Was Muhammad a good man?

[Sha'irullah]

Why did you bring up something that will not happen (and can't happen given your views) to illustrate how unreasonable I am? Strange tactic. In the end we may disagree but your side will still be erring on the side of death and mine life for abortion and arguing for a practice that leads to massive increases in suffering and costs billions (even for those who do not practice homosexuality) without any corresponding gain in return so I feel very comfortable on my side of the impenetrable barrier you claim exists. Oh and Muhammad was not a good man IMO (to satisfy the thread police).

Oh great jumping beans . This is by far the most awful form of logic I have seen. Circular logic is not logic it is fallacy

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Why did you bring up something that will not happen (and can't happen given your views) to illustrate how unreasonable I am? Strange tactic. In the end we may disagree but your side will still be erring on the side of death and mine life for abortion and arguing for a practice that leads to massive increases in suffering and costs billions (even for those who do not practice homosexuality) without any corresponding gain in return so I feel very comfortable on my side of the impenetrable barrier you claim exists. Oh and Muhammad was not a good man IMO (to satisfy the thread police).

Hope that makes you feel good about yourself... Keep fighting for life, buddy

 

[1robin]

Oh great jumping beans . This is by far the most awful form of logic I have seen. Circular logic is not logic it is fallacy

Well aside from the color commentary whatever point you attempted to make escapes me. I can't find anything even potentially circular about what I said. My statement was straight forward, simplistic, obvious, and unavoidable. Perhaps if you would grace me with any evidence of what you claimed or why, I might be able to resolve them.

 

[1robin]

You can find peace with other religions in the Qur'an

What does this mean?

and war in the ahadith or a mixture of both. You can state Muhammad did this or that yet any narration can alter this.
I would not even remotely call anything based from 10-15 generation narrations accurate .
I can started pulling out some nasty ahadith right now based from primary books of the Kittab al-Sittah collection Sahih Bukhari.

Are you even aware of the time lapse between the collections?

So to summarize what you said. Muhammad can be anything and nothing you wish. There exists no way of proving what the truth is because everything conflicts. So we might as well just think Muhammad is whatever you say he is and move on. Hadith's are weighted and some I have used are very reliable and some less so. I try and not use any that are thought to be unreliable but every so often do so by mistake. The amount of information given from many sources including the Quran and secular histories build a case concerning his violent habits that is immune to your conflicts in sources. I could use the Quran alone to illustrate his obsessive violence. I have no idea what you are attempting to demonstrate. Muhammad is not an obscure figure and what he did is well established. My most exhaustive source is one of Islam's greatest historians. If you look back in this thread I gave his accounts along with the Quran's, and the Hadith's in three full pages of information about one battle alone.

 

[1robin]

Hope that makes you feel good about yourself... Keep fighting for life, buddy

Will do so. Maybe I will see you arguing for death in the field, or the other great cause of demanding no one tell anyone else what to do while those same people tell innocent unborn human life's they must die.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well aside from the color commentary whatever point you attempted to make escapes me. I can't find anything even potentially circular about what I said. My statement was straight forward, simplistic, obvious, and unavoidable. Perhaps if you would grace me with any evidence of what you claimed or why, I might be able to resolve them.

You spoke in absolute when you said that only your side is correct after death. You have no evidence to support this and are using circular logic because the Bible says you are right.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What does this mean?

Read the Qur'an

So to summarize what you said. Muhammad can be anything and nothing you wish. There exists no way of proving what the truth is because everything conflicts. So we might as well just think Muhammad is whatever you say he is and move on. Hadith's are weighted and some I have used are very reliable and some less so. I try and not use any that are thought to be unreliable but every so often do so by mistake. The amount of information given from many sources including the Quran and secular histories build a case concerning his violent habits that is immune to your conflicts in sources. I could use the Quran alone to illustrate his obsessive violence. I have no idea what you are attempting to demonstrate. Muhammad is not an obscure figure and what he did is well established. My most exhaustive source is one of Islam's greatest historians. If you look back in this thread I gave his accounts along with the Quran's, and the Hadith's in three full pages of information about one battle alone.

Yet you fail to mention that all ahadith came an astonishing 200 years later right? Historical events are one thing but the entire detailed biography about Muhammad is another. There is a hadith to approve ANY act. Kindness, hatred, slaughter and peace.
I can even approve that Muhammad approved of bestiality!

The ahadith are reliable only to you and I have dug through piles of them. You fail to know anything about what you are preaching. What is reliable to some Muslims is not reliable to other Muslims. Ahadith are of no importance and whether or not you believe in Allah, Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster(pasta'lamu alaikum ) many have seen that the narrations you used are unreliable.So throw them all out and burn them for the time being.

 

[1robin]

You spoke in absolute when you said that only your side is correct after death. You have no evidence to support this and are using circular logic because the Bible says you are right.

I said nothing even remotely like this. Are you talking about some other post than the one you responded to. Let me restate the one you did respond to because it had nothing to do with life after death.

1. No one on Earth has the slightest idea where the line (age) between murder and legality should be draw concerning when abortions are ok.
2. My side agrees and is humble enough to admit we have no idea. Yet because we admit ignorance we say there is no line or until known we should not invent one out of this air. We take our chances on life and do not wish to kill unborn human life in the womb.
3. The other side either lies and says it knows where the line is or is honest and admits they do not but still argues killing human life in the womb is just fine before an arbitrary point. That side errs on the side of death.

It has little to do with theological reasoning. There is not the slightest circular pattern to that argument. Unless you have thrown out any moral truth whatever to begin with which would be circular. You can assume no morals exist and then declare they don't based on assuming it.

 

[1robin]

Read the Qur'an

The Quran is no help concerning my lack of detecting coherence in your statement. In fact IMO the Quran is more of an obstacle to truth than the other way around.

Yet you fail to mention that all ahadith came an astonishing 200 years later right?

You are missing the point. It is not my claims about Hadiths that made them relevant. It is the Muslim's themselves that give them credibility. Some virtually no credibility and some absolute credibility. I am arguing points concerning their founder using their documents. However I do not even have to do that. Muhammad's vast violent actions are many times laid out in the Quran its self. If you wish to discuss the reliability of the hadiths I used then we can but condemning sources they credit is almost useless in general.

Historical events are one thing but the entire detailed biography about Muhammad is another. There is a hadith to approve ANY act. Kindness, hatred, slaughter and peace.
I can even approve that Muhammad approved of bestiality!

An act of kindness does not counter an act of brutality. If I did a hundred things right but killed Christ I am not a good person and am certainly not the final prophet. Until your show that Muhammad did not do any of the several dozen atrocities for the ungodly reason contained in Muslim literature you do not have a case. I did not write a biography of Muhammad but I did use one of the most accepted by Muslim's and it did not validate any claim to prophet hood or even goodness even though I have no doubt he did many good things. I do not know what your doing here with these arguments. They don't do the slightest thing to disprove what I posted at least in the form they are in.

The ahadith are reliable only to you and I have dug through piles of them.

I have no opinion on their accuracy. I am using Islamic opinions on accuracy.

You fail to know anything about what you are preaching. What is reliable to some Muslims is not reliable to other Muslims. Ahadith are of no importance and whether or not you believe in Allah, Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster(pasta'lamu alaikum ) many have seen that the narrations you used are unreliable.So throw them all out and burn them for the time being.

The amount of violence that is attributed to Muhammad is easily known in general. Some battle reports are more accurate than others but their inaccuracy does not do the slightest thing to indicate WW1 never occurred. Your claims in the form you have used them have not the vaguest power to undermine the exhaustive evidence I posted. As I have stated hadiths (even the ones judged very reliable by Muslims) were only part of the sources I gave. I also gave Quranic claims, secular historical claims, Muslim historical claims, and Muslim biographical claims. The latter two from a very respected scholar in Islam as well.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The Quran is no help concerning my lack of detecting coherence in your statement. In fact IMO the Quran is more of an obstacle to truth than the other way around.



You are missing the point. It is not my claims about Hadiths that made them relevant. It is the Muslim's themselves that give them credibility. Some virtually no credibility and some absolute credibility. I am arguing points concerning their founder using their documents. However I do not even have to do that. Muhammad's vast violent actions are many times laid out in the Quran its self. If you wish to discuss the reliability of the hadiths I used then we can but condemning sources they credit is almost useless in general.

An act of kindness does not counter an act of brutality. If I did a hundred things right but killed Christ I am not a good person and am certainly not the final prophet. Until your show that Muhammad did not do any of the several dozen atrocities for the ungodly reason contained in Muslim literature you do not have a case. I did not write a biography of Muhammad but I did use one of the most accepted by Muslim's and it did not validate any claim to prophet hood or even goodness even though I have no doubt he did many good things. I do not know what your doing here with these arguments. They don't do the slightest thing to disprove what I posted at least in the form they are in.



I have no opinion on their accuracy. I am using Islamic opinions on accuracy.

The amount of violence that is attributed to Muhammad is easily known in general. Some battle reports are more accurate than others but their inaccuracy does not do the slightest thing to indicate WW1 never occurred. Your claims in the form you have used them have not the vaguest power to undermine the exhaustive evidence I posted. As I have stated hadiths (even the ones judged very reliable by Muslims) were only part of the sources I gave. I also gave Quranic claims, secular historical claims, Muslim historical claims, and Muslim biographical claims. The latter two from a very respected scholar in Islam as well.

You are making a hypocrite of your self. You imply the strong fallibility of the ahadith then you also state their accuracy as fact.

Which is it? You always contradict yourself.

Many ahadith make reference to historical events yet more than enough are entirely fictional. Added excerpts for the benefit of the creator.

Respected scholar means absolutely nothing by the way. 90% of them are entirely morons who cling to orthodoxy with no just reason. Islam is not like Christianity. Nothing is question so in all truthfulness there is no scholarly opinion.

 

[1robin]

You are making a hypocrite of your self. You imply the strong fallibility of the ahadith then you also state their accuracy as fact.

You are developing a disturbing habit of either not being able or intentionally not grasping the most basic parts of anything I say. The hadith range over the entire gambit of reliability. Some are reliable. Some are deplorable. So what I said is exactly what I meant and what is true. Only if I had said both things about the same passage in the same hadith would you have had any point at all.

Which is it? You always contradict yourself.

Both. I would have thought the even people completely ignorant of even what hadith are could have understood the simple claim I made. It is perfectly accurate.

Many ahadith make reference to historical events yet more than enough are entirely fictional. Added excerpts for the benefit of the creator.

I agree and I used only hadith considered reliable by Muslims. Not me, them. However I added many more types of sources so it would not have mattered if I had not.

Respected scholar means absolutely nothing by the way. 90% of them are entirely morons who cling to orthodoxy with no just reason. Islam is not like Christianity. Nothing is question so in all truthfulness there is no scholarly opinion.

Is English not a primary language for you? I hate grammar and stink at it but even I notice many mistakes that increase the incapacity to grasp what you even meant in your posts. That is not a complaint but an explanation. Respected scholar as I used it here mean generally respected and considered reliable in ISLAMIC scholarship circles which most definitely means something vital. I have idea what the last sentences you typed mean. You need to get caught up with what I have actually said. I am spending all my time straightening out gross misunderstandings on your part of what I have stated, instead of debating the merits of the claims themselves. What I stated in many posts in this thread has not even been meaningfully challenged by anyone so far. Not challenged and prevailed, but not challenged at all and what you have said is not a threat to my claims so far. Please start defending Muhammad instead of getting hopelessly mired in confusion caused by the bungling apprehension of my simplest statements.

 

[Assad91]

اللّهُمّ صَلّ عَلَى مُحَمّدٍ وَآلِ مُحَمّدٍ

Prophet Muhammad

was the greatest creation of Allah. The Holy Quran says;

"By the star when it descends, Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred,
Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.
It is not but a revelation revealed,
Taught to him by one intense in strength -
One of soundness. And he rose to [his] true form
While he was in the higher [part of the] horizon.
Then he approached and descended
And was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer.
And he revealed to His Servant what he revealed.
The heart did not lie [about] what it saw.

So will you dispute with him over what he saw?"
-Surah An-Najm

 

[Sha'irullah]

Prophet Muhammad

was the greatest creation of Allah. The Holy Quran says;

"[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]By the star when it descends, Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred,
Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.
It is not but a revelation revealed,
Taught to him by one intense in strength -
One of soundness. And he rose to [his] true form
While he was in the higher [part of the] horizon.
Then he approached and descended
And was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer.
And he revealed to His Servant what he revealed.
The heart did not lie [about] what it saw.

So will you dispute with him over what he saw?"
-Surah An-Najm

Must you really use such a big image? :sarcastic

 

[YmirGF]

Must you really use such a big image? :sarcastic

The bigger the type, the more authoritative the narrative.

Given that the Qur'an was recited by Muhammad, the passage is a tad self-serving. Some may consider the passage to be a bit of an over-reach - by a few "bow lengths".

 

[Sha'irullah]

The bigger the type, the more authoritative the narrative.

I AM THE MOST INTELLIGENT PERSON ON EARTH


My large font proves it :yes:

 

[Assad91]

الله اكبر الله اكبر الله اكبر
الحمدلله الحمد لله
يا نبي سلام عليك
يا رسول سلام عليك
يا حبيب سلام عليك

[youtube]tEYtV2QGOYI[/youtube]
Allahuma Salli Ala Muhammad - Yusuf Islam - YouTube

 

[Assad91]

Must you really use such a big image? :sarcastic

Well, considering all the loud bs polluting this thread, yes

 

[1robin]

اللّهُمّ صَلّ عَلَى مُحَمّدٍ وَآلِ مُحَمّدٍ

Prophet Muhammad

was the greatest creation of Allah. The Holy Quran says;

"By the star when it descends, Your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred,
Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.
It is not but a revelation revealed,
Taught to him by one intense in strength -
One of soundness. And he rose to [his] true form
While he was in the higher [part of the] horizon.
Then he approached and descended
And was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer.
And he revealed to His Servant what he revealed.
The heart did not lie [about] what it saw.

So will you dispute with him over what he saw?"
-Surah An-Najm

This post is the forum equivalent of yelling. It is also the equivalent of saying Muhammad was great and if you doubt that just ask him. How did you even do this?

 

[1robin]

Well, considering all the loud bs polluting this thread, yes

You just added more volume and even less evidence. There is not the slightest thing convincing about telling me the premise is true because you assumed it is. I gave evidence not volume or font. Can you challenge it?

 

[1robin]

I AM THE MOST INTELLIGENT PERSON ON EARTH


My large font proves it :yes:

Until you post an even bigger picture of various symbols than he did I am unconvinced.