Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

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.

You missed my point. It gets valid Judaic teachings and facts wrong, mixes stories up, and borrows from texts the HEBREWS condemned. One famous example is a historical mistake that is easy to see the cause of and its exact date. Because of the nature of the mistake it has been tracked across Arabia step by step and shows up in the Quran. Did Allah not know the place names were all garbled up and switched?

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.

If that is true then my contention about deism and revelation should be dismissed but the new contention that you have no way of knowing what is "better" is now a problem.

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.

I have never met a Muslim that does not believe in possession. However that is not even the issue. It is influence and Muhammad himself admitted it at least twice. How much clearer can evidence get?

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.

Unlike a historically biased and irrational Muslim I am not bound by Quranic texts. The stories of his claiming to have met demons is accepted by Muslim scholars and is a fact of history as certain as Caesar crossing the Rubicon, only preference denies it.

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.

I have never heard a person hat admitted to possession (thousands) ever claimed he wished to be. That is the nature of possession but I argue for influence not possession and Muhammad admits it.

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.

Ugh?
New International Version (©2011)
You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor
Psalms 8:5
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

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.

This:

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

I will admit that maybe you were only stating what is believed by others but it does not read that way.

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

No wonder I agreed with it.

 

[1robin]

Theologically it is superior as it can decide if god is one or three .

1. There is no conflict between three persons in one being.
2. One is not better than three unless you first prefer one. 2 is no better than a thousand. 3.14 is not better than ten million. Numbers are abstract concepts that are not better than each other.
3. Both Judaism and Christianity proclaimed monotheism before anyone ever heard of Muhammad.
4. Muhammad not Judaism or Christianity borrowed from polytheists.

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 back warded and mistranslated.

Lets narrow this claim so it is manageable. Not one story included in both the Bible and the Quran is wrong in the Bible and correct in the Quran. Every historical inconsistency between them that can be verified is a Quranic mistake.

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.

What 5000 manuscripts? That is not what the Bible was derived from. I think you need more study about textual integrity. If you do not have the originals (neither the Bible or the Quran do) then you need several things to be true to be sure that the copies are accurate.
1. The Bible has early copies. The Quran does as well.
2. The Bible has countless independent lines of transmission. The Quran does not, Uthman is the sole source.
3. The Bible has prolific copying. The Quran does not, it was controlled and limited by governmental institutions for political reasons.
4. The Bible has independent authors, the Quran is one man's very suspicious word.
There is more but I am lazy today.

Difference in what 150 verse and what does with 100,000 followers? What are these numbers correlating to?

Followers. You claim it was Muhammad’s traveling that made the difference. The numbers are vastly too large for that. If it went from 150 to 500 then maybe. It went from 150 to 100,000. That suggests that something very new and powerful was available. Power, money, women, and pleasure attract people and explain the numbers his traveling does not.

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 am the only one that gave ANY evidence. I showed that two pagans converted on the spot because loot was involved and that was the only way to get it. Treaties and other evidence confirms it beyond doubt. Christianity spread rapidly in spite of the opposition of the greatest empire on Earth. Islam spread with the power base, plunder, and all manner of Earthly enticements. The two situations are polar opposites.

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.

So a man never commissioned by God and never demonstrating his supernatural source even when demanded to, is better evidence for prophet hood that men who parted seas, raised the dead, and conquered empires by the power of testimony. Only in Islam does that make sense. The best arguments against Islam are your claims for it.

Muslims will assert everything he did was due to god but I assert it was due to himself.

Then we agree on 90% of the issues.

A man that overcomes obstacles by himself is more greater than a man who overcomes with the aid of miracles.

Not for a man claiming to be from God. This is absolutely absurd. Everything you claim is the exact opposite of what is virtually universally believed.

New International Version (©2011)
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

That is what a God should do and what almost everyone would recognize and expect from a God. That is why both the people asked Muhammad for miracles (as anyone would) and why he could not do any.

 

[1robin]

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.

If we can't know him then of what use is he as a prophet. Surely God could have communicated what he wished despite it being 1500 hundred years ago. He created the greatest book in human history and it is more than 2000 years old. In fact Muhammad was alive within 200 years of the printing press and is a very well-known historical character.

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.

That is some kind of faith based assertion without any evidence to support it. I can claim I am sent to correct your prophet but without massive evidence on my side I might as well whistle in the wind.

He was crucified and killed.

That explains why Baha'i has had to warp and twist the meaning of killed into such contortions. That is the only way Islam's and Christianity’s absolutely polar opposite claims can be mashed together.

What all religions teach is that in addition to Physical Body, we all have spirit.

How do you know they all teach this. There are thousands of them.

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.

All the contemporary evidence, in fact all evidence in existence has Jesus as a risen (literally and physically) savior and your's and Islam's prophets still buried. In fact even most scholars on either side agree that Christ's tomb was empty (physically). Have you ever counted up how many or what percentage of reliable facts and established doctrine you must deny for no reason, as a Baha'i? When a man claims you must believe the literal is symbolic, that up is down, left is right, and facts are myths we usually yell crackpot, not prophet. Christianity established what is. Islam claimed what is, is in fact, not. Now Baha’i claims what is and is not, both are. What’s next?

 

[1robin]

"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.

That is not what Muslims interpret that verse to mean.
1. They say a physical substitute was placed on the cross instead of Christ.
2. The most popular version is that he did not died on the cross but recovered in the tomb and pushed the stone away and went sight-seeing.
Neither agree with your understanding.
How do people see his spiritual reality appear to be crucified? You can't nail a soul to a cross. When you are forced to claim "crucified" and "crucified him not" are the same thing then what is it that you would not claim, is equal. Normal language use and common sense are causalities of your faith.

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.

I have been around Christians for over 35 years and not once have I ever heard anyone suggest this. You can't crucify a spirit, that makes no sense what so ever and not one single verse supports that. This is the kind of stuff that is supposed to set off alarms in your head and indicate you are following an incoherent belief. Why does it not?

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!

Then by your own standards it can't be nailed to a cross and yet it is. This is a failure of even internal consistency.

Hence, they crucified Jesus physical Body, but not His Holy Reality (or Spirit). That is what Quran is saying.

That is not what the Quran says and not what I have ever heard a single Muslim apologist or any other Muslim claim about those verses.
Here is one of Islam’s most famous interpreters on their first and no abandoned understanding of that verse:
"Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise'' A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, "Well then, you will be that man.'' Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep. Allah said,
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/adams/crucifixion_confusion.html

Not what you claim in any sense.

And another:

And for their saying, boastfully, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God', as they claim: in other words, for all of these [reasons] We have punished them. God, exalted be He, says, in repudiating their claim to have killed him: And yet they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but he, the one slain and crucified, who was an associate of theirs [the Jews], was given the resemblance, of Jesus. In other words, God cast his [Jesus's] likeness to him and so they thought it was him [Jesus]. And those who disagree concerning him, that is, concerning Jesus, are surely in doubt regarding, the slaying of him, for some of them said, when they saw the slain man: the face is that of Jesus, but the body is not his.

And here is the other (current) understanding:

Jesus was crucified but did not die. He swooned on the cross and later recovered.
Although the swoon theory is held mainly by the Ahmaddiyas and the Nation of Islam, groups that are considered heretical, there are also orthodox Sunni Muslims who have adopted this theory as well. The most famous Sunni to adopt and embrace this view for polemical purposes is Ahmed Deedat.

Akbarally Meherally is another one who has decided to embrace this theory (Article 1, Article 2). Meherally even goes so far as to deny the substitution theory.
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/adams/crucifixion_confusion.html

They are both nothing like what you claim but exactly what I claim they believe. They are also both ridiculous.

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.

What in the heck was this? The Bible has 25,000 corroborations and never claims anything but to be literal recorded history. This is by far the worst claim about the Bible of any kind I have ever heard. You can claim (but you would be wrong in claiming it) that the Bible is historically inaccurate. No one, suggests it is not claimed to be historical. In fact it is a primary archeological and historical resource unlike your prophet’s writings. I know of not one single historical fact that it ever got wrong and it is world famous for historical accuracy.

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

It certainly won't help your claims, but in fact I claim as literal what most scholars do, and symbolic what most scholars do. You are in a lonely and isolated fringe and Bahaullah has forced you there. Even I never dreamed the lengths of historical absurdity and interpretational nonsense that he demanded. This was truly appalling. Things like making up and down, crucified and not crucified, literal and symbolic, left and right demand the label of crack pot why do you give it the label of truth?

 

[arthra]

Investigate truth wrote:

Hence, they crucified Jesus physical Body, but not His Holy Reality (or Spirit). That is what Quran is saying.
Robin wrote:

That is not what the Quran says and not what I have ever heard a single Muslim apologist or any other Muslim claim about those verses.

Here is one of Islam’s most famous interpreters on their first and no abandoned understanding of that verse:

"Who volunteers to be made to look like me, for which he will be my companion in Paradise'' A young man volunteered, but `Isa thought that he was too young. He asked the question a second and third time, each time the young man volunteering, prompting `Isa to say, "Well then, you will be that man.'' Allah made the young man look exactly like `Isa, while a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep. Allah said,
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/adams/crucifixion_confusion.html

My comment:

Famous interpreters can be wrong.. There's nothing in the text of the Qur'an to support the story of Jesus asking anyone to "volunteer" for Him.

We Baha'is see the crucifixion as presented in the Qur'an and the Gospels as not being contradictory..

Also the Qur'an elsewhere says the Martyrs should not be seen as "dead" or killed.

"...most Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified, but one who looked like Him was instead, based on their understanding of Qur'án 4:156. Shoghi Effendi, however, states that the Qur'ánic passage indicates that the spiritual reality of Christ was beyond crucifixion, not that His body escaped such a fate (Lights of Guidance, 1646, 1652, 1669); this resolves an apparent contradiction between Islam and Christianity. "

Abdul-Baha though also commented on the Qur'anic verse saying the the Spirit of Christ could not be crucified and that those who crucified Him were hoping they had killed His Cause... The disciples later rallied and understood that the martrydom of Jesus was not the end and that the Cause of Christ was "resurrected" spiritually:

"We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing."

9 October 1947 to an individual believer

 

[Sha'irullah]

Did you invade a country I was unaware of?

the country was called Refrigatorstan

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 have been sticking with the topic at hand and have been defending his actions not his divine prophethood..

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.

Ah yes, I remember although nobody can prove anyone is from Ishmael's line because nobody know if they have existed.

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

:biglaugh: How on earth do I accept revelation? I have told you numerous times I do not and as to how you have come to this conclusion I do not know.

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.

But I do not believe in Divine revelation? So none of this concerns me. Any person overly assigning themselves to myths is less believable and credited especially if it is taken in absolute.

Reasonable statements are no mark of prophet hood.

I do not accept prophethood.

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

I have never stated the role Jesus played was evil. Jesus is not the son of god is all that I have said. Such things are again irrelevant to me.

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.

My stance is solid, you are just not use to tackling a person who does not adhere to Abrahamic faiths in the manner most do. You confuse personal opinion with scriptural adherence and preference of belief with religion.
I cannot be any more clear when I say that I do not accept any scripture as the absolute word of god, I accept them for what they are which is ancient literature compromising of folklore, spirituality, truths, history, myths and philosophy. They are product of their own time.
There is nothing wrong with this and it does not discredit them. What discredits them is when people wage war over them and do not realize they are not meant to be taken so seriously. Religion was born in an age of ignorance.

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.

I am not confusing the secular with the theological, you are. All we are discussing is the secular hence the title of the thread.

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.

This is irrelevant. Nazi's established order tot heir own people then oppressed those they hated. Muhammad conquered and yes he even killed but he brought all people into the fold. Nazis did the exact opposite.
Prophethood has nothing to do with this.

The Hellenes were democratic. Muhammad was demagogic.

It does not change anything.

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

Islam has failed itself, this is obvious. Islam is a word associated to a book forming a religion, government and social order. Indeed a vast amount of issues occurring in the Arabian lands and various other countries associated with the Ummah. Islam has become a crutch and has halted progression because of theocratic rule.

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.

I have actually just learned about this. In all of my years this has been given a blind eye to. But it does not change anything.

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.

We are not debating his prophethood.

If you think all revelation is speculation how do you know what is more sensible or not? There is no standard.
This is the sure sign of that you know nothing.
To know what is sensible meanings using your god given brain. You yourself believe in the unsensible. If you are questioning how one finds sensible in regard to religion then how do you know what is more sensible when picking a color to match another color. What if a religion declare that god is in the flesh standing right in front of you and you look up and he is not there. Is that sensible?
Divine revelation is not required to believe in god, people have been doing so before divine revelation was invented.
All so called divine revelation is essentially concocted and speculated to fit a requirement of the person claiming divine revelation. It means essentially nothing.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You missed my point. It gets valid Judaic teachings and facts wrong, mixes stories up, and borrows from texts the HEBREWS condemned. One famous example is a historical mistake that is easy to see the cause of and its exact date. Because of the nature of the mistake it has been tracked across Arabia step by step and shows up in the Quran. Did Allah not know the place names were all garbled up and switched?

And? I do not believe in those Judaic teachings. Are you seriously so naive that you do not know how to rationally argue with a person who does not accept your religion as truth? Or any religion for that matter.
I love religions and I love them all but I like many others know they are not divine truths. I can borrow from them as I please but they are not commandments.
If Muhammad quoted a Judaic teaching wrong it does not matter because the Qur'an states the Bible is corrupt(which it is) so even if Muhammad was speaking from prophecy it is irrelevant on both sides of the table. Both non-prophetic and prophetic.
You are again going off subject trying to destroy his character theologically, which we are not discussing.

If that is true then my contention about deism and revelation should be dismissed but the new contention that you have no way of knowing what is "better" is now a problem.

Your Bible makes an absurd claim god came to mankind in human form while the Qur'an does not. Thus the Qur'an is better. Does that solve your issue?
Why do you think people need holy books to know there is a god? We have been doing it before. But I forget you deny common history as the Bible is historically accurate.

I have never met a Muslim that does not believe in possession. However that is not even the issue. It is influence and Muhammad himself admitted it at least twice. How much clearer can evidence get?

You have not met a Muslim I assure you. Possession is still being debated and is about as unclear to Muslims as ever. You only say such things to validify your claims against a religion. I have been in mosques with them and associated with them.
Muhammad never admitted to being possessed which is why you did not bring up a scriptural evidence, ayat or narration. Keep in mind if you do bring it up I will easily(regardless of skill) read the original Arabic incase you mistranslate it.

Unlike a historically biased and irrational Muslim I am not bound by Quranic texts. The stories of his claiming to have met demons is accepted by Muslim scholars and is a fact of history as certain as Caesar crossing the Rubicon, only preference denies it.

You mean jinn. It is not a historical fact that Muhammad met demons it is hearsay like your Bible. The fact you try associating historic claims into this is actually exceedingly laughable.

I have never heard a person hat admitted to possession (thousands) ever claimed he wished to be. That is the nature of possession but I argue for influence not possession and Muhammad admits it.

No he does not which is why you are not proving evidence.

This: I will admit that maybe you were only stating what is believed by others but it does not read that way.

It is obviously clear that I am being cynical about your view of demons and angels.
It does not take much to notice that.

 

[Sha'irullah]

1. There is no conflict between three persons in one being.
2. One is not better than three unless you first prefer one. 2 is no better than a thousand. 3.14 is not better than ten million. Numbers are abstract concepts that are not better than each other.
3. Both Judaism and Christianity proclaimed monotheism before anyone ever heard of Muhammad.
4. Muhammad not Judaism or Christianity borrowed from polytheists.

Yet ironically people disagree and ironically people leave Christianity for it. Even more ironically there are Christian groups which deny the Trinity. If you deny this then you are lost and if you don't then you are in a pickle as it makes your claim invalid. The Trinity is illogical.
1+1+1=3. Simple math but you can also do 1÷1÷1=1 .
Also most do agree that Judaism borrowed from the religions existing before them. I can get into more detail about this but I find it ironic you say this when the NT has so much Hellenic crossover from pre-existing Greek. Or do you deny Hades was mentioned in the Bible?

Lets narrow this claim so it is manageable. Not one story included in both the Bible and the Quran is wrong in the Bible and correct in the Quran. Every historical inconsistency between them that can be verified is a Quranic mistake.

Bible is not a history book so comparing the Qur'an to Biblical myths is not remotely logical since it would be like Using The Iliad to assess Greek life and looking for the Island where Zeus threw Hephaestus.

What 5000 manuscripts? That is not what the Bible was derived from. I think you need more study about textual integrity. If you do not have the originals (neither the Bible or the Quran do) then you need several things to be true to be sure that the copies are accurate.

I cannot believe you are denying this as it is essentially denying the council of Nicea . I may not be using the correct number but regardless.

1. The Bible has early copies. The Quran does as well.
2. The Bible has countless independent lines of transmission. The Quran does not, Uthman is the sole source.
3. The Bible has prolific copying. The Quran does not, it was controlled and limited by governmental institutions for political reasons.
4. The Bible has independent authors, the Quran is one man's very suspicious word.
There is more but I am lazy today.

The bible was composed of different languages deviating from its original text which the jews have to this very day. It was composed of in Greek and cannot even get proper words like bondservant correct to this very day.
Uthman is not the sole source as here is the one who standardized the current compilation and prevent dialect changes. Hence the heavy usage of diacritic signs used in most Qur'an to have perfect transliteration.
You just lied to make the BIble seem more preserved which it is not.

Followers. You claim it was Muhammad’s traveling that made the difference. The numbers are vastly too large for that. If it went from 150 to 500 then maybe. It went from 150 to 100,000. That suggests that something very new and powerful was available. Power, money, women, and pleasure attract people and explain the numbers his traveling does not.

It was called conquest and this is irrelevant. The amount of followers he has makes no point. Muhammad went to Medina and acquired more followers in an area that was more free from the Quraysh influence, hence his travel.
You are aware he was forced out of Makkah correct?

I am the only one that gave ANY evidence. I showed that two pagans converted on the spot because loot was involved and that was the only way to get it. Treaties and other evidence confirms it beyond doubt. Christianity spread rapidly in spite of the opposition of the greatest empire on Earth. Islam spread with the power base, plunder, and all manner of Earthly enticements. The two situations are polar opposites.

No you did not, you have no quoted the correct ahadith or any. Be aware I am no that fond of them since the history is misconstrued. But it makes little difference.

So a man never commissioned by God and never demonstrating his supernatural source even when demanded to, is better evidence for prophet hood that men who parted seas, raised the dead, and conquered empires by the power of testimony. Only in Islam does that make sense. The best arguments against Islam are your claims for it.

No prophet in the BIble parted seas or raised the dead, period. Hence I do not accept them. You are a man of Christ so why is it his evidences are not being shown right now? A fallible book is to be taken seriously somehow and judge those who do not accept it as history.
You are aware I am not a true "Muslim" right? By using me as a stepping stone for Muslim you are proving your own insecurity by attack the guy who admires a religion. You are far too scared to attack a real Muslim . I know Islam is fallible and I accept this, does not change anything.

Then we agree on 90% of the issues.

Have you even been reading this entire time . Seriously you say I contradict myself by somehow quoting that I believe Satan and divine revelation then you are surprised when I keep repeating that I do not.
Are you even aware of what deist means? I provide proper definition but you ignore it over your own concocted one. :thud:.

Not for a man claiming to be from God. This is absolutely absurd. Everything you claim is the exact opposite of what is virtually universally believed.

What you say is not universally believed unless one is a Christian, you give statements like all scholars agree that the Bible is historically accurate yet not everyone is a Christian, not even half the world :biglaugh:.
I am not in the fold of religion like you. So what does it matter if I believe something not accepted by Christians If I am not a Christian?

New International Version (©2011)
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

That is what a God should do and what almost everyone would recognize and expect from a God. That is why both the people asked Muhammad for miracles (as anyone would) and why he could not do any.

Nobody should expect the same opinions about god which you do. You believe in an illogical god you abides by legalese.
You believe in an imperfect god, so imperfect he created the devil which rebelled against him and created man which also rebelled against him.
You believe in a weak god who cannot convince his own creation of its existence.

You do not worship a god, you worship ego. Your own ego that something not spoken by you is entirely correct to the point of perfect. You believe you are perfect by following a perfection. The perfection is the Bible for you and it is ironically not even perfect.
You are going to try to match the Qur'an which is not perfect either but better for me and match it to your Bible. You are aware Moses slaughtered the people of Jericho right? He does not sound any better than Muhammad. God ordered Saul to slaughter innocent women and children as well and. He wiped out villages and entire cities. Are you going to just dodge this? Your god doesn't seem so loving if you ask me. I just forgot to mention that according to your god also he flooded the world to wipe out all of mankind . Global genocide is somehow softer compared to Muhammad?
The prophets of the Bible are of such good moral character are they not

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If we can't know him then of what use is he as a prophet. Surely God could have communicated what he wished despite it being 1500 hundred years ago.

You could know Him through Quran.
However, that Book is also misinterpreted, therefore God revealed to Baha'u'llah, and confirmed Muhammad was a True prophet.

He created the greatest book in human history and it is more than 2000 years old. In fact Muhammad was alive within 200 years of the printing press and is a very well-known historical character. [/FONT][/COLOR]

You are confusing famous person, with well-known person.
Yes, Muhammad is very famous, but He is not well-known truely. He is misrepresented by Muslims, then by other religious leaders.

That is some kind of faith based assertion without any evidence to support it. I can claim I am sent to correct your prophet but without massive evidence on my side I might as well whistle in the wind.

The History regarding Baha'u'llah is relatively well-documented if you refer to Baha'i Sources. If you read it with an open mind and open heart then you will know Him.

How do you know they all teach this. There are thousands of them.

There are not thousands of them. You probably confuse sects and denominations with Religion. Currently there are only 9 major religions.

All the contemporary evidence, in fact all evidence in existence has Jesus as a risen (literally and physically)

Are you joking? What all evidences? Jesus lived 2000 years ago, and barely you can find "Historical" evidences that He even existed.

In fact even most scholars on either side agree that Christ's tomb was empty (physically).

There is no proof that the Tomb of Jesus was even found today, let alone if He is still in it or not.
Moreover, just because a Tomb is empty is no proof He physically raised. His Body could have moved by some people, or the Jews at that time, may have gave the Body to animals to be eaten, so, His Tomb would not become famous and He may totally die from the mind of People. Who knows....

Have you ever counted up how many or what percentage of reliable facts and established doctrine you must deny for no reason, as a Baha'i?

Many of the false and man-made doctrines.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is not what Muslims interpret that verse to mean.

I know. The reason is Muslims interpret Quran "Outwardly", rather than spiritually.
This is what Prophet Muhammad said about Muslims:

"The Apostle of God said: `There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward form and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. The mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (Fuqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return.'"
- Ibn Babuya, Thawab ul-A'mal
- Also, in Al-Bihar, by Al-Majlisi, Vol 13, Page 155
- Also, in Kanz Al-amal #766

COLOR=black]1. They say a physical substitute was placed on the cross instead of Christ.

This is a man-made interpretation. If that was true, there would have been a Hadith from Muhammad confirming this interpretation.

How do people see his spiritual reality appear to be crucified?

The spiritual reality of Jesus appeared after His crucifixion as progress of His cause. Therefore His Reality was not crucified.

I have been around Christians for over 35 years and not once have I ever heard anyone suggest this. You can't crucify a spirit, that makes no sense what so ever and not one single verse supports that. This is the kind of stuff that is supposed to set off alarms in your head and indicate you are following an incoherent belief. Why does it not?

Let me ask you this: do Christians believe that when Jesus was crucified, His Body and Spirit both were killed?
That's what I have understood from many of them.

Then by your own standards it can't be nailed to a cross and yet it is. This is a failure of even internal consistency.

You even didn't understand what I was saying. Did you?

That is not what the Quran says and not what I have ever heard a single Muslim apologist or any other Muslim claim about those verses.

What Quran says, is such words like: "None knows its interpretation" and in another verse: "When its interpretation shall come they will know"

Here is one of Islam’s most famous interpreters on their first and no abandoned understanding of that verse:

To me being famous is not the measure of truth. How about you?
I know there are very famous Jewish leaders who interpret Hebrew Scriptures in a way that in no way Jesus could be the Messiah.

What in the heck was this? The Bible has 25,000 corroborations and never claims anything but to be literal recorded history.

Show me a single verse in Bible that says: "these scriptures are literal history"
In contrast, I can show you hundreds if not tens of verses that they are saying we are writing Parables.

This is by far the worst claim about the Bible of any kind I have ever heard. You can claim (but you would be wrong in claiming it) that the Bible is historically inaccurate.

You misunderstood it. I didn't say Bible is historically inaccurate. I said, it is not a History Book.

No one, suggests it is not claimed to be historical.

I only care about what is written in the Bible. Can you show a single verse in Bible that the Authors claimed "This is a literal History Book"

 

[Sha'irullah]

*edit*http://youtu.be/NlmgBGMmXpQ

This is just awful. Considering the fact Muhammad united much of modern Arabia this is a contradiction. People create chaos and this did not exist in his era after he took over.
Muhammad genuinely believed what he did was for the better as far as I am concerned.
What is even more ironic is that quite a lot of chaos has been caused by the very countries containing people who make these absurd claims.

 

[F0uad]

*edit*

Ever opened the OT Christian?

 

[james bond]

This is just awful. Considering the fact Muhammad united much of modern Arabia this is a contradiction. People create chaos and this did not exist in his era after he took over.
Muhammad genuinely believed what he did was for the better as far as I am concerned.
What is even more ironic is that quite a lot of chaos has been caused by the very countries containing people who make these absurd claims.

How else can one explain what goes on in the ME and elsewhere today? All caused by Muslims. The US can't stop it, so we're left to choose sides in the name of oil.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ever opened the OT Christian?

He forgot Saul, Abraham, Moses, and how God single handily committed acts of genocide. Most hate the fact that Muhammad spent more time converting as well as oppose to wondering who should die next.
I can promise you that Christianity is a peculiar ideology.

 

[james bond]

Ever opened the OT Christian?

Puhleeze, that was a long time ago. I'm not denying it happened and don't enjoy reading about it, but Muslims are living it today. If you want to p*e on Christianity, be my guest, but OT Christianity does not have anything to do with today.

 

[Sha'irullah]

How else can one explain what goes on in the ME and elsewhere today? All caused by Muslims. The US can't stop it, so we're left to choose sides in the name of oil.

US went into Afghanistan left Osama and gave him a grudge by leaving Afghanistan in shambles then refused to remove dictator like Saddam and Mubarak when we could have done so by proxy and got Osama mad again by double crossing him then he attacked us and we blamed it on Islam.
That is just how it went in a nutshell.
Did you also fail to realized that Islamic terrorism was relatively non existent until now? Roughly around the time Arabs nations began releasing oil upon the world and uncapping their spouts
I guess you will play blind ignorance to this.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Puhleeze, that was a long time ago. I'm not denying it happened and don't enjoy reading about it, but Muslims are living it today. If you want to p*e on Christianity, be my guest, but OT Christianity does not have anything to do with today.

But it does..... this is the irony

 

[james bond]

US went into Afghanistan left Osama and gave him a grudge by leaving Afghanistan in shambles then refused to remove dictator like Saddam and Mubarak when we could have done so by proxy and got Osama mad again by double crossing him then he attacked us and we blamed it on Islam.
That is just how it went in a nutshell.
Did you also fail to realized that Islamic terrorism was relatively non existent until now? Roughly around the time Arabs nations began releasing oil upon the world and uncapping their spouts
I guess you will play blind ignorance to this.

Islamic terrorism has existed for thousands of years before the US started getting the oil. It just evolved with the oil. Here is how it is today.

First, you have to understand the oil. Don't ever forget the oil. Sheeple in the US easily forget about it.

Second, look at what Obama is doing this very minute in Syria. He is pitting the Sunni Muslims versus the Shia Muslims. We take the side of the Sunnis despite AQ being in it. It used to be that the US took the side of the Muslims in power, but that changed (see #3). The only difference is the US does not have to do the dirty work unless forced to.

Third, we used to work with people like Saddam and Assad in Syria. Those types of people brought stability to the region and we wanted to do business with them. They wanted guns and stuff for their Islamic wars. The US sold it to them.

What turned that policy around is two-fold. One, rise of Islamic terrorism against the US. Two, nuclear fusion.

 

[james bond]

But it does..... this is the irony

Ok, go ahead and explain how the OT relates to today.

The way I see it. The Muslims slaughter Christians today. They also kill atheists and others including other Muslims.

"Christian persecution occurs across Asia, Africa, and the Greater Middle East; it ranges from restrictions on worship to assassination for owning a Bible; and it occurs due to government sponsorship (e.g., in North Korea, Vietnam, China, Burma, Saudi Arabia, and Iran), social intolerance (in Nigeria and Iraq), or acts of terrorism from Muslim extremists (e.g., in Somalia and Afghanistan)."

 

[Sha'irullah]

Islamic terrorism has existed for thousands of years before the US started getting the oil. It just evolved with the oil. Here is how it is today.

First, you have to understand the oil. Don't ever forget the oil. Sheeple in the US easily forget about it.

Second, look at what Obama is doing this very minute in Syria. He is pitting the Sunni Muslims versus the Shia Muslims. We take the side of the Sunnis despite AQ being in it. It used to be that the US took the side of the Muslims in power, but that changed (see #3). The only difference is the US does not have to do the dirty work unless forced to.

Third, we used to work with people like Saddam and Assad in Syria. Those types of people brought stability to the region and we wanted to do business with them. They wanted guns and stuff for their Islamic wars. The US sold it to them.

What turned that policy around is two-fold. One, rise of Islamic terrorism against the US. Two, nuclear fusion.

An Obama hater? Now I know this is going nowhere!
It is not Sunni verses Shia it is Sunni vs Nusayri.
Obama is not doing anything because Sunnis hate them for their controversial views and how Assad was left in power and protects them.
This debate has ended as it is not even a debate. Closer to false ramblings and lack of information