Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

I could not agree with this statement anymore . You speak truthful words here.

Christianity is nothing but an attempt to give the Jewish god a face through Hellenic understanding. It is even more bizarre that the revelation of Jesus was offered by Greek understanding and created from them.

Only a roman would make a god a man

Is that why the Romans were it's initial persecutors along with the Hebrews? Were they thinking the best way to promote a God is to let someone invent him a thousand years before their own culture existed, persecute that God's followers, and then kill it's greatest character. Your arguments eat themselves. You are my best witness.

 

[1robin]

:areyoucra
I made no fallacies, I asked a question.

Your question had a presupposition fallacy at it's core. It is not necessary nor even consistent to expect or assume logical maximum's for anything concerning life in a fallen world.

What are you on about?

That sounds like a line from the life of Brian. There are about a dozen non-theists for every me on this site and my responses get rather mechanical and dry. I apologize if I did not recognize all to rare sincerity in your post. It sounded the same as all the other emotional based arguments in the form of a question I see so often.

I asked you a question. I'd like an answer or an "I don't know".

Did I not already say I have no idea why God allowed one group to flourish and another to fail? I nor anyone has access to the totality of God's motivations throughout history. I can only say it is a false presupposition to assume optimization in a fallen world.

So that's a passive-aggressive way of saying "I don't know".

It was a perfect response to the question and one far more honest than you will normally get. I have no idea why did what he did or did not do in that case but I at a loss of any need to know or effect the event has on faith in general. maybe if you explained what it's relevance is.

You don't know. Okay. No need to get feisty.

I not feisty I am in a hurry as I try and respond to the opposing non-theists in a timely manner. I do get a little frustrated with canned arguments as things equivalent with oh yeah what about X. That was not directed towards you specifically if it even in fact existed. I can give a technical answer about probabilities, God, and historical events if you actually want a answer of this type but I have no revelational explanation for what happened in Japan.

 

[FearGod]

I will not debate your beliefs but if you present an argument against Christ as I have against Muhammad in this thread I will evaluate it.

We are talking about a belief and not facts and evidences,that is a history.

If i want to talk with you from an atheist perspective,then i may ask you.

How come a person can be born without a sperm ?
Explain it to me and for the others.

Don't tell me it can happen by God's power,i won't regard it is an answer.

 

[1robin]

We are talking about a belief and not facts and evidences,that is a history.

There are more than two categories. There is pure fact, pure believe and faith based on evidence. The last category has a wide range. I can not argue with the belief part (and that is what you have posted). I can argue with the fact portion of faith but you have not posted any information (wrong or right) along those lines.

If i want to talk with you from an atheist perspective,then i may ask you.

How come a person can be born without a sperm ?
Explain it to me and for the others.

Don't tell me it can happen by God's power,i won't regard it is an answer.

This is so simple it is hard to be sure what you asked. What is true of natural birth is not necessarily true of biological birth. That is why God being God and knowing this separated the two many times in scripture. The spiritual is also be definition above or beyond the natural. It is supernatural. Why are you comparing aspects only relevant to the natural with requirements the supernatural has no need of? The soul is not dependent on biology. Matters of the spirit not being natural are not subject to natural law and so can't be proven that way. That does not leave us with an excuse. For as Christ said things unseen are known from their effect on the things that are seen. The Bible says this point blank. Unlike you I do not have any need for the Quran to judge the Bible. The Quran does say the book is true and to be used to judge the Quran. That is common ground between us. Using that common ground the Bible is true unless you can demonstrate those verses false. Sorry I can't argue with Muslim like he is an atheist. I also know it's true because of personal experience and 2 billion share the same. While not proof exactly it is by no means not evidence.

I was not objecting to Muhammad on faith. I was objecting to him using reliable history from Islamic sources well respected by Islam.

 

[Breathe]

Your question had a presupposition fallacy at it's core. It is not necessary nor even consistent to expect or assume logical maximum's for anything concerning life in a fallen world.

No presupposition. Simply asking why you believe one to another.

That sounds like a line from the life of Brian.

I am British.

There are about a dozen non-theists for every me on this site and my responses get rather mechanical and dry. I apologize if I did not recognize all to rare sincerity in your post. It sounded the same as all the other emotional based arguments in the form of a question I see so often.

No worries.

And I'm not a non-theist. I'm a theist through and through.

I can give a technical answer about probabilities, God, and historical events if you actually want a answer of this type but I have no revelational explanation for what happened in Japan.

Sure. I'm not too big on debating, personally.
Hell, you can PM me if you'd prefer.

 

[1robin]

No presupposition. Simply asking why you believe one to another.

I am unqualified to answer beyond saying that in some ways God judges groups corporately. He gives pure revelation but man in many cases is allowed to extinguish the light. It varies by case. I am unfamiliar with any Christian revolution in Japan. I will look at your link now that I have determined you are sincere.

I am British.

Thought so. I like British wit.

No worries.

And I'm not a non-theist. I'm a theist through and through.

Then why confusion concerning matters of faith as opposed to history?

Sure. I'm not too big on debating, personally.
Hell, you can PM me if you'd prefer.

Let me explain why false optimality is a fallacy and then you can request additional info if you want. God gave man freewill, freewill necessitates rebellion, rebellion necessitates suffering. Suffering necessitates a lack of benevolent optimality. There is not a gauge for deciding how many conversions is consistent with God. The fact there are so many in the face of such contempt and historical opposition is good evidence that God exists. Only if Christianity was predominantly spread by the sword or culturally isolated the way Islam or in the latter case Hinduism has been would this not be so. Christianity has flourished in spite of opposition and has languished in efforts to tyrannize others. The only known halting of a religious conquest on moral grounds was in the Christian conquest of the Americas and the faith only increased as a result. For comparison only 250 at most converts believed Muhammad during Islam's first dozen peaceful years. 100,000 were converted when tyranny, power, and loot became Muhammad's to disperse during it's next dozen years. Christianity in contrast began with the death of it's leader and under massive intolerance and without violence of any kind. Most religions only succeed where they should have, Christianity succeeded where it should not have. Of course exception exist.

 

[FearGod]

There are more than two categories. There is pure fact, pure believe and faith based on evidence. The last category has a wide range. I can not argue with the belief part (and that is what you have posted). I can argue with the fact portion of faith but you have not posted any information (wrong or right) along those lines.

This is so simple it is hard to be sure what you asked. What is true of natural birth is not necessarily true of biological birth. That is why God being God and knowing this separated the two many times in scripture. The spiritual is also be definition above or beyond the natural. It is supernatural. Why are you comparing aspects only relevant to the natural with requirements the supernatural has no need of? The soul is not dependent on biology. Matters of the spirit not being natural are not subject to natural law and so can't be proven that way. That does not leave us with an excuse. For as Christ said things unseen are known from their effect on the things that are seen. The Bible says this point blank. Unlike you I do not have any need for the Quran to judge the Bible. The Quran does say the book is true and to be used to judge the Quran. That is common ground between us. Using that common ground the Bible is true unless you can demonstrate those verses false. Sorry I can't argue with Muslim like he is an atheist. I also know it's true because of personal experience and 2 billion share the same. While not proof exactly it is by no means not evidence.

I was not objecting to Muhammad on faith. I was objecting to him using reliable history from Islamic sources well respected by Islam.

Was Mary Raped ?

They said that Jesus was due fornication and that A roman soldier raped virgin Mary.

How you can disprove this story ?

 

[1robin]

Was Mary Raped ?

They said that Jesus was due fornication and that A roman soldier raped virgin Mary.

How you can disprove this story ?

I do not have to. Debates occur on common ground. We have the common ground of revelation. We both believe the Bible is true. You must also believe that it was corrupted (or at least believe whatever it says that Muhammad did not like was). Until you can show it was corrupted on what basis are you denying what Muhammad said? (That the book contains truth and is to be used to judge the Quran?). Now forgetting you a Muslim and should believe the Bible is true until you can show it isn't let's look at your story here. I got three lines before the author hung himself. He says this:

Whatever we know about Mary and Jesus comes either from the New Testament or from the Qur'an. The rest is based on attempts to interpret or expand this knowledge by speculations.

By his own words nothing beyond the New Testament is known concerning Mary. By one of if not histories greatest expert on testimony and evidence (Simon Greenleaf and many others who's education was in evaluating documents) the Gospels are true. By that authors own words and maybe the greatest expert in histories the new testament contains all known about Mary and is a very reliable document. Even on secular grounds why should I think otherwise?


Why did none of the 350 prophecies about Christ mention this if true? Why did the Hebrews not use genealogy as an argument? Are you just surfing around posting any link you like? Why in the world did you think that link worthy of posting? Those who knew more than anyone else in human history never ever mentioned one word about rape that is known of. Even if true how does this help Muhammad in the least.

 

[Assad91]

What David would call his greatest mistake Muhammad would call morning exercise. David was not lopping heads off by the hundreds from helpless innocent captives.

When did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hf) ever kill his own loyal subject in order to marry the mans wife after he commited fornication with her?

David never lopped off hundreds of heads, but he ordered it.

1. Unlike the Quran the Bible is honest about it's prophet's and finds no need to lie about their being sinless.

Yeah, because it is logical to say God would send Prophets who were no better then the common man. What kind of role model is a sinful prophet who kills to marry the women he fornicated with? Or who kills little children for making fun? Or fornicates with his daughters? You really think God would send such *supposedly* horrible foolish and sinful men to be guides for mankind? No wonder Christians are amongst the weakest in faith and are known to commit many sins without care.

We admit our prophets were sinful, your pointing that out does not make Muhammad any better of a person.

No, but does show some bad hypocrisy.

This deserves no reply. Christ brought people back from the dead, Muhammad sent them there.

That is irrelevant as I said;

And of course, better then believing in a prophet-god who shat and **** and was easily killed by mere men.

Which is true. You believe in a prophet who was a god and shat and **** and was easily killed by mere men. What a powerful god lol.

Prophet Muhammad did kill. But so did many of your own prophets, including the sons of Jacob who killed a whole town while they were weak. Or like the Prophet who ordered genocide against all of Cananiites. So if you believe your own book, then you believe in holy killers to.

Is the only defense you have for Muhammad to point fingers at others (who are not claimed to have been sinless and weren't)? Typical.

Point fingers? I have no problem with war fought by prophets. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of damning our Prophet, while you believe in Prophets who did worse. Typical blind hypocrisy.

 

[Assad91]

We admit our profits sinned as men do. It is your book that says they were sinless and it is you that says that is not true. You loose either way. I have stated many times it is not that Muhammad killed that is the problem it is that he did it for his own reasons countless times (even in Islam's earliest records).

He killed for:
1. Money.
2. Revenge.
3. To silence poets who's words he did not like.
4. To forcefully convert.
5. As payback for wrongs he suffered or imagined from his earliest days trying to preach Islam.
6. To force compliance to treaties he forced others to agree to.

Why did Islam's first relatively peaceful years only produce about 250 followers but it's next dozen bloody years produce 100,000? Islam only sells when it comes will money, power, and land apparently. Christianity exploded even in the face of the Earth's greatest empires persecution. You have given the only defense of Muhammad I can remember that pretty much never mentions him.

Not sure what is more hilarious. The bs or the hypocrisy lol

 

[Assad91]

He partially wrecked them by killing a good many of them. However he partially preserved them but putting many of their teachings (some virtually word for word) and their ceremonies (all the major Islamic duties were Pagan) into the Quran.

That is hilarious Mr Christian. Now please go on to say how a man is a god, just like the pagans. And how it is the custom of the majority of christians to have statues in their churchs with their man god on a cross. lol we are pagan? Ha. THe majority of Chistians are more pagan then any neo-pagan revivalist group.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I believe that Muhammad was a horrible man. I mean, he married a girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.

 

[FearGod]

I believe that Muhammad was a horrible man. I mean, he married a girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old. In my opinion, that makes him a pedophile.

The story about Mohammed PBUH as being a pedophile is similar to the stories which says that Jesus was son of fornication.

 

[1robin]

When did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh&hf) ever kill his own loyal subject in order to marry the mans wife after he commited fornication with her?

David never lopped off hundreds of heads, but he ordered it.

Is David the measure of Muhammad. David was judged by God for his crimes and was prevented from building the Temple and lost his son because of them. Muhammad simply killed more people. This thread is about Muhammad not the Bible nor David. It is your prophet who is said by your side top be sinless not ours and so you have a much higher burden then we do. Muhammad killed many people and took wives. For crying out loud he was poisoned by the wife of a man he killed, and unlike Christ is still dead. You can debate the Bible, or you can debate Muhammad. What makes no sense is to compare a man you claim was sinless with a man we claim was sinful.

Yeah, because it is logical to say God would send Prophets who were no better then the common man. What kind of role model is a sinful prophet who kills to marry the women he fornicated with? Or who kills little children for making fun? Or fornicates with his daughters? You really think God would send such *supposedly* horrible foolish and sinful men to be guides for mankind? No wonder Christians are amongst the weakest in faith and are known to commit many sins without care.

Our prophets are not sinless, nor is your single prophet. The difference is we admit it and you won't. The list of atrocities for Muhammad is endless. In what way is that sinless. You are killing your own argument by arguing with the Bible.

1. You claim Muhammad was sinless and that is wrong.
2. Islam claims that all prophets are sinless and that is wrong.
3. You yourself must believe prophets are sinless yet you keep pointing out the sins of prophets and that is wrong.
4. Christians believe that Muhammad was sinful and that is correct.
5. We believe that all prophets (except Christ) were sinful and that is also right.
6. You must believe in the Bible's prophets (yet you condemn them) yet we have no reason to believe Muhammad was sinless, a prophet, or anything but a tyrannical petty man.

You can't win that debate. Your side has stacked the deck so much against you there is no hope.

No, but does show some bad hypocrisy.

Do you understand the term? I never denied Muhammad for killing. I denied him for killing without just cause and for claims to sinless-ness. Biblical prophets never claimed to be sinless nor do Christians. Biblical prophets were also punished for killing without cause and repented and paid a heavy price. Muhammad simply went on killing and he is claimed to be sinless anyway. That is not just hypocritical and wrong, it is insane.

That is irrelevant as I said;

I do not think a contrast between a prophet who saved and a prophet who condemned irrelevant. One who died for other people sin and one who died for his own. One who never harmed any living thing and one who tyrannized an entire region. One who conquered death and one who was conquered by it.

Which is true. You believe in a prophet who was a god and shat and **** and was easily killed by mere men. What a powerful god lol.

Have you ever read the Bible you condemn (which you are supposed to accept per Muhammad).

New International Version
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
He said he could command legions of angels to save him if that was his wish and said anyone who suggested he should not give up his life was of Satan.

Muhammad was poisoned by a women and slowly died and remains dead. Did not predict his death, his death saved no one, it was against his will, was not prophesied for a thousand years before hand, did not unite a faith but fragmented one, etc....In what way is that more powerful that Christ's defeat of death, Hell, and judgment to rise again. You make better points for my case than I do.

Prophet Muhammad did kill. But so did many of your own prophets, including the sons of Jacob who killed a whole town while they were weak. Or like the Prophet who ordered genocide against all of Cananiites. So if you believe your own book, then you believe in holy killers to.

I believe we have established what I have never denied. Prophets are not sinless. I have told the truth and you have denied it. BTW Muhammad is not even from the line of prophets. He came from the line that God prophesied would trouble his people from then on and be a wild *** of a people. How accurate is that?

Point fingers? I have no problem with war fought by prophets. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of damning our Prophet, while you believe in Prophets who did worse. Typical blind hypocrisy.

I have no problem with wars fought by prophets. I do have a problem with raiding caravans for money, killing poets (after their children are ripped from their mothers arms so she could be stabbed), Muhammad hearing that someone or another had killed someone Muhammad had mentioned he disliked and pronouncing it good and holy even though he nor Allah ever ordered it, or killed Jews while tied up and helpless by the hundreds for not obeying a treaty Muhammad invented. Then the worst part: claiming that guy is sinless and some final prophet.

 

[1robin]

Not sure what is more hilarious. The bs or the hypocrisy lol

Why don't you save the boasting for your first meaningful point. So far you have not even proven one of those nor anything else I have claimed wrong.

 

[1robin]

The story about Mohammed PBUH as being a pedophile is similar to the stories which says that Jesus was son of fornication.

No it is not. Not even close. That's historical nonsense. There exists no historical record of Christ committing a single sin or being conceived by natural biological means. Even that site you gave the link to said there is nothing known outside the NT concerning his conception. Will you not even use your own sources? Your own faith claims he was sinless. Muhammad's involvement with adolescent girls is so historically reliable that Muslims do not even bother denying it. They simply make involvement with adolescent girls a good thing. Or wreck moral integrity attempting to anyway.

 

[FearGod]

No it is not. Not even close. That's historical nonsense. There exists no historical record of Christ committing a single sin or being conceived by natural biological means. Even that site you gave the link to said there is nothing known outside the NT concerning his conception. Will you not even use your own sources? Your own faith claims he was sinless. Muhammad's involvement with adolescent girls is so historically reliable that Muslims do not even bother denying it. They simply make involvement with adolescent girls a good thing. Or wreck moral integrity attempting to anyway.

Because many Jews believe that Jesus was a lair and a son of fornication and that is our best record that lives till today with the jews,and you can't use the quran to defend Jesus because actually it isn't a reliable source for you.

 

[1robin]

Because many Jews believe that Jesus was a lair and a son of fornication and that is our best record that lives till today with the jews,and you can't use the quran to defend Jesus because actually it isn't a reliable source for you.

No, any historian on earth would tell you that all things being equal contemporary eyewitness statement are the absolute best evidence possible. May be wrong but it is the best. All of it suggests Christ was miraculously conceived and your own web site confirmed that no other source of information is available. I don't think the Quran is reliable because it isn't no0t because it is the Quran. Even if it did not contain countless mistakes and historical errors plus plagurization it would still be the less reliable source in secular terms by being far later and separated from the events by a thousand miles. I can't claim the Bible is true. I can claim it is the best source available for those events. Oral tradition floating around 500 years later and in Arabia adopted by a hostile and violent man is not grounds for contention. The Bible is the word of 40 plus authors and contains 750,000 words. The Quran is from one very suspicious man and is not 1/9th as large and separated from the events by hundreds of years. It looses by every standard.

You did not present one historical record for what you claimed. Not even the Quran much less mysterious Jewish texts. The Bible records every form of criticism possible given by the Jews concerning Christ yet not one mention that he was conceived naturally.

 

[Assad91]

You're a funny man Robin.

 

[1robin]

You're a funny man Robin.

Good argument. Who can withstand such scholarship and evidence? Funny or not you have as of yet not given a single effective rebuttal to a single thing I claimed. I knew an intellectual punt was not far of for you.