Was Muhammad a good man?

[AmbiguousGuy]

God can have morally justified reasons to wipe out a culture including children.

Every time I hear a conservative Christian say something like this, it hardens my resolve to oppose conservative Christianity everywhere i find it.

A scary view of the world and life.

 

[Quagmire]

Every time I hear a conservative Christian say something like this, it hardens my resolve to oppose conservative Christianity everywhere i find it.

A scary view of the world and life.

Especially considering that in a lot of cases, "God" can mean just about anything.

 

[F0uad]

No there wasn't.

Yes there is, there are more verses that i can quote without any context behind the killings.

It was Muhammad's companions that claimed the reason for constant raids on caravans was money.

Again many references in the OT about looting, hence the virgins were spared to become loot.

1500 what? How many are killed is not the issue. The issue is why people were killed. In Moses case it was God's order because many of the Hebrews had constructed false God's and worshipped them. It was not as in Muhammad's case to steal money and goods, revenge, and because people had written unflattering poetry about Muhammad.

You know you just made yourself look stupid after saying this right?

1. Moses(pbuh) wasn't being attacked Mohammed(saws) was.
2. Moses(pbuh) wasn't being hunted down and chased away from hes city Mohammed(saws) was.
3. Moses's(pbuh) family wasn't killed/tortured and Mohammed's(saws) family was.
4. Moses(pbuh) did not have anything in Israel that belonged to him, while the Pagans in Mecca stole Mohammed's(saws) and hes companions there possession so they had all the right to take it back.

It wasn't Mohammed(saws) who attacked them but the Pagans were the ones they always fought outside of Medina and not Mecca yet Moses(pbuh) just marched and destroyed, plundered and killed everything alive according your own book.
It is hypocrisy to say Moses(pbuh) wasn't violent yet he committed more killings and plunder according to your own book.

The reason for the killing is in the verses you used. "These caused the sons of Israel to trespass". Israel was the conduit for God's revelation. The integrity of that conduit demanded God act in extreme ways. He could not let Israel become corrupted by the diabolical practices of their neighbors. Muhammad nor Islam was the culture God intended to reveal himself through. Muhammad was doing (in many cases) exactly what he wanted for petty and self centered reasons. .

Self centered reasons? A religion that exist from self centered reasons will never grow as big as Islam did.

Your only argument is that you ''Belief'' Moses(pbuh) was ordered by god and Mohammed(saws) wasn't.

This is just weird. Muhammad and Islam affirm the prophet hood of Moses. For some reason your condemning what Islam claims is true. Muhammad accepted Moses actions why aren't you. God can have morally justified reasons to wipe out a culture including children.

I am not condemning what Islam says, i am condemning your hypocrisy moreover Islam never said that Moses(pbuh) was ordered to kill 3000 people , innocent children and to take the virgins as loot.

1. God created life and has the right to take it.
2. God has complete sovereignty over all life.
3. God knows the future of the individuals. For example he may have known those children would have corrupted his chosen culture, thereby lessening the effectiveness of his relation. He may have know those children would have been so corrupted by their pagan parents and wind up in Hell.
4. He can place those children in heaven, and has promised to do so. If he must take innocent lives he can save them.
5. The point is Muhammad did what Muhammad wanted to do. Moses did what God ordered.

So this is your argument? :sarcastic If you read the sources you can clearly see he belief he is told so by God as is Moses(pbuh).

As we know Mohammed(saws) went to Mecca without killing a single person when God ordered him, yet these people killed hes family members, hes friends and hes companions in a period of 10 years or longer. He did not seek justice or revenge but mercy, would you do the same if your family members, friends got butchered in-front of your eyes and you got chased away from your hometown?

Ps: Mohammed(saws) fought next to hes friend he was no coward he was a brave man and afraid of nothing except god.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

God can have morally justified reasons to wipe out a culture including children.

No. Against every secular reasoning this is immoral. Untill such time god comes down himself to kill societies there is no moral justification for any horrific crimes on humanity such as these in any religion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Especially considering that in a lot of cases, "God" can mean just about anything.

Yeah, and anyone can stand up and declare, "I am God's prophet, and God has just told me that we should massacre the Mexicans! He has His reasons! Don't question God! Obviously it is good and right to massacre the Mexican children!"

When God rides on your shoulder, all morality can be left behind.

 

[AbrahimG]

In today's mostly secular world, it's seen as a crime for girls under 16 to get married. But, it wasn't just Muhammad who did this. Mary also got married at a young age, I think 11 or 12. It is accepted in all religions for people to marry young girls, so you can't just point the finger at Prophet Muhammad. In christianity, the minimum is 8 years old i think. Also, another reason is because in the old times people only used to live for 60 years maximum, so it seemed common sense for a girl to get married early.
Hope I helped.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you. There are people who deny God and there are people who call bad names to God too. There are people who deny the noblel Prophets of God and call them names too. There were many who could see light in Prophet Moses (on whom be peace) and yet there were some who could not see that light. Similarly, Prophet Jesus (on whom be peace) came for reformation but he was accepted by some and denied by some others. When corruption filled the land, God was associated with gods, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) was sent. He remined the people that theirs is One God, he reminded people to pay human rights. But like all men of God, various mafias saw the closure of their businesses if his (s.a.w.) message was accepted. They tried their best by employing all possible kind of continuous persecution to the new converts but message of God slowly continued to enter into minds and hearts and tongues uttered words of acceptance and bodies prostrated at the threshold of One God. Mafias boycotted the believers too. When mafias made it hard for believers to live in Mecca, they migrated to Madina. Even there, they were not spared. Time after time, they came after them with various labels of reasons. After the believers' patience of 13 years for absobing harsh persecutions and killings, Allah gave them permission to fight back for defense. All the fights took place near Madina, the place of refuge of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) and believers which clearly shows that infidels were hostile party. During these wars Islam grew slowly. But after the Peace Treaty of Hudaybia growth became rrapid. Here are some statistical records:


1= From the 2nd year of migration of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) to Madina, the infidels came after believers to finish them and Islam.

2= In 2nd year of migration, first battle of Badar was imposed by nonbelievers on muslim, they brought fully armed big army of 1000 plus in the disguise that it was to protect trade caravan; muslim had practcially no wepons and they were about 300.


3= In 3rd year of migration, second battle of O’had, muslims were about 700.


4= In 5th year of migration, third battle (of Trench), muslims were about 3000. It took place very near to Madina, thus more than normal number of muslims were able to participate.


5= In 6th year of migration, Peace Treaty of Hudaybia took place between believers and non believers. At Hudabiya Treaty, muslim presence was around 1500.


6= Hence, in this period of 4 or 5 years of battles and unrest, muslims increased from 300 to 3000 ( or to 1500 if battle of Trench is considered as normal mark)

7= Because of Hudaybiya Treaty, there was rest for about 2 years, and muslim could convey message of God with peace all around; from poors to Kings. And people could hear and accept the message without fear.


8= In 8th year of migration, nonbelievers openly violated Hudabiya Treaty when they planned to attack on an ally tribe of muslims. According to the accords, muslims were demanded by that tribe for help………. On that occasion, the marching believers toward Mecca were 10,000. Mecca fell to the blessed Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) peacefully and everybody was free to believe whatever they wanted to.


PLEASE COMPARE THE RESULTS
i-- In 5 years time of imposed wars, muslim could reach to 3000.
ii-- After Hudabiya Peace Treaty, in 2 years time of peaceful preahing, 7000 more people accepted the faith ( total faithfuls coming to Mecca ,on that day of fall, were10,000 plus)….

More Related Information Introduction to the Study of The Holy Quran

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many non-Muslims who praise(d) Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.). For example:
PRINGLE KENNEDY
MICHAEL H HART
SIR THOMAS CARLYLE
J. H. DENISON
S.P. SCOTT
LAMARTINE
SIR WILLIAM MUIR
SIR JOHN GLUBB
MONTGOMERY WATT
WILL DURANT
ALFRED GUILLAME
REV. BOSWELL SMITH

KAREN ARMSTRONG, a modern research scholar of Islam, wrote in her book:

Muhammad had to start virtually from scratch and work his way towards the radical monotheistic spirituality of his own. When he began his mission, a dispassionate observer would not have given him a chance. The Arabs, he might have objected, were just not ready for monotheism: they were not sufficently developed for this sophisticated vision. In fact, to attempt to introduce it on a large scale in this violent, terrifying society could be extremely dangerous and Muhammad would be lucky to escape with his life.......At the time of the Crusades, Europe seemed obsessed by a craving for intellectual conformity and punished its deviants with a zeal that has been unique in the history of religion. The witch-hunts of the inquisitors and the persecution of Protestants by the Catholics and vice versa were inspired by abtruse theoligical opinions which in both Judaism and Islam were seen as private and optional matters. Neither Judaism nor Islam share the Christian conception of heresy, which raises human ideas about the divine to an unacceptably high level and almost makes them a form of idolatry. The period of the Crusades, when the fictional Mahound was established, was also a time of the great strain and denial in Europe. This is graphically expressed in the phobia about Islam.
(Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet).

MAJOR A. LEONARD

Reference : The Holy Prophet Muhammad in the Eyes of Non-Muslims

[HOLY QURAN , Surah Al-Ahzab Chapter 33 : Verse 57] Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! you also should invoke blessings on him and salute him with the salutation of peace.

 

[1robin]

Every time I hear a conservative Christian say something like this, it hardens my resolve to oppose conservative Christianity everywhere i find it.

A scary view of the world and life.

You as a human grant other humans the right to take life. Yet in every single category which justify that God infinitely exceeds our qualifications. I get you do not like a God in charge of what he created but that is not an argument. In what way does what you like make anything true or false, wrong or right, or morally justifiable or not? In what way is a God who has no sovereignty over life, actually God? You have used double standards, logical incoherence, and self contradiction all in a 3 sentence argument.

You must show God is unjustified in taking he life he created. I am standing by.

Crap, I just realized who it was I was responding to.

 

[1robin]

Especially considering that in a lot of cases, "God" can mean just about anything.

You as a human grant other humans the right to take life. Yet in every single category which justify that God infinitely exceeds our qualifications. I get you do not like a God in charge of what he created but that is not an argument. In what way does what you like make anything true or false, wrong or right, or morally justifiable or not? In what way is a God who has no sovereignty over life, actually God? You have used double standards, logical incoherence, and self contradiction all in a 3 sentence argument.

You must show God is unjustified in taking he life he created. I am standing by.

 

[Quagmire]

You as a human grant other humans the right to take life.

Only to whatever extent I don't have any choice about it.

Yet in every single category which justify that God infinitely exceeds our qualifications.

OK, 1Robin? Do me a favor man: read that last sentence and ask yourself, "If someone else had written this, would I have any idea what they were trying to say?"

I get you do not like a God in charge of what he created but that is not an argument.

And I'm curious where you "got" that from, although I know it would be pointless to ask.

In what way does what you like make anything true or false, wrong or right, or morally justifiable or not? In what way is a God who has no sovereignty over life, actually God? You have used double standards, logical incoherence, and self contradiction all in a 3 sentence argument.

You must show God is unjustified in taking he life he created. I am standing by.

You're confused. When I said this:

Especially considering that in a lot of cases, "God" can mean just about anything.

I wasn't talking about God, I was talking about "God". That's why those quotation marks are there.

And if your next question is going to be, "What's the difference", then there's really no point in trying to explain it to you.

 

[1robin]

Yes there is, there are more verses that i can quote without any context behind the killings.

I cannot debate contexts of verses you may or may not know about. The one you used has a very specific context which justifies the actions Moses took by God's command.

Again many references in the OT about looting, hence the virgins were spared to become loot.

The virgin issue is very complicated. It take a long time to hash out. If you wish to concentrate on it may be practical. I can't resolve it and all the other things you claim at the same time.

You know you just made yourself look stupid after saying this right?

1. Moses(pbuh) wasn't being attacked Mohammed(saws) was.
2. Moses(pbuh) wasn't being hunted down and chased away from hes city Mohammed(saws) was.
3. Moses's(pbuh) family wasn't killed/tortured and Mohammed's(saws) family was.
4. Moses(pbuh) did not have anything in Israel that belonged to him, while the Pagans in Mecca stole Mohammed's(saws) and hes companions there possession so they had all the right to take it back.

Is it possible for you to debate an issue without constant reliance on insults? Moses was told that Israel had adopted false God's and would be destroyed. Moses bargained in Israel's behalf and instead of all of them dying he asked the ones who stood with God and the ones who did not to separate. The ones who stuck with God lived. The ones who betrayed the very God that had saved them with miracle after miracle died. Now on what basis is that event (which Islam accepts as true) not morally justified or not God's ultimate decision? Muhammad at times fought to defend but in many cases fought for greed, revenge, and power in offensive battle after battle by his own desires. I have provided three posts full of information on Muhammad's first battle alone and much detail on his first 12 or so. Not more than two have a claimed Divine mandate, and my posts contained mostly accepted Muslim sources.

It wasn't Mohammed(saws) who attacked them but the Pagans were the ones they always fought outside of Medina and not Mecca yet Moses(pbuh) just marched and destroyed, plundered and killed everything alive according your own book.
It is hypocrisy to say Moses(pbuh) wasn't violent yet he committed more killings and plunder according to your own book.

That is not just wrong. It is impossible for it to be right. Many of Muhammad's battles recorded in the companions words, accepted Hadiths, and Islamic scholars words were completely offensive. The Quran's claims concerning quite a few of his battles eliminate any possibility they were defensive battles.

You do realize that my book was Muhammad's book. Even the ridiculous claims of corruption do not apply to Moses. You can not condemn Moses' actions and support Muhammad's. I can do the opposite because your book is not ours.

Self centered reasons? A religion that exist from self centered reasons will never grow as big as Islam did.

Of course it can when you enforce it with the sword, mandate it at birth, and make getting out of it a risk of death. Rogue and evil leaders and their philosophies have controlled higher percentages of the population than Islam ever has. We do not tear down or prohibit your Holy places in our nations almost universally. A religion that must and does in so many of its nations apparently can not survive on merit but must survive by force.

Your only argument is that you ''Belief'' Moses(pbuh) was ordered by god and Mohammed(saws) wasn't.

Of course that is what I believe because hat is what history shows.

I am not condemning what Islam says, i am condemning your hypocrisy moreover Islam never said that Moses(pbuh) was ordered to kill 3000 people , innocent children and to take the virgins as loot.

As far as I know even he completely contrived claims Islam had to invent about Biblical corruption because they do not agree do not apply to any of Moses' battles. Are you suggesting they do?

So this is your argument? :sarcastic If you read the sources you can clearly see he belief he is told so by God as is Moses(pbuh).

I am the only one that did provide sources for Muhammad's first battles and almost all of them are Islamic sources. I was going to go through all of his battles (and there are many) but since no Muslim even attempted to refute my three pages on his first caravan raid I did not bother. If you will go back to my posts on Muhammad's first dozen battles and raids and respond them I will move on to the others. They are in this thread. There was only mention of loot justifying his first of countless caravan raids (why in the world would Allah care about destroying merchants on the silk road?). However lets pretend he did. His first battle was Badr but might not have been. He ordered a raid before that but Muhammad thought they were too numerous to attack. Now if Allah is ordering raids on caravans why did Muhammad not obey? If he is not then why did Muhammad attack them? All of these in exhaustive detail are in he posts I mentioned above.

As we know Mohammed(saws) went to Mecca without killing a single person when God ordered him, yet these people killed hes family members, hes friends and hes companions in a period of 10 years or longer. He did not seek justice or revenge but mercy, would you do the same if your family members, friends got butchered in-front of your eyes and you got chased away from your hometown?

There was untold numbers of battles, raids, and even small wars where Muhammad acted offensively and for petty reasons. I never said he never did so, so posting a time period where he did not kill anyone (in this case because he was outnumbered severely, he came back and killed many of those that had earlier ridiculed and mistreated him) is no really a defense.

Ps: Mohammed(saws) fought next to hes friend he was no coward he was a brave man and afraid of nothing except god.

I have never made a comment about Muhammad's bravery. I have never even thought about it before because being brave (as millions of military leaders have been) is not justification for what he did. He may have been brave, I do not know, and it does not matter.

If you wish to discuss who ordered Muhammad do fight or why he did so then please start with my exhaustive posts I mentioned. I am not investing as much time as I did on them until they are responded to.

 

[1robin]

No. Against every secular reasoning this is immoral. Untill such time god comes down himself to kill societies there is no moral justification for any horrific crimes on humanity such as these in any religion.

What? Secular reasoning granted human beings the right to kill innocent life in the womb as a form of birth control. In every single category secularists use to grant human authorities with the right to take life God exceeds them infinitely in qualifications. Now if you deny any human that would at least be consistent. Do you? You would still not have the slightest qualifications to suggest God was ever unjustified but at least you would not be contradicting your self. I think your point mainly had to do with what humans do in God's authority. Outside of the few Biblical authors who gave evidence for their claim to prophet hood I would be inclined to agree in principle. If God ordered a person to kill another (I mean he actually did so) then on what basis could you ever claim he was unjustified? I however do not defend humans outside of Biblical prophets.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You as a human grant other humans the right to take life. Yet in every single category which justify that God infinitely exceeds our qualifications.

Huh? Really, I can't follow whatever you are trying to say. Your second sentence seems not to follow any sort of grammatical order. Do you want to try a rewrite?

I get you do not like a God in charge of what he created but that is not an argument.

You have no idea what I think about God. Frankly, I'm not at all sure that you understand what you yourself think about God.

What I reject is a psychopathic, genocidal God. I wish you did the same. It would make me feel so much safer.

In what way does what you like make anything true or false, wrong or right, or morally justifiable or not?

Ask yourself the same question. Just because you desperately need to know God's Truth, you swallow the Bible as the Sacred and Literal Word of God. Then you must accept that God kills innocent women and children. He's God, you say. He can do whatever He wants.

That's you justifying a monster God. But thankfully God isn't really a monster. Just because you like to believe the Bible as literal word of God... that doesn't make it true that God kills innocents.

In what way is a God who has no sovereignty over life, actually God?

You have no idea what I think about God. Which is strange since I've been telling you about it for well over a year now. Does it ever occur to you to actually pay attention to the others here in this place -- to try and understand how they see things?

 

[F0uad]

Yes there is, there are more verses that i can quote without any context behind the killings.

I cannot debate contexts of verses you may or may not know about. The one you used has a very specific context which justifies the actions Moses took by God's command.

Well the ones that you use also have a context and justifies the actions Mohammed(saws) took, moreover i can use the same argument and say that God orderd Mohammed(saws) therefore he was justified.

The virgin issue is very complicated. It take a long time to hash out. If you wish to concentrate on it may be practical. I can't resolve it and all the other things you claim at the same time.

It is loot, its stupid not to take loot when your at war however virgins.. nevermind.

Is it possible for you to debate an issue without constant reliance on insults? Moses was told that Israel had adopted false God's and would be destroyed. Moses bargained in Israel's behalf and instead of all of them dying he asked the ones who stood with God and the ones who did not to separate. The ones who stuck with God lived. The ones who betrayed the very God that had saved them with miracle after miracle died. Now on what basis is that event (which Islam accepts as true) not morally justified or not God's ultimate decision? Muhammad at times fought to defend but in many cases fought for greed, revenge, and power in offensive battle after battle by his own desires. I have provided three posts full of information on Muhammad's first battle alone and much detail on his first 12 or so. Not more than two have a claimed Divine mandate, and my posts contained mostly accepted Muslim sources.

I think you shouldn't talk about insults or play the innocent one here, you have been insulting since day-one, i have watched more debates and discussions and your always the insulting one.

Please can you quote the story that is mentioned in the OT where Islam accepts this to be true, again a false statement you should try to keep what Islam says about Moses(pbuh) about it out of it.

What you did on these three posts is copy/paste/edit several anti-Islamic websites and not mention any context of those hadiths, you just created your own story about why, what and when happened. I have already invited you to have a one-on-one debate where we would address such event but you refused.

That is not just wrong. It is impossible for it to be right. Many of Muhammad's battles recorded in the companions words, accepted Hadiths, and Islamic scholars words were completely offensive. The Quran's claims concerning quite a few of his battles eliminate any possibility they were defensive battles.

They were both, i never said they were all defensive, was the order of Moses(pbuh) a defensive war? :no:

You do realize that my book was Muhammad's book. Even the ridiculous claims of corruption do not apply to Moses. You can not condemn Moses' actions and support Muhammad's. I can do the opposite because your book is not ours.

Please quote the Quran were it says that Moses(pbuh) killed innocent children, took virgins as loot and so forth?
There are many things in the OT/NWT that speaks about the prophets that are not acceptable or even denied in the Quran.

Of course that is what I believe because hat is what history shows.

So what does history show us about Moses(pbuh)? Do you think the OT is historical reliable or has any historical weight? :thud:

As far as I know even he completely contrived claims Islam had to invent about Biblical corruption because they do not agree do not apply to any of Moses' battles. Are you suggesting they do?

Wow nice try to go off-topic, maybe your not up to date but Mohammed(saws) is not the only one who beliefs the Bible got corrupted and altered, historians and even Christian biblical scholars belief this, its a well known accepted fact by Christians and non-Christians.

I am the only one that did provide sources for Muhammad's first battles and almost all of them are Islamic sources. I was going to go through all of his battles (and there are many) but since no Muslim even attempted to refute my three pages on his first caravan raid I did not bother. If you will go back to my posts on Muhammad's first dozen battles and raids and respond them I will move on to the others. They are in this thread. There was only mention of loot justifying his first of countless caravan raids (why in the world would Allah care about destroying merchants on the silk road?). However lets pretend he did. His first battle was Badr but might not have been. He ordered a raid before that but Muhammad thought they were too numerous to attack. Now if Allah is ordering raids on caravans why did Muhammad not obey? If he is not then why did Muhammad attack them? All of these in exhaustive detail are in he posts I mentioned above.

If you want a one-on-one debate you should just ask someone friendly instead of copy/pasting websites with ridiculous stories you pose on the hadiths.

There was untold numbers of battles, raids, and even small wars where Muhammad acted offensively and for petty reasons. I never said he never did so, so posting a time period where he did not kill anyone (in this case because he was outnumbered severely, he came back and killed many of those that had earlier ridiculed and mistreated him) is no really a defense.

You don't even make sense you said there were untold number of battles, if this is the case how do you know?

Not sure what your saying here since i am talking to the journey to Mecca were he had 10,000 man and outnumbered the enemy 1 to 3.

I have never made a comment about Muhammad's bravery. I have never even thought about it before because being brave (as millions of military leaders have been) is not justification for what he did. He may have been brave, I do not know, and it does not matter.

Then stop portraying him as a coward who cannot fight hes own battles.

If you wish to discuss who ordered Muhammad do fight or why he did so then please start with my exhaustive posts I mentioned. I am not investing as much time as I did on them until they are responded to.

Its quite easy to copy/paste several things from websites and tell other people to respond to them, you should have created a One-on-One topic and had a debate there.

 

[1robin]

Huh? Really, I can't follow whatever you are trying to say. Your second sentence seems not to follow any sort of grammatical order. Do you want to try a rewrite?

Do you not grant police, Judges, executioners, and soldiers the right to take life when necessary or thought so? Do not allow doctors, pharmacists, etc... to risk taking life?

You have no idea what I think about God. Frankly, I'm not at all sure that you understand what you yourself think about God.

I know very well what I think about God but it does not matter. My faith comes from knowing God not understanding him in every respect. That is quite impossible anyway. However we are discussing actual recorded events not the inexhaustible scope of God's entire character.

What I reject is a psychopathic, genocidal God. I wish you did the same. It would make me feel so much safer.

I do as well. My God has killed less than .001% of people and far more than that deserve death. He also saved everyone in history not too biased or proud to accept it. Did yours? My God took life when necessary and they account for the smallest fraction of lives we have taken. Stalin alone killed twenty times more in one lifetime than God has in 5000 years. If he is genocidal he is not very good at it. If I get cancer I hope it is a inept at killing me.

Unflattering terminology minus any evidence it is accurate is not an argument.

Ask yourself the same question. Just because you desperately need to know God's Truth, you swallow the Bible as the Sacred and Literal Word of God. Then you must accept that God kills innocent women and children. He's God, you say. He can do whatever He wants.

Actually I spent my childhood in Church yet came to think the Bible was full of garbage when my mother died. I was drug kicking and screaming to a belief it is true based on it being so true I no longer could deny it. I tried as so many have to negate it and was unable to do so, so like CS Lewis, Chesterton, and so many other brilliant me I gave it up and surrendered to Christ. The fact Christ responded simply put the nail in the Bible is not true case. There is nothing about my faith that is wishful thinking.

That's you justifying a monster God. But thankfully God isn't really a monster. Just because you like to believe the Bible as literal word of God... that doesn't make it true that God kills innocents.

Again your terminology independent from evidence is not an argument. It is emotional rhetoric.

You have no idea what I think about God. Which is strange since I've been telling you about it for well over a year now. Does it ever occur to you to actually pay attention to the others here in this place -- to try and understand how they see things?

I did not mention you. I mentioned something true of a concept. God in the Bible and in philosophy is a creator with maximal great making properties. A God who does not have sovereignty is not my God and is a logical contradiction.

I will make this as easy as I can for you. Demonstrate that if God killed every person on Earth in 2 weeks he has done anything that violates any aspect of his nature. That is as easy as I can possibly make it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you not grant police, Judges, executioners, and soldiers the right to take life when necessary or thought so? Do not allow doctors, pharmacists, etc... to risk taking life?

Obviously I do. Now do you have some point to make related to my acknowledgement that I grant some people the right to kill?

By the way, the one person whom I do not grant the right to kill? A prophet of God.

If a man tells me that God wants to kill all (or any) of a city's inhabitants and encourages the army to go and kill them? I vote to imprison that prophet of God before he can pretend to speak any further for God. If he won't shut up, I say let's kill him. Better to lose one nut than for the city to suffer genocide.

If only someone had done that to Joshua.

I know very well what I think about God but it does not matter. My faith comes from knowing God not understanding him in every respect.

So why do you assume that you know God better than I do? Seriously. It's pretty clear that you are not smarter than me. Nor more educated than me. Nor more wise or spiritual than me.

So why do you assume that your God knowledge is truer than my God knowledge?

Just because you think so? Or is there some good reason?

However we are discussing actual recorded events not the inexhaustible scope of God's entire character.

The Bible is surely not a record of historical events. Anyone who has the least knowledge of history can see that.

My God has killed less than .001% of people and far more than that deserve death.

Yikes. So he kills women and children, but he hasn't killed so many of them? Yikes.

He commits genocide, but he only does it now and again? Goodness.

He also saved everyone in history not too biased or proud to accept it. Did yours?

My God never condemned anyone to eternal damnation and therefore had no need to save anyone from eternal damnation.

But if you are too biased or proud to accept this truth about God, well....

Actually I spent my childhood in Church yet came to think the Bible was full of garbage when my mother died. I was drug kicking and screaming to a belief it is true based on it being so true I no longer could deny it. I tried as so many have to negate it and was unable to do so, so like CS Lewis, Chesterton, and so many other brilliant me I gave it up and surrendered to Christ. The fact Christ responded simply put the nail in the Bible is not true case. There is nothing about my faith that is wishful thinking.

Sure. And it's just coincidence that you have wound up following the same Holy Book as you grew up with? That's what you think?

You think that a map of the world's religions just coincidentally shows that religions are region-specific?

Not me. I think Indonesians tend to be Muslims because their parents and culture are Muslim. And I think 1robin is a Christian because he has embraced the beliefs of his family, friends, culture and childhood.

I mentioned something true of a concept. God in the Bible and in philosophy is a creator with maximal great making properties.

Great making properties? I'm afraid I have no idea what that might mean to you.

A God who does not have sovereignty is not my God and is a logical contradiction.

Whatever you prefer to believe about the nature of God, you should believe, I guess.

I will make this as easy as I can for you. Demonstrate that if God killed every person on Earth in 2 weeks he has done anything that violates any aspect of his nature. That is as easy as I can possibly make it.

It sure gives the lie to 'All-Loving,' doesn't it?

Or does He kill us because He loves us... as the psychopaths in the movies like to say?

 

[1robin]

Well the ones that you use also have a context and justifies the actions Mohammed(saws) took, moreover i can use the same argument and say that God orderd Mohammed(saws) therefore he was justified.

No they don't that was my whole point. Start with the battle of Badr and we can see. I readily admit some of his battles probably had good reasons or that he at least claimed that Allah had ordered them (whether he was lying or not I could not disagree in principle to those). The first one did not and most of the next dozen or so.

It is loot, its stupid not to take loot when your at war however virgins.. nevermind.

I did not say taking loot was wrong if God ordered it. I said taking loot is not a justifiable reason for the killing of others. He can take what he wished. He cannot justify raiding caravans and killing thousands for the reason of getting loot. You not paying attention to what I say.

I think you shouldn't talk about insults or play the innocent one here, you have been insulting since day-one, i have watched more debates and discussions and your always the insulting one.

This will apparently not be resolved.

Please can you quote the story that is mentioned in the OT where Islam accepts this to be true, again a false statement you should try to keep what Islam says about Moses(pbuh) about it out of it.

I do not get it. You quoted the story already. Are you suggesting Islam does not believe the story you quoted? If so how in the Holy Heck would Islam know if it was not true to begin with? However I am pretty sure I have never seen the story on list or in any debate where a Muslim used the corruption argument.

What you did on these three posts is copy/paste/edit several anti-Islamic websites and not mention any context of those hadiths, you just created your own story about why, what and when happened. I have already invited you to have a one-on-one debate where we would address such event but you refused.

No it is not. I purposefully made sure my sources were Islamic and at least were not rejected in Islam. Plus I added many facts from many places and put a lot of the undeniable theological and philosophical problems with What Muhammad did in the first dozen or so battles. I swear every Muslim has the same check lists.

1. Yell bias the instant anything unflattering appears.
2. Yell corruption the first moment and inconsistencies appear in the Bible and the Quran.
3. Yell oh yea so and so did it to the moment one of Muhammad's diabolical actions is mentioned......and so on.

They were both, i never said they were all defensive, was the order of Moses(pbuh) a defensive war? :no:

In way it was the most defensive of all. It was to protect the Hebrews who were following God from those that had rejected him at the very foundational period of Israel. Moses had several violent episodes I assume you are referring to his killing of all those that had refused to stand on the side that was with God, or are you talking about some of the battles with Canaanites etc...? Regardless it is not a Christian claim Moses always acted defensively. It is a very common Islamic claim that Muhammad did. I am very surprised you do not hold to it.

Please quote the Quran were it says that Moses(pbuh) killed innocent children, took virgins as loot and so forth?
There are many things in the OT/NWT that speaks about the prophets that are not acceptable or even denied in the Quran.

I never said the Quran agreed with Moses except in agreeing with all God's prophets in general. I said I have never heard a claim that any story from the early prophets was incorrect. It is your position that requires some evidence that Moses' actions were not ordered by God. I have the earliest sources with the most access to the events. They stand until you do something to eliminate them.

So what does history show us about Moses(pbuh)? Do you think the OT is historical reliable or has any historical weight? :thud:

Of course I do. That is why it is a primary archeological source even among secular archeologists. Now in this case, I do know for a fact that Islam accepts most of the OT (I have never heard any of it rejected but I am sure some of it is as it does not agree with Muhammad) so on what basis do you deny it.

Wow nice try to go off-topic, maybe your not up to date but Mohammed(saws) is not the only one who beliefs the Bible got corrupted and altered, historians and even Christian biblical scholars belief this, its a well known accepted fact by Christians and non-Christians.

I have been talking about Islam claims about Biblical corruption for at least 3 posts here. In what way is that off-topic here. It does not matter if they do not agree on what parts were corrupted. Every single Muslim that I am aware of being asked on what basis do Muslims claim a verse was corrupted or not, has responded with the criteria that it disagrees with the Quran. Now that is scholarship. Every one who makes a claim to Quranic, Vedic, or Biblical corruption reinforces every one else who claimed it. It requires evidence for each individual claim of corruption to stand on it's own. You do not get proxy points in a debate.

If you want a one-on-one debate you should just ask someone friendly instead of copy/pasting websites with ridiculous stories you pose on the hadiths.

I have no idea what your saying or why? I did not mention a one on one debate.

You don't even make sense you said there were untold number of battles, if this is the case how do you know?

Not sure what your saying here since i am talking to the journey to Mecca were he had 10,000 man and outnumbered the enemy 1 to 3.

There are several journeys he made between Mecca and Medina. I think we are talking past each other, but 80% of what I said is not affected by this. You outnumber people by 3 - 1 not 1 - 3 but it is not important.

He fled Medina with virtually no followers and no army. He was given troops in Medina by pagan tribal chiefs to enforce peace. Instead he used them to raid caravans, etc... He eventually took them back to Medina on revenge raids. That is where I loose track of his journeys back and forth and have to look them up. I assume the one you mentioned occurred later, correct?

Then stop portraying him as a coward who cannot fight hes own battles.

I have never once mentioned Muhammad being a coward (or have no memory of it). I have no idea what your talking about. Find a single claim I ever made that stated what you said I claimed.

Its quite easy to copy/paste several things from websites and tell other people to respond to them, you should have created a One-on-One topic and had a debate there.

It is also very easy to yell bias and anything unflattering. There is not a single reason that copying and pasting is a invalid method in a written debate. In fact it is probably the best. Now that even the posts I mentioned were all copy and pastes. It seems you are doing far more complaining than actually contending with evidence.

By the way are you using the old 1 on 1 forum to debate my posts about Badr and the early raids? It's fine, I just trying to get the on page your on.

 

[F0uad]

No they don't that was my whole point. Start with the battle of Badr and we can see. I readily admit some of his battles probably had good reasons or that he at least claimed that Allah had ordered them (whether he was lying or not I could not disagree in principle to those). The first one did not and most of the next dozen or so.


I did not say taking loot was wrong if God ordered it. I said taking loot is not a justifiable reason for the killing of others. He can take what he wished. He cannot justify raiding caravans and killing thousands for the reason of getting loot. You not paying attention to what I say.

This will apparently not be resolved.

I do not get it. You quoted the story already. Are you suggesting Islam does not believe the story you quoted? If so how in the Holy Heck would Islam know if it was not true to begin with? However I am pretty sure I have never seen the story on list or in any debate where a Muslim used the corruption argument.

No it is not. I purposefully made sure my sources were Islamic and at least were not rejected in Islam. Plus I added many facts from many places and put a lot of the undeniable theological and philosophical problems with What Muhammad did in the first dozen or so battles. I swear every Muslim has the same check lists.

1. Yell bias the instant anything unflattering appears.
2. Yell corruption the first moment and inconsistencies appear in the Bible and the Quran.
3. Yell oh yea so and so did it to the moment one of Muhammad's diabolical actions is mentioned......and so on.

In way it was the most defensive of all. It was to protect the Hebrews who were following God from those that had rejected him at the very foundational period of Israel. Moses had several violent episodes I assume you are referring to his killing of all those that had refused to stand on the side that was with God, or are you talking about some of the battles with Canaanites etc...? Regardless it is not a Christian claim Moses always acted defensively. It is a very common Islamic claim that Muhammad did. I am very surprised you do not hold to it.

I never said the Quran agreed with Moses except in agreeing with all God's prophets in general. I said I have never heard a claim that any story from the early prophets was incorrect. It is your position that requires some evidence that Moses' actions were not ordered by God. I have the earliest sources with the most access to the events. They stand until you do something to eliminate them.


Of course I do. That is why it is a primary archeological source even among secular archeologists. Now in this case, I do know for a fact that Islam accepts most of the OT (I have never heard any of it rejected but I am sure some of it is as it does not agree with Muhammad) so on what basis do you deny it.

I have been talking about Islam claims about Biblical corruption for at least 3 posts here. In what way is that off-topic here. It does not matter if they do not agree on what parts were corrupted. Every single Muslim that I am aware of being asked on what basis do Muslims claim a verse was corrupted or not, has responded with the criteria that it disagrees with the Quran. Now that is scholarship. Every one who makes a claim to Quranic, Vedic, or Biblical corruption reinforces every one else who claimed it. It requires evidence for each individual claim of corruption to stand on it's own. You do not get proxy points in a debate.

I have no idea what your saying or why? I did not mention a one on one debate.

There are several journeys he made between Mecca and Medina. I think we are talking past each other, but 80% of what I said is not affected by this. You outnumber people by 3 - 1 not 1 - 3 but it is not important.

He fled Medina with virtually no followers and no army. He was given troops in Medina by pagan tribal chiefs to enforce peace. Instead he used them to raid caravans, etc... He eventually took them back to Medina on revenge raids. That is where I loose track of his journeys back and forth and have to look them up. I assume the one you mentioned occurred later, correct?



I have never once mentioned Muhammad being a coward (or have no memory of it). I have no idea what your talking about. Find a single claim I ever made that stated what you said I claimed.

It is also very easy to yell bias and anything unflattering. There is not a single reason that copying and pasting is a invalid method in a written debate. In fact it is probably the best. Now that even the posts I mentioned were all copy and pastes. It seems you are doing far more complaining than actually contending with evidence.

By the way are you using the old 1 on 1 forum to debate my posts about Badr and the early raids? It's fine, I just trying to get the on page your on.

To make this easier for the both of us i replied to your topic in the one-on-one section.

 

[1robin]

To make this easier for the both of us i replied to your topic in the one-on-one section.

Ok then you can ignore my questions as to in what way you wished to proceed. I will respond in that other thread as soon as I can.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

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?

I question your notion of "goodness" in conjunction with at what age he married a young person. Are ethics regarding marriage tied into a cultural phenomena you simply disagree with, or are you using his marriage as a stepping stone to a much large ethical issue?