Was Muhammad a good man?

[james bond]

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

Where do you get the Obama hater stuff???

And basically, it's Sunnis vs Shia in Syria.

Obama is doing what any US POTUS would do. He has been sending hundreds of millions over there for the rebels to fight our war without anyone in the US batting an eye. He's claimed that the use of chemical weapons is a redline. And all that ammo that the US DHS has been buying is probably going over there, too. Where do you get your info from?

Now that civil war in Syria has lead to more strife in Iraq. These Muslims just can't get along.

U.S. to provide $100 million in new Syria aid, but not to arm rebels - CBS News

Obama authorizes covert US support for Syrian rebels ? reports ? RT News

Syria’s Civil War Fueling Violence in Iraq -- News from Antiwar.com

 

[F0uad]

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.

Any Historical reference for this?

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.

What has this to do with Islam, Mohammed(saws) or Christianity? :help:

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.

Yes you did, you made everything worse and supported dictators and gave them weapons what killed innocent people. But what has this to do with Christianity, The old-testament, Islam or Mohammed(saws)?

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

Yeah and who is the blame for it? The US itself... But still i see no connection with this and the subject we were talking about..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm just an interested lurker, really, but I'd be pretty interested to see historical references to Islamic terrorists as well. Thousands of years, huh?

Betya can't link to anything more than a thousand years old, and even then I personally would find the link pretty debateable.

 

[1robin]

Investigate truth wrote:

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.

I am not suggesting you believe what a few critics have claimed. I said your interpretation does not exist in Islam on any meaningful level. If you wish to think all the Quranic experts do not understand their own texts and that the thousands of brilliant Biblical scholars all arrived at the wrong interpretation then that is your business but do not expect anyone to concur who knows the issues. If I had a scientific theory that 95% of scientists disagreed with I would re-evaluate it. You are in the exact same situation with basically every interpretation Baha'i forces you to adopt for other faiths much older and much more understood texts. You can believe what you wish however there is no argument for it.

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

That is not an argument. I can claim that up and down are not contradictory by redefining them into meaninglessness. It will not help. Baha'i forces two things that are inconsistent to be consistent and forces irrational interpretations to be adopted to justify it.

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:

The Quran does not say they did not kill him. It says they did not crucify him.

"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."

1. Then just who were they walking around with and talking to?
2. Who's side and wrists did Thomas touch?
3. Who sat and ate with them?
4. Who did they watch ascend to heaven?
5. Christ was the first fruits of salvation. He was the first person resurrected and it was intended to prove that it will occur. (other were resuscitated and died later, he did not). How is that going to work if he never died?
That is only 5 pieces of evidence among hundreds (including prophecies of his death and his own claims about his death) that show the evidence is not on your side. However the evidence will not matter only your commitment to a presupposition without any evidence. Why? What is it that ties you to Baha'i even if it separates you from truth?

Baha'i is not an investigation of facts and a reasonable conclusion. It is a preference based conclusion in search of justification. If I had never read the Bible or the Quran I could say anything and find something in books that large and sweeping to justify it. As long as context is the first casualty and scholarship and over all narrative are ignored or butchered. What is it that makes this worth doing for you? There is just too much at stake for this kind of stuff. Why is an obscure religious figure’s (1900 years after the events) claims believed over all the contemporary testimony and 2000 years of scholarship?

 

[1robin]

the country was called Refrigatorstan

I met the king of that country at an outdoor exhibit in Salt Lake city. Our booth was next door to one that sold refrigerators and the "frig" Perry was selling them.

I have been sticking with the topic at hand and have been defending his actions not his divine prophet hood..

His actions were performed within the context of a prophet. There is no other realm to evaluate them in. If he had never claimed what he did then we would not be discussing him in a theological forum.

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

Are you actually questioning whether Ishmael and Isaac lived? Muhammad claimed to be from Isaac's line himself. Most scholars think that is ridiculous but at least he believed they existed.

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.

Yes you have. You have claimed over and over that the concept of substitutionary atonement is terrible and evil.

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.

About as solid as thin ice. Your stance is not an option. Either Muhammad was evil or a prophet and Christ was either the messiah or a madman. There is no in between. History has not left that option available (C.S. Lewis).

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.

What could be more useless and worthy of condemnation that words of men claime dto be from God. Yet you neither condemn nor accept them, certainly convenient but useless.

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.

You invaded refrigistan not me.

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

I disagree but if true, Muhammad is a historical footnote and little more and unworthy of this much time.

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.

Most of the folks brought into the fold were there for profit and power. If not he would have had more followers early on. There is no meaningful difference in respect to methods between the Nazi's and Muhammad. Rewards were offered and punishment threatened by both. In fact entire Muslim divisions existed in the Wauffen SS and committed many genocides. The first time Hitler announced his Jewish "'solution" publically was in a meeting with a Imam (forget his name).

It does not change anything.

It makes all the difference in the world if you are drawing political parallels.

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.

That is evidence that it is not from God. You do not believe this anyway but that is the context Islam comes with. It is either from God or worthy of nothing but censure.

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.
We are not debating his prophet hood.

I am debating his prophet hood. I do not know what your debating. If not a prophet then Islam stands condemned because that is what it is based upon.

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.

I know enough that it led me to experience God directly. Something you nor 99% of Muslims will even attempt to claim. The 2500 accurate prophecies in the Bible are enough alone to justify it's dominion as true revelation. Fortunately there are countless more reasons to believe it (not Islam) is from God.

To know what is sensible meanings using your god given brain.

A large portion of the most intelligent, qualified, investigative, and logical men in human history have been men of faith. I have never heard a single person claim to believe what you claim. I am in the company of Newton's, Da Vinci's, Sandage's, Kelvin's, Pascal's, Greenleaf's and thousands of history’s greatest scholars. You are a majority of one as far as I can tell. My truth has converted Empires and built the greatest nations ever conceived. I am in good company.

 

[F0uad]

Just correcting somethings you said.

Are you actually questioning whether Ishmael and Isaac lived? Muhammad claimed to be from Isaac's line himself. Most scholars think that is ridiculous but at least he believed they existed.

This is incorrect, The prophet came from Ishmael(ra) not Isaac(ra) remember Ishmael(ra) is the forefather of the Arabs and there is no Scholar or Historian who disagrees with it because the lineage is accurate.

There is no evidence for Ishmael's, Isaac's or Abraham's(peace be upon them) existence except for our Scriptures.

About as solid as thin ice. Your stance is not an option. Either Muhammad was evil or a prophet and Christ was either the messiah or a madman. There is no in between. History has not left that option available (C.S. Lewis).

Or the Bible has been altered in history as many Biblical scholars agree on so Lewis got it wrong.

Most of the folks brought into the fold were there for profit and power. If not he would have had more followers early on. There is no meaningful difference in respect to methods between the Nazi's and Muhammad. Rewards were offered and punishment threatened by both. In fact entire Muslim divisions existed in the Wauffen SS and committed many genocides. The first time Hitler announced his Jewish "'solution" publically was in a meeting with a Imam (forget his name).

Yet the Whole Christian Church was behind the killings and kidnappings of many Jews, reason given? The Jews killed Jesus(pbuh).
There was one single group of SS lead by the Palestinian Mutfi because the Jews were invading Palestine what is totally irrelevant to the subject. The only group that sided with Hitler to take over the world and exterminate Jews was the Christian Church, wherein the Palestinian mutfi just tried to defend hes land.

 

[1robin]

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 am not sure you understand what you believe. Your argumentation is inconsistent with your stance and is about the most obscure world view I have ever heard of and you seem to use the obvious confusion you create as a kind of defacto defense.

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.

How convenient, and utterly useless. Why would anyone want to?

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.

First even if the Bible or Jewish texts were corrupt Muhammad would not have known it. Second there is no evidence what so ever that his distortions were actually correct. There is mountains of evidence that they were wrong however. Third they are not all teachings, many are simply misspellings, heretical historical myths known to be false, inaccurate claims concerning names and relationships, and self-contradictions. Most secular scholars claim Muhammad got most of his inaccurate Biblical understanding from his first wife’s (uncle or brother I believe) and this perfectly explains why it is so abjectly false.

You are again going off subject trying to destroy his character theologically, which we are not discussing.

That is the only reason to discuss him at all. If not a prophet then a petty tyrant unworthy of this much debate. I think you recognize his claims to prophet hood are untenable and are diverting the conversation from the only reason to have it in the first place.

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?

That is one of the worst arguments ever made for anything I have ever heard, and solves nothing. You may not bind God as to what he can and cannot do. My God is capable of doing what he claimed, your God is apparently incapable of even caring, and Islam’s incapable of helping. Far from being better it is far far worse.

Why do you think people need holy books to know there is a god?

The Bible in fact says they do not and I have never claimed we do. It however does make sense that any God worth having would communicate with us both spiritually and textually.

We have been doing it before. But I forget you deny common history as the Bible is historically accurate.

This made no sense. The Bible has 25,000 historical corroborations and I am aware of no inaccuracies 9outside well known scribal errors in a few places). It has buried it's historical critics for over 2000 years and is a primary archeological resource. Your going to have to eventually actually provide evidence instead of assertions if you wish to debate.

You have not met a Muslim I assure you.

What the heck? Will you say anything? I have dated one, my sister has a roommate that is one, I work with about six, I have debated maybe a hundred or more, and have two that are friends. There are Islamic web sites concerning possession and Imams who claim to cast them out. Unless you mean the name (demons versus Jinn), if so that is a petty and meaningless claim if not simply absurdly wrong.

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.

This is not even debatable. Of course there is disagreement but demonic (or Jinn) activity is a valid Islamic concept. There are even Islamic exorcisms.

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.

There are countless scholars that understand the Quran perfectly, that say exactly what I have. I do not claim Muhammad was possessed and have said so many times. I claim he was influenced. He without a doubt delivered Satanic verses and initially thought he had met a Jinn (or Demon) in his cave experience and told his wife as much. This in simple history and is not debatable.

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.

That is a fact of history as certain as most of the Quran and Hadith's claims. You can't selectively decide what is historical based on preference. If that evidence is hearsay then the whole Quran is. Continued:

 

[1robin]

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

I have posted about a thousand facts for whatclaim and it is very well documented. A few of them are below and the links can be used to find all you the evidence you want.

Since the first tactic of the Islamic scholars I have seen is to dismiss anything that isn't flattering by saying they do not accept it. I can understand that for things that are not known very well, but Muhammad's fits are very well attested in many texts and in numerous examples.

Here are a few:
The method of revelation was not always the same according to Islamic tradition, over the years to follow, when Mohammad received revelation of the Quran, he would faint, foam at the mouth and tremble at times. The book True Guidance Part IV, records the Hadiths regarding the manner which Mohammad received his revelations,
The authoritative Hadith (Tradition) relate that Muhammad used to faint whenever revelations came to him. It is claimed he used to act like a drunkard (See Al-Sirah al-Nabawiya, by Ibn Hisham; chapter on how the revelation came). In his book, Al-Quran al-Majid, Darwaza claims that Muhammad was taken out of this world. Abu Huraira says that "whenever Muhammad received revelation, he was overwhelmed by trembling." Another account says: "He became distressed, foamng at the mouth and closing his eyes. At times he snorted like a young camel" (Ahmad b. Hanbal I, 34, 464, VI. 163)…..Umar b. al-Khattab said: "When revelation descended upon Muhammad, one could hear it near his face like the humming of bees" (Ahmad b. Hanbal, I. 34)[6]

Mohammed and his attempted Suicide during the period of silence (610-613)​

Following the first appearance of the "angel" and the proclamation of his "Call" there was a period of silence for about three-years. During this period, Mohammad was distraught and often thought about suicide, wishing to throw himself off the mountains of Hira or Qubays.
What is the Qu'ran ( Koran ) (Quran)

In receiving the Qur’an, the Islamic tradition tells us that Muhammad used to go into convulsions similar to epileptic seizures, break out in cold sweat, and his mouth used to foam. This indicates that Muhammad was either afflicted with epilepsy or another neurological illness, or he was demon possessed. In fact, Jesus exorcized demons that had tormented the possessed persons in this very same way: "Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, "Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child. And behold, a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out; it convulses him so that he foams at the mouth; and it departs from him with great difficulty, bruising him. So I implored Your disciples to cast it out, but they could not." Then Jesus answered and said, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here." And as he was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him. Then Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the child, and gave him back to his father. And they were all amazed at the majesty of God …" (Luke 9: 38-43). There are striking similarities between the symptoms that boy suffered from and what used to happen to Muhammad when he claimed divine revelation. Instead, was it a satanic inspiration all along?
The Qur'an is not a miracle; linguistic, scientific and historical problems, contradictions, abrogation, and satanic inspiration in the Qur'an

Let the denial fest commence.

I state the Muhammad was not a prophet and the Quran is not from God. You seem to agree. I do not know what it is outside this you feel is important about Muhammad but I have no interest in his secular career. It appears I have no dog in this race.

 

[1robin]

Just correcting somethings you said.

This is incorrect, The prophet came from Ishmael(ra) not Isaac(ra) remember Ishmael(ra) is the forefather of the Arabs and there is no Scholar or Historian who disagrees with it because the lineage is accurate.

You are right. That is what I meant to claim it was simply a typing mistake. There is no historical lineage linking Muhammad with Ismael outside simple assertions and I have never heard a scholar agree with it. That however does not matter because there were no prophets to come from Ismael’s line. The only thing prophesied to come from his line is exactly what we have received. A great but volatile culture that produced PROBLEMS and VIOLENCE incessantly.

There is no evidence for Ishmael's, Isaac's or Abraham's(peace be upon them) existence except for our Scriptures.

Is that not enough? If we are discussing things in a secular context maybe not, however we both believe they existed so there is little point in contesting it.

Or the Bible has been altered in history as many Biblical scholars agree on so Lewis got it wrong.

C.S Lewis's credentials overshadow ours so unless evidence is given his claim stands. Even if the Bible were corrupted Muhammad would not have known it in his day and no Muslim could have known which verse were corrupt even if they were. He in fact corrupted it himself and got many facts, names, and stories completely wrong. I think we have been down this path before so I will leave it here.

Yet the Whole Christian Church was behind the killings and kidnappings of many Jews, reason given? The Jews killed Jesus(pbuh).

I do not primarily defend Christian’s. Unlike most Muslims I readily admit our horrid mistakes and condemn them. I have no idea what you are talking about but have no need to deny that Christians have done horrible things and people claiming to be Christians did far more horrible things. However Islam has an if possible even worse record and we seem to have learned our lesson unlike Islam.

There was one single group of SS lead by the Palestinian Mutfi because the Jews were invading Palestine what is totally irrelevant to the subject.

It might be a little off topic but Hitler was being discussed. I do not have time to look this up right this minute but Muslims from many countries fought with Hitler. They killed tens of thousands of civilians that had nothing to do with Palestine what ever.

The only group that sided with Hitler to take over the world and exterminate Jews was the Christian Church, wherein the Palestinian mutfi just tried to defend hes land.

This last one is simply incorrect. Hitler did court the Catholic church because they had a powerful influence. I am not sure what every individual did but the Church in general refused him and he turned on them with a vengeance. His writings railed against God and the Church many times. Hitler killed for reasons of power and wealth. He alternately used God to justify his actions but condemned Christianity and God countless times (he was nuts). He used evolution to validate what he did. basically he was crazy and the Church as a whole never supported him and nothing he did has any bearing on the Church or God. When I have time I will post the evidence I have found (and there is a lot of it) concerning Islam's collaboration with Hitler and the genocides done for reasons that had nothing to do with Palestine, (most of their fighting took place around the Baltic states not Palestine). Which is Roman word for an area and has never been a nation.

Where have you been? I expected stiff resistance from you (at least) about the Battle of Badr but no one even attempted an argument against what I claimed and you disappeared completely.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I met the king of that country at an outdoor exhibit in Salt Lake city. Our booth was next door to one that sold refrigerators and the "frig" Perry was selling them.

You probably met my brother

His actions were performed within the context of a prophet. There is no other realm to evaluate them in. If he had never claimed what he did then we would not be discussing him in a theological forum.

His actions were as a prophet yes but the topic at hand is about his character. You are not debating his actions as a man or prophet but debunking his prophet-hood which does not merit to his character or diminish it.

Are you actually questioning whether Ishmael and Isaac lived? Muhammad claimed to be from Isaac's line himself. Most scholars think that is ridiculous but at least he believed they existed.

I know you will say scholar this or scholar that even though you do not know anything. But I myself cannot recall Ishmael's regional travels according to Biblical record so I cannot debate this as I do not know it.
Abraham's history is entirely a blank slate and has no historical validity regardless. I know you will say otherwise but you cannot debate fact and the Bible does not count if you cannot prove Adam's existence.

Yes you have. You have claimed over and over that the concept of substitutionary atonement is terrible and evil.

But what does that have to do with Jesus? Jesus was a person not god. The evidence about his existence is highly unclear and flimsy but he is not the son of god yet alone god.
What you call hell is nothing more but incorporated mythos from the Pagan era of the Greeks and Romans.

About as solid as thin ice. Your stance is not an option. Either Muhammad was evil or a prophet and Christ was either the messiah or a madman. There is no in between. History has not left that option available (C.S. Lewis).

Why am I to choose between two people on Biblical accord? I am not attached to your religion which further prooves you are incapable of debating me. Muhammad was not a prophet, Jesus was not the son of god, and your superstitions do not exist.
Why should I feel compelled to choose one or the other if I have ties to neither? That is idiotic.
So please explain why I must accept Muhammad as evil or a prophet or jesus as a Messiah or madman.
I know your answer will make no sense regardless.

What could be more useless and worthy of condemnation that words of men claimed to be from God. Yet you neither condemn nor accept them, certainly convenient but useless.

Your point being?
Perhaps it has not occurred to you that I do not need religion to live. My condemnation of scripture is without a doubt useful as I do not have to abide by ignorance . Or is it the fact you cannot provide historical justification for the Bible just funny.

Most of the folks brought into the fold were there for profit and power. If not he would have had more followers early on. There is no meaningful difference in respect to methods between the Nazi's and Muhammad. Rewards were offered and punishment threatened by both. In fact entire Muslim divisions existed in the Wauffen SS and committed many genocides. The first time Hitler announced his Jewish "'solution" publically was in a meeting with a Imam (forget his name).

:biglaugh:. What does nazi Germany have anything to do with this? Waffen SS and Muslims? Seriously? Please explain to me their significance to Muhammad.

Muhammad brought people of all kinds into his religion, he did not exclude by gender or dedicate his life to eradicating entire races. But on the other hand Christians did .

That is evidence that it is not from God. You do not believe this anyway but that is the context Islam comes with. It is either from God or worthy of nothing but censure.

Then why are you debating that Muhammad was not a prophet or worthy to be one? I smell hypocrisy.

I am debating his prophet hood. I do not know what your debating. If not a prophet then Islam stands condemned because that is what it is based upon.
Reread the title of this thread where it says "Was Muhammad a good man?". Please explain to me where it says "was Muhammad a prophet?". If you have only theological debates left in your pockets then I cannot debate with you because I am not a theist.

I know enough that it led me to experience God directly. Something you nor 99% of Muslims will even attempt to claim. The 2500 accurate prophecies in the Bible are enough alone to justify it's dominion as true revelation. Fortunately there are countless more reasons to believe it (not Islam) is from God.

Ahhh you should have read my other posts about mystical experiences. You would have known that I have indeed experience spirituality although I would not call it god.
The countless revelations int he Bible do not exist and you are extremely deluded. Nostradamus has done a better job then the Bible could ever do but the difference is the Bible is myth not revelation.

A large portion of the most intelligent, qualified, investigative, and logical men in human history have been men of faith. I have never heard a single person claim to believe what you claim. I am in the company of Newton's, Da Vinci's, Sandage's, Kelvin's, Pascal's, Greenleaf's and thousands of history’s greatest scholars. You are a majority of one as far as I can tell. My truth has converted Empires and built the greatest nations ever conceived. I am in good company.

Tell this to every scientist in modern history . You will get quite the opposite response when you realized that during the ages of enlightenment that men heavily abandoned god when they figured out the errors of there own books. Hence you have the growing spread of Atheism now. Men back then clung to Christianity out of ignorance now it has disappeared from modern science somehow. I wonder why
Good luck with this concept
Leonardo was not a Christian. Your religion also held back science, killed many and promoted barbarism. The Greek and Roman empires toppled any Christian followed by the Mongols
I will end the debate here until you can speak rationally :yes:

 

[1robin]

You probably met my brother

Have you ever seen the "man who would be king" (Connery and Cain)?

His actions were as a prophet yes but the topic at hand is about his character. You are not debating his actions as a man or prophet but debunking his prophet-hood which does not merit to his character or diminish it.

Let me make this simple.
1. He was a bad man by any reasonable standard yet I do not want to contend this. His secular evaluation is of little interest to me. If that is all you wish to contend then you would have to take that up with someone else.
2. His relevance is as a prophet and that is what I contend. He has no qualifications as a prophet and the evidence is against his claims to God being the source of his revelation.
3. This is a religious forum and that is the only context that has any bearing.

I know you will say scholar this or scholar that even though you do not know anything. But I myself cannot recall Ishmael's regional travels according to Biblical record so I cannot debate this as I do not know it.

I am the only who keeps posting evidence. Your argumentation is:
1. Decide what you want to be true.
2. Declare anything that is consistent with what you wish to be true is "better".
On what scale am I the one that does not know anything? I am the only one who posts anything concerning history.

Abraham's history is entirely a blank slate and has no historical validity regardless. I know you will say otherwise but you cannot debate fact and the Bible does not count if you cannot prove Adam's existence.

Until you DEMONSTRATE other wise (or even attempt to) the Bible is a valid historical text. As I have posted two of the greatest experts in testimony and evidence have said it meets every modern standard, I even posted what the standards were. Where is your evidence? All I get are assertions.

But what does that have to do with Jesus? Jesus was a person not god. The evidence about his existence is highly unclear and flimsy but he is not the son of god yet alone god.

As I posted and you did not, the experts claim exactly the opposite. I have no need of additional sources until those are successfully contended. Not to mention teh Bible is a primary secular historical source. All the evidence is on my side. So far you have not posted a single example where the Bible is not accurate. The apostles died defending the fact Christ rose from the dead and that he existed before the Universe did. Until you post evidence this is not true my claims and the evidence I gave establishes the Bible (especially the Gospels) as accurate history. It has been shown accurate tens of thousands of times and mere assertions can't undo that.

What you call hell is nothing more but incorporated mythos from the Pagan era of the Greeks and Romans.

I did not mention Hell in what you responded to and again this is merely another assertion. I posted actual evidence proving the Bible especially the NT did not borrow from anything.

Why am I to choose between two people on Biblical accord? I am not attached to your religion which further proves you are incapable of debating me.

I did not say you had to choose anything. I said Muhammad and Jesus were either independently mad or prophets. There is only two choices evidence allows. I do not care what you think that is all that is available. Things are true of false no matter whether you chose to decide or not. There is no hero in neutrality (or whatever it is you call what you claim to be). Your claims stand for nothing definite. Convenient but meaningless. There is little need to tear down what has never been constructed.

Muhammad was not a prophet, Jesus was not the son of god, and your superstitions do not exist.

What is this? Assertion number 1000 and still not a single piece of evidence.

Why should I feel compelled to choose one or the other if I have ties to neither? That is idiotic.

I long ago concluded that you do not adopt rational understanding and conclusion. I was pointing out there are only two choices whether you adopt one of them or not is not the point.

So please explain why I must accept Muhammad as evil or a prophet or Jesus as a Messiah or madman.

I did not say you had to. I said he is one or the other. I long ago gave up on the logical capacity of people who argue against the Bible.

I know your answer will make no sense regardless.

No only does it make sense it is a logical necessity. If anyone claims to speak for God, they can be liars (and evil), or men of God (and good). There is no other option even if you can't make a stand for either.

Your point being?

I think it clear by now. Continued:

 

[1robin]

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that I do not need religion to live. My condemnation of scripture is without a doubt useful as I do not have to abide by ignorance . Or is it the fact you cannot provide historical justification for the Bible just funny.

I do not care if you believe in the tooth fairy. I am talking about what is not what you believe. I see assertion minus evidence 1003 and 1004 have appeared.

What does Nazi Germany have anything to do with this? Waffen SS and Muslims? Seriously? Please explain to me their significance to Muhammad.

Not much. I sometimes type things i think are interesting even if off subject.

Muhammad brought people of all kinds into his religion, he did not exclude by gender or dedicate his life to eradicating entire races. But on the other hand Christians did

Number 1005 and 1006 making an appearance. Is there ever any evidence going to be provided for anything by you? I do not defend the actions of Christians when wrong. I have no idea what your talking about since you gave no evidence nor even specifics but Christians making mistakes is hardly a revelation. However as I pointed out with specifics and facts of history Christianity exploded on the seen with the death of its leader and the suffering of its apostles. Islam languished under even more tolerable circumstances but only grew when loot and power were available. In short Christianity flourished in spite of persecution. Muhammad’s faith did not, and it only grew when he began oppressing others.

Then why are you debating that Muhammad was not a prophet or worthy to be one? I smell hypocrisy.

I have no idea what your talking about and do not think you do either. What was this?

Tell this to every scientist in modern history .

What are you talking about? The very small list I gave were modern scientists. They existed in the last .002% of human existence. In fact Sandage is the generally considered the greatest modern cosmologist there is, not to mention the man that cracked the genome (DNA sequencing, Collins) plus countless others. The argument that they must be modern is not only invalid they were modern and there are a thousand names for everyone I posted and many of them actually created the fields of science themselves. You are beginning to make claims so bizarre this discussion is hard to justify. I will await the reply to decide whether this merits a continuation.

You will get quite the opposite response when you realized that during the ages of enlightenment that men heavily abandoned god when they figured out the errors of there own books. Hence you have the growing spread of Atheism now. Men back then clung to Christianity out of ignorance now it has disappeared from modern science somehow. I wonder why

Good luck with this concept
Leonardo was not a Christian. Your religion also held back science, killed many and promoted barbarism. The Greek and Roman empires toppled any Christian followed by the Mongols
I will end the debate here until you can speak rationally

I guess this assertions without evidence 1007 - more than I wish to count. I do not debate preference devoid of fact. Leonardo was certainly not a saint but any claims he did not hold Christian/humanists views is absurd and comes from one source (and even though you did not post it I will explain it).

Leonardo's Faith
Our earliest major source for information on the life of Leonardo da Vinci is Giorgio Vasari, whose "Lives of the Artists" (1550) has proven unreliable, though influential nonetheless. Vasari’s initial report on Leonardo included the damning charge that his “cast of mind was so heretical that he did not adhere to any religion,” leading to much speculation about Leonardo, especially with regard to alchemy and secret societies. However, in the definitive second edition of his text (1568), Vasari excised these sentences, due to his own reassessment of Leonardo’s art and life or his realization that these reports were based more on gossip than on fact.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Movies/The-Da-Vinci-Code/Leonardo-His-Faith-His-Art.aspx

He admitted he was wrong. What a concept.
The man painted more of Christianity greatest works than any other for goodness sakes. Once again evidence is not your friend. Since you felt no need for specifics of evidence for the other claims in that last paragraph you coughed up there is little need or opportunity to contend the ideas in your head.
The evidence is against Muhammad's being a prophet. I'm done.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The evidence is against Muhammad's being a prophet. I'm done.

Are you this petty that your own complaint is if Muhammad was a prophet?
You are trying to prove this to a person who does not accept it and I am the closest thing to a Muslim you can argue against.

We are debating Muhammad's character not his prophethood because I see as many inconsistencies in it as you when it is compared to the Bible.
The Bible is not a fact book and not everyone accepts it. SO essentially your are only proving that Muhammad was better compared to the men in the Old Testament.
Trying bringing up a conversation other then a theological one. Failure to commit to the topic being discussed is only proof you have no argument

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'll not get into most of the theological stuff the thread has become, since it doesn't particularly interest me. Da Vinci's religion, however, is NOT something you can clearly and completely claim.

Personally, if I was going to make a guess at his belief system, I would tag him as a theist, who seemed to believe in a non-interventionist God, but I'll be honest enough to admit that is a guess based on very sketchy evidence.

A few things on this;

1) You are correct in that Vasari commented on his cast of mind being heretical, and that this notation was removed was the subsequent edition of the text. I am personally unaware of a definitive cause for this removal, and believe it's conjecture as to why it was removed. 'He admitted he was wrong' would indicate you have some knowledge of this I don't, I guess?

2) He painted Christianity's greatest works. Sure. Not for free though. It was on commission. How this proves his piety is beyond me. The church was an inescapable fact of life in his day (even if he cared to escape it...as I said, I'm not claiming him as anything)

3) It's pretty easy to claim people as Christian in a time when Christian worship wasn't just the norm, but demanded. The man was intelligent, not suicidal.

IN his own words (extract from his notes)

"I am well aware that because I did not study the ancients, some foolish men will accuse me of being uneducated. They will say that because I did not learn from their schoolbooks, I am unqualified to express an opinion. But I would reply that my conclusions are drawn from firsthand experience, unlike the scholars who only believe what they read in books written by others."

"Although I cannot quote from authors in the same way they do, I shall rely on a much worthier thing, actual experience, which is the only thing that could ever have properly guided the men that they learn from."

"These scholars strut around in a pompous way, without any thoughts of their own, equipped only with the thoughts of others, and they want to stop me from having my own thoughts. And if they despise me for being an inventor, then how much more should they be despised for not being inventors but followers and reciters of the works of others."

"When the followers and reciters of the works of others are compared to those who are inventors and interpreters between Nature and man, it is as though they are non-existent mirror images of some original. Given that it is only by chance that we are invested with human form, I might think of them as being a herd of animals."

"Those who try to censor knowledge do harm to both knowledge and love, because love is the offspring of knowledge, and the passion of love grows in proportion to the certainty of knowledge. The more we know about nature, the more we can be certain of what we know, and so the more love we can feel for nature as a whole."

"Of what use are those who try to restrict what we know to only those things that are easy to comprehend, often because they themselves are not inclined to learn more about a particular subject, like the subject of the human body."

"And yet they want to comprehend the mind of God, talking about it as though they had already dissected it into parts. Still they remain unaware of their own bodies, of the realities of their surroundings, and even unaware of their own stupidity."

"Along with the scholars, they despise the mathematical sciences, which are the only true sources of information about those things which they claim to know so much about. Instead they talk about miracles and write about things that nobody could ever know, things that cannot be proven by any evidence in nature."

"It seems to me that all studies are vain and full of errors unless they are based on experience and can be tested by experiment, in other words, they can be demonstrated to our senses. For if we are doubtful of what our senses perceive then how much more doubtful should we be of things that our senses cannot perceive, like the nature of God and the soul and other such things over which there are endless disputes and controversies."

"Wherever there is no true science and no certainty of knowledge, there will be conflicting speculations and quarrels. However, whenever things are proven by scientific demonstration and known for certain, then all quarreling will cease. And if controversy should ever arise again, then our first conclusions must have been questionable."

---------------------------------------------------------------

The only other thing I wanted to mention in relation to this thread is that whether or not you believe Muhammad is a prophet (and I obviously do NOT), he is a historical figure of note. Assume he is a false prophet and still look at the political change he wrought in the Middle East. The impact this had on the Roman Empire alone is enormous.

 

[james bond]

Any Historical reference for this?


??

What has this to do with Islam, Mohammed(saws) or Christianity? :help:

Yes you did, you made everything worse and supported dictators and gave them weapons what killed innocent people. But what has this to do with Christianity, The old-testament, Islam or Mohammed(saws)?


Yeah and who is the blame for it? The US itself... But still i see no connection with this and the subject we were talking about..

You'll have to forgive me if my answers seem clipped as I'm trying to figure out the formatting of replies on this forum.

"In its formative period, Islam was typically spread by conquest or jihad, holy war. It is important to note that jihad, with variable meanings, would remain an essential element of Islam along with its five pillars of faith. The central meaning of greater jihad was the inner struggle to live a spiritual life according to Quran and Hadith (holy teachings). Military conflict was considered a lesser jihad. In political economic terms, the lesser jihad empowered the expansion and defense of the largest empire of its time. Soldiers justified imperial conquests as a religious duty. For Islam, soldiers who died in jihad, martyrs would gain automatic entrance to paradise. For Islam, political control was more important than the conversion of the conquered."


Mark Burgess, a research analyst at the Center for Defense Information, states that "Islamic terrorism goes back to the 11th century Assassins who an order of Isma'ili Shi'ism that targeted political and religious opponents who stood in the way of the Assassins' sectarian ideology. In positing a continuity between Islamic terrorism's medieval and modern manifestations, Burgess identifies a common underlying motive, namely loyalty to a divine imperative, and similar tactics, such as actively seeking out martyrdom."

Islamic Terrorism:

Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My not forgetting about the oil remark refers to the fact that people in the US forget why were end up fighting in the ME. Many times, the deaths of soldiers and innocent native peoples in ME does not make any sense. Personally, I think the US can stay out of the ME if they didn't have such a need for oil and am for a policy of being independent of foreign oil.

As for this thread, I did not think it had anything to do with Christianity. We're talking about Muhammad in this thread and whether he was a good man or not. If you think it is important to compare, then go ahead and bring up your points.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You'll have to forgive me if my answers seem clipped as I'm trying to figure out the formatting of replies on this forum.

"In its formative period, Islam was typically spread by conquest or jihad, holy war. It is important to note that jihad, with variable meanings, would remain an essential element of Islam along with its five pillars of faith. The central meaning of greater jihad was the inner struggle to live a spiritual life according to Quran and Hadith (holy teachings). Military conflict was considered a lesser jihad. In political economic terms, the lesser jihad empowered the expansion and defense of the largest empire of its time. Soldiers justified imperial conquests as a religious duty. For Islam, soldiers who died in jihad, martyrs would gain automatic entrance to paradise. For Islam, political control was more important than the conversion of the conquered."


Mark Burgess, a research analyst at the Center for Defense Information, states that "Islamic terrorism goes back to the 11th century Assassins who an order of Isma'ili Shi'ism that targeted political and religious opponents who stood in the way of the Assassins' sectarian ideology. In positing a continuity between Islamic terrorism's medieval and modern manifestations, Burgess identifies a common underlying motive, namely loyalty to a divine imperative, and similar tactics, such as actively seeking out martyrdom."

Islamic Terrorism:

Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My not forgetting about the oil remark refers to the fact that people in the US forget why were end up fighting in the ME. Many times, the deaths of soldiers and innocent native peoples in ME does not make any sense. Personally, I think the US can stay out of the ME if they didn't have such a need for oil and am for a policy of being independent of foreign oil.

As for this thread, I did not think it had anything to do with Christianity. We're talking about Muhammad in this thread and whether he was a good man or not. If you think it is important to compare, then go ahead and bring up your points.

:biglaugh: Please try doing something else other then quoting Wikipedia and anti-Islamic sites

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You'll have to forgive me if my answers seem clipped as I'm trying to figure out the formatting of replies on this forum.

"In its formative period, Islam was typically spread by conquest or jihad, holy war. It is important to note that jihad, with variable meanings, would remain an essential element of Islam along with its five pillars of faith. The central meaning of greater jihad was the inner struggle to live a spiritual life according to Quran and Hadith (holy teachings). Military conflict was considered a lesser jihad. In political economic terms, the lesser jihad empowered the expansion and defense of the largest empire of its time. Soldiers justified imperial conquests as a religious duty. For Islam, soldiers who died in jihad, martyrs would gain automatic entrance to paradise. For Islam, political control was more important than the conversion of the conquered."


Mark Burgess, a research analyst at the Center for Defense Information, states that "Islamic terrorism goes back to the 11th century Assassins who an order of Isma'ili Shi'ism that targeted political and religious opponents who stood in the way of the Assassins' sectarian ideology. In positing a continuity between Islamic terrorism's medieval and modern manifestations, Burgess identifies a common underlying motive, namely loyalty to a divine imperative, and similar tactics, such as actively seeking out martyrdom."

Islamic Terrorism:

Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My not forgetting about the oil remark refers to the fact that people in the US forget why were end up fighting in the ME. Many times, the deaths of soldiers and innocent native peoples in ME does not make any sense. Personally, I think the US can stay out of the ME if they didn't have such a need for oil and am for a policy of being independent of foreign oil.

As for this thread, I did not think it had anything to do with Christianity. We're talking about Muhammad in this thread and whether he was a good man or not. If you think it is important to compare, then go ahead and bring up your points.

Figured you meant the Assassins. They don't count as 'thousands of year' though, even if I agreed they form a link with modern Islamic terrorism.

 

[james bond]

I'll not get into most of the theological stuff the thread has become, since it doesn't particularly interest me. Da Vinci's religion, however, is NOT something you can clearly and completely claim.

Personally, if I was going to make a guess at his belief system, I would tag him as a theist, who seemed to believe in a non-interventionist God, but I'll be honest enough to admit that is a guess based on very sketchy evidence.

A few things on this;

1) You are correct in that Vasari commented on his cast of mind being heretical, and that this notation was removed was the subsequent edition of the text. I am personally unaware of a definitive cause for this removal, and believe it's conjecture as to why it was removed. 'He admitted he was wrong' would indicate you have some knowledge of this I don't, I guess?

2) He painted Christianity's greatest works. Sure. Not for free though. It was on commission. How this proves his piety is beyond me. The church was an inescapable fact of life in his day (even if he cared to escape it...as I said, I'm not claiming him as anything)

3) It's pretty easy to claim people as Christian in a time when Christian worship wasn't just the norm, but demanded. The man was intelligent, not suicidal.

IN his own words (extract from his notes)

"I am well aware that because I did not study the ancients, some foolish men will accuse me of being uneducated. They will say that because I did not learn from their schoolbooks, I am unqualified to express an opinion. But I would reply that my conclusions are drawn from firsthand experience, unlike the scholars who only believe what they read in books written by others."

"Although I cannot quote from authors in the same way they do, I shall rely on a much worthier thing, actual experience, which is the only thing that could ever have properly guided the men that they learn from."

"These scholars strut around in a pompous way, without any thoughts of their own, equipped only with the thoughts of others, and they want to stop me from having my own thoughts. And if they despise me for being an inventor, then how much more should they be despised for not being inventors but followers and reciters of the works of others."

"When the followers and reciters of the works of others are compared to those who are inventors and interpreters between Nature and man, it is as though they are non-existent mirror images of some original. Given that it is only by chance that we are invested with human form, I might think of them as being a herd of animals."

"Those who try to censor knowledge do harm to both knowledge and love, because love is the offspring of knowledge, and the passion of love grows in proportion to the certainty of knowledge. The more we know about nature, the more we can be certain of what we know, and so the more love we can feel for nature as a whole."

"Of what use are those who try to restrict what we know to only those things that are easy to comprehend, often because they themselves are not inclined to learn more about a particular subject, like the subject of the human body."

"And yet they want to comprehend the mind of God, talking about it as though they had already dissected it into parts. Still they remain unaware of their own bodies, of the realities of their surroundings, and even unaware of their own stupidity."

"Along with the scholars, they despise the mathematical sciences, which are the only true sources of information about those things which they claim to know so much about. Instead they talk about miracles and write about things that nobody could ever know, things that cannot be proven by any evidence in nature."

"It seems to me that all studies are vain and full of errors unless they are based on experience and can be tested by experiment, in other words, they can be demonstrated to our senses. For if we are doubtful of what our senses perceive then how much more doubtful should we be of things that our senses cannot perceive, like the nature of God and the soul and other such things over which there are endless disputes and controversies."

"Wherever there is no true science and no certainty of knowledge, there will be conflicting speculations and quarrels. However, whenever things are proven by scientific demonstration and known for certain, then all quarreling will cease. And if controversy should ever arise again, then our first conclusions must have been questionable."

---------------------------------------------------------------

The only other thing I wanted to mention in relation to this thread is that whether or not you believe Muhammad is a prophet (and I obviously do NOT), he is a historical figure of note. Assume he is a false prophet and still look at the political change he wrought in the Middle East. The impact this had on the Roman Empire alone is enormous.

I agree with your last point that Muhammad was a historical figure of note.

As for Da Vinci, there isn't enough on him to make a DEFINITIVE conclusion. Part of his logic dictates that he was non-religious (atheist? probably not). He also wrote a bit about his belief in God, but one can't make a claim he was a Christian from that. It could have been tied to his work, but I do think he believed in God.

 

[james bond]

:biglaugh: Please try doing something else other then quoting Wikipedia and anti-Islamic sites

Part of the problem was that the CDI portion (links) attributed to Mark Burgess have been deleted. Does anyone know what happened with the CDI website? Probably gone due to USG cutbacks.

DELETED - Explaining Terrorism
http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/index.cfm?ProgramID=39&issueid=138

Explaining Religious Terrorism Part 2:

Current List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Other Terrorist Organizations

Basically, Muhammad tried to create an empire via the sword. The Qur'an is not many books written by different authors. It is one book written by one man in one language with a certain agenda. Muslims do not have much choice when it comes to what parts of it that they can follow while Christians have more latitude. Thus, the jihad component allowed their soldiers to claim imperial conquests as a religious duty. Under Islam, the soldiers died as martyrs would gained automatic entrance to paradise. Now, that isn't terrorism as we define it today, but Islam was a religion borne out of war. Subsequenlty, the roots of terrorism was borne from the Assassins in the 11th century.

 

[Assad91]

lol ismailis connected to modern jihadist groups. Despite the indoctrinated hatred for shias