Was Muhammad a good man?

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

We gotta stop agreeing like this...lol

 

[Assad91]

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.

I recommend actually studying Islam from Islamic sources. There isn't many verses about Jihad that are general. Most "violent" verses deal with specific events and not for future. Does Quran have an agenda? Sure. But is that agenda a militaristic conquest for control? As someone who reads Quran, the answer is a big fat no. But who am I kidding? Why even say anything when people rather listion to "experts" rather than read and study?

 

[james bond]

We gotta stop agreeing like this...lol

I know what you mean .

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I recommend actually studying Islam from Islamic sources

Do all sects of Islam agree on the life and sayings of Muhammad? I don't think so. Which islamic source specifically? Shia or sunni?? Salafi or wahhabies?? Or suffies? Do all islamic sources agree on the age of ayishah? Did muhammad teach temporary marriage? I am just saying for a non-moslem to investigate about muhammad's life and his sayings can be very confusing not to mention if their intention is to reject. They can simply get the worst accounts from different muslim sources.

 

[james bond]

I recommend actually studying Islam from Islamic sources. There isn't many verses about Jihad that are general. Most "violent" verses deal with specific events and not for future. Does Quran have an agenda? Sure. But is that agenda a militaristic conquest for control? As someone who reads Quran, the answer is a big fat no. But who am I kidding? Why even say anything when people rather listion to "experts" rather than read and study?

I don't think one has to study Islam from Islamic sources to understand it and form an opinion. Do you do what you recommend for other Abrahamic religions?

I haven't even discussed anything with you and already you have judged me to defer to experts. I can make up my own mind. How tolerant are you with your Islam of others?

I know someone who speaks Arabic, has read and studied the Qur'an, lived in the ME, and he asks how much has one read and studied it, too? He asks the same thing as you, but has a 180°different opinion than yours. He says there is no such thing as "radical" Islam:

"Recognize that there's no such thing as "radical" Islam. There is only Islam, and to understand it, just take a year or three and very carefully read the Qur'an and hadiths. Once the undiluted hatred that Islam has for us sinks in, you'll understand events such as 9/11. We call strictly adherent Muslims radicals so we can fool ourselves into thinking they are practicing an aberrant form of Islam, whereas they are simply following it to the letter."

Now, I don't totally agree with him and realize there are many peaceful Muslims (he does, too), but I have to question "strictly adherent" practitioners of any of the Abrahamic religions. What I get from my friend is that one has to beware of things like Sharia Law and creep, halal practice, and pay attention to what is happening in the ME and other places. I can accept the hijab, but cannot accept the burqa and the mistreatment of women. I can't accept Muslims who refuse to accept an inebriated passenger or refuse to touch pork products because someone wants to buy it. There are accommodations that can be made for any religion, but there is also a limit, too. I can accept there is discrimination between any groups of peoples and do something about it, but I can't accept accusations of Islamophobia or other phobias just because someone disagrees and aren't willing to accept or accommodate one religious beliefs.

For some reason, I don't think we'll have a dialog over this nor will you answer my questions. Yes, who am I kidding indeed.

 

[james bond]

Here's what I found out about the history of Islamic terrorism.

In the past, terrorism was the use of violence to affect politics (the ultimate goal hasn't changed), and was violence against and assassination of those directly involved and had power. This is different from today where it is used to incite fear, intimidate, and coerce on a wide scale and use mass media in order to meet a political goal.

As for Islamic terrorism: "The Hashishiyyin, whose name gave us the English word "assassins," were a secretive Islamic sect active in Iran and Syria from the 11th to the 13th century.

Their dramatically executed assassinations of Abbasid and Seljukhttp://www.allaboutturkey.com/selcuk.htm political figures terrified their contemporaries.

Zealots and assassins were not, however, really terrorists in the modern sense.



Terrorism is best thought of as a modern phenomenon. Its characteristics flow from the international system of nation-states, and its success depends on the existence of a mass media to create an aura of terror among many people."

 

[Assad91]

I don't think one has to study Islam from Islamic sources to understand it and form an opinion. Do you do what you recommend for other Abrahamic religions?

Of course I do. Would you like to test this?

I haven't even discussed anything with you and already you have judged me to defer to experts. I can make up my own mind. How tolerant are you with your Islam of others?

How tolerant am I? I'd say lately I have been learning to be more tolerant as I have learned the extremist Islam is not as correct as they wish to make one think. But of course I will judge one as weak when instead of reading Quran, they rather just memorize and parrot others ideas, instead of making their own.

I know someone who speaks Arabic, has read and studied the Qur'an, lived in the ME, and he asks how much has one read and studied it, too? He asks the same thing as you, but has a 180°different opinion than yours. He says there is no such thing as "radical" Islam:

"Recognize that there's no such thing as "radical" Islam. There is only Islam, and to understand it, just take a year or three and very carefully read the Qur'an and hadiths. Once the undiluted hatred that Islam has for us sinks in, you'll understand events such as 9/11. We call strictly adherent Muslims radicals so we can fool ourselves into thinking they are practicing an aberrant form of Islam, whereas they are simply following it to the letter."

I have known plenty of Muslims to say such. To work ways to justify suicide bombing, terrorism, hatred, etc. Yet al of these go against classical scholars and principles laid out in Quran and Hadith. This friend of yours makes some wild conlusions, saying Islam is the reason for 9/11. It doesn't take a fool to realize 9/11 happened and global terrorism to be a product of politics.

Now, I don't totally agree with him and realize there are many peaceful Muslims (he does, too), but I have to question "strictly adherent" practitioners of any of the Abrahamic religions. What I get from my friend is that one has to beware of things like Sharia Law and creep, halal practice, and pay attention to what is happening in the ME and other places.

Care to explain what you mean by 'Sharia law and creep"?

And Halal practice? Of what exactly?

can accept the hijab, but cannot accept the burqa and the mistreatment of women. I can't accept Muslims who refuse to accept an inebriated passenger or refuse to touch pork products because someone wants to buy it.

Burqa is a cultural invention and is not an obligation upon women. It is just sad that some force it upon women, and the same can be said of the general mistreatment of women.

As for not willing to accept an inebriated passenger, why is this not acceptable to you? Are you speaking of taxi drivers refusing to take drunks? It is their right not take them, and it is only the driver himself who misses out of the money.

And refusing to touch pork products that may result from a job is ridiculous, and I will agree with you. But this is not something all muslims complain about. I think I know what you are referencing to... a single event And yet you still see so many muslims in the work force who wil touch pork through plastic gloves. Painting the whole muslim population as picky workers is seriously offensive.

For some reason, I don't think we'll have a dialog over this nor will you answer my questions. Yes, who am I kidding indeed.

:clap:clapAssumptions are always bad

 

[Philomath]

After reading all this posts it's clear we've diverted from the original question

 

[F0uad]

As for the OP there is much debate among Muslim Scholars on what the real age of Aicha(ra) was, just quoting hadiths won't help you have to take everything in consideration. Moreover there are also Hadiths that gives a indication that she was over 18 (even if this was not the custom practice).

I find it really silly how we people in the 21 century can judge people that lived 1433 or 2013 years ago and only agree on the things that we find acceptable now. To the Christians who like to troll about Islam, according to Biblical scholars and historians Marry the mother of Jesus(pbuh) was 12 years when she conceived him that means that Marry married when she was around 11/10 years and that god "impregnated a 12 year old" what seems much worse then a prophet marrying one.

 

[Sha'irullah]

As for the OP there is much debate among Muslim Scholars on what the real age of Aicha(ra) was, just quoting hadiths won't help you have to take everything in consideration. Moreover there are also Hadiths that gives a indication that she was over 18 (even if this was not the custom practice).

I find it really silly how we people in the 21 century can judge people that lived 1433 or 2013 years ago and only agree on the things that we find acceptable now. To the Christians who like to troll about Islam, according to Biblical scholars and historians Marry the mother of Jesus(pbuh) was 12 years when she conceived him that means that Marry married when she was around 11/10 years and that god "impregnated a 12 year old" what seems much worse then a prophet marrying one.

I agree. Even if Muhammad did take Aisha at 9 this was not uncommon during that era. Pedophilia is actually a relatively new form of immoral behavior as it was practiced all throughout older civilizations and was deemed normal.
Pederasty use to be a social norm for Greeks at one point.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As for the OP there is much debate among Muslim Scholars on what the real age of Aicha(ra) was, just quoting hadiths won't help you have to take everything in consideration. Moreover there are also Hadiths that gives a indication that she was over 18 (even if this was not the custom practice).

I find it really silly how we people in the 21 century can judge people that lived 1433 or 2013 years ago and only agree on the things that we find acceptable now. To the Christians who like to troll about Islam, according to Biblical scholars and historians Marry the mother of Jesus(pbuh) was 12 years when she conceived him that means that Marry married when she was around 11/10 years and that god "impregnated a 12 year old" what seems much worse then a prophet marrying one.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[1robin]

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

Please try doing something else besides yelling bias without even attempting to provide evidence of any bias. There is a stereotype in Islamic arguments that you are not helping by claiming everything you find inconvenient is some kind of conspiracy against Islam. There is no need to manufacture evidence against Islam. It provides more than necessary on its own.

 

[1robin]

Are you this petty that your own complaint is if Muhammad was a prophet?

That is what is claimed by Islam and that is what I have been arguing long before you showed up. I will explain the flaws in your logic below.

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.

No I am not. I think you use a crated confusion concerning your position as a defense mechanism. I argue against Muhammad as a prophet all the time and you simply happen to chime in to an ongoing argument I have been making in general.

We are debating Muhammad's character not his prophet hood because I see as many inconsistencies in it as you when it is compared to the Bible.

No I am debating his prophet hood. His character if not a prophet is still bad but practically meaningless. HE HAS NO RELEVANCE OUTSIDE THEOLOGY worth debating. I think misunderstand my purpose. I debate issues not people. I long ago came to understand that most people on forums are extremely committed. They will not change their minds even if God himself was typing on the other side. I as a Christian have a purpose. To defend truth and contend falsehoods. I was done so with Muhammad and somehow we began a discussion. Since all my posts have been made to comment on his prophet hood or the truth of the Quran then that is the context you entered when debating me. If you do not care about his prophet hood then simply ignore those statements. However as I will show below your stance is not that simple.

The Bible is not a fact book and not everyone accepts it.

1. People far more qualified to know than either of us claim the exact opposite. The greatest experts on evidence and testimony (people who dedicated their lives and wrote text books on separating reliable testimony and evidence from the unreliable), the greatest scientific minds of history, archeologists and historians etc have all gave EVIDENCE and I have listed a few examples to show what you claim is false. However even if you were right I could not grant it because you have never even attempted to provide the slightest bit of evidence for what you claim. You are just an assertion and deflection machine gun.

2. Whether everyone accepts the Bible is really irrelevant. People disagree on every issue there is. That was not worth typing.

So essentially you are only proving that Muhammad was better compared to the men in the Old Testament.

Where did this come from? This appears to me to be random assertion about nothing I know of.

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

Ok, this weekend I realized what is so invalid about your claims. I had suspected there was a massive flaw somewhere in your reasoning and it finally hit me.

You began a discussion with me (my previous posts were all about Muhammad's prophethood and violent nature) about Islam's claims about Heaven and Hell being "better" than the Bible's. That was off topic but I went with it anyway and I will list below what is so wrong with your argumentation, to be ignored and dismissed at your convenience.

1. You have no rational basis whatever for declaring anything about Heaven, Hell, or God better or worse than anyother religions claims. You do not believe in revelation nor prophethood. You cannot sit around and theorize what Heaven, Hell, or salvation should be and gain anything meaningfull from the effort. You have no capacity to evaluate any religous claim concerning the supernatural. The supernatural is not accessable through reason and logic. We may only learn about it from historical claims and revelation. We certainly are not goin to learn about Heaven from a man roaming the desert attacking caravans, massacering Jews (and many others) in cold blood for not honoring a treaty he forced on them with threats, and slaughtering poets.

2. Your position (and it's contrived ambiguity) is not based on any positive claim that can even theoretically be based on evidence. Classic theism has nothing within it that allows for knowledge of any God. It is a house of cards or a paper tiger. The body of knowledge concerning a non personal God is zero, nothing, literally NO-THING. Of course you try and deflect this by saying your personal version of deism is different. I have little time and reason to debate everyone's personal spin on theology but yours is extra futile because no matter how you spin deism it is still based on no evidence whatever. As I said there is little need to deconstruct a position based on nothing solid.

3. Virtually every post I have made in this thread has been in the context of Muhammad's prophet hood. I do not care about him as a person any more than any other petty tyrant. He has no relevance outside Islam to me. My purpose is not to convince you of anything as that is worse than herding cats but to supply arguments that a new Christian might find meaningful and to kill time in the process of defending truth and contending false hoods. I also do not care if you value ambiguity to the point that firm claims are anathema no you. Muhammad was either evil or a prophet. There exists no other choice as anyone claiming to speak for God is either committing the worst crime possible or a true prophet. If a prophet then your simply wrong, if evil then your defense of his claims to any degree, is wrong. My job is to point that out not to make you acknowledge it's obvious truthfulness.

4. In short there is no case you have made that needs refuting. Your claims are literally meaningless or at the very least based on no attempt at even theoretical evidence. Your whole argument has been personal preference, assertions you could not possibly know even if true, and devoid of even the attempt to provide evidence. The only wonder is why I did not conclude this long before this point.

5. To head off the emotional rhetoric in response I am the only one that has posted any facts, any evidence, and scholarship. Or who has even a theoretical basis for claiming any theological or supernatural fact. There is no theoretical basis for supernatural knowledge in your views and even if there were you have not posted any evidence or attempted to.

 

[1robin]

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.

I could make the exact same cases I have been making from the Quran alone. However that does not mean the Quran is any more valid than the Hadith or the historical accounts from his time. In short we can establish with little doubt what kind of a man Muhammad was and the validity of his claims without issue. Getting people to accept what history makes obvious is another matter altogether.

You are confusing famous person, with well-known person.

They are identical in the context we are discussing.

Yes, Muhammad is very famous, but He is not well-known truly. He is misrepresented by Muslims, then by other religious leaders.

Islam's scholars have had well over a thousand years to arrive at what they think the Quran means. The Baha'i have had a about 150 years. Do you have any reason to believe what you claimed that anyone who is not a Baha'i would believe? 95% of your claims are Baha'i is right and others wrong and 5% reasons and evidence when it should be the opposite. What do you expect me or anyone else to say, "Well IT said Baha'i was right so I reject most of histories scholars, all of the accepted commentators, and simple history for two entire religions. This will never be convincing and I hate to see you waste your time on such a futile effort. .

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.

Again no evidence. I can give you more evidence to support the Bible's claims than this entire forum can contain and have posted an enormous amount for you. Until you can even attempt to do this for Bahaullah you are wasting your time I am afraid.

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

I did not say major religions. Who defines what qualifies as major? It is subjective and meaningless. I said thousands of religions and there are probably actually thousands that begin with simply the letter A.

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

That is exactly the opposite from what the two greatest experts in testimony and evidence have claimed about the Gospels (Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst). When you or Bahaullah co found the greatest law school on Earth, write textbooks on evidence and testimony, and are the only human to have occupied every high court office in the largest empire in history then you may have the qualifications to contend this. Not only the Bible but 40 extra biblical authors mention Christ. Virtually all mainstream scholars (on any side) believe Christ was historical not to mention you believe it. This was an utterly futile, and meaningless assertion apparently made for effect because it cannot stand on it’s merits.

There is no proof that the Tomb of Jesus was even found today, let alone if He is still in it or not.

There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of ancient history of any kind. Secular scholars of the Bible almost universally believe he is historical and the tomb was empty are brute facts as sure as any in ancient history. This simply claiming this or that is true or not is pointless. The scholars and evidence confirm my claims and denounce yours. What is the point to this? Even you can't believe that simply claiming historical evidence does not exist will ever prevail in an argument. Why are you wasting your time? That is not sarcasm, it is a legitimate concern.

Moreover, just because a Tomb is empty is no proof He physically raised.

That is why I never used it as evidence for that claim. I did not claim any historical fact concerning his resurrection though it has very good evidence. My claim concerned what Christianity teaches about the empty tomb and that you have it completely wrong.

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....

Every argument ever conceived by brilliant or irrational men to get out of the inconvenient facts of Christ’s resurrection have introduced these plus much better argument than this. Each one has been refuted and dismissed by the majority of NT scholars (even the nonbelievers). Since these are so easy I will eradicate them myself.
1. There was a several ton stone rolled in front of the tomb entrance and sealed by the Romans and guards placed at the closed door.
2. The Romans (the most brutal, efficient, and capable empire on Earth) as well as the Jewish establishment had vested interest in making very sure the body could not be stolen. They suspected it might be and took every precaution possible to ensure it wasn't. There is no evidence of even a theoretical opportunity to steal the body.
3. The resurrection appearances to thousands are evidence against your claims.
4. The instant explosion of Christianity based on the appearances is evidence against them.
5. The lack of a single shred of contradictory testimony is evidence against them.
6. The apostle’s new commitment and fearless faith is evidence against it.
7. No Body ever turned up and the Romans could have searched every house and cave in existence in the area. The evidence was so good they did not even attempt it and no else did either.
The list is endless and conclusive.
You could save a lot of time if you simply said you believe whatever Baha'i mandates you must in-spite of evidence, scholarship, tradition, historical evidence, theological consistency, and theological philosophy. I could then say that I disagree but you have the right to believe as you wish. There is no point in everything else you have point. No one knows for a fact what took place back then. We must make the best conclusion given the evidence. The evidence is good and is all on my side. I have a case and you have a preference and neither one is effective against the other but only one is a rational basis for faith.

Many of the false and man-made doctrines.

The only way this many assertions can be posted with virtually no evidence or scholarship is that there is none (not even bad evidence). What did you think a statement like this one you made here would do? I am aware of your personal stances and the repetition of them with no reason to believe them is pointless. Do you actually not see that prefernce is driving every claim you make?

 

[1robin]

I know. The reason is Muslims interpret Quran "Outwardly", rather than spiritually.

They would say you are just as wrong as they. They however have a massive advantage over you in time spent in study.

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

I have no reason to contend that the Muslims are right (in truth not interpretation). I think they are actually wrong but I think they are far more capable of knowing what their verses mean (not whether true or not) than you do. The point was the people most likely to know almost all disagree with you. Why should I believe you?

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

Tell that to Islam's scholars and you might want to have some actual evidence before you do so. They like all others need reasons to believe what you simply claim.

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

This is based on absolutely nothing; it in fact is made in-spite of the evidence. Jesus claimed he was dead and risen in the very verses where you get he appeared to others from. He went out of his way to make that perfectly clear. I rarely see discussions where evidence is as useless as this one.

Let me ask you this: do Christians believe that when Jesus was crucified, His Body and Spirit both were killed?

Not exactly. His spirit was divine and could never be destroyed and that is not what is meant by the second death. His body was not divine and died on the cross. His spirit was then separated from the father as payment for our sins. His physical death was not the payment obviously because we still physically die. It was his spiritual separation that we are spared from. While it would be permanent for us it was not for him because only sin would keep us from God and he had none. It is a complex issue far too sophisticated for ignorant Hebrews to have invented and I would recommend you actually study it before commenting or criticizing it.

That's what I have understood from many of them.

Christianity is to be gained from two primary resources, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. You only have access to the Bible until you are born again. I do not recommend you adopt doctrine based on what your friends claim but through study and supplication, and definitely not from simply another religion devoid of demonstrations of its source.

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

Did you?

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

I claim the Quran is an incoherent product of an evil man. I do am not surprised it condemns it's self but that does not mean that Baha'i knows more about what it claims to be true than Islam’s countless scholars. I also think you are taking these surah out of context and meaning. Even Muhammad would not have claimed that his own words could never be understood. Even if he did so that means that the Baha'i would be just as mistaken as Muslims are.

To me being famous is not the measure of truth. How about you?

That makes no sense at all. Famous means to be known by large segments of the population.

I know there are very famous Jewish leaders who interpret Hebrew Scriptures in a way that in no way Jesus could be the Messiah.

That is why God in the NT condemns them and Jesus constantly did so. Saying some people disagree is not an argument. Some people disagree about every subject ever discussed including Baha'i.

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.

Show me a single line in the Gallic wars, the Peloponnesian wars, or Lee's lieutenants that state the words are historical yet all three are taught as historical fact in most colleges on earth. Demanding God must statement whatever it is you demand he do is one of the worst arguments possible. You never stated you were a human being are you then a cow? This is absurd. Jesus quoted scripture as historical fact and he was never known to lie once. Stating the Bible is historical is so obvious claiming it would be redundant but I am sure it does in places. However the issue is settled so securely that the time necessary to look it up is unjustified. Not to mention it has over 25,000 historical corroborations, routinely destroys historian’s claims, and has no know historical mistake beyond scribal error.

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

That is so meaningless I never thought that is what you meant. It is not a magazine, it is not a cookbook, nor a do it yourself pamphlet. What does that prove?

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"

I tell you what if I can demonstrate it by showing it to be historically accurate in countless confirmed areas or that it states it is historically accurate (though God may have been presumptuous enough to use his own words and not yours in claiming it) then you must admit it in size 5 font. It is not worth the effort if it will not resolve anything.

The issue is whether the Bible is historically accurate or claims to be historical where appropriate (in general, there are scribal mistakes here and there) and that is what I will demonstrate. What you claim is meaningless. You can't dictate what words God must use. You can only require him to be truthfull and accurate where he claimed intended to be and I will prove that. Deal? BTW the reason that parables were said to be allegory is because they were the exception to the rule (historical) and you only care what you are told believe the Bible to say. What it actually does say is not high on your list.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Please try doing something else besides yelling bias without even attempting to provide evidence of any bias. There is a stereotype in Islamic arguments that you are not helping by claiming everything you find inconvenient is some kind of conspiracy against Islam. There is no need to manufacture evidence against Islam. It provides more than necessary on its own.

I am not a Muslim. I do not always support Muslims which is obvious but if something is blatantly false I am compelled to stand up.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is what is claimed by Islam and that is what I have been arguing long before you showed up. I will explain the flaws in your logic below.
No I am not. I think you use a crated confusion concerning your position as a defense mechanism. I argue against Muhammad as a prophet all the time and you simply happen to chime in to an ongoing argument I have been making in general.
No I am debating his prophet hood. His character if not a prophet is still bad but practically meaningless. HE HAS NO RELEVANCE OUTSIDE THEOLOGY worth debating. I think misunderstand my purpose. I debate issues not people. I long ago came to understand that most people on forums are extremely committed. They will not change their minds even if God himself was typing on the other side. I as a Christian have a purpose. To defend truth and contend falsehoods. I was done so with Muhammad and somehow we began a discussion. Since all my posts have been made to comment on his prophet hood or the truth of the Quran then that is the context you entered when debating me. If you do not care about his prophet hood then simply ignore those statements. However as I will show below your stance is not that simple.

1. People far more qualified to know than either of us claim the exact opposite. The greatest experts on evidence and testimony (people who dedicated their lives and wrote text books on separating reliable testimony and evidence from the unreliable), the greatest scientific minds of history, archeologists and historians etc have all gave EVIDENCE and I have listed a few examples to show what you claim is false. However even if you were right I could not grant it because you have never even attempted to provide the slightest bit of evidence for what you claim. You are just an assertion and deflection machine gun.

2. Whether everyone accepts the Bible is really irrelevant. People disagree on every issue there is. That was not worth typing.
Where did this come from? This appears to me to be random assertion about nothing I know of.
Ok, this weekend I realized what is so invalid about your claims. I had suspected there was a massive flaw somewhere in your reasoning and it finally hit me.

You began a discussion with me (my previous posts were all about Muhammad's prophethood and violent nature) about Islam's claims about Heaven and Hell being "better" than the Bible's. That was off topic but I went with it anyway and I will list below what is so wrong with your argumentation, to be ignored and dismissed at your convenience.

1. You have no rational basis whatever for declaring anything about Heaven, Hell, or God better or worse than anyother religions claims. You do not believe in revelation nor prophethood. You cannot sit around and theorize what Heaven, Hell, or salvation should be and gain anything meaningfull from the effort. You have no capacity to evaluate any religous claim concerning the supernatural. The supernatural is not accessable through reason and logic. We may only learn about it from historical claims and revelation. We certainly are not goin to learn about Heaven from a man roaming the desert attacking caravans, massacering Jews (and many others) in cold blood for not honoring a treaty he forced on them with threats, and slaughtering poets.

2. Your position (and it's contrived ambiguity) is not based on any positive claim that can even theoretically be based on evidence. Classic theism has nothing within it that allows for knowledge of any God. It is a house of cards or a paper tiger. The body of knowledge concerning a non personal God is zero, nothing, literally NO-THING. Of course you try and deflect this by saying your personal version of deism is different. I have little time and reason to debate everyone's personal spin on theology but yours is extra futile because no matter how you spin deism it is still based on no evidence whatever. As I said there is little need to deconstruct a position based on nothing solid.

3. Virtually every post I have made in this thread has been in the context of Muhammad's prophet hood. I do not care about him as a person any more than any other petty tyrant. He has no relevance outside Islam to me. My purpose is not to convince you of anything as that is worse than herding cats but to supply arguments that a new Christian might find meaningful and to kill time in the process of defending truth and contending false hoods. I also do not care if you value ambiguity to the point that firm claims are anathema no you. Muhammad was either evil or a prophet. There exists no other choice as anyone claiming to speak for God is either committing the worst crime possible or a true prophet. If a prophet then your simply wrong, if evil then your defense of his claims to any degree, is wrong. My job is to point that out not to make you acknowledge it's obvious truthfulness.

4. In short there is no case you have made that needs refuting. Your claims are literally meaningless or at the very least based on no attempt at even theoretical evidence. Your whole argument has been personal preference, assertions you could not possibly know even if true, and devoid of even the attempt to provide evidence. The only wonder is why I did not conclude this long before this point.

5. To head off the emotional rhetoric in response I am the only one that has posted any facts, any evidence, and scholarship. Or who has even a theoretical basis for claiming any theological or supernatural fact. There is no theoretical basis for supernatural knowledge in your views and even if there were you have not posted any evidence or attempted to.

We are not debating his prophet-hood. Case closed. You have nothing to prove and this only goes off topic

 

[1robin]

I am not a Muslim. I do not always support Muslims which is obvious but if something is blatantly false I am compelled to stand up.

You have made that quite clear. I meant that is the tactic of Islamic argumentation. Anyone that defends Islam (or many of them) simply deny the unpleasant and cry foul at the inconvenient whether actually a Muslim or not. You are simply adding to that reputation. I have no problem whatever with you posting what is actually wrong or biased with a claim. I expect my historical claims to be challenged, but doing so by assertion alone and no evidence is useless. I and countless Christians in general have learned, or find massive amounts of evidence that people who defend Islam simply ignore or try to declare invalid whatever does not fit their narrative. The difference between an invalid complaint of bias and a legitimate claim is the evidence. Until it is posted yelling bias is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that concerning Muhammad in this thread I have provided far more evidence than anyone and maybe all others put together. You are welcome to show it wrong but simply yelling foul will not help. I have quite a lot more information just on his early battles alone but no one has even offered or attempted to offer any evidence to counter what I have already posted so I have held off adding any more historical details. From this point on please do not think that I believe you are a Muslim. I think you have no firm position, and no evidenced based position at all, in any theological realm. I think you simply have a philosophical sounding concept you have adopted by preference concerning a God like being of some type somewhere. Even if it doesn’t sound like it I know you’re not a Muslim, but you do defend it and so will meet contention from me.

 

[1robin]

We are not debating his prophet-hood. Case closed. You have nothing to prove and this only goes off topic

I think that is exactly what I said but as usual I added more detail, reasoning, explanation, evidence, and logic but I guess that is the way it must be.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You have made that quite clear. I meant that is the tactic of Islamic argumentation. Anyone that defends Islam (or many of them) simply deny the unpleasant and cry foul at the inconvenient whether actually a Muslim or not. You are simply adding to that reputation. I have no problem whatever with you posting what is actually wrong or biased with a claim. I expect my historical claims to be challenged, but doing so by assertion alone and no evidence is useless. I and countless Christians in general have learned, or find massive amounts of evidence that people who defend Islam simply ignore or try to declare invalid whatever does not fit their narrative. The difference between an invalid complaint of bias and a legitimate claim is the evidence. Until it is posted yelling bias is meaningless. That is why I have been pointing out that concerning Muhammad in this thread I have provided far more evidence than anyone and maybe all others put together. You are welcome to show it wrong but simply yelling foul will not help. I have quite a lot more information just on his early battles alone but no one has even offered or attempted to offer any evidence to counter what I have already posted so I have held off adding any more historical details. From this point on please do not think that I believe you are a Muslim. I think you have no firm position, and no evidenced based position at all, in any theological realm. I think you simply have a philosophical sounding concept you have adopted by preference concerning a God like being of some type somewhere. Even if it doesn’t sound like it I know you’re not a Muslim, but you do defend it and so will meet contention from me.

I can provide evidence and evidence which I have and it would mean nothing to a bias person. You wish to say I prove a stereotype but the fact is that with me not being a Muslim I will be more honest about Islam and you will use this as gratification to attack Muslims. I have brought more then enough evidence to the table and all of it was overlooked.
You made wild claims such as Muhammad was possessed yet I asked you three times to provide evidence of this where he stated this himself and you provided none.