Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

ya it is , Timur in his autobiography admitted the killing of nearly one hundred thousand (one lakh) Hindus in one day .

Islamic violence exists where ever Islam is. I was looking at a list of the different cultures Islam has fought with over the past 1300 years. A list of who they have not fought against would be far shorter. No two things have a stronger correlation than Islam and unjustified violence. It is remarkable given the fact they have so often been so bad at it. They outnumber Israel 80 - 1 and receive a humiliating defeat every time they start a war with them.

Most Arabian Muslims are descended from Ishmael. The Bible says this about Ishmael and his descendants.

New International Version
He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."
Genesis 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

 

[1robin]

The Wise Leader, peace be upon him:

Discover Prophet Muhammad's manners, wisdom and leadership:

The Wise Leader (Peace be upon him) - About Muhammad - Reading Islam - OnIslam.net

I think I would have a better shot at the proverbial blood from a turnip attempt. There is nothing wise about plagiarism and violence.

 

[1robin]

It is a prophecy and not prediction.

The events happened as prophesied,First Iraq,next Syria and then Egypt.

Why not first Saudi Arabia,next Yemen and then Iraq ....etc

It is impossible to be just a stroke of luck.

What actual events are you saying that ambiguous prophecy predicted? That prophecy does not even make sense to me. Anyone could make anything out of it the way it is stated.

 

[Quagmire]

You're not serious, right?

Is that supposed to be an answer?

 

[Quagmire]

His being resurrected is by far the best explanation of the facts granted by both sides of NT scholarship. I usually pay strict attention to where I use fact and faith but in a thread where the other guy usually grants revelation I was not as carful. No historical or theological claim is ever resolved to a certainty (in fact no claim of any kind does not include a faith component of some degree). They are resolved to a probability. Christ being raised from the dead is by far the best explanation of the historical claims agreed to by most scholars on either side. They grant three main relevant historical claims among countless others that apply here.

1. Jesus appeared on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority*. I put that asterisk there to let you know I expect you to make a mistake very common to your side concerning this claim.
2. He was killed by Rome on a cross.
3. His tomb was found empty.

The best explanation from these events and many others scholars grant is that he was resurrected but that claim is not a fact.

Then quit trying to pass it off as a fact.

No historical claim of any type ever is, but it is dang close.

Not even remotely.

Look: I'm not going to get into a debate here about the authenticity or lack thereof of any of the claims made in the NT about Jesus. But if you try to introduce dogma as "fact" over the course of a debate, and I see it, I'm going to call you on it.

What you "know" or what you think you know doesn't matter. What matters is what can be shown or at least, what can be logically defended.

 

[1robin]

I know, illykitty. My basic premise is that if something sounds too good to be true then one must be aware of the possibility that it isn't true. For example, have you ever read a portrayal of Muhammad from Muslims sources that ever cast Muhammad in less that a perfect light? It's all peace, love and beards.

I have used Muslim sources almost exclusively to show many of Muhammad's tyrannical actions and almost demonic episodes. I have even used Muhammad's words themselves like his statements he thought he was demon possessed (and he felt suicidal) when first coming out of his cave experiences. Even they are ignored. Nothing but the narrative matters, Not truth, history, or logic. If the source is not consistent with preference it is ignored in my experience.

 

[1robin]

Then quit trying to pass it off as a fact.

Oh come off it man. Anyone who thinks that faith claims are meant as fact is in the wrong place. Anyone who does not understand why the use of fact is utilized when concerning faith claims, if talking to someone who grants revelation and the inspiration of the Bible, does not want to. I have a bad habit of thinking that others know what context is, I guess.

Not even remotely.

I was being generous, and what I said is an objective fact. In fact all claims of every type are faith claims to some extent. The only thing actually known is that we think and even that is questionable concerning some. This paragraph does not have the slightest possibility of being incorrect. All claims outside "I think" are faith claims.

Look: I'm not going to get into a debate here about the authenticity or lack thereof of any of the claims made in the NT about Jesus. But if you try to introduce dogma as "fact" over the course of a debate, and I see it, I'm going to call you on it.

If you call historically reliable claims dogma I will call you on it. If you call faith claims fact (without clear context) I will also call you on it. BTW why are you assuming I will post in that thread?

What you "know" or what you think you know doesn't matter. What matters is what can be shown or at least, what can be logically defended.

As I said there are three (there are thousands but only those three are necessary) historical concessions made by most NT scholars from any side that make his resurrection the best (by far) explanation of them. Instead of whatever this was, you could try to show it isn't, if you desire debate anyway. Semantics is a poor substitute for a meaningful contention against an actual issue.

 

[Quagmire]

Oh come off it man. Anyone who thinks that faith claims are meant as fact is in the wrong place.

Please at least think about trying to take a little responsibility for your own words. You said this:

This one has an easy answer. Every thing that Jesus claimed was sealed as truth by the fact that God raised him from the dead. It was his stamp of approval on the message he gave. That was one of its primary purposes. The best explanation of the evidence is that he did in fact die and was raised.

(emphasis mine)

Anyone who does not understand why the use of fact is utilized when concerning faith claims, if talking to someone who grants revelation and the inspiration of the Bible, does not want to. I have a bad habit of thinking that others know what context is, I guess.

Yes, unfortunately for you, most people are fully aware of the relevance of context.

I was being generous, and what I said is an objective fact.

Wow. So you get to put forth your beliefs as objective facts, but if anyone calls you on it, they're stupid for not understanding that you merely meant that they were elements of your faith.

Have you ever thought about writing a book called "Creative Double Standards (and other ways to get your way when you don't deserve it)"?

In fact all claims of every type are faith claims to some extent. The only thing actually known is that we think and even that is questionable concerning some. This paragraph does not have the slightest possibility of being incorrect. All claims outside "I think" are faith claims.

The idea that all information is to some extent interpreted subjectively shouldn't be used as an excuse to paint the sky any color you like.

If you call historically reliable claims dogma I will call you on it.

Great. Why not start a thread presenting your "historically reliable claims" and I can almost guarantee you you'll get the chance to do just that.

If you call faith claims fact (without clear context) I will also call you on it. BTW why are you assuming I will post in that thread?

I'm actually assuming you won't.

As I said there are three (there are thousands but only those three are necessary) historical concessions made by most NT scholars from any side that make his resurrection the best (by far) explanation of them. Instead of whatever this was, you could try to show it isn't, if you desire debate anyway. Semantics is a poor substitute for a meaningful contention against an actual issue.

I already told you I'm not going to get into a debate about the NT with you in this thread.

Mostly because I know from experience that as soon as you get backed into a corner you'll start screaming that people should "get back on topic".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The trinity is very easy to understand

i don't have any problem in understanding the quran.

By logic it is illogical.

The property of A=B and B=C rules that A must be equal to C. Unless you are using qualifiers or parts of a whole it still doesn't make sense.

I am not your puppet, but what the heck. You set this problem up in a horribly bungling way. Based on what you meant the answer is either X or X-4+X-6+X-8.

If a teacher set up a problem this ambiguous the students should fail them. I actually think it is incoherent now that I review it.

Not that relevant. But the answer was 9.

X= (x-6)+(x-8)+(x-4)

X=3X-18
-2X=-18
2X=18
X=9

Asumming that there were only those three types of animials and not some uknown quantity of turkey or something.

 

[FearGod]

By logic it is illogical.

The property of A=B and B=C rules that A must be equal to C. Unless you are using qualifiers or parts of a whole it still doesn't make sense.



Not that relevant. But the answer was 9.

X= (x-6)+(x-8)+(x-4)

X=3X-18
-2X=-18
2X=18
X=9

Asumming that there were only those three types of animials and not some uknown quantity of turkey or something.

Your answer is correct of course but I expected 1robin to got the answer since he is qualified to teach math as he claimed but as you can see he wasn,t able to solve the simplest forms of algebra.

 

[FearGod]

:

When you add the Islamic notion of predestination to the mix it's not hard to see why they see this as being valid.

Not true, but you only misunderstood the game of life if I might call it so.

I may compare it to a programmed game.

All events and stages are well known to the designer and to the programmers but you are free how to play and how to move.

We have the free will how to react and how to move through this life.

So I think it isn,t an excuse and even to be a stupid idea to say God you made me to be a disbeliever.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not true, but you only misunderstood the game of life if I might call it so.

I may compare it to a programmed game.

All events and stages are well known to the designer and to the programmers but you are free how to play and how to move.

We have the free will how to react and how to move through this life.

So I think it isn,t an excuse and even a stupid one to say God you made me to disobey your rules and to be a disbeliever.

What he was saying is that there is no real evidence supporting the claim that the vague prophecy was "fullfilled" actaully presents an argument to lend credibility to his other messages.

 

[FearGod]

What he was saying is that there is no real evidence supporting the claim that the vague prophecy was "fullfilled" actaully presents an argument to lend credibility to his other messages.

Are you saying there is no evidence that Iraq faced economic destruction then followed by Syria and now Egypt

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are you saying there is no evidence that Iraq faced economic destruction then followed by Syria and now Egypt

I'm saying that the events don't actually provide sufficent evidence that Muhammad was credible in his prophecies. The events and predictios were very vague at best and it wasn't impossible for them to happen nor was it even improbable.

If I predict it will rain within the next week and I'm right does that make me psychic? Or worse, able to control the weather?

 

[Gharib]

I'm saying that the events don't actually provide sufficent evidence that Muhammad was credible in his prophecies. The events and predictios were very vague at best and it wasn't impossible for them to happen nor was it even improbable.

If I predict it will rain within the next week and I'm right does that make me psychic? Or worse, able to control the weather?

What about the fall of the Roman Empire and the fall of Constantinople?

Are we talking prophecies now?

 

[1robin]

Your answer is correct of course but I expected 1robin to got the answer since he is qualified to teach math as he claimed but as you can see he wasn,t able to solve the simplest forms of algebra.

That is not the case. Your first sentence said the number of livestock was X. Your question was what is the number of live stock. The answer is X. It might be different depending on whether you meant X was the initial starting point, and you complicated it further by making livestock into livestockS (livestock is plural it does not need an S)which seemed to hint that you wanted individual species numbers for each category. Going strictly by the way your problem was written the answer is X. Where did you get that ridiculous question? It is so unclear as to be meaningless.

Here is the only part of your question that mattered.
Assume x = Number of livestocks
What is the actual number of the livestocks

It is X. Unless you were asking for the numeric value of X. I still can't figure out what you were asking.

I can prove what I said about my mathematics education if I must.

Now are you going to discuss the historical claims you made that bear no resemblance to history?

 

[FearGod]

What about the fall of the Roman Empire and that fall of Constantinople?

Are we talking prophecies now?

That is not the case. Your first sentence said the number of livestock was X. Your question was what is the number of live stock. The answer is X. It might be different depending on whether you meant X was the initial starting point, and you complicated it further by making livestock into livestockS (livestock is plural it does not need an S)which seemed to hint that you wanted individual species numbers for each category. Going strictly by the way your problem was written the answer is X. Where did you get that ridiculous question? It is so unclear as to be meaningless.

Here is the only part of your question that mattered.
Assume x = Number of livestocks
What is the actual number of the livestocks

It is X. Unless you were asking for the numeric value of X. I still can't figure out what you were asking.

I can prove what I said about my mathematics education if I must.

Now are you going to discuss the historical claims you made that bear no resemblance to history?

The question was very easy and simple for elementary algebra and Monk of reason has solved it for you.

 

[1robin]

Please at least think about trying to take a little responsibility for your own words. You said this:

(emphasis mine)

Yes and I was talking to a Muslim who grants revelation and grants the Bible's authority. Between two people who grant revelation my claims are factual and since I have met the risen Christ it is a personal fact on top of that. It is the same as if two of the astronauts were discussing the facts of what they saw there even if no record of them exists. Is there any chance we will discussing anything besides semantics any time soon?

You have claimed many things to be true and if we are going to technically restrict terms by arbitrary hyperbolic standards then yet again you are being hypocritical because no fact you have ever claimed is known to be factual (no matter what type or about what). It is also an example of double standards. This is hypocrisy on steroids.

Yes, unfortunately for you, most people are fully aware of the relevance of context.

Then why is the first tactic your side displays is the immediate stripping of the context a claim came in and the inserting of it into one it did not?

Wow. So you get to put forth your beliefs as objective facts, but if anyone calls you on it, they're stupid for not understanding that you merely meant that they were elements of your faith.

Not stupid. Irrationally obstinate and with a selective ability to grant normal word usage or restrict it based on preference.

Have you ever thought about writing a book called "Creative Double Standards (and other ways to get your way when you don't deserve it)"?


The idea that all information is to some extent interpreted subjectively shouldn't be used as an excuse to paint the sky any color you like.



Great. Why not start a thread presenting your "historically reliable claims" and I can almost guarantee you you'll get the chance to do just that.



I'm actually assuming you won't.



I already told you I'm not going to get into a debate about the NT with you in this thread.

Mostly because I know from experience that as soon as you get backed into a corner you'll start screaming that people should "get back on topic".

So you will not debate the most influential book in history but instead are perfectly willing to debate irrelevant semantics based on arbitrarily hyper-restrictive at will interpretations of common word usages which were straightened out 4 posts ago (and then to top it of hypocritically accuse others of double standards). How do I get off this train of triviality? I see where your interests lie (I just remembered what your posts in recent memory have all been about) and I am not interested in person commentary. If you actually have anything to offer concerning the real issues at hand then post them, If not I have no interest in continuing this futile discussion further.

 

[1robin]

The question was very easy and simple for elementary algebra and Monk of reason has solved it for you.

You said:

Assume x = Number of livestocks
What is the actual number of the livestocks

That equals X. You said X = Y and asked what is Y = to. It was a terribly mangled question. 9 was also correct but you did not ask for the numeric value. That is why I asked where you got such an ambiguous question. It has at least three possible correct answers. If this absurdity has run its course can we get back to the very long post I responded to instead of this mangled sidebar? By the way if you want my transcripts to prove what I said I will provide them.

 

[YmirGF]

You said:

Assume x = Number of livestocks
What is the actual number of the livestocks

That equals X. You said X = Y and asked what is Y = to. It was a terribly mangled question. 9 was also correct but you did not ask for the numeric value. That is why I asked where you got such an ambiguous question. It has at least three possible correct answers. If this absurdity has run its course can we get back to the very long post I responded to instead of this mangled sidebar? By the way if you want my transcripts to prove what I said I will provide them.

I tend to agree. When I looked at the problem LITERALLY I could not derive an answer due to the mangled presentation of the question. However, when I put on my "Inter-galactic decoder" and made assumptions about what he was attempting to mean, I got the answer 9. Sloppy thinking, at best.