankind is greater than angels and will one day judge them yet somehow we are weaker than demons. The hierarchy seems a bit off but perhaps that is because god let Satan have dominion over the world.


IOW where ever he rates as a conqueror he is a pitiful excuse for a prophet.

He constructed the Qur'an. A book with far less contradictions and absurdities than the BIble that also maintains simplicity. If you believe Muhammad was a false prophet then I find it ironic due to the fact he was able to concoct a corrupt book that just so happened to be better than the "true" book.

No one has yet even attempted to explain this, perhaps you will.
Why were the first 13 PEACEFULL years of Islam almost devoid of recruits (less than 150)? Why were the next very violent and lucrative 10 years so much better for getting followers (over 100,000)?

In the words of his greatness Julius Caesar "Veni, vidi, vici". The first 13 years did not consist of any travel spreading of Muhammad's ayah so things were rather immobile due to their position. The actual true spread of Islam did not occur until after the hijra.

The message was the same only the loot and power gained by violent and blood thirsty actions had changed? Islam was built on violence towards others. Christianity was built on the violence towards Christ. Islam converted empires by force and oppression. Christianity converted Empires that oppressed them by truth and the spirit of God. At the battle of Badr two non Muslims showed up to help so they could get some of the treasure. Muhammad said they could not fight (under a Muslim treaty condition) so they instantly converted. They are symptomatic of flocks of Arabians converting for profit and once again shows the religion was not from any God.

Christianity as we all know converted people by the sword and ripped the Pagan cultures apart and tore straight through the Germanic tribes. I am not going to debate history as it is already well known. All of Europe did its best to keep its pagan customs and to this day you have neo-pagans trying to revive it in Germany and Scandinavia. The violence caused by Christianity is beyond obvious.
Muhammad looted. The winner always takes the spoils no different than how Christians sacked every territory they advanced upon including their own "Holy Land".
No religion is from god because all religion is speculative. No holy book is perfect no matter how peaceful it is and how modernized the religion has become. Many men have been declared prophets or inspired by god but this is only because of the superstition of that era. I admire Hindus for accepting this and how some of them views their scriptures as philosophical pieces of work and abide by them not because of religious commandment but because of personal understanding and opinion.

 

[1robin]

.....Continued
"Nevertheless, after a certain time, and through the transgression of both the Muḥammadans and the Christians, hatred and enmity arose between them. Beyond this fact, all the narrations of the Muslims, Christians and others are simply fabrications, which have their origin in fanaticism, or ignorance, or emanate from intense hostility. For example, the Muslims say that Muḥammad cleft the moon, and that it fell on the mountain of Mecca: they think that the moon is a small body which Muḥammad divided into two parts and threw one part on this mountain, and the other part on another mountain.
Such stories are pure fanaticism. Also the traditions which the clergy quote, and the incidents with which they find fault, are all exaggerated, if not entirely without foundation.
Briefly, Muḥammad appeared in the desert of Ḥijáz in the Arabian Peninsula, which was a desolate, sterile wilderness, sandy and uninhabited. Some parts, like Mecca and Medina, are extremely hot; the people are nomads with the manners and customs of the dwellers in the desert, and are entirely destitute of education and science. Muḥammad Himself was illiterate, and the Qur’án was originally written upon the bladebones of sheep, or on palm leaves. These details indicate the condition of the people to whom Muḥammad was sent. The first question which He put to them was, "Why do you not accept the Pentateuch and the Gospel, and why do you not believe in Christ and in Moses?" This saying presented difficulties to them, and they argued, "Our forefathers did not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel; tell us, why was this?" He answered, "They were misled; you ought to reject those who do not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel, even though they are your fathers and your ancestors."
In such a country, and amidst such barbarous tribes, an illiterate Man produced a book in which, in a perfect and eloquent style, He explained the divine attributes and perfections, the prophethood of the Messengers of God, the divine laws, and some scientific facts.
Thus, you know that before the observations of modern times—that is to say, during the first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era—all the mathematicians of the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun.* Until his time all the astronomers and philosophers of the world followed the Ptolemaic system, and whoever said anything against it was considered ignorant. Though Pythagoras, and Plato during the latter part of his life, adopted the theory that the annual movement of the sun around the zodiac does not proceed from the sun, but rather from the movement of the earth around the sun, this theory had been entirely forgotten, and the Ptolemaic system was accepted by all mathematicians. But there are some verses revealed in the Qur’án contrary to the theory of the Ptolemaic system. One of them is "The sun moves in a fixed place," which shows the fixity of the sun, and its movement around an axis.† Again, in another verse, "And each star moves in its own heaven."‡ Thus is explained the movement of the sun, of the moon, of the earth, and of other bodies. When the Qur’án appeared, all the mathematicians ridiculed these statements and attributed the theory to ignorance. Even the doctors of Islám, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.
It was not until after the fifteenth century of the Christian era, nearly nine hundred years after Muḥammad, that a famous astronomer made new observations and important discoveries by
the aid of the telescope, which he had invented.* The rotation of the earth, the fixity of the sun, and also its movement around an axis, were discovered. It became evident that the verses of the Qur’án agreed with existing facts, and that the Ptolemaic system was imaginary.
In short, many Oriental peoples have been reared for thirteen centuries under the shadow of the religion of Muhammad. During the Middle Ages, while Europe was in the lowest depths of barbarism, the Arab peoples were superior to the other nations of the earth in learning, in the arts, mathematics, civilization, government and other sciences. The Enlightener and Educator of these Arab tribes, and the Founder of the civilization and perfections of humanity among these different races, was an illiterate Man, Muhammad. Was this illustrious Man a thorough Educator or not? A just judgment is necessary."
Abdulbaha - Some Answered Questions, p.10-13

Please let this reply apply to this and your previous post. I had to say so little after you typed so much, I am usually on the opposite side of that inequality. I agree with many things contained in your posts but where it differs from well documented history the issue comes down to how did Bahaullah (prophets should be lettered A, B C....as they are too hard to spell) know what he was talking about.

1. He had sources better than contemporary and historical scholars. He did not so this is out.
2. He was given revelations from God that supersede recorded history and are factual. Possibly but unlike Biblical prophets he never gave any proof of his supernatural source.

Anyone can come along and say that everybody before them was wrong. History is full of them. They come and go like bad politicians. They must demonstrate the reasons they are right and better sources were wrong, they must prove it. The Bible has proven over and over again that it is reliable. It has 25,000 historical corroborations, the greatest experts in testimony and evidence in human history have concluded it meets every standard of modern law and the historical method, it has proven even modern scholars wrong time and again. It even predicted history thousands of times in detail. Museums are literally full of artifacts from civilizations that at one time scholars said never existed but the Bible said did. The Hittites are a famous example. The contemporary sources (the gospels) are by far the most reliable sources for Christ. The authors gave up everything including their lives at times in defense of what they the truth of and Christianity has converted the greatest empires in history (that is credibility). Earliest is always best in historical studies unless they can be demonstrated to be false. The apostles healed the sick, raised the dead, and were eyewitnesses or interviewed eyewitnesses. That beats Bahaullah every time until he demonstrate in every claim that he is right and WHY others are wrong. Even non believing scholars will all attest to what I state. If I wrote a book and claimed that the South had actual won the civil war I would have a lot of proof to produce. Until he does what he claims is simply no comparison nor is it in the slightest way, unique.

I have a question yet to be answered and a new one.

1. What exactly is claimed about Christ and his crucifixion by the Baha’i?
2. How did Bahaullah die? Both Muhammad and Bahaullah are still in the grave. My prophet is not. Now that is credability.

 

[1robin]

Well, it is not your Prophets versus our Prophets. Moses, Jesus, and previous Prophets are our Prophets too.

That is impossible. They claimed mutually exclusive truths. Of course I keep forgetting that Baha'i simply changes what they said until they no longer conflict nor reflect what they originally taught. However you can't change "they crucified him not" and "he was crucified, dead and buried" until they are consistent without destroying them.

As regards to the Miracles that you have believed they performed, in our view, they are symbolic and have spiritual meanings. Christ said,"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miracle".

The people on the scene believed they were literal and that supersedes you, Muhammad, me, or Bahaullah.

The Bible was sealed with seven seals, and only the Promised One could unseal it. Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Promise. It will remain sealed to those who do not believe and persist in their own literal and man-made interpretations.

In what way was he declared worthy? He spent most of his life in jail. The Book where you and he got these statements sets these events after the resurrection and judgment, when the new Israel descends from Heaven. Did that happen and I missed it?

Not in this thread, as it is related to Muhammad. But there is no difference between Jesus and Muhammad in our view.

One was the son of God, one was the son of violence. One was perfect by every standard, the other killed hundreds, robbed, pillaged, and denied that Christ was THE messiah. One healed the sick, cured the blind, fed the hungry, and defeated Satan, the other killed countless people. One cast out demons the other exhibited the exact same symptoms as Biblical demonic possession, quoted Satan, and had curses cast on him. One never gave in to sexual temptation (he was on God’s business), the other married Children. One defeated death, the other is still in the grave where the poison from one of the wives of a man he slaughtered put him. Practically twins. No two things can possibly be any different. I can quote dogma and doctrine all day but you will deny or re-interpret it until it is no longer coherent but I do not do so because doctrine it is hard to prove. No offense but I have no reason to care what Bahaullah said. I have been arguing concerning Muhammad from history and no one has even attempted to defend him by using history and there for my claims stand. How in the most faciful dream could this be said about Muhammad on his best day?

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.

No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.

He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish Theologian James Stuart

Both were previous Manifestations of God. In this Age however, Baha'u'llah is Manifestation of God, who brought New Teachings.[/quote]Until you rpresent convincing evidence (or any at all) these assertions have little effect. You claim Muhammad and Christ were similar history proves that is not the case. You claim Bahaullah is “worthy” to open the book, even though the book that records that has that scene set in heaven and it is Christ specifically mentioned that is worthy. You claim miracles were symbolic every literary technique, contemporary witness, theological philosophy, and almost all Biblical scholars disagree. Evidence is on my side not yours, and there for simple asserting doctrine will not help your cause.

 

[1robin]

well, the Bible writings may be divided into three type of writings.

Some are ethical and spiritual teachings. Be kind to your neighbor. Some are social laws in the form of Do and Don't. Thou shall not kill, shall not steal. These two type of writings are clear in most cases and they are understood literally, and almost everyone would agree what they mean.

You would be surprised. You would think thou shall not murder would have stopped almost a billions babies from being killed in the womb.

But there are other parts of the Book that are about spiritual mysteries, such as resurrection and prophecies of future. These type of writings are written symbolically with figurative and spiritual meanings which are veiled.

This (in the BIble's case) is so obviously not true it just kills me that anyone would say that.
There are many who say miracles are impossible (wrong but understandable). There are many who say they do happen (true and right). There is almost no one anywhere that thinks the Bible stories about miracles are not literal in general. That is something that Baha'i has had to defend at the cost of everything including logic and credibility because they are told to and because it covers the fact Balahalluah could not do miracles. However if that was not absurd enough you have admitted that the greatest miracle of all actually took place in the Bible and must have, if the Bible is relevant at all. The miracle of forgiveness and justification. The conclusion that God did perform the greatest miracle possible but would not do lesser things to validate a message etc.. is just bizarre. BTW did God not create the universe? Is he willing to create the red sea but not part it? That is not theism, it is deism.

These are the type of writings that the Christians could not agree on their interpretations, and that the Bible in Old testament and New Testament have in Four places said such words: "The Book is Sealed till the time of End, when the Promised One comes to unseal it"

Christians disagree about every syllable in the Bible. However most agree on almost all issues. Why are you using arguments about how many agree about something? Even when I showed that even 90% or 100% of scholars agree that certain things are true you have said it does not matter. Is disagreement only important when that allows you to assume Bahaullah was right?

Well, Jesus was also from a carpenter family, and very poor.

First it is He was crucified, and it took at least 300 years for Him to be known globally. Baha'u'llah after 150 years, is already well-known in virtually ALL countries and cities. Just type Baha'u'llah in Google![/quote] First the only mention of a carpenter in Jesus family is a grand total of twice (and it's the same statement made by two people). However (and this is vital). Jesus healed the sick and was resurrected. It was predicted by many, it was verified by thousands, and it was mentioned by over 40 extra biblical authors (even literal miracles). God in effect validated everything ever needed to know about Jesus by validating his claims by raising him from the dead. BTW almost all NT scholars on BOTH sides agree that he was buried and the tomb found empty 3 days later. Bahaullah is still not globally known and he was born a hundred years before the internet. More people know who Jesus is than any other person who ever lived and he existed in a minor tribe in the Middle East 2000 years ago. He not Bahaullah has converted world empires and inspired the greatest religion in human history. There is no comparison even theoretically possible.

 

[1robin]

It is up to you what you want to believe and it is up to me what i want to believe,

it is just as simple as this.

Of course it is. I never claimed you should believe as I do because I believe what I do. I suggested you should believe what I have claimed because that is what the evidence makes clear.

Some believe that Jesus was a liar,othes believe he was the son of God and some others believe that he was a prophet,so there are many stories and there are several different beliefs.

That is again not the issue. People believe different things about every subject in existance including Islam. There was so much dissagreement immediately after Muhammad died that it would have caused a war within Islam and that is why Uthman invented a Quran he liked and burned the rest. Have I ever said Muhammad should be ignored because Sunni's and Shiah's dissagree and kill each other claiming the other side are infidels? That is silly. Is dissagreement a reason to think they are all valid, or give it up as useless? No, the issue is what is consistent with history. My claims are, Islam's claims are not.

You hate prophet Mohammed PBUH and you believe all bad stories about him whereas me and other muslims believe the good stories about him.

This is just saying the same meaningless thing a different way. The constant claims that any historical evidence inconsistent with the Islamic narrative are the result of Islamaphibia, hate, or bias are desperate and pointless. The evidence I posted from history is not hatefull. Facts have no emotion. If you even hope to contend my claims then you must show my evidence is wrong (or at least attempt to). Claiming over and over againthat anything inconvenient for Islam is wrong is never going to help. We have learned that Caesers "Gallic wars" are historically inaccurate, we have learned Homer was histroically inaccurate, we have learned Themystecles was historically inaccurate, we have learned the Quran is historically innacurate the exact same way, EVIDENCE like that I posted. Your bias claims in my case are rediculous. If you review my posts, I have always sided with Salahadin instead of the crusaders because historical evidence suggests I should.

For example if i told you that Jesus is a myth and the NT is authored by men.

The new testament was authored by men who claimed to be inspired by God. History shows they were right. History shows Muhammad was not from God in the exact same way.

Can you prove to me that Jesus did exist and can you prove that all stories about him is a fact.

No, nor can you anyone prove Muhammad, Caeser, Leonnidas, Homer, Shakespear, Ghengis Khaun, or Adam existed. Let me list why this is no help to your case.
1. The Quran validates that Christ existed. The BIble never mentions Muhammad nor Islam and in fact claims what Muhammad claimed the exact thing necessary to condemn someone as a false prophet.
2. There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other character in ancient history.
3. History confirms Christ existed as strongly as it confirms Muhammad was not from God.
4. Most NT scholars from BOTH sides admit Christ is a historical reality.

i think you're wasting your time and ours in discussing the nonsense.

Who is "our"? I am the only one between us that has even attempted to post historical evidence. Your entire argument has been based on two things.

1. Anything you do not like can't be true.
2. Every claim against Muhammad even if it is from his companions, other Muslims, or professional historians is because they did not like Muhammad.

You gave no (scholarly) reasons, no evidence, no evidence my claims are wrong, and mere assertions based on preference. Even if you were right and history wrong you have given not a single reason to believe it. I posted at least 30 examples of historical evidence for a single one of Muhammad’s countless battles, assassinations, and thefts, you gave not one single piece of evidence to show your claims were right nor mine wrong, and then turn around and say I am wasting your time. Simply amazing.

 

[1robin]

Why do you use Hitler as an example?

In defense of FearGod, it was I who brought up Hitler. I was asked to give a single name of anyone that was a killer and liar and that was loved by people. I gave many such names and Hitler was just one. I did so because it was the most evil man I could think of that was loved, to prove the point. Since

Would it absurd to use to use examples such as Gandi, Mother Teresa, or Martin Luther King as comparisons.

The best comparison for Muhammad IMO would be either Genghis Khaun or the Raynald of Châtillon. Gandhi never killed anyone directly (his ignorance allowed the Muslims to kill thousands indirectly), Mother Theresa never killed anyone, and Martin Luther King never killed anyone. Muhammad assassinated many, tortured others, attacked without justification, and looted for pleasure. There is little comparison between these people.

 

[England my lionheart]

It is not important which religion killed the most. God may kill us all if he exists, and be just in doing so. That is why my posts have not been about how many people Allah has wiped out. This issue is settled by context not numbers. What Muhammad did is perfectly consistent with the wishes and desires of a violent, tyrannical, and blood thirst man. The Bible's God demanded killings were justified. Muhammad killed poets because they wrote critical things of him, he beheaded hundreds of people who no threat whatever after they had surrendered, he killed for money, he killed for revenge, he even seems to have killed for pleasure. Many times he does not even attempt to use Allah to justify what he did. Muhammad's actions are very similar in nature and motivation to the Crusaders. The big difference is that most Christians condemn the crusaders and Muslims honor Muhammad and both were vicious, greedy, and brutal. BTW a prophet should be a product of God not his sinful times. Muhammad not only failed to rise above his sinful times he made his times more sinful.

As for numbers, more people were killed in one afternoon of terrorist attacks than in the entire 400 year history of the Spanish inquisition. However as far as numbers go atheists utopias are the silver medal winners, but the grand prize goes to secularists who have killed almost 1 billion babies alone.

I don't believe in Prophets,if they were the voice of a god theres either more than one god or a lot of Prophets who lost the scripture ,the Spanish inquisition was a slower process,it took longer to saw someone in half or burn them to death after torturing them to get a confession that they are a heretic than setting off a bomb using a mobile phone,"Atheists utopias" makes me chuckle,from baby eating Athiest to insatiable Secularist really does make me laugh.

 

[1robin]

It does seem that way does it. I run through avatars faster than Bill Clinton runs out of women

Well at least you did not get a bunch of soldiers killed to cover up your nefarious avatar activities.

I am fully aware of this and my post was not entirely meant for you but just for people in general. I felt as if I had to defend Muhammad's name. Which I do not really know why perhaps. But quenching the fuel of Muhammad's actions in the views of non-Abrahamic followers and non-theists is highly important as well. I do understand your views about Muhammad and the other prophets in the Bible. But Muhammad's character is being debated here not his authenticity as a prophet.

If you can show where the character issues I have raised bear no relation to his prophet hood I will agree. Any prophet representing a God claimed to be good should not be stealing, assassinating without just cause, or marrying Children. Christ did none of these things.

I find this irrelevant since it is more closely tied with Judaic nationalism with the Tanakh was founded upon.

That was not a Jewish or any other tradition I mentioned (however it may be one to some group). It was a Biblical revelation from God. Either God or Muhammad were wrong.

The fact Muhammad performed no such outrageous miracles only makes his word more credible to me.

That is the most irrational conclusion that I can even imagine. It is the most logical and Human intuition to demand that extraordinary claims come with extraordinary evidence. If anyone shows up and says that he speaks for God the most ration question imaginable is "prove it". In fact God knowing humanity (since he created it) met the need. Muhammad did not, nor did any false prophet who ever lived.

Again this makes him more credible. The supernatural miracles described in other faiths are nothing but the works of men and their imaginations or misunderstandings of events. Miracles in the way described in mythology do not exist and never will.

Only concerning Muhammad can no evidence be more convincing that raisin the dead. One guy says he is from God, never harms a living creature, and cures the blind and you call him evil. Another does no proof even when demanded, kills without justification, and raids caravans for money and you call him prophet. What equation are you using?

Muhammad's action look more like a civil conqueror.

Agreed and it is probably because that is exactly what he was, and Christ's look more like a prophet and divine authority.

His acts of violence stopped ongoing feuds and leveled out much of the continuing battles between tribes. He provided a unified Arab world.

Some stabilized things certainly. Others were only for money, others because he disliked their poetry, others because they did not abide by a treaty they were forced by threat of death to obey. He provided unity by threat of death. He even maintained by threat of death. He decreed death as the penalty for leaving Islam.

Very little of the Qur'an consists of Wathaniyya analogy as it mostly derives itself from the Tanakh and Gospels. The Qur'an is without a doubt the improvement of the collective OT and NT.

It is impossible to improve revelation. He simply got it wrong and because of preference that is called an improvement. It was not even historically correct.

But it does contain ritualistic pre-Islamic practices and concepts but they are immediately meshed within the Judaic collective thought.

Judaic thought is what drove out the heretical groups that Muhammad borrowed corrupted Biblical stories from. Jews from 1 BC until even today are not tolerant of any pagan teachings and God certainly has no need to borrow from pluralists.

This is irrelevant to Muhammad's character

I disagree. No God who's greatest revelation is that he is the one and only God and is jealous would ever have any need to adopt pagan worship practices.

Demons never possessed Muhammad nor are they proven to exist.

I did not claim they exist, though the evidence is undeniable. I never claimed he was possessed either (I maintain he was under their influence at times and in fact he admitted he was more than once). My primary claim is he exhibited in exact detail what the Bibles prescribes to demonic activity and what accompanies false prophets. The evidence suggests coincidence is absurd.

The cases of these occurrences are false and have been weak speculation which have also lead people to declare he had epilepsy.

You state something you have no way of knowing is false (even if it actually is) and then state something you have no way of knowing is true (even if it is) is true. Not a good track record Archer.

I believe in a possibility that god creates other beings besides humans, perhaps in what we call spirits. But to give them the power to have dominion over us is utterly ludicrous.

They have exactly the dominion we give them.

I also find it surprising that in the Bible mankind is greater than angels and will one day judge them yet somehow we are weaker than demons.

That is not what it claims. It says we were made a little lower than the angels but when perfected and in heaven we will judge them. It does not explain so it is unwise to speculate about this too much.

The hierarchy seems a bit off but perhaps that is because god let Satan have dominion over the world.

The evidence for Satan is the exact same as for demons. Why believe in one but not the other?

IOW where ever he rates as a conqueror he is a pitiful excuse for a prophet.

Where did this come from but I concur?

He constructed the Qur'an. A book with far less contradictions and absurdities than the Bible that also maintains simplicity. If you believe Muhammad was a false prophet then I find it ironic due to the fact he was able to concoct a corrupt book that just so happened to be better than the "true" book.

You would first have to show that in any category the Quran exceeds the Bible. Most categories are relative but in theological consistency, historical accuracy, and textual integrity is is demonstratably deplorable compared to the Bible.

In the words of his greatness Julius Caesar "Veni, vidi, vici". The first 13 years did not consist of any travel spreading of Muhammad's ayah so things were rather immobile due to their position. The actual true spread of Islam did not occur until after the hijra.

Even if perfectly accurate that does nothing to explain the difference in 150 verses 100,000 followers, it also does not touch the related evidence I gave. Second he did not travel extensively in the latter instance. Thirdly geographical distance is no impediment to God. I will respond to the rest later as it will take time to dissect but will leave it with you for now. Have a good afternoon.

 

[1robin]

I don't believe in Prophets,if they were the voice of a god theres either more than one god or a lot of Prophets who lost the scripture

First, you are aware your avatar name was a crusader do you not? Just thought it ironic. Have you read the accounts of his crusader doings? He was one heck of a soldier. Anyway, you are an intelligent and civil poster but context seems to not be your strong suit. To consider whether a person was a prophet you can't begin by claiming they can't exist (however many "scholars" do just that). I will list why what we have is what I would expect.
1. It is consistent with a benevolent God that he would create one true revelation and not bury bits of it in a thousand mounds of garbage.
2. It is consistent with an intelligent creature that has a need but a desire to reject the
only answer for that need to instead substitute false answers.
3. It is also consistent with a broken (rebellious) race of intelligent creatures to lie and lie and lie.
4. It is consistent with Satan to create many and varying types of false truths. The best lie is one that includes much truth.
5. We are idiots.

the Spanish inquisition was a slower process, it took longer to saw someone in half or burn them to death after torturing them to get a confession that they are a heretic than setting off a bomb using a mobile phone

They should have had a lottery. I do not think you are seriously claiming they couldn't fit all the killing into their schedules, they wished to do. Even if you are, then how about this one. Islam kills more people in an average weak than the KKK did in it's entire 50 year history.

,"Atheists utopias" makes me chuckle,from baby eating Athiest to insatiable Secularist really does make me laugh.

Then this poem out to crack you up. Atheism and secularism must be as elastic of terms as evolution. Able to be stretched over everything good but nothing emberassing.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

I find it a bit hard to laugh at any worldview or philosophy that has literally justified the killing almost a billion babies in the womb (I am not suggesting you agree with abortion). The peom is a bit hyperbolic but more accurately describes the philosophy of the secularist than anything I have ever heard. This is off topic so I will leave it there.

 

[England my lionheart]

First, you are aware your avatar name was a crusader do you not? Just thought it ironic. Have you read the accounts of his crusader doings? He was one heck of a soldier. Anyway, you are an intelligent and civil poster but context seems to not be your strong suit. To consider whether a person was a prophet you can't begin by claiming they can't exist (however many "scholars" do just that). I will list why what we have is what I would expect.
1. It is consistent with a benevolent God that he would create one true revelation and not bury bits of it in a thousand mounds of garbage.
2. It is consistent with an intelligent creature that has a need but a desire to reject the
only answer for that need to instead substitute false answers.
3. It is also consistent with a broken (rebellious) race of intelligent creatures to lie and lie and lie.
4. It is consistent with Satan to create many and varying types of false truths. The best lie is one that includes much truth.
5. We are idiots.
They should have had a lottery. I do not think you are seriously claiming they couldn't fit all the killing into their schedules, they wished to do. Even if you are, then how about this one. Islam kills more people in an average weak than the KKK did in it's entire 50 year history.
Then this poem out to crack you up. Atheism and secularism must be as elastic of terms as evolution. Able to be stretched over everything good but nothing emberassing.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

I find it a bit hard to laugh at any worldview or philosophy that has literally justified the killing almost a billion babies in the womb (I am not suggesting you agree with abortion). The peom is a bit hyperbolic but more accurately describes the philosophy of the secularist than anything I have ever heard. This is off topic so I will leave it there.

Ever heard of "you can't tell a book by its cover",my Avatar is the flag of my country,i've heard of a Crusader called Bohemond never heard of one called England my Lionheart, my user name is actually a song by Kate Bush and i'm still laughing.

That's a pretty boring poem IMO and your list,well,alphabetti spaghetti to me,as far as I know all claimed Prophets were Human.

There are many circumstance IMO where abortion may be the only option,and maybe even the right option,still prevention is better than cure,guess some religions have trouble comming to that conclusion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well at least you did not get a bunch of soldiers killed to cover up your nefarious avatar activities.

Who said I didn't. :devil:

If you can show where the character issues I have raised bear no relation to his prophet hood I will agree. Any prophet representing a God claimed to be good should not be stealing, assassinating without just cause, or marrying Children. Christ did none of these things.

His prophethood is not being questioned and all you can is debate his prophethood? Serious flaw in attacking this argument from that angle especially for me.
Debating prophethood proves absolutely nothing in regards to me and only works for those who believe in prophets and divine revelation. I only believe in Divine Speculation.

That was not a Jewish or any other tradition I mentioned (however it may be one to some group). It was a Biblical revelation from God. Either God or Muhammad were wrong.

I am assuming you mean the family line of David right? I am not clear on this issue as I have not been a Christian in many years.

That is the most irrational conclusion that I can even imagine. It is the most logical and Human intuition to demand that extraordinary claims come with extraordinary evidence. If anyone shows up and says that he speaks for God the most ration question imaginable is "prove it". In fact God knowing humanity (since he created it) met the need. Muhammad did not, nor did any false prophet who ever lived.

It is irrational for you but I look upon everything with a Deistic perspective, my lenses are Deistic Spectacles .
I also phrased that wrong by the way. If Muhammad did indeed perform miracles right in front of my eyes of course I would have to accept it. What I should really say is that because of the fact he claimed no miracles(other than the Qur'an) makes him believable.
I do not expect Muhammad to provide evidence like you, I am expecting him to provide reasonable statements that can be validated with my understanding. Indeed there are many things in the Qur'an that are as such.

Only concerning Muhammad can no evidence be more convincing that raisin the dead. One guy says he is from God, never harms a living creature, and cures the blind and you call him evil. Another does no proof even when demanded, kills without justification, and raids caravans for money and you call him prophet. What equation are you using?

I never called Jesus evil because you believe I am equating him with god. I do not see Jesus as god but a man and considering the fact all of the Gospels are written in 3rd person I cannot Isa's true nature and behavior. I do not equate god as a man in white robes walking the earth like you do.
So keep in mind my outlook is not the same as yours. You keep confusing this and I am not trying to be rude about it at all . You just don't seem used to debating those who do not adhere to religious concepts.

Agreed and it is probably because that is exactly what he was, and Christ's look more like a prophet and divine authority.

Yet ironically people like the emperors of ROme are admired for their contributions. :biglaugh:. When I said civil conqueror I mean civil as in a conqueror who established order. No different than the hellenic empires (mostly). Muhammad took over and established order. I am not going to say this is the greatest thing ever to occur in history but it helped the Arab territories although now they are in a serious state of decline thanks to foreign politics. But this doesn't ruin what Muhammad did.

Some stabilized things certainly. Others were only for money, others because he disliked their poetry, others because they did not abide by a treaty they were forced by threat of death to obey. He provided unity by threat of death. He even maintained by threat of death. He decreed death as the penalty for leaving Islam.

I have never heard of any claim about Muhammad disliking anybodies poetry when the Qur'an is written in the same format. This does not affect my outlook about him. His goods outweigh the bad. I am not claiming he is the pure sparkling ray of justice I am saying he was a positive thing for Arabia at the time out of all the other options. He is not going to stand up to the mythology of Jesus created by Christians. But there is a reason why it is called mythology.

It is impossible to improve revelation. He simply got it wrong and because of preference that is called an improvement. It was not even historically correct.

I do not view it as revelation. I view it as a book filled with words and speculative words about god. Spirituality was the only governing system in the tribal era of the Semitic territories and it was used as such. Muhammad acquired a more sensible method of understanding and relating to god, not as deep as hinduism but not as mythological as it either. Not as open as Christianity but more reasonable in understanding. The Qur'an is actually quite neutral on its attributes.

Judaic thought is what drove out the heretical groups that Muhammad borrowed corrupted Biblical stories from. Jews from 1 BC until even today are not tolerant of any pagan teachings and God certainly has no need to borrow from pluralists.

This is irrelevant. Islam is Judaism mixed with Christianity mixed with the thoughts of the Wathaniyya era. Mostly it is Judaic, we can debate the percentage but at minimum over 50% of it is directly copied from the Tanakh. This is not even debatable as any person will tell you that it is a copy of Judaism not a copy of Paganism. But the Wathaniyya influence is quite noticeable in certain areas because it was written in an Arabic culture obviously. No different than how Jews wrote their holy books and collected them into one.

I disagree. No God who's greatest revelation is that he is the one and only God and is jealous would ever have any need to adopt pagan worship practices.

I do not believe in revelation. Divine speculation is all that exist because all we can do is speculate about god. Scriptures that are based more on speculation are more desired than mythology for me. The Qur'an is a heavily stripped down version of the Tanakh and contains absolutely marvelous things about God that should never be dismissed.

I did not claim they exist, though the evidence is undeniable. I never claimed he was possessed either (I maintain he was under their influence at times and in fact he admitted he was more than once). My primary claim is he exhibited in exact detail what the Bibles prescribes to demonic activity and what accompanies false prophets. The evidence suggests coincidence is absurd.

I do not believe in possession which is what I am referring to. Muslims as a whole do not believe in it as well and it is highly debated. Muhammad did not declare such things and I can assure you this from a person who actually reads the Qur'an.

You state something you have no way of knowing is false (even if it actually is) and then state something you have no way of knowing is true (even if it is) is true. Not a good track record Archer.

I am not stating these things, other people are. There are no narrations or Qur'anic statements to declare that Muhammad suffered from anything similar to epilepsy.

They have exactly the dominion we give them.

Then surely nobody would let them have dominion, if they exist that is. Muhammad never stated he wanted to be possessed by anything nor has it been narrated.

That is not what it claims. It says we were made a little lower than the angels but when perfected and in heaven we will judge them. It does not explain so it is unwise to speculate about this too much.

I know of no verse which says we immediately lower than angels until we ascend into heaven. The latter I know of the first I am unsure so I will look to see if I can find supporting verses for that.

The evidence for Satan is the exact same as for demons. Why believe in one but not the other?

What on earth makes you think I believe in Satan? This only proves my earlier statements about you never debating with a non-theist or deist.

Where did this come from but I concur?

That is from you. I did not wrap the quote tags around it properly, sorry.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You would first have to show that in any category the Quran exceeds the Bible. Most categories are relative but in theological consistency, historical accuracy, and textual integrity is is demonstrably deplorable compared to the Bible.

Theologically it is superior as it can decide if god is one or three . Historically it is to some extent but not much history is found within it and it does not contain as many vivid details but the Bible contains far more history even if it occasional backwarded and mistranslated.
As for textual integrity, this cannot be debated as it is not a book compiled of 5,000 manuscripts voted into place in different languages and translated from its original source and preserved as such. If you debate this part of the Qur'an then I am sorry but that is beyond illogical. I have pained myself into learning it in Arabic and the textual authenticity can be traced very close to the time of its conception whereas the Bible cannot and the authentic text you do have you do not use as a primary source. The Hebrew Tanakh in other words.

Even if perfectly accurate that does nothing to explain the difference in 150 verses 100,000 followers, it also does not touch the related evidence I gave. Second he did not travel extensively in the latter instance. Thirdly geographical distance is no impediment to God. I will respond to the rest later as it will take time to dissect but will leave it with you for now. Have a good afternoon.

Difference in what 150 verse and what does with 100,000 followers? What are these numbers correlating to?
You gave no evidence just speculation. Because of the fact he did not travel proves me correct if you are referring to why his followed did not multiply extensively in the first 13 years. If that is what you are talking about that is.
I do not believe Muhammad was chosen to spread anything. I believe he chose to do so himself which if you ask me makes him all the more greater and worth my respect. Muslims will assert everything he did was due to god but I assert it was due to himself. A man that overcomes obstacles by himself is more greater than a man who overcomes with the aid of miracles. I give more respect to Muhammad as a man than any Muslim can as a prophet. Muslims must assert his divine greatness while I assert his greatness without "assigning partners to him".

 

[Sha'irullah]

Considering the inconsistencies in prophets scholars have come to the conclusion they do not exist just like me and many others have. They are humans, impressive nonetheless but still human. We do not come to the conclusion that something does not exist because our eyes and ears are closed, quite the opposite. We come to this conclusion because our minds are free and we can perceive things as they are. Other people cannot do this since their eyes wear false shades when they perceive everything while I perceive everything by using the spectacles that were meant to view it.
You do not take god and assert him where he does not belong. Not because he is god which is preposterous but because he is YOUR god and not everyone elses.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I agree with many things contained in your posts but where it differs from well documented history

That's where I disagree with you. There is no well documented history about Muhammad who lived 1500 years ago among the most barbaric Arab tribes.

the issue comes down to how did Bahaullah know what he was talking about.

He was a Manifestation of God with inner knowledge, which is the Mirror of God. His knowledge did not come from learning, but divinely inspired.

What exactly is claimed about Christ and his crucifixion by the Baha’i?

He was crucified and killed.

How did Bahaullah die? Both Muhammad and Bahaullah are still in the grave. My prophet is not. Now that is credability.

What all religions teach is that in addition to Physical Body, we all have spirit.
All these Prophets, including Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah, had a physical body that died and has turned to dust, regardless if their grave is even found. However their Spirit ascended to Heaven.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is impossible..... "they crucified him not" and "he was crucified, dead and buried" until they are consistent without destroying them.

"they crucified Him not" and "they crucified Him" are consistent. The former is talking about His spiritual reality, while the latter is talking about His physical Body.

What I feel I need to mention, is that according to the terminology that spirit is 'in' the Body, most people including Christians believed that the Spirit is literally inside the Body, hence when Jesus was crucified, His Spirit was likewise crucified with His physical body.

However, the Baha'i Writing reject the idea that Spirit is inside the body.
It is said that Love is in the Heart. But in reality Love is not somewhere in the Heart in a literal or physical sense. Likewise the spirit is not literally or physically inside the Body. It is not a materialistic thing. It is free from limitations of space. It is supernatural!
Hence, they crucified Jesus physical Body, but not His Holy Reality (or Spirit). That is what Quran is saying.

The people on the scene believed they were literal and that supersedes you, Muhammad, me, or Bahaullah.

There is no recorded history. Bible is not a history Book. God wanted to test you. and please don't confuse testing with tempting again.

You claim miracles were symbolic every literary technique, contemporary witness, theological philosophy, and almost all Biblical scholars disagree. Evidence is on my side not yours, and there for simple asserting doctrine will not help your cause.

You can keep persisting in literalism. That wouldn't help you my friend.

 

[1robin]

Ever heard of "you can't tell a book by its cover",my Avatar is the flag of my country,

Your flag has a crusader on it? What country is that? Kickbuttistan?

i've heard of a Crusader called Bohemond never heard of one called England my Lionheart, my user name is actually a song by Kate Bush and I’m still laughing.

Actually you are right, the crusader, the cross, and lion heart made me think of Richard the lion heart but you are correct in saying that was not what your avatar says. What is a Kate Bush?

That's a pretty boring poem IMO and your list,well,alphabetti spaghetti to me,as far as I know all claimed Prophets were Human.

If I call this entire post some derogatory word can I dismiss and ignore it as well?
Humans commissioned by and representing God. If someone claims this they should demonstrate it and mine did.

There are many circumstance IMO where abortion may be the only option

That iaccounts for about 3% of the cases but I agree.

still prevention is better than cure,guess some religions have trouble coming to that conclusion.

People have the problem not the religion. The word contraceptive does not appear in the Bible. However it is hardly fitting to blame those that dislike contraception and pardon those that demand the right to kill the innocent is a sacred institution. This is probably the greatest moral failing in human history and is the product of primarily the secular community.

 

[1robin]

Christianity as we all know converted people by the sword and ripped the Pagan cultures apart and tore straight through the Germanic tribes. I am not going to debate history as it is already well known. All of Europe did its best to keep its pagan customs and to this day you have neo-pagans trying to revive it in Germany and Scandinavia. The violence caused by Christianity is beyond obvious.

Of course some Christian's have used force. I was not discussing the habits of every single missionary, conquistador, or pretender that has ever existed. I was discussing how Christianity began verses Islam. The could not be more different. More on this below.

Muhammad looted. The winner always takes the spoils no different than how

Again not my point, I said Muhammad decided to attack based on the presence of things to steal. God gave the Hebrews the spoils sometimes but that was not why he attacked and many times he even denied them that. Some of the worst mistakes the Hebrews made was taking loot. Allah and God are acting completely differently.

Christians sacked every territory they advanced upon including their own "Holy Land".

The crusaders never claimed to be prophets. I believe I am on record about a thousand times condemning what they did. They did not come to spread Christianity, they came to steal and kill andused God as an excuse. If Muslims were as honest about Muhammad then all would be well.

No religion is from god because all religion is speculative. No holy book is perfect no matter how peaceful it is and how modernized the religion has become. Many men have been declared prophets or inspired by god but this is only because of the superstition of that era. I admire Hindus for accepting this and how some of them views their scriptures as philosophical pieces of work and abide by them not because of religious commandment but because of personal understanding and opinion.

I do not know what that last part was about so I will explain more on the first part.

1. Muhammad is the sole founder of Islam. If he was simply a blood thirsty tyrant the entire religion is absolutely false. What Christian conquistadors did later has nothing to do with whether the Bibel is true or not. Their character reveals nothing about the Bible. Muhammad's character is absolutely essential to the Quran's character.
2. You said the Christians spread the faith by violence. Let's examine probably the worst conquistador of all time. Cortez was both a serious Catholic and a greedy gold hound. He literally ended the practice of tearing the hearts out of thousands per day in Mexico. While he was brutal he was also not a prophet nor did he write the Bible. What he did does not matter, what Muhammad did is the only thing that does. However while Muhammad just kept killing more and more, Cortez is the only known example of a conquest being ended for religious reasons. Where Muhammad stacked the bodies higher Cortex agree with his cleric that conversion could not be forced and ended the attempts. Things can't be more one sided and for more reasons.
3. I was discussing how the religions got started. Islam BEGAN in blood and advanced through blood. Christianity began by the death of its founder not he death of everyone it's founder did not like. Once again complete and utter polar opposites.
4. Muhammad conquered or oppressed empires, Christianity converted them.
5. I never contended Islam is false because it's much later terrorists killed a lot of people so why are you contending Christianity would be for the same reasons. Compare apples to apples. Muhammad to Christ and two things could not be more opposite.

BTW where did you get your Germanic tribes statement? The great Germanic tribes fought Ceaser not Clement.

 

[1robin]

Who said I didn't.

Did you invade a country I was unaware of?

His prophet hood is not being questioned and all you can is debate his prophet hood?

You must be having another conversation somewhere. I have been questioning the heck out of one of the worst claims to prophet hood in history.

I am assuming you mean the family line of David right? I am not clear on this issue as I have not been a Christian in many years.

It is the line that began with Isaac. Ishmael was not an heir to the primary covenant made by God with Abraham and did not inherent the right handed blessing. God did not punish Ismael for Abraham's sin but blessed him in lesser degree than Isaac. Ishmael's line was not a line that would produce true prophets and if fact was predicted to trouble humanity from then on, and they have.

It is irrational for you but I look upon everything with a Deistic perspective, my lenses are Deistic Spectacles .

It is not irrational to be deistic. It is irrational to be deistic and accept revelation.

I also phrased that wrong by the way. If Muhammad did indeed perform miracles right in front of my eyes of course I would have to accept it. What I should really say is that because of the fact he claimed no miracles(other than the Qur'an) makes him believable.

The first makes is perfectly logical the last part went off the rails. If anyone appeared and claimed to be from God the most instinctual question possible is "prove it". He didn't.

I do not expect Muhammad to provide evidence like you, I am expecting him to provide reasonable statements that can be validated with my understanding. Indeed there are many things in the Qur'an that are as such.

Reasonable statements are no mark of prophet hood.
New International Version (©2011)
God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

I never called Jesus evil because you believe I am equating him with god. I do not see Jesus as god but a man and considering the fact all of the Gospels are written in 3rd person I cannot Isa's true nature and behavior. I do not equate god as a man in white robes walking the earth like you do.

That is not what I meant. You said the role he performed was evil, therefor he would be evil as well.

So keep in mind my outlook is not the same as yours. You keep confusing this and I am not trying to be rude about it at all . You just don't seem used to debating those who do not adhere to religious concepts.

You seem to have adopted a position so ambiguous it can take the form of whatever is convenient for the moment. It is harder to debate a person with a chameleon like stance but there is little that can be done about it. As the saying goes he man who does not stand for something will fall for anything.

Yet ironically people like the emperors of Rome are admired for their contributions. .

Muhammad made be admired for certain actions as most men may be. However his prophet hood is not one of them. You are confusing the recognition given a conqueror in a secular context with that given a religious figure in a theological context. BTW Muhammad could not tie Rome's shoes in any context except brutality and corruption.

When I said civil conqueror I mean civil as in a conqueror who established order.

The Nazis were rigorous and ordered are they to be considered prophets on that account? When you oppress everyone that disagrees order is a byproduct.

No different than the Hellenic empires (mostly).

The Hellenes were democratic. Muhammad was demagogic.

Muhammad took over and established order. I am not going to say this is the greatest thing ever to occur in history but it helped the Arab territories although now they are in a serious state of decline thanks to foreign politics. But this doesn't ruin what Muhammad did.

Why can't Islam admit it has failed to govern itself. Blaming their problems on others is desperate and embarrassing.

I have never heard of any claim about Muhammad disliking anybody’s poetry when the Qur'an is written in the same format.

No scholar contests the fact he killed at least two and maybe three poets because they wrote things against him. It can be found on a thousand web sites in Muslims words. If necessary I will post it again.

This does not affect my outlook about him. His goods outweigh the bad. I am not claiming he is the pure sparkling ray of justice I am saying he was a positive thing for Arabia at the time out of all the other options. He is not going to stand up to the mythology of Jesus created by Christians. But there is a reason why it is called mythology.

Muhammad is not being evaluated by the "was he good for Arabs" context. He did not claim to be a mere civic leader, he claimed to be a prophet.

I do not view it as revelation. I view it as a book filled with words and speculative words about god. Spirituality was the only governing system in the tribal era of the Semitic territories and it was used as such. Muhammad acquired a more sensible method of understanding and relating to god, not as deep as Hinduism but not as mythological as it either. Not as open as Christianity but more reasonable in understanding. The Qur'an is actually quite neutral on its attributes.

If you think all revelation is speculation how do you know what is more sensible or not? There is no standard.
Continued below: