Was Muhammad a good man?

[Pastek]

Why are you claiming to know what you can't possibly know? You do not know what that person does. I have the weird habit of not judging a person I know nothing about but in a general sense Christianity is full of both those that were willing to lay down their lives by the tens of thousands for God and those that were willing to risk their lives to kill others (they claimed for God but were wrong). Islam seems to be only composed of the latter and almost none of the former. Risking death in an effort to kill others is very common and there is nothing Godly about it. Christians more than any other have passively given their lives for God.

You talk about Christianity when i'm talking about some christians.

I'm not judging the christians in general. As he was talking about some verses in the Quran concerning fightings, i was refering to christians who also were engaged in battles and didn't "turned the other cheek".
I think you are an englishman, so you know how many wars there were just between (christians) europeans, i don't even talk about the (christians) colons agaisnt the natives. So, they were not in the first category you were talking about. I don't think they were risking their life for God.

 

[1robin]

You talk about Christianity when i'm talking about some christians.

No you were talking about and to the person who made the claim. You said he was told that but did not do that. How do you know?

I'm not judging the christians in general. As he was talking about some verses in the Quran concerning fightings, i was refering to christians who also were engaged in battles and didn't "turned the other cheek".

No you were speaking about the person who made the claim. Since neither of us can speak concerning specific people beyond just a few in each faith I decided to speak on the faiths in general since that is something we can know.

I think you are an englishman, so you know how many wars there were just between (christians) europeans, i don't even talk about the (christians) colons agaisnt the natives. So, they were not in the first category you were talking about. I don't think they were risking their life for God.

I have already said that both Christians and Muslims have fought many battles they claimed were for God. Nothing new there. However unlike Islam Christianity has tens of thousands (probably many more) that died as true martyrs. I agree most of the crusades, the conquests of ameri-indians, and just about all on Islam's convert, pay us a tax, or die and continuous terrorist activity are probably all wrong and not of God. However Islam does not have records like the Roman archives that record their complete refusal to declare the Caesar as God. They state that another solution must be found or no Christians would exist as all chose death. Where are the records of Muslim calmly laying down their lives (without attempting to kill others) for their faith. I am sure there are a few but in no way are they comparable to the history of Christianity. Where are Islam's true martyrs?

 

[Pastek]

No you were talking about and to the person who made the claim. You said he was told that but did not do that. How do you know?

No you were speaking about the person who made the claim. Since neither of us can speak concerning specific people beyond just a few in each faith I decided to speak on the faiths in general since that is something we can know.

I was assuming that he was european or american but maybe he's not.
I was not talking about him personally, but about the country he may belongs to. And like i told you he was refering to specific verses of the Quran : about battles.

I have no problem with Christianity, but with people who use those kind of verses (to turn the other cheek) when they see muslims engaged in battles, like if christians always fought for justice, liberty or God.

Where are the records of Muslim calmly laying down their lives (without attempting to kill others) for their faith. I am sure there are a few but in no way are they comparable to the history of Christianity. Where are Islam's true martyrs?

This is not a competition, and I have great respect for the christian martyrs, i've read articles about some saints.

 

[1robin]

I was assuming that he was european or american but maybe he's not.
I was not talking about him personally, but about the country he may belongs to. And like i told you he was refering to specific verses of the Quran : about battles.

So you assumed he lived in a certain country and then judged him by your opinion on that country? Why? What you stated is not even generally true about either country anyway. For example Japan and Germany attacked us in ww2 without cause. We beat the tar out of them and then rebuilt both nations and handed them back. Has Islam ever done this for a single nation in their entire history? Of course we have our bad actions but the US has been the most benevolent nation in human history even with it's fault's. We give more to international charity that all of the fundamental Islamic nations combined. He was referring to a verse in the Bible.

I have no problem with Christianity, but with people who use those kind of verses (to turn the other cheek) when they see muslims engaged in battles, like if christians always fought for justice, liberty or God.

I claim nothing beyond that which I did here.

1. Christians and Muslims have their fair share of not turning the other cheek.
2. However Christianity also unlike Islam also has a massive tradition of turning the other check as well. All humans do wrong. Only Christianity also did what was right in this context in significant numbers.

This is not a competition, and I have great respect for the christian martyrs, i've read articles about some saints.

My points were this. If you do not disagree then there is no contention.

1. You do did not know anything about the person you claimed did not turn the other check.
2. Islam's ratio of deaths caused verses deaths received passively for their faith is not as honorable as Christian's ratio for the same actions.
3. We have both killed for our faith. Only Christians in large numbers have been willing to die for theirs without taking anyone with them.

If you do not disagree then there is no reason to debate these issues and you would be a far more reasonable Muslim if you did.

 

[Pastek]

What you stated is not even generally true about either country anyway. For example Japan and Germany attacked us in ww2 without cause. We beat the tar out of them and then rebuilt both nations and handed them back.

That what i was saying when i was talking about the "turn the other cheek" that was "taught but not done".
When they attacked you, you replied. Nothing more nothing less, and that was normal. Except for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Has Islam ever done this for a single nation in their entire history?

Muslims didn't embarked the whole world for a war they were'nt concerned of.
And muslims didn't bombarded other countries (i'm talking here about the governements not individual sects). Also, you know that this last century we had for many dictatorships who have nothing to do with Islam.

Of course we have our bad actions but the US has been the most benevolent nation in human history even with it's fault's. We give more to international charity that all of the fundamental Islamic nations combined. He was referring to a verse in the Bible.

And i never said that muslims didn't have bad actions too, nor i said that the americans (or others) are evil.

Only Christians in large numbers have been willing to die for theirs without taking anyone with them.

You are talking here about a recent problem.

 

[Indian Iconoclast]

The Koran says: AND MUHAMMAD IS NOT FATHER TO ANY MAN AMONGST YOU MEN (WHO BELIEVE!). That very same Koran says: AS FOR THE WIVES OF MUHAMMAD (OUR SLAVE AND PROPHET) LET THEM BE SEEN AND REVERED AS MOTHERS TO THE FAITHFUL! (UMMAHAATAL MU'MINEEN!) The logical question arises: The man was not any man's father! His wives were all Muslims' mothers! Who are then their actual (spiritual) sires? Usually people whose father's are not those that their mothers are wedded to, are commonly referred to as (you know what). The case here is not that of a sire by blood and genes but of a man whose sire-hood has been denied spiritually! Any answers?

 

[1robin]

That what i was saying when i was talking about the "turn the other cheek" that was "taught but not done".
When they attacked you, you replied. Nothing more nothing less, and that was normal. Except for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is no longer a Christian nation in its politics. Those verses apply to individuals within personal interaction between individuals, not nations. No freedom loving nation would exist if they all turned their cheeks. The free world would have been swallowed up by Islam, or atheistic utopias, or both. Not that your original comments were about nations anyway. They were about a person you do not know well enough to have made them. The Bombs were the only effective means to prevent a half million casualties on our side alone and maybe 2 or 3 million for Japan when we had to invade Japan its self. Of course the bombs were horrible, it was intentional. It was to scare a nation that considered it's emperor a God and who would not surrender in normal circumstances to give it up and it worked, saving millions of lives. Do they not teach history anymore?

Muslims didn't embarked the whole world for a war they were'nt concerned of.
And muslims didn't bombarded other countries (i'm talking here about the governements not individual sects). Also, you know that this last century we had for many dictatorships who have nothing to do with Islam.

Muslims do not have armies and technology sufficient to compete in these major wars. However Muslims did form divisions of the Wauffen SS and fought for Hitler. They committed some of the worst genocides in WW2. They also fought each other and anyone else they could find in backwaters like Turkey and Palestine. They cause as much destruction as their week militaries could. Islam seems to only fight when it is strong and even loose most of those battles. They were not major players in WW2 but caused as much misery as they could in WW2.

And i never said that muslims didn't have bad actions too, nor i said that the americans (or others) are evil.

Yes me and you agree we both have too many bad actions. My point was that only Christianity also has significant good actions.

You are talking here about a recent problem.

It is more obvious in recent times but at no point since Muhammad moved to Medina has it not been a major part of Islam and it has certainly not been defensive in most cases.

 

[1robin]

Islam is my favorite topic, has no one anything to offer in it's defense?

 

[Quagmire]

Islam is my favorite topic, has no one anything to offer in it's defense?

I'll go: I admire the patience some of our Muslim members have shown in this thread. I'm also impressed by the fact that they seem to have collectively realized that it's pointless to try and reason someone out of their prejudices.

 

[1robin]

I'll go: I admire the patience some of our Muslim members have shown in this thread. I'm also impressed by the fact that they seem to have collectively realized that it's pointless to try and reason someone out of their prejudices.

I am sure I have prejudices as all people do. However all the information I posted about Muhammad's violent actions and his having unjustifiable reasons why they were committed is independent of any prejudice. I used almost exclusively accepted Islamic scholars. It is not my prejudice that caused him to behead Jews. It is not my bias that caused him to record almost word for word stories from earlier heretical sources. It is on him for adopting practices that pagans had had for many years and ascribe them to a God who railed against paganism. No one made him butcher stories from sources far closer to events concerning those recorded in the Bible. He wrote that Allah invented Christianity by placing someone who looked like Jesus on the cross and not straightening it out, only condemning it 500 years later (which is the worst claim IMO any religion has ever made about anything). Yelling bias won't help your claims anymore than theirs.

 

[Quagmire]

I am sure I have prejudices as all people do. However all the information I posted about Muhammad's violent actions and his having unjustifiable reasons why they were committed is independent of any prejudice. I used almost exclusively accepted Islamic scholars. It is not my prejudice that caused him to behead Jews. It is not my bias that caused him to record almost word for word stories from earlier heretical sources. It is on him for adopting practices that pagans had had for many years and ascribe them to a God who railed against paganism. No one made him butcher stories from sources far closer to events concerning those recorded in the Bible. He wrote that Allah invented Christianity by placing someone who looked like Jesus on the cross and not straightening it out, only condemning it 500 years later (which is the worst claim IMO any religion has ever made about anything). Yelling bias won't help your claims anymore than theirs.

Not even going to read this. Think I'll go ahead and follow the example of the a fore mentioned Muslim members:

I'm also impressed by the fact that they seem to have collectively realized that it's pointless to try and reason someone out of their prejudices.

 

[1robin]

Not even going to read this. Think I'll go ahead and follow the example of the a fore mentioned Muslim members:

Choosing to not view that which is inconvenient would truly be to use an example made plain by Muslim members. The only thing unclear is why did you begin the conversation?

 

[Quagmire]

Choosing to not view that which is inconvenient would truly be to use an example made plain by Muslim members. The only thing unclear is why did you begin the conversation?

You looked lonely.

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

I'm just going to leave this here:

Muhammad - RationalWiki

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

For the moment, I'll focus only on your main concern, we can discuss other aspects of Mohammed later on.

Not all sources agree on the age of Aisha when she was married to and consummated with Mohammed. Some list her age as nine at marriage, and consummation at twelve. At the time, and location, this was common practice. Mary was around the same age when she was married to Joseph. While we, in today's society, find this to be reprehensible, it was the common practice back then, and, to some extent, has been retained.

I agree that it should not be done, but our perceptions today don't exactly equal that of those times. We know more now about psychology and anatomy to know that such a thing is not good for the well-being of the child. But regardless, it was common back then: this doesn't condone the practice, but it does explain it.

Very Good Answer Plus most of these story's are nothing more then ''Hadiyth's '' Meaning word's of men not of Allah , That can't be back up by the Holy Qur'aan . Like you said that was the way of life back then . And don't agree with it either .

 

[illykitty]

I say if someone wants a good look at Islam and Prophet Muhammad, they should pick up a Qur'anist translation of the Qur'an, it's free of bias from Hadith or scholars who wanted to put in their ideologies.

Ignore the Hadith and just look at the source. Then you can see what the religion really says.

 

[Assad91]

I say if someone wants a good look at Islam and Prophet Muhammad, they should pick up a Qur'anist translation of the Qur'an, it's free of bias from Hadith or scholars who wanted to put in their ideologies.

Ignore the Hadith and just look at the source. Then you can see what the religion really says.

Until they read some rather violent verses... then hadith is okay lolol

 

[Monotheist 101]

I say if someone wants a good look at Islam and Prophet Muhammad, they should pick up a Qur'anist translation of the Qur'an, it's free of bias from Hadith or scholars who wanted to put in their ideologies.

Ignore the Hadith and just look at the source. Then you can see what the religion really says.

LOL, worst advice i've seen on RF..ever.

Why constrict yourself to an extreme view..

I have been pondering this for ages now, I think it is safe to say, a historical or contextual interpretation of the Quran would not be possible without many of the Hadith.

IMO Quranists are extremists, just look at Rashad Khalifa and his blasphemous views..

 

[illykitty]

Until they read some rather violent verses... then hadith is okay lolol

I'm not sure what you meant? Can you explain, please?

LOL, worst advice i've seen on RF..ever.

Why constrict yourself to an extreme view..

IMO Quranists are extremists, just look at Rashad Khalifa and his blasphemous views..

That's your opinion, my opinion is that I find most of the hadiths to be extreme.

I'd ask you the same.

I don't know who Rashad Khalifa is. Is he blasphemous because he tried to think for himself and not just follow what others told him? Maybe he did did his own research and found whatever he did to the best answer. It's worth thinking outside of the box.

I was giving my opinion and if you think you have a better suggestion then go for it.

 

[Assad91]

I'm not sure what you meant? Can you explain, please?

Well you know, it is hadith that explains the violent verses, in the context they were revealed and all.

Quranist use hadith, just in cherry picking ways