Was Muhammad a good man?

[Assad91]

" e if he was simply another violent, perverted, oppressive middle easterne" You say it as if all Middle Easterners are "violent, pervefted, oppresive" people.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Muhammad was a great man for his era and certain aspects about him are just as great now as they were back then. His approach to the religious foundation laid by the Abrahamic faiths of his time is very intelligent. He simplified the Christian faith from a certain perspective and numerically cut down the violence that pervaded his land. Although I disliked the forceful spreading of Islam and aspects of its dogma I believe anybody can insult him because we have the right to do so.
Without a doubt though I consider him an enlightened individual and I believe the Qur'an is definitely worth a peek although I recommend a thorough reading of it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It is a term that means you are claiming truths that are inconvenient for Muslims.

Islamophobia is a valid term. There are many people in the States who want to call for the eradication of all Muslims in the States because they believe that all Muslims are terrorists. This is undue and irrational fear, caused by religious fervor of their own beliefs, primarily, but also the fear mongering of the government and the media.

If you are referring to parallelism as in Horace and Jesus, etc…it is founded in ignorance. Admittedly on the surface there are a few similarities but when the entire context is brought into the light the similarities are outnumbered by the dissimilarities many times over. If you wish to pick one (the best you know of) we can let it settle the issue. I was originally kind of intimidated by this concept but with a little research these similarities disappear in a sea of mutually exclusive contradictions so vast it quickly becomes obvious the apostles borrowed from no outside theology. BTW since most of these stories are concerning the same issues, death, after life, God etc it is impossible that there will not be some superficial similarities of some type but that is not what I claim concerning Islam. I claim they lifted almost word for word teachings known to be in the heretical infancy Gospels, the protavelum of James and the apocalypse of Peter among many. Not similarities but exact matches in vast detail.

I agree that there was heavy borrowing of Islam from outside sources. But this doesn't discount the religion, as it could just be common themes found in many religions. A great example from Christianity is the fact that the early church fathers borrowed philosophical ideas from Plato and Aristotle, and even claimed that Plato was a "pre-Christian Christian".

As far as the idea that Christians borrowed from surrounding pagan cultures: the borrowing doesn't have to be word for word, or exact replicas in order for borrowing to have happened. Matter of fact, one would expect some discrepancies between the various religions, since Christianity was originally a Jewish phenomenon. The fact is, we'll probably never know for sure if Christianity borrowed from other sources or not; it's basically up to each person to make up their minds for themselves. For my own part, I do believe there was borrowing from other sources, but I don't believe this makes the religion any less valid.

 

[McBell]

Please stop misquoting what I said, I did NOT say that Paul wrote the whole bible, I said he wrote most of it.

You are correct.
You did not say that Paul wrote the whole Bible.
My apologies for the misread on my part.

This is a fact,

Except the last link you provided as a source for your claim does not support your claim.
In fact, one of your own sources states quite the opposite.

Now I have to wonder if you know what a "fact" is...

you asked for sources and gave them to you, there are thousands more if you want to read them, or just go speak to Christian scholars or a minister at a church,

If the three linked pages you provided are your source for your false claims...

that's one of the things Christans agree on.

Are you now claiming Christians agree that Paul wrote most of the Bible?
Did you even look at your last source?

 

[YmirGF]

Muhammad was a great man for his era and certain aspects about him are just as great now as they were back then.

Such as?

His approach to the religious foundation laid by the Abrahamic faiths of his time is very intelligent.

In what way? He certainly wasn't particularly understanding of the pagans in the area.

He simplified the Christian faith from a certain perspective and numerically cut down the violence that pervaded his land.

Which, in reality, was fairly insulting to Christians of the time. But, yes he did reduce the pervasive violence, especially after he had eradicated all opposition he faced. Yup, things got pretty quiet and peaceful then.

Without a doubt though I consider him an enlightened individual and I believe the Qur'an is definitely worth a peek although I recommend a thorough reading of it.

Though it wouldn't even occur to me to describe Muhammad as being 'enlightened', I certainly agree that every person should read several translations of the Qur'an.

Read it - and weep.

The truth be told, it doesn't speak very well of those who deny its validity and the more people there are that understand that - the better.

 

[fantome profane]

Please stop misquoting what I said, I did NOT say that Paul wrote the whole bible, I said he wrote most of it.

You are still overstating it. There are fourteen books in the New Testament that are attributed to Paul. I believe that only around half of those were actually written by Paul. But even if you believe that he really did write all fourteen of them that does not make up "most of the Bible", it does not even make up most of the NT. It is true that he wote more of the NT than any other single person.

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Debater Slayer]

" e if he was simply another violent, perverted, oppressive middle easterne" You say it as if all Middle Easterners are "violent, pervefted, oppresive" people.

Yeah, that's what I noticed too. Using "person" instead of "Middle Easterner" would have given a similar meaning, which is why I think the use of "Middle Easterner" there is pretty loaded and unnecessary.

 

[Caladan]

I view Muhammad as a person who was part of a long tradition of civil wars, feuds, and sectarian violence in the history Middle East.
Like others before him, he used a religious dogma in order to shake the status quo, waged civil war, raided caravans, ordered the massacre of his enemies, much like today's cartoonists, contemporary poets who criticized Muhammad were assassinated, including Abu 'Afak and 'Asma' bint Marwan, a woman.
Feuds and killings have existed in the region before Muhammad, during the times of Muhammad, and with the passing of Muhammad have plagued the Muslim world until this very day.

 

[YmirGF]

I view Muhammad as a person who was part of a long tradition of civil wars, feuds, and sectarian violence in the history Middle East.
Like others before him, he used a religious dogma in order to shake the status quo, waged civil war, raided caravans, ordered the massacre of his enemies, much like today's cartoonists, contemporary poets who criticized Muhammad were assassinated, including Abu 'Afak and 'Asma' bint Marwan, a woman.
Feuds and killings have existed in the region before Muhammad, during the times of Muhammad, and with the passing of Muhammad have plagued the Muslim world until this very day.

Oh, come now, Dan, it's all Love, Peace and Beards.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Feuds and killings have existed in the region before Muhammad, during the times of Muhammad, and with the passing of Muhammad have plagued the Muslim world until this very day.

It's all that time spent baking under the hot sun. As somebody who has lived in the desert, I can attest to this effect.

 

[Caladan]

Oh, come now, Dan, it's all Love, Peace and Beards.

Sarcasm aside, while there are forms of Islam which can express peace, I find it anachronistic to study the history of early Islam and the history of the region, to look at all the details, the politics, and the fighting and conclude that we are dealing with goodness and nobility. I wouldn't see sense in proclaiming that Muhammad was evil, but by modern standards of dignity he would probably fail every human rights report.

It's all that time spent baking under the hot sun. As somebody who has lived in the desert, I can attest to this effect.

Try living in our region during July-August, unless you permanently retire to the beach and hold a cold beer at all times you are bound to groom the hothead in you.

 

[YmirGF]

Sarcasm aside, while there are forms of Islam which can express peace, I find it anachronistic to study the history of early Islam and the history of the region, to look at all the details, the politics, and the fighting and conclude that we are dealing with goodness and nobility. I wouldn't see sense in proclaiming that Muhammad was evil, but by modern standards of dignity he would probably fail every human rights report.

I am in 100% agreement, as always.

 

[1robin]

I find it funny thay a Christian is saying Prophet Muhammad (saws) is evil for fighting. Even when in the Jewish scripture Moses (as), Joshua(as), David(as), and Elisha(as) all killed. Joshua even laid waste to a whole citu! Samuel waged war as did David. Elisha killed children. Sons of Jacob massacred a whole city when the men were unable to fight due to circumcision.

With your logic, they are evil too! And I didn’t even mention half of the people including Abraham!

I give ten detailed instances of inconsistencies with a man of God and Muhammad's actions and only one is partially challenged in response. It is not my claim that prophets are sinless. Biblical prophets are sinful, and so is Muhammad. If they ever killed a single person God did not demand they did evil. The problem is the Bible does not say men who killed a bunch of other men are sinless the Quran does. Of course men who are ordered to kill by God are right in doing so let's evaluate some of Muhammad's military actions.

Battle or raidname, The order orReason, Source
1. Al Cravan raid,To get money, Ibn Ishaq: Sirat Rasul Allah
2. Batn Rabigh caravan raid,To get money, Bukkari: Ibn sa'd
3. Kharar caravan raid,????, Ibn sa'd
4. Invasion of Waddan,Attack a Quraysh caravan which included camels, Hisham: Ishaq
5. Battle of Badr, Raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further Muslim political andeconomic and military position, Bukhari: Dawud.
6. Invasion of Buwat,Raid a Quraysh caravan which included 200 camels, Sahih Muslim: Hisham and Ishaq
7. Invasion of Dul Asher,Attack a Quraysh caravan, Hisham and Ishaq
8. Invasion of Safwan,To pursue Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri who led a small group that looted Muhammad's animals, Hisham and Ishaq
9. Assasination of Asma Bint Marwan,Kill 'Asma' bint Marwan for opposing Muhammad with poetry and for provoking others to attack him, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
10. Assasination of Abu Afak,Kill Abu Afak for opposing Muhammad through poetry, Sa'd: Hisham and Ishaq
11. Assasination of Ka'b Ibn Al-Ashraf,According to Ibn Ishaq Muhammad ordered his followers to kill Ka'b because he "had gone to Mecca after Badr and inveighed against Muhammad. He also composed verses in which he bewailed the victims of Quraysh who had been killed at Badr. Shortly afterwards he returned to Medina and composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women, al-BuKhari and Sahi Muslim
12. Assasination of 'Abdullah Ibn Atik,Kill Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq for mocking Muhammad with his poetry and for helping the troops of the Confederates by providing them with money and supplies, al-Bukhari: Tabri

Since posting all the people Muhammad killed, Caravans he looted, and invasions he ordered will take forever I will stop here. This is the only the first 12 out of 19. There are over 100 more.
Only #9 has any reason to kill over. This looks nothing like the battles in the Bible. This looks exactly like a violent man who as his strength increase can perform greater acts of revenge and theft as time goes by. He starts of as any bandit would by raiding caravans and eventually starts destroying teples and towns, then is finally strong enough to go to war with any one that offends him. He sent 700 men to get the Christian king Al-Asbagh and his people to convert to Islam within 3 days or pay Jizya, sent a raid on the inhabitants of Wadi al-Qura for revenge, because a number of Muslims were killed when they tried to raid the inhabitants previously, but failed, and again to force the Jews of Fidak to surrender their properties and wealth(accepting his terms) or be attacked. This is no prophet this is a tyrant. If you think the Biblical prophets killed unjustly fine as I do not claim they are sinless. However Muhammad raided, killed, and destroyed for his own greed and is also claimed to be sinless and the greatest prophet. Good luck defending that. BTW all this information came from secular sites and there is plenty more so even the old tried and true bias claim won’t help.

 

[1robin]

" e if he was simply another violent, perverted, oppressive middle easterne" You say it as if all Middle Easterners are "violent, pervefted, oppresive" people.

I also said man, does that mean I think all men are the same? Cut this false victimhood stuff out.

 

[1robin]

Islamophobia is a valid term. There are many people in the States who want to call for the eradication of all Muslims in the States because they believe that all Muslims are terrorists. This is undue and irrational fear, caused by religious fervor of their own beliefs, primarily, but also the fear mongering of the government and the media.

I know it is valid, I was making fun of it because 99% of the times it is used it is simply a defense mechanism and meaningless. There is more than enough evidence for people to be fearful or resentful of Islam even if its terrorists are not true Muslims although they would say that anyone claiming that is not a Muslim. They killed more people in one hour on 9/11 that the entire 400 year history of the Spanish inquisition. They kill more in an average month than the KKK did in its entire history. Some resentment is more justified than complaints against it.

I agree that there was heavy borrowing of Islam from outside sources. But this doesn't discount the religion, as it could just be common themes found in many religions.

Not between a God who demands absolute mono theism and pagan practices. That is about the worst possible inconsistency imaginable. BTW the point is what is more consistent with a man adopting paganistic ceremonies for monotheism. Is it God or a man who is borrowing whatever he wants to invent a religion?

A great example from Christianity is the fact that the early church fathers borrowed philosophical ideas from Plato and Aristotle, and even claimed that Plato was a "pre-Christian Christian".

If you are talking about the writing of the Church fathers that is not from God. Only the Bible is from God not the words of Christians. Christians have said an endless amount of things that are not true.

As far as the idea that Christians borrowed from surrounding pagan cultures: the borrowing doesn't have to be word for word, or exact replicas in order for borrowing to have happened.

Wel if you claim X telling what isn't X is not evidence. I claimed X and supplied a small portion of the undeniable evidence for it.

Matter of fact, one would expect some discrepancies between the various religions, since Christianity was originally a Jewish phenomenon.

No, Christianity is the second covenant within the same religion as Judaism being the first covenant. This also is not evidence Christianity borrowed from anything.

The fact is, we'll probably never know for sure if Christianity borrowed from other sources or not; it's basically up to each person to make up their minds for themselves. For my own part, I do believe there was borrowing from other sources, but I don't believe this makes the religion any less valid.

I could have understood this if it wasn't from a person who said Christianity was borrowed from paganism. Let's just admit you can't back that claim up and move you sound nice and I do not want to make a bigger issue out of it.

 

[F0uad]

I request all muslims not to respond to the Op until he learns to ask questions before making conclusions.

O and R0bin you have no right to talk open the old-testament.

 

[savagewind]

I request all muslims not to respond to the Op until he learns to ask questions before making conclusions.

O and R0bin you have no right to talk open the old-testament.

I did not vote. This is one poster (the one who published the poll) that I shall say publicly, unless he changes his tune, he will be out too, sooner or later. I'm not out yet. Is it obvious I am not one who decides? I am not one who decides such things. Thank God for that!

 

[FearGod]

Americans that loves Mohammed PBUH

Those are few of the wonderful characteristics of the prophet

[youtube]iwR9Ezui2No[/youtube]
Beautiful Character of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) - Shaykh Hamza Yusuf - YouTube

 

[savagewind]

Is it possible that all those who you say love Muhammad (PBUH) are really those loving his followers? I love his followers too. I understand.

 

[muizz99]

My argument is that we should all look at reality and not let others fool us. Basically marrying 4 woman at the same time and marrying a child is wrong! We can't just say respect their beliefs, it's wrong and it's awful! I think it's time to make this distinction. We can't just respect everything because it's someone's beliefs!

Polygamy is not wrong in the 3 abrahamic religions. ChriJuda's bible tells that marry infinite. In islam, marry 4 or just one.