• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Muhammad a good man?

What is your opinion on Muhammad?

  • He was a great man and those who insult him must be punished!

    Votes: 60 27.9%
  • He was a great man, but people are free to insult him

    Votes: 47 21.9%
  • He was not a good man, but we should respect him because I believe in respecting other religions

    Votes: 23 10.7%
  • He was a terrible man and we should condemn his awful actions!

    Votes: 85 39.5%

  • Total voters
    215

Monotheist 101

Well-Known Member
Heres a few more faithful researchers for 1robin.

[FONT=&quot] "MUHUMMAD WAS THE SOUL OF KINDNESS, AND HIS INFLUENCE WAS FELT AND NEVER FORGOTTEN BY THOSE AROUND HIM." A Hindu scholar - Diwan Chand Sharma in his "The Prophets of the East," Calcutta 1935, p. 122. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

"FOUR YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF JUSTINIAN, A.D. 569, WAS BORN AT MAKKAH, IN ARABIA THE MAN WHO, OF ALL MEN EXERCISED THE GREATEST INFLUENCE UPON THE HUMAN RACE ... MOHAMMED ..." John William Draper, M.D., LLD., in his "A History of the lntellectual Development of Europe",- London 1875.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I DOUBT WHETHER ANY MAN WHOSE EXTERNAL CONDITIONS CHANGED SO MUCH EVER CHANGED HIMSELF LESS TO MEET THEM." R. V. C. Bodley in "The Messenger,"- London 1946, p.9.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I HAVE STUDIED HIM - THE WONDERFUL MAN - AND IN MY OPINION FAR FROM BEING AN ANTI-CHRIST, HE MUST BE CALLED THE SAVIOUR OF HUMANITY." George Bernard Shaw, in "The Genuine Islam,- Vol. 1, No. 81936.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"BY A FORTUNE ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE IN HISTORY, MOHAMMED IS A THREEFOLD FOUNDER OF A NATION, OF AN EMPIRE, AND OF A RELIGION." R. Bosworth-Smith in "Mohammed and Mohammedanism".- 1946.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"MOHAMMED WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL RELIGIOUS PERSONALITIES." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition[/FONT]
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What what what :facepalm:,what is the relation between the quran and your rubish collection of fake stories.




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.
Apparently your simply out of ideas. No one showed anything. Some one asserted something with nothing (not anything good nor bad, nothing) to prove anything was anything. Maybe in Islam simply claiming something is true makes it so (that seems to be the basis of the faith) but not in Christianity, secular history, law, and common sense. I think I am done with you for now. Even if absurd I enjoy a challenge and this isn't it. Either prove anything (all those Muslim scholars, companions, authors, and even the Quran) are wrong that I provided or quit claiming you or anyone else has. It is just dishonest.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
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]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]. 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 :)
For times sake (not truths sake) let me just grant everyone of those opinions are true. That has not the slightest effect of any of those battles I gave Islamic scholarship concerning. Not haters (which is code word for anyone that says anything inconvenient about Muhammad) but Muhammad's companions, Not haters but accepted hadiths, Not haters but confirmation from the Quran its self. I will be than happy to engage in quote wars but until you do anything (even something ridiculous and meaningless) about what I posted I will not move on. This change of subject crap will not fly with me this time. If you want to cover Islamic conquests that took place long after Muhammad was poisoned and dead that will be fine but you must first at least attempt to counter what I have posted already. A bunch of random opinions about random things is not going to get it.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Heres a few more faithful researchers for 1robin.

[FONT=&quot]"MUHUMMAD WAS THE SOUL OF KINDNESS, AND HIS INFLUENCE WAS FELT AND NEVER FORGOTTEN BY THOSE AROUND HIM." A Hindu scholar - Diwan Chand Sharma in his "The Prophets of the East," Calcutta 1935, p. 122. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"FOUR YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF JUSTINIAN, A.D. 569, WAS BORN AT MAKKAH, IN ARABIA THE MAN WHO, OF ALL MEN EXERCISED THE GREATEST INFLUENCE UPON THE HUMAN RACE ... MOHAMMED ..." John William Draper, M.D., LLD., in his "A History of the lntellectual Development of Europe",- London 1875.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"I DOUBT WHETHER ANY MAN WHOSE EXTERNAL CONDITIONS CHANGED SO MUCH EVER CHANGED HIMSELF LESS TO MEET THEM." R. V. C. Bodley in "The Messenger,"- London 1946, p.9.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]"I HAVE STUDIED HIM - THE WONDERFUL MAN - AND IN MY OPINION FAR FROM BEING AN ANTI-CHRIST, HE MUST BE CALLED THE SAVIOUR OF HUMANITY." George Bernard Shaw, in "The Genuine Islam,- Vol. 1, No. 81936.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]"BY A FORTUNE ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE IN HISTORY, MOHAMMED IS A THREEFOLD FOUNDER OF A NATION, OF AN EMPIRE, AND OF A RELIGION." R. Bosworth-Smith in "Mohammed and Mohammedanism".- 1946.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]"MOHAMMED WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL RELIGIOUS PERSONALITIES." Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition[/FONT]
See post 903 to my response to this as it was the same as your other post.
 

Monotheist 101

Well-Known Member
See post 903 to my response to this as it was the same as your other post.

I apologize for not remembering what your accusations of Muhammad were..honestly I couldnt care less what he is to you.

What I wanted to point out was that he is regarded as the imposter by those with an agenda..ehm ehm..(like you being guided by the holy spirit)

Anyone who does an unbiased search on him will not regard him as a bad man, maybe they will hold a neutral view as that is the smarter choice..

Your research just seems too one-sided to be honest..


LOL and you said not haters but his companions..did you just ignore all the good things that his companions wrote about him, or were those accounts unreliable.. You have double standards IMO not good for research as you end up only fooling yourself..refer to my post about confirmation bias.. i dont know which number..

Lets start fresh..

1. Why do you regard Muhammad as a bad man?

2. Do you think Islam spread by the sword?

3. Why do you have a double standard when using Islamic sources? Why consider some as reliable and others which are more numerous (good character of Muhammad) to be unreliable? Hacve you studied the Hadith, do you know how mant types there are?
http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/the-definition-of-hadith-and-its-types.php
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I apologize for not remembering what your accusations of Muhammad were..honestly I couldnt care less what he is to you.
I already responded to this in depth but for some reason it did not post but disappeared, so this may be much shorter. It is not whether you care or not that determines what I type. It is what history demonstrates. Maybe what history actual shows is irrelevant to you but it shouldn't be. I did not type my opinion I type Islamic historical research.

What I wanted to point out was that he is regarded as the imposter by those with an agenda..ehm ehm..(like you being guided by the holy spirit)
So your either saying the Spirit of truth sent by God is prejudiced against Muhammad, or that that which you have no way of knowing in untrue concerning me? That is the biggest copout in history and consistent of weak argumentation. No everyone who does not agree with Muhammad is not biased. I know people who did Phd dissertations of Muhammad or Islam in general who are not Christians that despise them both. Why is it always the Muslims who cries bias whenever they are disagreed with. I virtually never do. It is a bit ironic anyway since my sources were mostly accepted Islamic sources, scholars, or even companions of Muhammad. Are they biased to.

Anyone who does an unbiased search on him will not regard him as a bad man, maybe they will hold a neutral view as that is the smarter choice..
Not only is that not true even if it was you could not know it.

Your research just seems too one-sided to be honest..
It certainly was. It was almost all Islamic sided. I could use only the Quran and the Bible to show Muhammad was not a prophet, not sinless, and not even a good man.

LOL and you said not haters but his companions..did you just ignore all the good things that his companions wrote about him, or were those accounts unreliable.. You have double standards IMO not good for research as you end up only fooling yourself..refer to my post about confirmation bias.. i dont know which number..
Is Hitler good if I find quotes stating he was? I never said he did not do good things. So did Stalin. It is the fact he did so many diabolical and self serving things that render his good things irrelevant. A guy who beheads Jews that are tied up until he is exhausted for not obeying a treaty he invented is not good even if he gave a million to charity.


Lets start fresh..
Ok

1. Why do you regard Muhammad as a bad man?
He killed hundreds of people or ordered it to be done and there is no divine justification for most. I have read accounts where one of his cohorts killed someone he heard Muhammad complain about without no one knowing. They told Muhammad about it and he said it was good. How did Allah have anything to with that or ripping a child from a mothers arms so they could stab here for writing poetry. The list of Muhammad's atrocities is so long that after 10 years research I am still finding new ones. However simply writing what I and most theologians consider plagiarized and false theological claims is about the most evil thing possible. Just simply what information I have posted about his early caravan looting raids is enough to know for a fact he was not sinless and the Bible makes it clear he is no prophet.

2. Do you think Islam spread by the sword?
Not always but it sure has been at times, especially early on. Here is a few things consistent with that.

1. The first dozen peaceful years of Islam Muhammad barely had 250 converts. It was during it's next 12 very violent years when Muhammad had status, power, and money to hand out that 100,000 people converted.
2. Christianity exploded on the scene while being persecuted by both it's own nation and the most powerful empire on earth. It eventually converted (not conquered) that same empire. Christianity was born on merit, Islam only grew on money and blood initially.
3. Islam almost ceased to exist when Muhammad was poisoned and died. It's army was fighting each other in factions concerning all too human power struggles, different interpretations, and readings. Only when Uthman put together the ones he liked and burned the rest and turned Islam's violence loose on the Mediterranean world did it survive. It was submit and pay high taxes to Islam, convert or die all the way across N Africa and into Spain and would have kept going if some very tough Christian knights had not whipped them at Tours.
4. It is state mandated and enforced in many nations. You are born a Muslim in fundamental nations like Iran and as just happened recently if you grow up and decide to leave you go on trial and can be killed for converting out of a faith you never chose. There are actually Islamic police in many nations that enforce Islamic mandate. I have seen films of them dragging a young girl into a police car for having a crocket hijab.
5. Only a weak religion that can't survive by merit must be enforced by a state. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. Islam's apparently wants to control the world God has condemned.

Of course there are exceptions and my points are not true of all of Islam. They are characteristic of it in general where applicable and I could add a thousand examples for every one I did.

BTW to show your bias claim is meaningless in most cases I would side with Saladin in the great crusader wars. The crusades began because of Islamic atrocities against pilgrims but soon became a sinful bloody nightmare in which Islam was many times in the right. So much for bias. I go by history not preference.


3. Why do you have a double standard when using Islamic sources? Why consider some as reliable and others which are more numerous (good character of Muhammad) to be unreliable? Hacve you studied the Hadith, do you know how mant types there are?
The Definition of Hadith and its Types

What double standards?
1. I never rejected a single source or claim you gave.
2. I gave accepted Islamic sources. How is my using Muhammad's companions a double standard.
3. You posted opinion that do not change history even if they were all true. I do not care if his companions liked him they also recorded his atrocities. Claiming a bad man was good has no effect on historical documents. They are only opinions. My claims are history.
4. It is your who are using double standards by claiming I should value opinions about who they liked and ignore textual records of what Muhammad actually did. You ever heard it is more important what we do than what we say?
 

Sculelos

Active Member
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.

Saladin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

I believe the mainstream understanding of Jewry, Christianity and Islam have all been compromised and most of the population doesn't understand much of anything regarding what they actually teach.

We are in the age of Secular Humanism and it's more popular these day's to be an Atheist or Agnostic then anything else.

As for Daniel he translated the Book of Enoch from the Ancient Sumerian text but never shared the book of Enoch with his contemporaries because the Angel told him.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

The finished copies of Enoch were sent to many different churches after the Apostle John wrote the Revelations.

10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

The 'Little Book' Spoken of in Revelations is the Book of Enoch and Revelations is an explanation of the 10 weeks found in Enoch.

If you really want to understand Biblical prophecy and where many of Muhammad's ideas regarding the Nephilim and Angels came from I highly recommend reading the Book of Enoch.

I'm slowly reading the book of Koran to see what Muhammad was like but he doesn't seem nearly as bad as people say he was.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The question of whether or not Muhammad was a good man is an interesting one. Interesting precisely because it seems impossible to definitively answer. Why ask it, then?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Sculelos said:
We are in the age of Secular Humanism and it's more popular these day's to be an Atheist or Agnostic then anything else.

If you are referring to the U.S., you are wrong. All of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are Christians. So are the vast majority of Senators, and Congressmen. It would be very difficult for most public atheists, and agnostics, to hold high political positions. I assume that all 50 governors are Christians.

A 2010 study showed that almost 80% of Americans are Christians, and that atheists and agnostics combined are only 4% of the population.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Sculelos said:
As for Daniel he translated the Book of Enoch from the Ancient Sumerian text but never shared the book of Enoch with his contemporaries because the Angel told him.

You have no clue what Daniel might have written thousands of years ago.

Wikipedia says:

"Though traditionally the book was believed to have been written by the Daniel figure of the court tales, today the scholarly consensus views the Book of Daniel as a product of Maccabean times."
 
Last edited:

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
If you are referring to the U.S., you are wrong. All of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are Christians. So are the vast majority of Senators, and Congressmen. It would be very difficult for most public atheists, and agnostics, to hold high political positions. I assume that all 50 governors are Christians.

A 2010 study showed that almost 80% of Americans are Christians, and that atheists and agnostics combined are only 4% of the population.
“Nones” on the Rise | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
 

Assad91

Shi'ah Ali
If you are referring to the U.S., you are wrong. All of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are Christians. So are the vast majority of Senators, and Congressmen. It would be very difficult for most public atheists, and agnostics, to hold high political positions. I assume that all 50 governors are Christians.

A 2010 study showed that almost 80% of Americans are Christians, and that atheists and agnostics combined are only 4% of the population.
daw
So sad
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Last edited:

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
I know, but Sculelos said that "it's more popular these day's to be an Atheist or Agnostic than anything else." He was wrong.

Your link says that 6% of Americans are atheists, or agnostics. That is a 50% increase over three years ago, but it is still a very small percentage of atheists and agnostics.
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong; just giving you a relevant study for reference.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I wasn't trying to prove you wrong; just giving you a relevant study for reference.
Yeah, perhaps I am just living in an atheistic belt, but most people around here will just look away if you bring up religion. They are just not interested. For example, my 81 year old mother describes herself as an Anglican Christian ... and yet has not been in a church in probably 60 years other than for funerals. If you bring up religion to her she will simply glaze over and change the subject. That said, I wouldn't put much stock in these surveys. There is a position people will officially state when asked, but in reality, that answer doesn't add up to squat.
 

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Yeah, perhaps I am just living in an atheistic belt, but most people around here will just look away if you bring up religion. They are just not interested. For example, my 81 year old mother describes herself as an Anglican Christian ... and yet has not been in a church in probably 60 years other than for funerals. If you bring up religion to her she will simply glaze over and change the subject. That said, I wouldn't put much stock in these surveys. There is a position people will officially state when asked, but in reality, that answer doesn't add up to squat.
Yeah, I feel like the majority of people are only culturally religious. They say they're Christian because they celebrate Easter and Christmas, but don't regularly practice their religion or attend church.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Yeah, perhaps I am just living in an atheistic belt, but most people around here will just look away if you bring up religion. They are just not interested. For example, my 81 year old mother describes herself as an Anglican Christian ... and yet has not been in a church in probably 60 years other than for funerals. If you bring up religion to her she will simply glaze over and change the subject. That said, I wouldn't put much stock in these surveys. There is a position people will officially state when asked, but in reality, that answer doesn't add up to squat.

This has always surprised me do to the fact that according to statistics and polls atheists are placed at such a low number yet I encounter more atheists then theists.
It seems closet non-theism is very abundant.

I myself was at a stage during Christianity when for years I despised Christians and spent more time making fun of Jesus and attacking other Christians.
It astounds me as to how many people are unaware of their lack of belief in religion and especially for "Christian" Americans
 

Sculelos

Active Member
I know, but Sculelos said that "it's more popular these day's to be an Atheist or Agnostic than anything else." He was wrong.

Your link says that 6% of Americans are atheists, or agnostics. That is a 50% increase over three years ago, but it is still a very small percentage of atheists and agnostics.

I don't really trust what people say because most people are delusional (and don't practice what they preach).

For a more accurate picture read something like this.

46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll
 

payak

Active Member
The question still never gets answered, do the muslims here think it was right for the prophet to marry a child, yes or no.

If yes why, if no why, lets not evade the subject.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
daw
So sad

What is sad about a predominantly Christian nation also being the most powerful, benevolent, most economically successful nation in human history? We have saved the entire world from tyranny several times, including the stopping of Hitler (whom) Muslim units of the Waueffen SS fought on the side of.
 
Top