Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

I have. You are just too blind to understand.

I did not say you gave one and it was wrong or bad. I said they do not exist. Your posts have been pure opinion and rhetoric. We could argue over whether a mountain was tall or short but no mountain at all is pretty obvious.

 

[1robin]

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

I only gave respected Islamic sources. Three pages of them. If biased it was on Islam's side. In fact I bet you never even read those three pages of resources before you gave this comment did you. If your believing what you want in by denying your own sources I think you should send your link to yourself. Muslims must learn the word bias in the crib. It is the first word they yell the instant history is not convenient. You can't assert bias, you must prove bias.

 

[1robin]

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:

Muhammad thought he was demon possessed after that experience. It was his wife that convinced him that it was Gabriel. BTW the Gabriel of Muhammad's cave acts exactly the opposite from the Gabriel in the Bible's far more exhaustive accounts of him. Whatever it was it acted exactly as Biblical demons do and that is what Muhammad thought it was initially.

 

[1robin]

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

I believe what makes it reliable or unreliable is whether a Muslim likes it or not. I have literally heard them say that they know if the Bible is corrupt if it differs from the Quran. What kind of kindergarten scholarship is that? I have also heard them condemn part of one sentence in a hadith and accept the rest. Who is biased here again?

 

[FearGod]

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.

So you have nothing to prove that the stories were true.

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.

i said the stories told by men aren't always telling the truth,my example for the Talmud is that it was written by stupid scholars and that won't mean Judaism is as stupid as their writings and teachings,the same thing for the people telling bad stories about the prophet,they simply hate him as you do.

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.

Even if you'll got a hundred pages telling bad things about the prophet,will that make it true.

You are showing stories as a fact,how silly is your logic !

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.

What evidences you got,was you there ?
Did you witness the events yourself ?
What you have here and there is stories and the evidences you are talking about are stories from the past.

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.

i didn't get what you mean and what that have to do with our discussion.

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.

if you trust the scholars and their stories,then many stories confirm Mohammed as prophet such as they witnessed the splitting of the moon.

Do you accept that as an evidence that Mohammed did a miracle which have been witnessed and even mentioned in the quran or only you fetch for the bad stories that goes with your goal in showing Mohammed as the worst person in this world.

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.

So you are saying that everything was done by drunken monkeys,so do you believe they were saying the truth about Mohammed as a bad guy and you admitted that many bad things in Talmud were written bacause of those bad scholars which you have called them as kidding the drunken monkeys.

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.

What a silly analysis !!

 

[1robin]

So you have nothing to prove that the stories were true.

There exists nothing to prove Muhammad, Christ or Caesar ever existed. There exists quite that indicate they did however. When you ask the correct question I will answer. In fact I will answer anyway since expecting you to operate by the actual burdens and logical expectations is taking too long. As usual it is your burden but my action.

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 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 increases can perform greater acts of revenge and theft as time goes by. He starts off as any bandit would, by raiding caravans and eventually starts destroying temples 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.

Also see post#: 285:


It was not my burden. It is Islam's to provide extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. I gave well resected Islamic sources to prove what I claimed where you should have given them for what the Quran claimed. Since you did not my claims stand until you can give me equally qualified and detailed counter claims from Christian sources. Since you can't then only give me equally reliable proof from any source to what this and post 285 stated. Good luck no other Muslim has even tried. I will get to the rest of your post while your doing that.

 

[FearGod]

There exists nothing to prove Muhammad, Christ or Caesar ever existed. There exists quite that indicate they did however. When you ask the correct question I will answer. In fact I will answer anyway since expecting you to operate by the actual burdens and logical expectations is taking too long. As usual it is your burden but my action.

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 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 increases can perform greater acts of revenge and theft as time goes by. He starts off as any bandit would, by raiding caravans and eventually starts destroying temples 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.

Also see post#: 285:


It was not my burden. It is Islam's to provide extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. I gave well resected Islamic sources to prove what I claimed where you should have given them for what the Quran claimed. Since you did not my claims stand until you can give me equally qualified and detailed counter claims from Christian sources. Since you can't then only give me equally reliable proof from any source to what this and post 285 stated. Good luck no other Muslim has even tried. I will get to the rest of your post while your doing that.

How you regard stories as evidence,i said to you that they witnessed the splitting of the moon and that is well recorded and a strong evidence that he was a prophet.

Also there are hadiths saying that the prophet has no shadow and they believed that to be miraculous,believe it if you wish it is recorded by scholars too.

Hadith 1: Sayyidina Hakeem Tirmidhi in his book Nawaadirul-Usool narrates from Sayyidina Zakwaan

, a close Companion of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم , the following Hadith: "The shadow of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could not be seen in the brightness of the sun, nor in moonlight".

 

[1robin]

i said the stories told by men aren't always telling the truth,my example for the Talmud is that it was written by stupid scholars and that won't mean Judaism is as stupid as their writings and teachings,the same thing for the people telling bad stories about the prophet,they simply hate him as you do.

Pointing out the obvious facts that random texts could possibly be wrong is of no help to you. You must show the extraordinary claims in the Quran are reliable. Why will you not do what your responsibility is concerning Muhammad? Neither one of us cares about he Talmud.

Even if you'll got a hundred pages telling bad things about the prophet,will that make it true.

What a ridiculous question. Muhammad is not sinless or a prophet until I prove he wasn't. He is an ordinary or a far more violent than ordinary man until you prove otherwise. Do you have any idea who's burdens is who's for claims to knowledge?

You are showing stories as a fact,how silly is your logic !

No I did not. In fact I have went way out of the way (apparently to know use in your case) to point out that nothing in history are known facts. If you continue to arrogantly and dishonestly insinuate I did things I did not I can't justify any discussion with you.

What evidences you got,was you there ?
Did you witness the events yourself ?
What you have here and there is stories and the evidences you are talking about are stories from the past.

99.99999999% of history was not witnessed by either of us does it therefor not exist or is it impossible to establish what probably occurred? The exact same pathetic argument could be used against you concerning Muhammad for anything good he did.

i didn't get what you mean and what that have to do with our discussion.

You sais the earliest source was best between the Quran and works 200 years later. That exact same reason is why the Bible is better than the Quran where they differ.

if you trust the scholars and their stories,then many stories confirm Mohammed as prophet such as they witnessed the splitting of the moon.

Long before I read this I was eating with a Phd from work and for some reason we both got to laughing at what a ridiculous claim the splitting of the moon was. Why out of all the more reasonable claims in the Quran did you pick of it it's most absurd to use. You say scholars claim he split the moon. (forget that all those who could have known were not scholars and those who claimed it were Muhammad's followers. Let's pretend a few actual scholars did say they saw Muhammad do it. I claim that 99% of scholars (historians, cosmologists, physicists, or simply a million people with telescopes) would claim it was not true. Which group do we believe without knowing for a fact what happened.

1. I have by far the most.
2. No records from non Islamic sources of the time mention any splitting of any moon.
3. Your non-scholars have reasons to be biased. Others who had never even heard of Muhammad at the time did not.
4. The Bible does not record it.
5. Muhammad himself refused even when asked to do any miracles and even claimed he could not. Even most Muslim's simply interpret that embarrassing surah in a non literal way.
6. There exists no evidence it was split. No Astra naught even thought the issue worth mentioning.

Outside convenience what do you have to argue that any sane human would agree with your non-scholars? Outside faith everything is on my side.

Do you accept that as an evidence that Mohammed did a miracle which have been witnessed and even mentioned in the quran or only you fetch for the bad stories that goes with your goal in showing Mohammed as the worst person in this world.

Most Muslims I talk to do not claim Muhammad did any miracle beyond the composition of a literary train wreck of a book. If you claim he did it is your burden to at least show evidence for it.

So you are saying that everything was done by drunken monkeys,so do you believe they were saying the truth about Mohammed as a bad guy and you admitted that many bad things in Talmud were written bacause of those bad scholars which you have called them as kidding the drunken monkeys.

I made those claims to illustrate the flaws in your logic. No monkeys are actually involved. I never ever said any drunken monkeys wrote anything. I said what was true even if they had. Is English not your primary language? (that is not a complaint)

What a silly analysis !!

Only the most desperate person clinging to faith in spite of evidence would call legal and historical methods used in all classrooms and courtrooms silly? Good night nurse that was one ridiculous statement.

 

[1robin]

How you regard stories as evidence,i said to you that they witnessed the splitting of the moon and that is well recorded and a strong evidence that he was a prophet.

For crying out loud your are something else man. There must be 2 dozen accepted Islamic scholars in what I posted. Many of them companions of Muhammad and the ones who wrote the Quran. Badr and most of those other battles are actually in the Quran. Are you saying the people who wrote the Quran and the Quran its self are wrong about simple things like a battle but right about the splitting of the moon? I do not know what your doing but is of no help to Muhammad nor Islam. This is the kind of stuff that makes people think Muslims are irrational.

Also there are hadiths saying that the prophet has no shadow and they believed that to be miraculous,believe it if you wish it is recorded by scholars too.

Hadith 1: Sayyidina Hakeem Tirmidhi in his book Nawaadirul-Usool narrates from Sayyidina Zakwaan

, a close Companion of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم , the following Hadith: "The shadow of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could not be seen in the brightness of the sun, nor in moonlight".

When you do anything to contend with the points made by your own founders then we can move on to splitting of the moon and no shadow. Change of context and subjects are the surest signs of failed arguments. Prove Muhammad did not kill based on his own desire as you own people have claimed in a thousand documents. I absolutely will not allow you to ignore all that information given in spite of the fact it is your burden not mine and change subjects whenever history is inconvenient. Until you address those battles with equal scholarship I am not moving on to even less rational discussions. So far not one Muslim has even attempted to do so. The evidence from history, the earliest accepted Muslim's, and even the Quran is that Muhammad was not sinless nor even good. Is is entirely your responsibility to prove he was. Good luck.

 

[Assad91]

I believe what makes it reliable or unreliable is whether a Muslim likes it or not. I have literally heard them say that they know if the Bible is corrupt if it differs from the Quran. What kind of kindergarten scholarship is that? I have also heard them condemn part of one sentence in a hadith and accept the rest. Who is biased here again?

I think you just don't know **** about Hadith. Its no surprise you post known weak and fabricated hadiths. Its actually funny. So funny, your attempt to incite muslims comes off more as a comedy routine.

Thanks for the lols

 

[Assad91]

Your posts have been pure opinion and rhetoric.

Funny. I thinking the same of your post lol

 

[1robin]

I think you just don't know **** about Hadith. Its no surprise you post known weak and fabricated hadiths. Its actually funny. So funny, your attempt to incite muslims comes off more as a comedy routine.

Thanks for the lols

Do you have anything beyond rhetoric to offer at some point? I gave laundry lists of historical sources even from Muhammad's companions, the Quran, and the Quran's authors, and Muhammad himself. You gave not one. If you claim they are all as wrong as I think they are then what are we debating? I would appreciate something besides your bizarre personal commentary.

 

[1robin]

Funny. I thinking the same of your post lol

You would be absolutely and perfectly wrong if you did. Great argument. Maybe you can try I know you are but what am I, next? What is this, junior high? I would be happy with even a bad argument from any Muslim at this point, instead of this stuff.

 

[ZooGirl02]

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

Thanks. I did not know that it was considered to be an unreliable hadith.

 

[FearGod]

Pointing out the obvious facts that random texts could possibly be wrong is of no help to you. You must show the extraordinary claims in the Quran are reliable. Why will you not do what your responsibility is concerning Muhammad? Neither one of us cares about he Talmud.

The Talmud is the one not caring about you because according to Judaism your prophet is a false one and son of fornication,Jews believe that Jesus didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies,that is similar to your claim that Mohammed wasn't a messenger.

What a ridiculous question. Muhammad is not sinless or a prophet until I prove he wasn't. He is an ordinary or a far more violent than ordinary man until you prove otherwise. Do you have any idea who's burdens is who's for claims to knowledge?

What a ridiculous reply,what kind of evidence you are looking for,if i showed you one hadith in favour of the prophet,you'll say that is the stroy from his companions and you' won't believe it to be true,what you believe to be true is the stories that claim he was a thief,a killer ....etc,that is as Monotheist 101 said "Confirmation Bias" in its best

No I did not. In fact I have went way out of the way (apparently to know use in your case) to point out that nothing in history are known facts. If you continue to arrogantly and dishonestly insinuate I did things I did not I can't justify any discussion with you.

Thats the truth,stories aren't evidences,otherwise you have to accept all other stories that shows Mohammed as the messenger of god,you can't just pick up what you want and neglect the others.

99.99999999% of history was not witnessed by either of us does it therefor not exist or is it impossible to establish what probably occurred? The exact same pathetic argument could be used against you concerning Muhammad for anything good he did.

Thats what i have said,you can't prove anything and you'll never do.

You sais the earliest source was best between the Quran and works 200 years later. That exact same reason is why the Bible is better than the Quran where they differ.

im saying the stories was written 200 years after the death of the prophet,wheras the quran was always and till today memorized in the minds of the believers.

[youtube]ZebsVVgj5nI[/youtube]
Shaikh Fahad Al Kandari cries after seeing a young boy from Turkey memorize the Qur'an - YouTube

Long before I read this I was eating with a Phd from work and for some reason we both got to laughing at what a ridiculous claim the splitting of the moon was. Why out of all the more reasonable claims in the Quran did you pick of it it's most absurd to use. You say scholars claim he split the moon. (forget that all those who could have known were not scholars and those who claimed it were Muhammad's followers. Let's pretend a few actual scholars did say they saw Muhammad do it. I claim that 99% of scholars (historians, cosmologists, physicists, or simply a million people with telescopes) would claim it was not true. Which group do we believe without knowing for a fact what happened.

1. I have by far the most.
2. No records from non Islamic sources of the time mention any splitting of any moon.
3. Your non-scholars have reasons to be biased. Others who had never even heard of Muhammad at the time did not.
4. The Bible does not record it.
5. Muhammad himself refused even when asked to do any miracles and even claimed he could not. Even most Muslim's simply interpret that embarrassing surah in a non literal way.
6. There exists no evidence it was split. No Astra naught even thought the issue worth mentioning.

Outside convenience what do you have to argue that any sane human would agree with your non-scholars? Outside faith everything is on my side.

Most Muslims I talk to do not claim Muhammad did any miracle beyond the composition of a literary train wreck of a book. If you claim he did it is your burden to at least show evidence for it.

The hadiths i showed confirm that he did miracles and there are many other hadiths but you only choose to believe the bad stories "confirmation bias"

I made those claims to illustrate the flaws in your logic. No monkeys are actually involved. I never ever said any drunken monkeys wrote anything. I said what was true even if they had. Is English not your primary language? (that is not a complaint)

i thought you were talking about real monkeys.

Only the most desperate person clinging to faith in spite of evidence would call legal and historical methods used in all classrooms and courtrooms silly? Good night nurse that was one ridiculous statement.

That is childish,good night domestic helper.

 

[arthra]

This threads been going on so long I'm unsure if I posted in it or not...

but in my view Prophet Muhammad was indeed a "good man" and a Prophet of God...probably one of the most influential in history..One of my favorite American authors was Washington Irving and he left the following assessment of Prophet Muhammad:

He was sober and abstemious in his diet and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected but a result of real disregard for distinction from so trivial a source.

In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints.

 

[FearGod]

For crying out loud your are something else man. There must be 2 dozen accepted Islamic scholars in what I posted. Many of them companions of Muhammad and the ones who wrote the Quran. Badr and most of those other battles are actually in the Quran. Are you saying the people who wrote the Quran and the Quran its self are wrong about simple things like a battle but right about the splitting of the moon? I do not know what your doing but is of no help to Muhammad nor Islam. This is the kind of stuff that makes people think Muslims are irrational.

What what what ,what is the relation between the quran and your rubish collection of fake stories.

When you do anything to contend with the points made by your own founders then we can move on to splitting of the moon and no shadow. Change of context and subjects are the surest signs of failed arguments. Prove Muhammad did not kill based on his own desire as you own people have claimed in a thousand documents. I absolutely will not allow you to ignore all that information given in spite of the fact it is your burden not mine and change subjects whenever history is inconvenient. Until you address those battles with equal scholarship I am not moving on to even less rational discussions. So far not one Muslim has even attempted to do so. The evidence from history, the earliest accepted Muslim's, and even the Quran is that Muhammad was not sinless nor even good. Is is entirely your responsibility to prove he was. Good luck.

To confirm what!!!! Assad91 has already showed you that all your stories are from unreliable sources ,what else evidences do you want.

You only bla bla bla .......... then bla bla bla,how silly is it to debate old stories.

 

[Monotheist 101]

if i showed you one hadith in favour of the prophet,you'll say that is the stroy from his companions and you' won't believe it to be true,what you believe to be true is the stories that claim he was a thief,a killer ....etc

That's exactly what I meant.

He's saying the stories are from the Prophets Companions, only cherry picking what validates his predetermined conditions, at the same time ignoring the other stories from the same companions which have stronger chains of narration and are more numerous in number.

IMO anyone who puts in time into looking up Muhammad without having an agenda will realize that he wasn't the terrible man he's being made out to be, some people already want him to be the villain, the fact of the matter is, the human race wouldn't be where it is now without the influence of Muhammad and the stability he brought..we would still be getting there..
[FONT=&quot]THE MORE I STUDY THE MORE I DISCOVER THAT THE STRENGTH OF ISLAM DOES NOT LIE IN THE SWORD.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mahatma Gandhi - the father of modern India, in "Young India." [/FONT]

Muhammad was a great man.

[FONT=&quot]And Most Certainly[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Thou (O Muhammad)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Are of Most sublime[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And Exalted Character.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Holy Qur’ân 68:4
[/FONT]
And raised high the esteem (in which) thou (art held)? [FONT=&quot] Holy Quran 94:4
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]AND WE SENT THEE NOT {O Mubammad}, BUT AS A MERCY UNTO {all} THE WORLDS. Holy Quran 21:107 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

..

Testimonies of people more faithful in their research than robin1, I will take their word over a Mohammad haters anyday..
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"HISTORY MAKES IT CLEAR HOWEVER, THAT THE LEGEND OF FANATICAL MUSLIMS SWEEP- ING THROUGH THE WORLD AND FORCING ISLAM AT THE POINT OF THE SWORD UPON CONQUERED RACES IS ONE OF THE MOST FANTASTICALLY ABSURD MYTHS THAT HISTORIANS HAVE EVER REPEATED." De Lacy O'Leary in "Islam at the Crossroads'' London, 1923, p.8 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"THE LIES, WHICH WELL-MEANING ZEAL HAS HEAPED ROUND THIS MAN, ARE DISGRACEFUL TO OURSELVES ONLY."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"AS THERE IS NO DANGER OF OUR BECOMING, ANY OF US, MAHOMETANS, I MEAN TO SAY ALL THE GOOD OF HIM I JUSTLY CAN." [/FONT] -Thomas Carlyle Author of Heroes and Hero Worship
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"THE GREAT MAN'S SINCERITY IS OF THE KIND HE CANNOT SPEAK OF: NAY, I SUPPOSE, HE IS CONSCIOUS RATHER OF INSINCERITY; FOR WHAT MAN CAN WALK ACCURATELY BY THE LAW OF TRUTH FOR ONE DAY? NO, THE GREAT MAN DOES NOT BOAST HIMSELF SINCERE, FAR FROM THAT; PERHAPS DOES NOT ASK HIMSELF IF HE IS SO: I WOULD SAY RATHER, HIS SINCERITY DOES NOT DEPEND ON HIMSELF: HE CANNOT HELP BEING SINCERE!" Heros and Hero-Worship, p.59 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"THE SWORD INDEED: BUT WHERE WILL YOU GET YOUR SWORD! EVERY NEW OPINION, AT ITS STARTING, IS PRECISELY IN A MINORITY OF ONE. IN ONE MAN'S HEAD ALONE[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]"A MAN OF TRUTH AND FIDELITY; TRUE IN WHAT HE DID, IN WHAT HE SPAKE AND THOUGHT. THEY NOTED THAT HE ALWAYS MEANT SOMETHING. A MAN RATHER TACITURN IN SPEECH; SILENT WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE SAID; BUT PERTINENT WISE, SINCERE, WHEN HE DID SPEAK; ALWAYS THROWING LIGHT ON THE MATTER. THIS IS THE ONLY SORT OF SPEECH WORTH SPEAKING!" Heros and Hero-Worship, p. 69
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"A SILENT GREAT SOUL, HE WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO CANNOT BUT BE IN EARNEST, WHOM NATURE HERSELF HAS APPOINTED TO BE SINCERE. WHILE OTHERS WALK IN FORMULAS AND HEARSAYS, CONTENTED ENOUGH TO DWELL THERE, THIS MAN COULD NOT SCREEN HIMSELF IN FORMULAS; HE WAS ALONE WITH HIS OWN SOUL AND THE REALITY OF THINGS . . . SUCH SINCERITY, AS WE NAMED IT, HAS IN VERY TRUTH SOMETHING OF DIVINE. THE WORD OF SUCH A MAN IS A VOICE DIRECT FROM NATURE'S OWN HEART. MEN DO AND MUST LISTEN TO THAT AS TO NOTHING ELSE, - - - ALL ELSE IS WIND IN COMPARISON." Heros and Hero-Worship, p.71

[/FONT], THERE IT DWELLS AS YET. ONE MAN ALONE OF THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVES IT; THERE IS ONE MAN AGAINST ALL MEN. THAT HE TAKE A SWORD, AND TRY TO PROPAGATE WITH THAT, WILL DO LITTLE FOR HIM. YOU MUST FIRST GET YOUR SWORD! ON THE WHOLE, A THING WILL PROPAGATE ITSELF AS IT CAN. WE DO NOT FIND, OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION EITHER, THAT IT ALWAYS DISDAINED THE SWORD, WHEN ONCE IT HAD GOT ONE. CHARLEMAGNE'S CONVERSION OF THE SAXONS WAS NOT BY PREACHING." Heroes and Hero-Worship. p. 80 [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

HE WAS CAESAR AND POPE IN ONE, BUT HE WAS POPE WITHOUT THE POPE'S PRETENTIONS, AND CAESAR WITHOUT THE LEGIONS OF CAESAR: WITHOUT A STANDING ARMY, WITHOUT A BODYGUARD, WITHOUT A PALACE, WITHOUT A FIXED REVENUE; IF EVER ANY MAN HAD THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT HE RULED BY THE RIGHT DIVINE, IT WAS MOHAMMAD, FOR HE HAD ALL THE POWERS WITHOUT ITS INSTRUMENTS AND WITHOUT ITS SUPPORTS."
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]R. Bosworth Smith -Mohammad and Mohammadanism", London 1874, p. 92 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]. THEY {Muhammad's critics} SEE FIRE INSTEAD OF LIGHT, UGLINESS INSTEAD OF GOOD. THEY DISTORT AND PRESENT EVERY GOOD QUALITY AS A GREAT VICE. IT REFLECTS THEIR OWN DEPRAVITY... THE CRITICS ARE BLIND. THEY CANNOT SEE THAT THE ONLY ‘SWORD' MUHAMMAD WIELDED WAS THE SWORD OF MERCY, COMPASSION, FRIENDSHIP AND FORGIVENESS - THE SWORD THAT CONQUERS ENEMIES AND PURIFIES THEIR HEARTS. HIS SWORD WAS SHARPER THAN THE SWORD OF STEEL.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri, at a meeting in Gorakhpur lndia). 1928 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]HE PREFERRED MIGRATION TO FIGHTING HIS OWN PEOPLE, BUT WHEN OPPRESSION WENT BEYOND THE PALE OF TOLERANCE HE TOOK UP HIS SWORD IN SELF-DEFENCE. THOSE WHO BELIEVE RELIGION CAN BE SPREAD BY FORCE ARE FOOLS WHO NEITHER KNOW THE WAYS OF RELIGION NOR THE WAYS OF THE WORLD. THEY ARE PROUD OF THIS BELIEF BECAUSE THEY ARE A LONG, LONG WAY AWAY FROM THE TRUTH.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A Sikh journalist in "Nawan Hindustan," Delhi, 17 November 1947.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]JULES MASSERMAN, U.S. psychoanalyst[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]TIME, JULY 15, 1974 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Leaders must fulfil three functions - - - provide for the well-being of the led, provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure, and provide them with one set of beliefs. People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]People like Gandhi and Confucius, on one hand, and Alexander, Caesar and Hitler on the other, are leaders in the second and perhaps the third sense. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone. PERHAPS THE GREATEST LEADER OF ALL TIMES WAS MOHAMMED, WHO COMBINED ALL THREE FUNCTIONS. To a lesser degree Moses did the same.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man Muhammed moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples nd dynasties, but millions of men; and more than that the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls. On the basis of a Book, every letter of which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blended together peoples of every tongue and of every race ... The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of fabulous theologies, was in itself such a miracle that upon its utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient superstitions ... His endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death: all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the Immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not ... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]... "PHILOSOPHER, ORATOR, APOSTLE, LEGISLATOR, WARRIOR, CONQUEROR OF IDEAS, RESTORER OF RATIONAL BELIEFS, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammed. AS REGARDS ALL STANDARDS BY WHICH HUMAN GREATNESS MAY BE MEASURED, WE MAY WELL ASK, IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Lamartine, Historie de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol II pp.276-277). [/FONT]
__________________
[FONT=&quot]Heroes and Hero Worship refers to "On Heroes Hero-worship and the Heroic in History" by[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Thomas Carlyle, London 1959.[/FONT]
EDIT: Excuse the CAPS

 

[Sculelos]

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:

By slap I don't mean it in a literal sense but I was strongly compelled to read the book of Enoch and I did all in one setting and then as I was contemplating what I read it hit me that while Jesus was the plant of Justice. Muhammad was certainly the "Just One"

This is how Jesus Describes Mohammed and as such I see how blinded and ignorant I have been to the Islam faith because Jesus has planted them to be a house (religion) that is very hard to corrupt but we must remember that the Judgement of Justice (The End of the World) is coming within 115 years so we must be prepared to meet our maker but know that Jesus won't look on Islam in a negative light as he judges the hearts of man, if you follow the Father's teachings you follow Jesus and if you follow the Quran's Teachings which were directly endorsed by Jesus then you also follow Jesus even if you don't know it to be true. God will sort out all confusion in due time, we just have to have faith and trust and obedience to whatever God ask us and honestly if we listen to our hearts we already know what he ask of us and I don't even need to tell you what he ask you because you already know!

guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2.
done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3.
based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4.
in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5.
given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.

Muhammad was certainly doing the will of God just as the prophet Enoch had prophesied of his coming some 3,800 years before he came.

From Enoch Chapter 91

And the
just one will arise from sleep, and wisdom will arise and will be given to them. 11. And then
the roots of injustice will be cut off, and the sinners will be destroyed with the sword, and the
roots of the revilers will be cut off in every place, and those who contemplate oppression and
revile will be destroyed by the edge of the sword.—12. And after that there will be another
week, the eighth, that of justice, and the sword will be given to it, that it may pass judgment
and justice on those who practice injustice, and the sinners will be delivered into the hands
of the just. 13. And in the end of it they will acquire houses through their justice, and they
will build a house to the Great King as an honor to eternity.

 

[Pastek]

By slap I don't mean it in a literal sense but I was strongly compelled to read the book of Enoch and I did all in one setting and then as I was contemplating what I read it hit me that while Jesus was the plant of Justice. Muhammad was certainly the "Just One"

This is how Jesus Describes Mohammed and as such I see how blinded and ignorant I have been to the Islam faith because Jesus has planted them to be a house (religion) that is very hard to corrupt but we must remember that the Judgement of Justice (The End of the World) is coming within 115 years so we must be prepared to meet our maker but know that Jesus won't look on Islam in a negative light as he judges the hearts of man, if you follow the Father's teachings you follow Jesus and if you follow the Quran's Teachings which were directly endorsed by Jesus then you also follow Jesus even if you don't know it to be true. God will sort out all confusion in due time, we just have to have faith and trust and obedience to whatever God ask us and honestly if we listen to our hearts we already know what he ask of us and I don't even need to tell you what he ask you because you already know!



Muhammad was certainly doing the will of God just as the prophet Enoch had prophesied of his coming some 3,800 years before he came.

From Enoch Chapter 91

Salam, you must see how muslims were before under the Caliphe Omar or Saladin, you'll see how they were guided by God and how just they were. Don't look at the corrupt muslim rulers of today, they are a shame.

Umar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The whole history of Omar shows him to have been a man of great powers of mind, inflexible integrity, and rigid justice.
( Washington Irving)


Notwithstanding the differences in beliefs, the Muslim Saladin was respected by Christian lords, Richard especially. Richard once praised Saladin as a great prince, saying that he was without doubt the greatest and most powerful leader in the Islamic world. Saladin in turn stated that there was not a more honorable Christian lord than Richard. After the treaty, Saladin and Richard sent each other many gifts as tokens of respect, but never met face to face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

PS : Why the Book of Enoch is not included in the Bible ???