Was Muhammad a good man?

[Assad91]

Alhumdulillah we have a great man to look up to! Alhumdulillah we have a great man to follow! His example is the greatest!

Alhumdulillah! الحمد لله‎

I know a man who lost his parents but refused to be called an orphan. He was man enough to love a strong woman years older than him, worked for her and made her stronger, opened his heart to her, shared his fears to no one but her. He was faithful to her till her last breath. Cleaned after himself and sewed his own clothes. He was good looking, courageous and fearless. He never judged anyone on their pasts or looks, and was moderate, open minded and tolerant. Beaten and exiled when he was helpless, he was merciful when he became stronger. Intelligent, wise and a hard worker, he built a long lasting nation out of nothing in the last 20 years of his life. He had no parents, but loved his daughters and grandchildren. His last will was "Be good to women". This man was a mercy for all mankind, this is my Prophet Muhammad.

 

[YmirGF]

Alhumdulillah we have a great man to look up to! Alhumdulillah we have a great man to follow! His example is the greatest!

Alhumdulillah! الحمد لله‎

I rather expect that the pagans of Mecca would not be so kind in praising Muhammad. He wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of them. If the truth be told, he wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of anyone who stood against him.

 

[1robin]

I rather expect that the pagans of Mecca would not be so kind in praising Muhammad. He wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of them. If the truth be told, he wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of anyone who stood against him.

Medina was no pick-nick either. Many who criticized him wound up dead, "converted", or vanished. And if you "God forbid wrote a poem against him then it was all over.

FROM ALI DASHTI'S "23 YEARS: A STUDY OF THE PROPHETIC CAREER OF MOHAMMAD", (3) page 100:

"Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated."



And prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97:


"Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax."



Did you ever notice how the earlier Meccan Quran, written when Muhammad was weak and to entice the Jewish population is all about peace? However the latter Medina Quran, written when Muhammad was strong and when the Jews had rejected Islam there is constant violent instruction from Allah? However since the Quran is arranged in a haphazard non chronological order it is harder to see. Many scholars actually claim the Meccan and Medina Qurans should be considered two separate versions. Also the later violent verses abrogate the earlier peacefull ones.

I have no problem with God ordering violence but when he does so for Caravans for loot, the torturing of people to find out the location of wealth, nor does he kill for unflattering poetry it does not sound like the God I know.

 

[kassault37]

Well as history has it Muhammad was a warrior, do you expect tolerance from a man of war! That's how Islam spread, into Persia, at one point into Europe and the brutality of expanding Islam into the Indian subcontinent.

I rather expect that the pagans of Mecca would not be so kind in praising Muhammad. He wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of them. If the truth be told, he wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of anyone who stood against him.

 

[Maija]

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

look for controversy and you will find it. There comes a time for everything

 

[McBell]

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

look for controversy and you will find it. There comes a time for everything

what does this have to do with the thread?

 

[1robin]

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

look for controversy and you will find it. There comes a time for everything

This has nothing whatever to do with physical violence. The sword is used as a metaphor for the word time after time in the Bible. You may misinterpret your own scriptures if you wish but please leave mine intact. The word is a sword because it divides. It makes a son leave his father to follow God, it makes a patriot defy his country to be obedient, it makes a women refuse to marry a non-theistic man to stop temptation for existing. The truth (sword or word) causes division between it and lies. That is what is being discussed in this verse. Jesus caused many divisions he never killed anyone especially women, poets, or husbands of wives he wanted. The only time his apostles ever struck anyone he rebuked them and healed the man. Contrast that with Muhammad. BTW if you want and indepth interpretation for this verse just ask.

 

[YmirGF]

Matthew 10:34
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

look for controversy and you will find it. There comes a time for everything

You see, I don't take that passage literally, but rather, metaphorically. In my view he is talking about the "sword of reason" to cut through the theological drivel he was born into, whereas Muhammad literally took up the sword to literally fight any who opposed him.

 

[Maija]

This has nothing whatever to do with physical violence. The sword is used as a metaphor for the word time after time in the Bible. You may misinterpret your own scriptures if you wish but please leave mine intact. The word is a sword because it divides. It makes a son leave his father to follow God, it makes a patriot defy his country to be obedient, it makes a women refuse to marry a non-theistic man to stop temptation for existing. The truth (sword or word) causes division between it and lies. That is what is being discussed in this verse. Jesus caused many divisions he never killed anyone especially women, poets, or husbands of wives he wanted. The only time his apostles ever struck anyone he rebuked them and healed the man. Contrast that with Muhammad. BTW if you want and indepth interpretation for this verse just ask.

exactly, and the same way when the quran talks struggle it uses the word "jihad", when it talks of war it uses qital.

so neither religions are propgating violence if u go to source, if u want to dislike modern muslims fine, but to dislike original source without having studied is ignorant

 

[dynavert2012]

He died for our sins not his. If you dissagree then post the evidence for his sins.

Mohamed also died for our sins

 

[Quagmire]

My argument is that we should all look at reality and not let others fool us. Basically marrying 4 woman at the same time and marrying a child is wrong! We can't just say respect their beliefs, it's wrong and it's awful! I think it's time to make this distinction. We can't just respect everything because it's someone's beliefs!

That's not an argument. That's a sermon.

 

[Sunstone]

I think if you judge Muhammad according to the standards of his time and place in history, he was in some ways forward thinking and in other ways more usual for his time and place. Much the same could be said for just about any relatively progressive person living before the current age.

 

[1robin]

exactly, and the same way when the quran talks struggle it uses the word "jihad", when it talks of war it uses qital.

It does not work like that. There is no dependance between what the sword means in teh Bible and what Jihad means in the Quran.

so neither religions are propgating violence if u go to source, if u want to dislike modern muslims fine, but to dislike original source without having studied is ignorant

Hold the phone. Both religions undeniably include instructions to fight. I wil not be coaught up in theis denailism concerning my faith. There is nothing that allows violence of anykind in the NT but the OT has many violent action God mandated. I never said anything about likin Muslims of any age. I have studied the Quran and my information usually comes from historical scholars that have studied it far more than most. Many times it comes from Islamic scholars. Muslims just can't take criticism of anykind. The first complaint and Islamiphobia and bias is used as some type of bizarre defense. Don't claim I have no researched (you have no way of knowing) show that my claims are wrong. My claims are this:

1. The OT allows for violence in the service of God and God orders all legitimate acts of violence. If commited without God's approval God punished it severly.
2. The NT does not allow for physical violence on any level.
3. The Quran is filled with violence especially when Muhammad became strong enough to throw his weight around. It does not simply allow it as an unfortunate reality it promotes it at times depending on Muhammad's strength at the time. He assasinated people (or ordered it), invaded locations, raided caravans for money, detroyed Holy Sites, and fought many battles. Most are devoid of any Godly reason to have been fought. Most are simply Muhammads thin skin and terrible temper and they do not resemple those in the OT. They look exactly like what I believe they are. The acts of Muhammad who made up a religion to unite the Pagan Arab tribes in order to weild a powerfull cohesive force to impose his diabolical will.
My God never killed anyone because they wrote a poem he didn't like. Muhammad killed at least four for that reason alone, others for money, other for petty revenge, others to get women etc.....

 

[The Sum of Awe]

My argument is that we should all look at reality and not let others fool us. Basically marrying 4 woman at the same time and marrying a child is wrong! We can't just say respect their beliefs, it's wrong and it's awful! I think it's time to make this distinction. We can't just respect everything because it's someone's beliefs!

Then why shouldn't we respect that belief, but respect your belief? Because your belief says you're right?

 

[Pegg]

don't you believe that Jesus died? was he sinful?

Jesus did not merely 'die'.... he was 'killed'. There is a difference.

 

[sunni56]

Jesus did not merely 'die'.... he was 'killed'. There is a difference.

Firstly, he didn't die. And secondly, they are not mutually exclusive terms, a person who is killed is dead.

 

[sunni56]

I'm shocked at some of the ultra-pacifist criticism of Islam on here. If we had that mentality in 1940, we'd all be speaking German here in Europe thanks to the Third Reich.

 

[Pegg]

Firstly, he didn't die. And secondly, they are not mutually exclusive terms, a person who is killed is dead.

they are very different terms and mean completely different things. The outcome may be the same, but 'reason' for their death is not.

Jesus was killed. He was murdered. That isn't a case of just dying... its a case of having your life taken away unjustly.

When someone gets very old and eventually dies of age related causes, that is a just death because it came naturally, not forcibly.

 

[sunni56]

they are very different terms and mean completely different things. The outcome may be the same, but 'reason' for their death is not.

Jesus was killed. He was murdered. That isn't a case of just dying... its a case of having your life taken away unjustly.

When someone gets very old and eventually dies of age related causes, that is a just death because it came naturally, not forcibly.

Mutually exclusive events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Dead" and "killed" are not mutually exclusive.

 

[1robin]

Mohamed also died for our sins

Well you are the first in hundreds of Muslims I have debated to even mention it. How do you know? I have relative but absolute proof of what Christ did. Islam does not even offer it for Muhammad and the mistake will not be known until too late. BTW most Muslims deny that can even take place at all, emphatically. Muhammad had plenty of his own sins to pay for. How can a mere man that was apparently just as or even vastly more sinful than most die for anyone else’s sins, or even his own? I do not think you must be familiar with the complexity and sophistication of substitutionary atonement. Muhammad is ineligible to even think of doing what Christ did.