Was Muhammad a good man?

[Quagmire]

Well I see the last refuge, the cheapest of cheap shots has been played.

You mean the same one you've been using on me for months now?

However it does not even work.

It doesn't need to "work". If I say the sky is blue and the other person still wants to insist it's orange with purple polka-dots, that's not my failure.

Christians are the group that admits moral failure more than any other.

LOL! I'm glad to see you're developing a sense of humor.

Even if I have had no other choice than to respond personally to what was 100% personal claims, despite the fact you offered no other alternative even despite my efforts to stop this mess, I still admit my failure. So where is the irony exactly.

Well in the above paragraph, it starts at "Even" and ends at "exactly".

English and logic may be a code to you but they are commonalities to me.

That's great. Apparently you speak all sorts of other languages on top of all that.

There is no worse than these posts.

There is grammar errors in that sentence.

Which brings up a question. What are you getting from this.

Why do you keep asking questions you don't want the answer to?

I at least started talking about actual issues,

No you didn't.

I have even tried to get you to start to do so,

No you haven't.

yet it has been non-stop rhetoric.

"Ironic" isn't a strong enough word for this. I may have to make up a new one.

Why? What do you gain by this? Why is this valuable to you?

Let me translate that for you: "Why? Why you you leave me alone and let me troll in peace?"

I know what the term means but I seldom know to what purpose you apply them.

Still feigning ignorance.

See the above.

. . . and incomprehension.

No, I do not think I will. Yet another example of claiming to know what you can't and I can.

What? That I'm Batman? Not following you here.

Is this a career path or just a compulsion?

Dude, I'm not really Batman. It was a joke for God's sake.

So was the original claim.

So what was the original claim? What obscure dialect of "English and logic" are you speaking now?

They are so frequent even I can't note them all.

Or respond directly to any of them either, as always.

 

[1robin]

You mean the same one you've been using on me for months now?



It doesn't need to "work". If I say the sky is blue and the other person still wants to insist it's orange with purple polka-dots, that's not my failure.



LOL! I'm glad to see you're developing a sense of humor.



Well in the above paragraph, it starts at "Even" and ends at "exactly".



That's great. Apparently you speak all sorts of other languages on top of all that.



There is grammar errors in that sentence.



Why do you keep asking questions you don't want the answer to?



No you didn't.



No you haven't.



"Ironic" isn't a strong enough word for this. I may have to make up a new one.



Let me translate that for you: "Why? Why you you leave me alone and let me troll in peace?"



Still feigning ignorance.



. . . and incomprehension.



What? That I'm Batman? Not following you here.



Dude, I'm not really Batman. It was a joke for God's sake.



So what was the original claim? What obscure dialect of "English and logic" are you speaking now?



Or respond directly to any of them either, as always.

I have resolved to not do this personal banter crap any longer, especially if the entire post is 100% that. Sorry if I have been sarcastic but I am not going to allow anyone to tempt me into doing so after this point to the best of my ability. BTW my statement above was not about the batman comment. When you post something on an actual issue I will respond. Until then I leave you to it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Are we talking prophecies now?

Please provide the exact quotation of what he said on the subject matter. Though I doubt its going to be terribly convincing. There are no known empires that continue today that Muhamid knew about. Well at least none that I can think of.

 

[1robin]

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

Are we talking prophecies now?

Christians jokingly refer to Islam as a non-profit system because no credible prophecies exist in the Quran. The only one I am aware of is a vague prediction the Roman army would loose a battle but eventually win another. That is anything but exact or unknown. I would be interested in what verses you believe pertain to Constantinople and the end of the Roman empire, which is actually the same event anyway.

 

[Quagmire]

I have resolved to not do this personal banter crap any longer, especially if the entire post is 100% that. Sorry if I have been sarcastic but I am not going to allow anyone to tempt me into doing so after this point to the best of my ability. BTW my statement above was not about the batman comment. When you post something on an actual issue I will respond. Until then I leave you to it.

We'll see.

Although I have to say (again) how funny I think it is that you keep starting fights and then backing away under the pretense of being "above this sort of thing" once you realize you're out of your weight class.

 

[Pink Top Hat]

Let's put aside all the wars and the bloody battles, the ones that forced my ancestors to convert to Islam. Let's put all that aside, let's picture an old man asking his best friend if he could have his permission to marry his 6 year old daughter. His friend agrees. The man then visits his best friend’s house and speaks with the 6 year old daughter. Her parents watch as the he proposes marriage to the child. He is serious; he wants to marry the little girl and is asking for her consent. The little child says nothing; she only stares at him in silence.

The Islamic source materials state that Muhammad proposed marriage to Aisha when she was 6. He assumed her silence constituted her consent. Some 2 to 3 years later, just after he had fled to Medina, he consummated his marriage with her. He was 52 and she was 9. This occurred prior to Aisha’s first menses and by Islam’s legal definition Aisha was still considered a child. Islam teaches that a child enters adulthood at the beginning of puberty. (This is scientifically inaccurate, the onset of puberty does not equal adulthood).

The bottom line is Muhammad, the creator of Islam, revered by his followers, had sex with a child! Worse, Muhammad's action and teachings on marriage established an Islamic precedent and Islamic law allows female children to be married off and engaged in sex provided they are able to handle a man’s penis (Quran 65:4). This has lead to physical, and psychological damage to many children.

Please, I ask you kindly, as intelligent people, explain to me HOW and WHY do you revere Muhammad as a good man?

Ayisha was 19 not 9

The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.” http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm#_ftn6
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
​

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H.



So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah.

 

[FearGod]

Please provide the exact quotation of what he said on the subject matter. Though I doubt its going to be terribly convincing. There are no known empires that continue today that Muhamid knew about. Well at least none that I can think of.

Yes all the prophecies aren't convincing but there will be one convincing sign and which is the rise of the sun from the west but repentance won't be accepted eventhough that all people will know the truth at that point of time due to panic as it will be a horrible moments but believing on God at that moments will be useless for the disbelievers.

[youtube]Fyltpm4rrXY[/youtube]
THE TIME WHEN THE SUN RISES IN THE WEST IS APPROACHING 02/04 - YouTube

 

[ladybug77]

tricky..i browsed threw this forum...but im wondering what 'religion' are the people who are debating this question?? Because i must say...if its 'christanity'...'we' dont have authority to judge. Lol. Did it ever accur to you why this question was really asked?? Its not about Muhammad at all!! Its about YOU...and finding your own moral...regardless what the truth is or not. And although i dont believe there is an almighty, black and white TRUE version of 'RIGHT VS. WRONG, OR GOOD VS. BAD'...theres a smaller version...the version you choose to believe...im making a point i promise. You see...if one person thinks he is super evil, and believes that to be the ut most truth...so be it...there is reason behind it all thier own. The next person believes...he is super good!!! And believes it deeply...with reason to back it up...That makes ALL answers and opinion correct. (Because either way you look at...there are valid points present.)I would have voted...but there wasnt a box that said: 'he was both a great man, and a bad man. (Like us all) and God will be his judge. <~~~ now thats better huh? Lol. Now if you kinda understand what point im trying to make...then realize that in spirit...we are all free. Free to accept anything we want to believe...regardless whether ir not we all agree. We will never agree...and thats okay...thats what makes us individuals!! Numaste. <~~~ its an art. ill stand firm in my own beliefs...but i will respect yours without judgement. i i will say that 'fearing' God is foolish in my opinion...and 'Christanity' isnt an 'easy route' because we are free to sin...what?? Well we are all free to sin...duh...its whether or not u choose to sin...thats what matters. And when are we going to stop catorgorizing religions?? We have this impulse as humans to seperate and define...why?? Instead...we should pull together...all religions in one...accepting eachothers as individuals.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes all the prophecies aren't convincing but there will be one convincing sign and which is the rise of the sun from the west but repentance won't be accepted eventhough that all people will know the truth at that point of time due to panic as it will be a horrible moments but believing on God at that moments will be useless for the disbelievers.

[youtube]Fyltpm4rrXY[/youtube]
THE TIME WHEN THE SUN RISES IN THE WEST IS APPROACHING 02/04 - YouTube

Can't watch that video for some reason. But have there been ANY unbelievable miracles of imposiblity that has come to pass just as prophet proclaimed? And does he have a 100% sucess rate?

 

[1robin]

Ayisha was 19 not 9

The compiler of the famous Hadith collection Mishkat al-Masabih, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, who died 700 years ago, has also written brief biographical notes on the narrators of Hadith reports. He writes under Asma, the older daughter of Abu Bakr:

“She was the sister of Aisha Siddiqa, wife of the Holy Prophet, and was ten years older than her. … In 73 A.H. … Asma died at the age of one hundred years.”



​

This would make Asma 28 years of age in 1 A.H., the year of the Hijra, thus making Aisha 18 years old in 1 A.H.



So Aisha would be 19 years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage, and 14 or 15 years old at the time of her nikah.

There is just as much information claiming she was pre teen from Islamic sources, and it is the best information. It is the earliest and from ever her own statements. The scramble to invent information that she was in her teens came from later times.

“It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six … and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.”
“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” [3]
Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage

 

[illykitty]

There is just as much information claiming she was pre teen from Islamic sources, and it is the best information. It is the earliest and from ever her own statements. The scramble to invent information that she was in her teens came from later times.

&#8220;It is reported from Aisha that she said: The Prophet entered into marriage with me when I was a girl of six &#8230; and at the time [of joining his household] I was a girl of nine years of age.&#8221;
&#8220;Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.&#8221; [3]
Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage

Oh so you're an expert now and this is the best source?

From her as well is other hadiths that are contrary to her age when you calculate.

You time and time again ignore people's replies and you only acknowledge and hear what you want to hear. I don't think any Muslims should bother to reply to you as your set in your ways and won't listen.

Even if there was 100% proof, you wouldn't listen. You're closed-minded.

 

[1robin]

Oh so you're an expert now and this is the best source?

From her as well is other hadiths that are contrary to her age when you calculate.

You time and time again ignore people's replies and you only acknowledge and hear what you want to hear. I don't think any Muslims should bother to reply to you as your set in your ways and won't listen.

Even if there was 100% proof, you wouldn't listen. You're closed-minded.

I have no idea. In the historical method used in every college every day.

1. Early sources are better than later sources, all things being equal.
2. Testimony from those involved is better that any other type, all things being equal.

IOW it is your burden to show your later non-contemporary, and non-eyewitnesses are right and the contemporary and eyewitnesses are wrong.

I see you took Islam apologetics 101 step one and two to get out of this.

1. Yell bias, but never prove it.
2. Claim anyone who disagrees is hostile towards Islam and impervious to evidence, and never prove that either.

If you do not want to debate the evidence and history your are in the right faith, but the wrong place to defend it.

 

[Falvlun]

*This poll has been tampered with by various sock puppet accounts.*

Staff advisory, so you guys know you might need to take the results with a grain of salt​

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Good job checking this. Anything requiring lies to defend is not worth defending.

It looks to me like the fake votes came from those opposed to Muhammad.

But surely Christians would not lie in order to defend their hatred for Muhammad.

Surely not.

 

[1robin]

What is laughable is when non-Muslims are supportive of Muhammad. Only ignorance could help someone arrive at that position.

Your punching Uncle Remus's tar baby. You might already be hopelessly stuck in ambiguous Ville. That is a place so incoherent it was turned down as a setting for the twilight zone. Hope you can eventually break free without loss.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your punching Uncle Remus's tar baby. You might already be hopelessly stuck in ambiguous Ville. That is a place so incoherent it was turned down as a setting for the twilight zone. Hope you can eventually break free without loss.

It's true that a lot of unspiritual folks find my message incoherent, but I can't control the Holy Spirit. He will get through to some but not to others.

 

[FearGod]

What is laughable is when non-Muslims are supportive of Muhammad. Only ignorance could help someone arrive at that position.

Do i have to be a Buddhist to say that Buddha was a great man.

Why it is laughable if believing in something without being fanatic ?

 

[1robin]

It's true that a lot of unspiritual folks find my message incoherent, but I can't control the Holy Spirit. He will get through to some but not to others.

Exactly what made that worth typing?

 

[1robin]

Do i have to be a Buddhist to say that Buddha was a great man.

Why it is laughable if believing in something without being fanatic ?

That is illogical. We are not discussing the goodness of a man as a simple man but as a prophet.

Prophets can be one of two things.

1. Holy men deserving of veneration, loyalty, and reverence but not worship as God is worshiped.
2. Or he is a diabolical liar worthy of derision and condemnation.


What he can't be is simply a good man as the genius C.S Lewis pointed out concerning Christ.

C. S. Lewis was an Oxford medieval historian, popular writer, and Christian apologist. He used the argument outlined below in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."[5]
Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mohammad should either inspire one to be a Muslim, or if history is to be learned from, to be shunned as a false prophet. The least logical choice is just another good guy.
​

 

[FearGod]

That is illogical. We are not discussing the goodness of a man as a simple man but as a prophet.

Prophets can be one of two things.

1. Holy men deserving of veneration, loyalty, and reverence but not worship as God is worshiped.
2. Or he is a diabolical liar worthy of derision and condemnation.


What he can't be is simply a good man as the genius C.S Lewis pointed out concerning Christ.

C. S. Lewis was an Oxford medieval historian, popular writer, and Christian apologist. He used the argument outlined below in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I&#8217;m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don&#8217;t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic &#8212; on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg &#8212; or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."[5]
Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mohammad should either inspire one to be a Muslim, or if history is to be learned from, to be shunned as a false prophet. The least logical choice is just another good guy.
​

Christianity to me looks illogical and a nonsense belief.

To think of God as a human being or to think God has a son or the son to be the God and then put limits to God in such a stupid way.

Why God needs to come as a human being and then shows us his miracles such as walking on the water to convince the others to believe him.

God doesn't need to walk on water to convince us,God doesn't need to die in order to save us from our sins.

God if wanted to save us then he can do it without the need to kill himself or to kill anyone else.

How you love Jesus ? by obeying God's law or by kissing Jesus face.