Was Muhammad a good man?

[FearGod]

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.

Not everything recorded is telling the truth,for example many sayings in the Talmud are abused,should we accept those sayings as to be the truth about Judaism.

 

[1robin]

Not everything recorded is telling the truth,for example many sayings in the Talmud are abused,should we accept those sayings as to be the truth about Judaism.

I gave relative values based on historical methodology. I did not give absolute general valuations. I was pointing out what is most historically reliable, not what is absolute fact. Historical claims are based on probability not absolute certainty.

 

[FearGod]

I gave relative values based on historical methodology. I did not give absolute general valuations. I was pointing out what is most historically reliable, not what is absolute fact. Historical claims are based on probability not absolute certainty.

So you pick what you like such as the bad stories about the prophet sounds absolute certainty to you.

 

[1robin]

So you pick what you like such as the bad stories about the prophet sounds absolute certainty to you.

As for Muhammad I used primarily accepted Islamic scholars. Are they now off limits as well? The principle I was commenting on are true of secular historical methods not Christianity 101. Are we discussing your prophet of historical methods? Earliest sources for example not convenient sources are preferred. They likewise are against the Quran for many of it's glaring errors and in favor of the Bible.

 

[FearGod]

As for Muhammad I used primarily accepted Islamic scholars. Are they now off limits as well? The principle I was commenting on are true of secular historical methods not Christianity 101. Are we discussing your prophet of historical methods? Earliest sources for example not convenient sources are preferred. They likewise are against the Quran for many of it's glaring errors and in favor of the Bible.

What about the Talmud which is also written by the scholars and is disgusting.

 

[1robin]

What about the Talmud which is also written by the scholars and is disgusting.

I do not believe in the Talmud and it does not sound like you do either so why would we debate that? We seem to agree on it. Who's Talmud? Babylonian, Rabbinic, what? In Judaism the Bible is considered holier than the Talmud so why would I bother contrasting what is already admitted? The Talmud contains truth. It does not supersede the Bible. How does randomly selecting theological texts to debate help Muhammad or hurt the Bible?

 

[FearGod]

I do not believe in the Talmud and it does not sound like you do either so why would we debate that? We seem to agree on it. Who's Talmud? Babylonian, Rabbinic, what? In Judaism the Bible is considered holier than the Talmud so why would I bother contrasting what is already admitted? The Talmud contains truth. It does not supersede the Bible. How does randomly selecting theological texts to debate help Muhammad or hurt the Bible?

We debate the Talmud as a historical fact.

The Talmud is one of the most major of all books in Judaism after the Torah. The Talmud covers every aspect of Jewish Life. Everything from what Jews wear and say, to how they act towards others and treat them.

One of the teachings of Talmud

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

i am giving you example that not all stories from scholars deserve believing to be the truth,the same thing for the stories told by scholars or whatever men about Mohammed,what we got is the quran which teachs morality and fight evil doers and oppressors.

 

[1robin]

We debate the Talmud as a historical fact.

Are you saying we can debate it. My question is why should we? What is your premise or motion?

The Talmud is one of the most major of all books in Judaism after the Torah. The Talmud covers every aspect of Jewish Life. Everything from what Jews wear and say, to how they act towards others and treat them.

On what scale is the (Majorness) of a book determined. The Jews and I both claim the Bible supersedes in any conflict.

One of the teachings of Talmud

Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.

Are you claiming this is a fact?

i am giving you example that not all stories from scholars deserve believing to be the truth,the same thing for the stories told by scholars or whatever men about Mohammed,what we got is the quran which teachs morality and fight evil doers and oppressors.

No your are pointing out that in a minority of cases scholars are wrong about historical matters in some cases so we should always believe Muhammad. That is not how courts around the world deciding life and death weigh testimony. However it seems it is how average Muslims do (but not even how Islamic Jurisprudence works). If you want actual scholarship by one of, if not the
greatest expert on testimony and evidence please see this legendary paper. I do not care if you agree, I care if you understand the issues as they have existed for thousand of years concerning testimony and evidence. You can believe Muhammad if you wish. You however can't say that the evidence is in his favor.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

 

[FearGod]

Are you saying we can debate it. My question is why should we? What is your premise or motion?

Why do you debate about Mohammed,what is your premise and motion ?

On what scale is the (Majorness) of a book determined. The Jews and I both claim the Bible supersedes in any conflict.

Do you mean the Talmud is worthless ?

Are you claiming this is a fact?

The Talmud is well recorded,Do you think it says the truth about Judaism ?

No your are pointing out that in a minority of cases scholars are wrong about historical matters in some cases so we should always believe Muhammad. That is not how courts around the world deciding life and death weigh testimony. However it seems it is how average Muslims do (but not even how Islamic Jurisprudence works). If you want actual scholarship by one of, if not the
greatest expert on testimony and evidence please see this legendary paper. I do not care if you agree, I care if you understand the issues as they have existed for thousand of years concerning testimony and evidence. You can believe Muhammad if you wish. You however can't say that the evidence is in his favor.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

So you insist to believe the bad stories about Mohammed which means Islam is a bad religion,and you refuse to admit the sum of bad things in Talmud and then Judaism and christianity are the good religions

 

[1robin]

Why do you debate about Mohammed,what is your premise and motion ?

So your answer is a question? I however (who do not have the burden will give an answer).

1. There is very little evidence of any prophet hood for his case.
2. He was exceeding violent and tyrannical yet claimed to be sinless.
3. He plagiarized well known earlier texts in the Quran.
4. He displayed symptoms exact in every detail that Christ gave for demonic possession even recorded in accepted Islamic texts. He thought he was originally possessed himself. He even became suicidal.
5. He got most of his Biblical history wrong. Worse he did get it very close to known heretical Jewish sources kicked out of Israel for being heretics and then in Arabia.
6. His theology would not convert anyone but relatives and friends For it's first dozen years (less than 250). It was only when he had power, money, and soldiers to give that it began to take off (over 100,000 in the next dozen years) and would have destroyed its self when he died if an outside enemy to conquer had not been found.
7. The Quran even with it's massive faults is a complete mystery because Uthman destroyed all competitors and compiled one based on political need.
8. It can't possibly be the word as it exists in heaven because even modern copies differ even after politically controlled copying by only a select few.

I can go on but any one of those is pretty much a game ender.

Do you mean the Talmud is worthless ?

Did I use that word or anything like it? I said it is to be judged by the Bible as even the Quran is. Kind of makes the text that is the most authoritative obvious. Most books contain some truth. Only the Bible contains perfect truth (I mean outside scribal mistakes well known and documented or any error associated with an interpretation) which would be true of all books copied by man.

The Talmud is well recorded, Do you think it says the truth about Judaism ?

It contains both truth and false truth in what ration I could not say but as long as the Bible is it's judge there is no need to.

So you insist to believe the bad stories about Mohammed which means Islam is a bad religion,and you refuse to admit the sum of bad things in Talmud and then Judaism and christianity are the good religions

I most certainly do and have repeatedly said the Talmud is both wrong at times and bad at times. You almost never can judge by he book. You must judge by the claim. Even if every word in the Talmud was wrong that has nothing to do with proving all the bad stories (even within Islam) about Muhammad were wrong nor good stories true. You are getting no where. Muhammad is not good because the Talmud is bad (even if it is). All the bad stories about Muhammad are not lies because you think another book is. The good stories about Muhammad are not rue because another book is wrong either. Muhammad is either good or bad even if the Talmud was written by drunken monkeys. They have no dependence on each other. Did the battle of Badr not occur even though Many Islamic sources said it did, because you think the Talmud bad? That is not even a coherent argument.

 

[FearGod]

So your answer is a question? I however (who do not have the burden will give an answer).

1. There is very little evidence of any prophet hood for his case.
2. He was exceeding violent and tyrannical yet claimed to be sinless.
3. He plagiarized well known earlier texts in the Quran.
4. He displayed symptoms exact in every detail that Christ gave for demonic possession even recorded in accepted Islamic texts. He thought he was originally possessed himself. He even became suicidal.
5. He got most of his Biblical history wrong. Worse he did get it very close to known heretical Jewish sources kicked out of Israel for being heretics and then in Arabia.
6. His theology would not convert anyone but relatives and friends For it's first dozen years (less than 250). It was only when he had power, money, and soldiers to give that it began to take off (over 100,000 in the next dozen years) and would have destroyed its self when he died if an outside enemy to conquer had not been found.
7. The Quran even with it's massive faults is a complete mystery because Uthman destroyed all competitors and compiled one based on political need.
8. It can't possibly be the word as it exists in heaven because even modern copies differ even after politically controlled copying by only a select few.

I can go on but any one of those is pretty much a game ender.

Prove that your sources are 100% correct and that it is telling the truth about the prophet,as i have compared the Talmud with bad teachings written by the scholars,the quran is our evidence similar to the bible is yours,so things written by people aren't evidences but nonsense,exactly similar to the nonsense found in the Talmud.

Is it that hard to grasp.

Did I use that word or anything like it? I said it is to be judged by the Bible as even the Quran is. Kind of makes the text that is the most authoritative obvious. Most books contain some truth. Only the Bible contains perfect truth (I mean outside scribal mistakes well known and documented or any error associated with an interpretation) which would be true of all books copied by man.

Similarly we judge by the quran and we know the truth by the quran and not through stories told by men 200 years after the death of the prophet.

It contains both truth and false truth in what ration I could not say but as long as the Bible is it's judge there is no need to.

And the quran is our judge,so we don't need the stories that told by men.

I most certainly do and have repeatedly said the Talmud is both wrong at times and bad at times. You almost never can judge by he book. You must judge by the claim. Even if every word in the Talmud was wrong that has nothing to do with proving all the bad stories (even within Islam) about Muhammad were wrong nor good stories true. You are getting no where. Muhammad is not good because the Talmud is bad (even if it is). All the bad stories about Muhammad are not lies because you think another book is. The good stories about Muhammad are not rue because another book is wrong either. Muhammad is either good or bad even if the Talmud was written by drunken monkeys. They have no dependence on each other. Did the battle of Badr not occur even though Many Islamic sources said it did, because you think the Talmud bad? That is not even a coherent argument.

Very simple,as the Talmud was written by drunken monkeys as you call them then also the bad stories about the prophet were written by drunken monkeys.

 

[Monotheist 101]

.

I think you are very biased in your research..

“confirmation bias.” When receiving information that runs counter to our beliefs, we tend to re-interpret it in a way that avoids the “cognitive dissonance” between the information and what we believe in. Philosopher Francis Bacon said in 1620 that “the human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.” Confirmation bias is particularly likely to occur when we feel strongly involved and threatened in our opinions. If this happens, we tend to pay attention only to arguments that favor our pre-existing opinion, prefer evidence supporting our favored arguments – in short, we only hear what we want to hear.
I Only Hear What I Want to Hear

 

[Sculelos]

Sometimes the only evidence we need to see is the evidence that is left behind.

In my opinion Muhammad was a very conflicted man who was also very intelligent however he also came in contact with Jewish leaders and was exposed to much of the Talmud that Jaded his view of Judaism and exposed to many fake Gospels like the Book of Thomas (Quran Source Document) that Jaded his opinion of Christianity.

In my mind Muhammad did not believe anything he did was wrong, he fully believed everything he did was the will of God and I believe he did have some sort of Visions were the Angel Gabriel really did talk to him.

However I must keep in mind that the pre-flood prophet Enoch had prophesied that the Muslims would come and restore a strong sense of Justice so in reality I think most Muslims have a true, honest faith and trust in God and I believe he will save them accordingly as long as they listen to him when they hear his voice.

I used to be quite anti-Muslim but Jesus slapped me in the face and told me that he was using them to bring Justice in the World, so when God talks I must listen...

 

[Monotheist 101]

I believe he did have some sort of Visions were the Angel Gabriel really did talk to him.

Does that mean that the Angel Gabriel came to a man who was not doing the will of God?

How did Jesus slap and talk to you?

May God (The Father) Bless you for not being much of an Islamophobe :bow:

 

[FearGod]

I think you are very biased in your research..

“confirmation bias.” When receiving information that runs counter to our beliefs, we tend to re-interpret it in a way that avoids the “cognitive dissonance” between the information and what we believe in. Philosopher Francis Bacon said in 1620 that “the human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.” Confirmation bias is particularly likely to occur when we feel strongly involved and threatened in our opinions. If this happens, we tend to pay attention only to arguments that favor our pre-existing opinion, prefer evidence supporting our favored arguments – in short, we only hear what we want to hear.
I Only Hear What I Want to Hear

exactly true. :yes:

 

[Assad91]

Funny or not you have as of yet not given a single effective rebuttal to a single thing I claimed.

I have. You are just too blind to understand.

 

[ZooGirl02]

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

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is different. I mean, how do you say he wasn't a pedophile when he married Aisha and consummated the marriage when she was 9? I mean that in all due respect. Its just my opinion that this would indicate pedophilia.

 

[FearGod]

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is different. I mean, how do you say he wasn't a pedophile when he married Aisha and consummated the marriage when she was 9? I mean that in all due respect. Its just my opinion that this would indicate pedophilia.

Yes thats your opinion,but mine is different.

i believe that people who accused prophet Jesus as being son of fornication were liars as well people who accused prophet Mohammed as being pedophile were liars too.

The other stories about prophet Mohammed shows that he was a lovely person even before receiving revalation at age of 40.

At the time of atheism in the arab peninsula before the message of Islam slavery was very common plus adultery & outrageous not mentioning how girls were burried once they born and the wars in daily basis,read the history of Arabs before and after Islam.

[youtube]O_n9aqJFmR8[/youtube]
Crying For The Prophet

He didn't marry in young age and didn't commit adultery,he didn't know even that he'll be a prophet,but since he was a child the signs were there till that moment when he was ordered to spread the message and he lived for it till his last day on earth and his last sermon shortly before his death that made his companions to cry,watch it (while he was sick and knowing that he'll leaving the world very soon)

[youtube]ibMJ8OhC3ck[/youtube]
Prophet Muhammad's Last Sermon. Great Speech to ALL humankind at ALL times and for ALL generations - YouTube

And watch pls my final opinion.

[youtube]BmLzqGs88is[/youtube]
‫

 

[Assad91]

Well, that's your opinion. My opinion is different. I mean, how do you say he wasn't a pedophile when he married Aisha and consummated the marriage when she was 9? I mean that in all due respect. Its just my opinion that this would indicate pedophilia.

If you go back a few pages, you'll see a post of mine as to why its an unreliable hadith. Or you could google it. Either way, its a lie

 

[1robin]

Prove that your sources are 100% correct and that it is telling the truth about the prophet,as i have compared the Talmud with bad teachings written by the scholars,the quran is our evidence similar to the bible is yours,so things written by people aren't evidences but nonsense,exactly similar to the nonsense found in the Talmud.

That is not how this works. The Quran introduces claims to absolute knowledge, it is it's burden to prove what it claims not mine. That is not how secular history works either. Nothing is certain in history. We look as the sources and evidence and make educated conclusions but do not claim absolutes.

You did not prove anything about the Talmud. The only thing you said is that you did not like it and gave a verse that sounded stupid from it. That isn't proof of anything. If I gave a very from the Quran and said I don't like it and it is stupid is that proof the Quran is wrong. You have really got your burden and requirements mixed up here.

For example the battle of Badr: I gave three pages of Islamic biographers, historians, and respected hadiths that said Muhammad attack that caravan because one of his people told him that year they were carrying a lot of loot. Weighing all the evidence it all suggests the Muslim's were broke and raided a caravan because they wanted it's money and food. No one said Allah commanded it. However the very first raid the previous year was said to have been ordered by Allah yet Muhammad changed his mind and did not do it. That is all evidence (but not proof) that Muhammad did whatever he wanted and killed who HE wanted.

Is it that hard to grasp.

No one grasps that. That is not how any court, theological course, or historical study is done. Let me give another example.

1. The BIble says Jesus died on the cross.
2. Islam says 1. He did not die but passed out, 2. It was someone else on the cross.

One of those must be wrong and it is our job to view the evidence without bias. I can't look at many things but the most important one is this. The BIble gives multiple attestation of his death and that from eyewitnesses or from interviews with eyewitnesses. The Quran is one man's word from 500 years later. In every court on Earth the Bible would be judged more reliable for this event. That is why NT scholars (even the secular ones) agree on three facts of history.

1. Jesus existed and had an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
2. He was crucified and died on the cross.
3. His tomb was found empty.

Similarly we judge by the quran and we know the truth by the quran and not through stories told by men 200 years after the death of the prophet.

The reason you do this is exactly the same reason the Bible is more reliable for events it and the Quran differ on. You can't use one standard for the Quran and a different one for the Bible. Though Islam more than anyone is famous for this.

And the quran is our judge,so we don't need the stories that told by men.

Even if that were a fact the Quran does not discount the stories I gave by Islamic scholars. Find me a verse where the Quran claims hundreds of Jews in bounds were not beheaded. Even if every word of the Quran were true (and it isn't) it does nothing to affect the claims I gave by dozens of professional Islamic scholars.

Very simple,as the Talmud was written by drunken monkeys as you call them then also the bad stories about the prophet were written by drunken monkeys.

I was joking (I said even if written by monkeys) and since the same people in many cases wrote what I provided also wrote the Quran then it was drunken monkey's that wrote the Quran and another monkey that rewrote it and burned all the ones he did not like.

You can believe the Quran all you wish but using the historical method and methods developed for evaluating testimony and evidence over thousands of years and practiced by all court systems and colleges Muhammad was a terrible human being and the Quran is not from God.