Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

Of course, the majority of people in Mecca were polytheists and didn't wanted to abandon their gods.
Also, the Quraich had many allies among the other tribes, so they rejected Muhammad and his followers.

While in Medina it was completly different, also some bedouins/tribes around the city accepted Islam without fighting against the muslims.

I think Islam should mean rationalization not submission. The whole region were polytheists, heretical Jews, or followers of Arabic mythology. At best your rationalization might explain why 250 turned into a thousand or even a few thousand but not 100,000. Islam only started growing when the swords started swinging. Christianity converted the strongest empire on Earth (Rome), Islam conquered it's empire by force and is apparently living the pipe dream of doing so again.

 

[Sculelos]

Moral foundations do not come from people, only God. People may only apprehend moral truths that come from a transcendent standard. So what are God's morals in this case. Nature gives us a clue in that girls are not psychologically nor physically ready for sex at 9 years old. God's law gives us a clue in that OT law does not even classify a girl as appropriate for sex until 12 at the least. There simply exists no basis for claiming that sleeping with a 9 year old is appropriate for anyone much less a far older man (being that Muhammad killed many of those that did the slightest thing he did not like it is not surprising many allowed or accented to the practice). The Bible said not only to abstain from evil but to abstain from the appearance of evil. Almost every society that ever existed would have considered what he did evil. The man is not no common poor wretch who could not control himself (though they are locked up for the act) but is supposed to be the final prophet of God. Christ never did anything that could be confused with evil nor that was considered evil by 99.9% of humanity.

The last Muslim that presented the Talmud said it was written by stupid and evil scholars. I do not regard the Talmud as divine and even the Jews claim the Bible supersedes it. Pointing out any text that makes it ok to sleep with a 9 year old is of no help what so ever in actually making it ok. If that was Muhammad's only sin there might be room for argument, but combined with hundreds of murders for personal gain, tortures, mutilations, no actual miracles, and a book plagiarized from pagan and heretical sources and a thousand other issues kind of settles the point.

You never answered my questions about your being a follower of Christ. In what respect are you a follower?

Jesus was an is the Messiah, the only person to be born into sin and taste (see) what sin was like yet he never participated in it but yet overcame every single temptation he was faced with.

Muhammad was a prophet, yet he was tainted with Sin as all the other prophets have been. However I've never heard a Muslim say Muhammad was sinless as he was like King David in that he killed people and had sexual desires that may have not been pure yet he was a very insightful man and his book 'The Koran' was a very good attempt at riding the World of corruption. However even though I think the Koran is a good book to read and understand for the most part I think it must be taken as the word of a gifted man but I don't believe it was the inspired word of God since the Bible is very clear that Revelations was the last book to be written that was God inspired and that was finished in about 88 AD.

Will Muhammad go to heaven? I believe he will, I do believe he was a Man of Justice and like King David even though David committed adultery and murder, God still forgave him and called him one "After his own Heart" and in the same way God called Muhammad a "Man of Justice".

I am a follower of Christ because I try to do what God has commanded me in the Bible without diluting or stripping any part to what he says. Obviously if the Bible tells me to do one thing and the Koran tells me to do another I'm going to follow the Bible but yet I've read some of the Koran and I find most of the teachings agree with the Bible in comparison I've read a book like the Talmud and I know Jesus was completely correct when he referred to the Pharisees as the Synagogue of Satan.

Read Romans 3 (Click on Spoiler) if you want to see my point.

Spoiler: Romans 3

Romans 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

 

[Poeticus]

Islam only started growing when the swords started swinging. Christianity converted the strongest empire on Earth (Rome), Islam conquered it's empire by force and is apparently living the pipe dream of doing so again.

Are you sure that Christianity is clean from its share of bloodshed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=[youtube]6-qO4pIK1Bg[/youtube]

 

[Pastek]

Hahaha. One man held back all of Mecca from bringing harm to Muhammad. Nice one. Frankly, I'd say it showed incredible tolerance from some rather inept people. They were pretty barbaric after all.

His uncle was respected because his father (Muhammad's grand-father) was the one in charge of the 4 wells in Mecca. He saw them in dream and he dug the wells with his children.
So then, his children were in charge of them after him and you know how water is important in those desertic regions.
He wasn't rich and wasn't among the notable of Quraish and he didn't convert to Islam, but he had an important status because of the wells.

 

[YmirGF]

His uncle was respected because his father (Muhammad's grand-father) was the one in charge of the 4 wells in Mecca. He saw them in dream and he dug the wells with his children.
So then, his children were in charge of them after him and you know how water is important in those desertic regions.
He wasn't rich and wasn't among the notable of Quraish and he didn't convert to Islam, but he had an important status because of the wells.

You are assuming I'm not well aware of this.

 

[1robin]

Are you sure that Christianity is clean from its share of bloodshed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=[youtube]6-qO4pIK1Bg[/youtube]

Are you sure I ever claimed that? Can you post a single statement I ever made that suggested it? I have went on in quite some detail for claims to the exact opposite conclusion. The difference here is that our greatest prophet (and savior) was sinless yet we make no claims of sinless-ness for prophets in general. Islam claims that a man who did all of the historical volumes of wicked acts Muhammad did was sinless as well as the rest of the prophets who (WERE) sinful and we admit it.

1. You are accusing the one who did not make any claims of sinless-ness of doing so.
2. You are dismissing the burden of the ones who have claimed sinless-ness for an extremely sinful prophet.

This is exactly backwards.

I gave that video two minutes and that was enough. I have no idea what he was talking about but as I have never claimed what you think I have it is irrelevant anyway.

 

[Pastek]

You are assuming I'm not well aware of this.

Yes i was

 

[1robin]

Jesus was an is the Messiah, the only person to be born into sin and taste (see) what sin was like yet he never participated in it but yet overcame every single temptation he was faced with.

Agreed for the most part.

Muhammad was a prophet, yet he was tainted with Sin as all the other prophets have been. However I've never heard a Muslim say Muhammad was sinless as he was like King David in that he killed people and had sexual desires that may have not been pure yet he was a very insightful man and his book 'The Koran' was a very good attempt at riding the World of corruption. However even though I think the Koran is a good book to read and understand for the most part I think it must be taken as the word of a gifted man but I don't believe it was the inspired word of God since the Bible is very clear that Revelations was the last book to be written that was God inspired and that was finished in about 88 AD.

The sinless-ness of Muhammad and indeed all prophets is a very very common Islamic doctrine. I can't imagine how anyone could know anything about Islam and not know this. There is no issue that this doctrine does not exist, there is only a little debate over exactly what it means.

Will Muhammad go to heaven? I believe he will, I do believe he was a Man of Justice and like King David even though David committed adultery and murder, God still forgave him and called him one "After his own Heart" and in the same way God called Muhammad a "Man of Justice".

I will get to David but on what basis will Muhammad be in heaven. He denied the very act Christ performed which makes heaven accessible. He denied that exact same which Christ claimed is true of the anti-Christ. Christ told even Nicodemus (who was far less sinful than Muhammad) that even he must be born again on the basis of his own death on the cross (which Muhammad denies ever occurred). It as if Satan's final trick was to copy much of actually true theology but to deny those few parts that make it capable of saving anyone. If he denied the cross then he has denied every reason for the Bible. As Paul said if Christ be not crucified we (Christians) are to be the most pitied of men. That is exactly what Muhammad claimed. He may have been right or wrong but he was not sinless (as they claim) and will not be in Heaven if Christ was right. BTW Muhammad admitted he did not know if he would make it.

As for David. Yes he most certainly sinned and paid a massive price for his sins. Where Muhammad rejoiced and glorified over his killings David repented, but still lost much because of his sins. I do not claim David was sinless (he was indeed sinful), it is an Islamic doctrine that Muhammad was sinless as were all the prophets. Which one is telling the truth here?

I am a follower of Christ because I try to do what God has commanded me in the Bible without diluting or stripping any part to what he says.

Have you been born again? Why do you think so, if yes?

Obviously if the Bible tells me to do one thing and the Koran tells me to do another I'm going to follow the Bible

On what basis? If the Bible and the Quran are from God how could God tell you two different truths?

but yet I've read some of the Koran and I find most of the teachings agree with the Bible in comparison I've read a book like the Talmud and I know Jesus was completely correct when he referred to the Pharisees as the Synagogue of Satan.

They do have commonalities because they deal with the same subjects, Muhammad wanted credibility and so copied (most of the time in error) what he was taught about the Bible, and the Quran contains heretical versions of Biblical stories (many most crucial) known to have been taught by heretical Jews in Muhammad's time after being kicked out of Israel. Entire sections of the Quran are copied from the protovelum of James, Apocalypse of Peter, Infancy gospel of Mary, Pagan mythology, etc... Almost every pillar of worship in Islam existed in Arabian paganism. Why would God need to borrow from pagan sources?

Read Romans 3 (Click on Spoiler) if you want to see my point.

There is too much there to address. To what purpose are you using Romans 3?

 

[Poeticus]

Are you sure I ever claimed that? Can you post a single statement I ever made that suggested it? I have went on in quite some detail for claims to the exact opposite conclusion. The difference here is that our greatest prophet (and savior) was sinless yet we make no claims of sinless-ness for prophets in general. Islam claims that a man who did all of the historical volumes of wicked acts Muhammad did was sinless as well as the rest of the prophets who (WERE) sinful and we admit it.

1. You are accusing the one who did not make any claims of sinless-ness of doing so.
2. You are dismissing the burden of the ones who have claimed sinless-ness for an extremely sinful prophet.

This is exactly backwards.

I gave that video two minutes and that was enough. I have no idea what he was talking about but as I have never claimed what you think I have it is irrelevant anyway.

Woah, now. I wasn't talking about Abrahamic prophets. I was just saying that the history of both Islam and Christianity is far from perfect, like any history of any major world religion today is far from perfect. The only religion that is pretty much unblemished is Jainism. But, that is a whole other subject and I am not even Jain so....yeah....

I wasn't accusing anything nor dismissing anything. Calm your horses, Robin. Shanti, homie. Shanti.

 

[1robin]

Woah, now. I wasn't talking about Abrahamic prophets. I was just saying that the history of both Islam and Christianity is far from perfect, like any history of any major world religion today is far from perfect. The only religion that is pretty much unblemished is Jainism. But, that is a whole other subject and I am not even Jain so....yeah....

If you are not discussing prophets but instead the faults of it's practitioners then I do not have much of a dog in the race. I have been debating a (or I should say the) Muslim prophet in a thread about him. For some reason it seems that people think that Muhammad can be made more or less of a prophet by comparing him to Biblical prophets. Since you mentioned David I thought you were doing so. Let me summarize and we can move on.

1. Christianity does not claim sinless-ness for prophets in general (only Christ). Our claims and reality are perfectly in agreement.
2. Islam claims that not only Muhammad but other prophets were sinless.
a. Muhammad was very very sinful.
b. Biblical prophets were very sinful at times.
Their claims as usual are wrong at every turn.

I do not think they nor we claim any sinless-ness for our adherents so that is not much of an issue. I think every man who ever lived including those of Jainism are sinful with the exception of Christ and no significant historical inconsistency with that claim is available.

I wasn't accusing anything nor dismissing anything. Calm your horses, Robin. Shanti, homie. Shanti.

What is shanti? I do not know whether to thank you or punch a hole in my monitor. I was not being defensive I was trying to point out a lack of evidence for a premise in your case.

 

[Poeticus]

If you are not discussing prophets but instead the faults of it's practitioners then I do not have much of a dog in the race. I have been debating a (or I should say the) Muslim prophet in a thread about him. For some reason it seems that people think that Muhammad can be made more or less of a prophet by comparing him to Biblical prophets. Since you mentioned David I thought you were doing so. Let me summarize and we can move on.

1. Christianity does not claim sinless-ness for prophets in general (only Christ). Our claims and reality are perfectly in agreement.
2. Islam claims that not only Muhammad but other prophets were sinless.
a. Muhammad was very very sinful.
b. Biblical prophets were very sinful at times.
Their claims as usual are wrong at every turn.

I do not think they nor we claim any sinless-ness for our adherents so that is not much of an issue. I think every man who ever lived including those of Jainism are sinful with the exception of Christ and no significant historical inconsistency with that claim is available.

I never mentioned David, brah.

What is shanti? I do not know whether to thank you or punch a hole in my monitor. I was not being defensive I was trying to point out a lack of evidence for a premise in your case.

Shanti means peace. And, I never made a premise.

 

[Sculelos]

Agreed for the most part.

The sinless-ness of Muhammad and indeed all prophets is a very very common Islamic doctrine. I can't imagine how anyone could know anything about Islam and not know this. There is no issue that this doctrine does not exist, there is only a little debate over exactly what it means.

I will get to David but on what basis will Muhammad be in heaven. He denied the very act Christ performed which makes heaven accessible. He denied that exact same which Christ claimed is true of the anti-Christ. Christ told even Nicodemus (who was far less sinful than Muhammad) that even he must be born again on the basis of his own death on the cross (which Muhammad denies ever occurred). It as if Satan's final trick was to copy much of actually true theology but to deny those few parts that make it capable of saving anyone. If he denied the cross then he has denied every reason for the Bible. As Paul said if Christ be not crucified we (Christians) are to be the most pitied of men. That is exactly what Muhammad claimed. He may have been right or wrong but he was not sinless (as they claim) and will not be in Heaven if Christ was right. BTW Muhammad admitted he did not know if he would make it.

As for David. Yes he most certainly sinned and paid a massive price for his sins. Where Muhammad rejoiced and glorified over his killings David repented, but still lost much because of his sins. I do not claim David was sinless (he was indeed sinful), it is an Islamic doctrine that Muhammad was sinless as were all the prophets. Which one is telling the truth here?

Have you been born again? Why do you think so, if yes?


On what basis? If the Bible and the Quran are from God how could God tell you two different truths?

They do have commonalities because they deal with the same subjects, Muhammad wanted credibility and so copied (most of the time in error) what he was taught about the Bible, and the Quran contains heretical versions of Biblical stories (many most crucial) known to have been taught by heretical Jews in Muhammad's time after being kicked out of Israel. Entire sections of the Quran are copied from the protovelum of James, Apocalypse of Peter, Infancy gospel of Mary, Pagan mythology, etc... Almost every pillar of worship in Islam existed in Arabian paganism. Why would God need to borrow from pagan sources?

There is too much there to address. To what purpose are you using Romans 3?

1. I'm not an Islamic scholar nor do I study the Koran. My knowledge of the Koran is formed by bits and pieces that I've read to me it seems like it is a good book to read but all doctrines taken from the Koran should be carefully compared to the Bible. I think it can be helpful to study for the sole reason that it gives additional insight into history and also to one man's perspective of who he thought God was like. Also keep in mind that Muhammad's first major exposure to what he thought was part of the Bible was the Gospel of Thomas also dubbed the 'Quran Source document'. Read it for yourself if you want to understand why Muhammad misunderstood who Jesus was and why he was a truthful man yet he misunderstood who God was out of ignorance and this is why I believe he will accept God's truth and be saved in the end as God judges the Hearts of mankind independent of what 'religion' we profess. If we profess faith but yet don't show it we are not following God. If we obey the laws thinking that they will save us but reject God's gift of grace then we also are not following God. If we try to follow God in both spirit and truth even if we know not Jesus died for our sins nor have professed him as savior we will be saved as long as we have a heart for truth as God judges the hearts of man who have not heard of him based on their thoughts and actions.


2. I follow Christ, I am not dead yet and I have not received my new body so I'm still fighting the good fight so that I may show myself approved.

3. The Bible is from Man, the Koran is from Man. Both are from God, yet both contain some lies as well. God sends forth lying spirits to test our resolve so that we might show ourselves approved.

4. Romans 3 say's that every man is a liar but God is righteous and that if we judge God it will be out of Sin but if God judges us it will be out of righteousness and whatever God judges will be righteous because God knows everything, including every thought, emotion, action and reaction we do in our lives. God knows us better then we know ourselves so let God be true and let every man be a liar.

 

[1robin]

I never mentioned David, brah.

I wish you would draw attention to me in some way I understood. First shanti now brah. Apparently I got the use of David confused between you and schulelos. I would have admitted that whether you yelled through the keyboard in font size 50 or 2. If you did not mention David then simply respond to my claims about violence of followers, prophets and the burdens the different claims demand.

Shanti means peace. And, I never made a premise.

Premise or promise? How can you have one word for either? Must be one efficient language. If you had no premise then you can't have any argument that requires one to be built upon it. You sure are sensitive or seem to be.

 

[FearGod]

Agreed for the most part.

The sinless-ness of Muhammad and indeed all prophets is a very very common Islamic doctrine. I can't imagine how anyone could know anything about Islam and not know this. There is no issue that this doctrine does not exist, there is only a little debate over exactly what it means.

I will get to David but on what basis will Muhammad be in heaven. He denied the very act Christ performed which makes heaven accessible. He denied that exact same which Christ claimed is true of the anti-Christ. Christ told even Nicodemus (who was far less sinful than Muhammad) that even he must be born again on the basis of his own death on the cross (which Muhammad denies ever occurred). It as if Satan's final trick was to copy much of actually true theology but to deny those few parts that make it capable of saving anyone. If he denied the cross then he has denied every reason for the Bible. As Paul said if Christ be not crucified we (Christians) are to be the most pitied of men. That is exactly what Muhammad claimed. He may have been right or wrong but he was not sinless (as they claim) and will not be in Heaven if Christ was right. BTW Muhammad admitted he did not know if he would make it.

As for David. Yes he most certainly sinned and paid a massive price for his sins. Where Muhammad rejoiced and glorified over his killings David repented, but still lost much because of his sins. I do not claim David was sinless (he was indeed sinful), it is an Islamic doctrine that Muhammad was sinless as were all the prophets. Which one is telling the truth here?

Have you been born again? Why do you think so, if yes?


On what basis? If the Bible and the Quran are from God how could God tell you two different truths?

They do have commonalities because they deal with the same subjects, Muhammad wanted credibility and so copied (most of the time in error) what he was taught about the Bible, and the Quran contains heretical versions of Biblical stories (many most crucial) known to have been taught by heretical Jews in Muhammad's time after being kicked out of Israel. Entire sections of the Quran are copied from the protovelum of James, Apocalypse of Peter, Infancy gospel of Mary, Pagan mythology, etc... Almost every pillar of worship in Islam existed in Arabian paganism. Why would God need to borrow from pagan sources?

There is too much there to address. To what purpose are you using Romans 3?

We treat all prophets the same and yes Jesus PBUH is just a prophet and not the creator of this universe according to what we believe.

[youtube]rIX9PHrQ02E[/youtube]
Mary and Jesus birth - YouTube

 

[1robin]

1. I'm not an Islamic scholar nor do I study the Koran. My knowledge of the Koran is formed by bits and pieces that I've read to me it seems like it is a good book to read but all doctrines taken from the Koran should be carefully compared to the Bible.

We were not discussing books that are good to read but Holy books who's source is claimed to be God almighty. The Peloponnesian wars or Lee's lieutenants are very good books to read and are some of histories most accurate but would never be used by me a inspired resources on that basis.

I think it can be helpful to study for the sole reason that it gives additional insight into history and also to one man's perspective of who he thought God was like.

I am certain it does provide history but on what basis do you claim it provides information about God? The God it reveals is irreconcilable with the Bible's God.

Also keep in mind that Muhammad's first major exposure to what he thought was part of the Bible was the Gospel of Thomas also dubbed the 'Quran Source document'.

That is not true. His primary Biblical resource was his (uncle).

The Gospels of Thomas was only recently re-discovered and was not known during Muhammad's time.
It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, in one of a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library
Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is also a theological mystery and generally considered incompatible with the Bible and it's actual author unknown. The earliest references to it (and there are very few) list it among well known heresies even before Muhammad was born.

Read it for yourself if you want to understand why Muhammad misunderstood who Jesus was and why he was a truthful man yet he misunderstood who God was out of ignorance and this is why I believe he will accept God's truth and be saved in the end as God judges the Hearts of mankind independent of what 'religion' we profess.

In what way is getting the truth about God WRONG the basis for salvation? Not only the all the historical evidence suggests what was in his heart was tyranny, murder, jealousy, wrath, deceit, lust and greed (though I am sure he had his good points). Those can be forgiven but not when you deny Christ died for those very sins. That is the most bizarre claim about salvation I have ever heard.

1. Christ said he died for our sins and faith in that is the basis for salvation.
2. Muhammad not only denied it but taught it was impossible and you claim that error is a basis for salvation.
I am speechless.

If we profess faith but yet don't show it we are not following God. If we obey the laws thinking that they will save us but reject God's gift of grace then we also are not following God. If we try to follow God in both spirit and truth even if we know not Jesus died for our sins nor have professed him as savior we will be saved as long as we have a heart for truth as God judges the hearts of man who have not heard of him based on their thoughts and actions.

You seem to be all over the place here. Salvation is either grace or merit. It can't possibly be both. If grace then it is Christ's merits alone that save and those come through faith not through obedience. If by merit then approval comes through merit (perfect merit, as God is perfect) and Christ's actions are irrelevant. You can't choose both.

2. I follow Christ, I am not dead yet and I have not received my new body so I'm still fighting the good fight so that I may show myself approved.

You do not become approved by fighting but by surrendering to what Christ did. Unlike virtually all other religion Christianity does not have a God we have to claw our way up to , but instead one who has reached down to us. We only need believe and be born again. Fighting only is relevant once we are born again and that only for temporal issues. We can't add to Christ's perfection by our own imperfect merits. We can't earn what Paul said:
Ephesians 2:8-9

New International Version (NIV)

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV - For it is by grace you have been saved, - Bible Gateway

3. The Bible is from Man, the Koran is from Man. Both are from God, yet both contain some lies as well. God sends forth lying spirits to test our resolve so that we might show ourselves approved.

The Bible as a book is from man, as a revelation it is from God. The Quran as a book and a revelation bears every indications of being from man. Which of Christ's words are lies. Which of Muhammad's non existent miracles or prophecies give any indication of his source?

4. Romans 3 say's that every man is a liar but God is righteous and that if we judge God it will be out of Sin but if God judges us it will be out of righteousness and whatever God judges will be righteous because God knows everything, including every thought, emotion, action and reaction we do in our lives. God knows us better then we know ourselves so let God be true and let every man be a liar.

I agree God knows us and we can't judge him. What is the purpose of pointing that out. We can and should judge any words said to come from that God however and Muhammad does not pass any of the tests normally associated with that. Prophecy, miracles (he literally refused this one), unknowable information (though I have heard a few good claims for this one), explanatory scope and power, multiple attestation, historical accuracy, internal consistency, etc.... Why do you think Islam primary flourishes only where it is mandated and regulated and Christianity has a significant presence in every single nation of Earth (the only faith that does)? Pick any one claim you have made and we can get very detailed. You seem to be under some misapprehensions.

 

[Poeticus]

I wish you would draw attention to me in some way I understood. First shanti now brah. Apparently I got the use of David confused between you and schulelos. I would have admitted that whether you yelled through the keyboard in font size 50 or 2. If you did not mention David then simply respond to my claims about violence of followers, prophets and the burdens the different claims demand.



Premise or promise? How can you have one word for either? Must be one efficient language. If you had no premise then you can't have any argument that requires one to be built upon it. You sure are sensitive or seem to be.

 

[1robin]

We treat all prophets the same and yes Jesus PBUH is just a prophet and not the creator of this universe according to what we believe.

[youtube]rIX9PHrQ02E[/youtube]
Mary and Jesus birth - YouTube

I know what Islam believes concerning prophets and it is what I claimed. I made no statement on how you treat them. I said you claimed they are all sinless and with the exception of one that is historical nonsense. I also made no claims about who created the universe. I also know Muhammad's information came from a heretical source concerning the infancy of Jesus and is almost unanimously condemned outside Islam. I can't watch videos. I am on a DOD server. It was listed as heretical even before Muhammad was born. It can even be tracked through heretical Jewish sources that were kicked out of Israel and migrated to pre-Muhammad Arabia for teaching false doctrines. BTW are you claiming GOT is the source for this?

 

[1robin]

What?

 

[Monotheist 101]

Hahaha. One man held back all of Mecca from bringing harm to Muhammad. Nice one. Frankly, I'd say it showed incredible tolerance from some rather inept people. They were pretty barbaric after all.

Yes he was the leader/head of the Quraysh, why is that funny? Is it impossible? You certainly make it seem that way..

 

[Monotheist 101]

I think this discussion bears no fruit.

For all those asking about Aishas age, there are different reports and what is logical to me is that she was older, in her teens, otherwise she would not be allowed to accompany Muhammad on expeditions.

The trouble I have with 1robin and others claiming to have studied Islamic literature is that they they consider all the Hadith to be in the same boat, lol Bukharis books have a section for weak narrations (which you qoute), and Ibn Ishaq's narrations (most of the copy pastes of christian websites) hold no weight, it is common knowledge among Muslims that he was a fabricator of Hadith.

Anyhow all these are subjective opinions whether good or bad, this is mine

IMO THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS HIS MESSENGER..