Was Muhammad a good man?

[Monk Of Reason]

It is my opinion that when anyone plays the "god card" to explain their behavior we should treat them with a rather large dose of skepticism - to be generous - if not run away, screaming, to get away from said person ASAP.

How do you tell is someone isn't merely delusional? They could still be utterly sincere and convincing.

I can only go off of secular reasoning and evidence. If someone pulls the "god told me" card then I must have evidence god told them. Even if we had evidence of "god" what evidence can they provide that the "god" is what told them to do it? So there are two bridges that need be built to have this excuse be an acceptable answer to the claim.

Then we can drop this point of agreement. However my statements were about his prophet hood which determined whether he was good or not. Once a man makes a claim to speak for God there is no neutrality. He is either the best of men or the worst.

I disagree and agree at the same time. I think that people can do good works in the name of god and that still makes them good people. I think people can do bad works in the name of god and still be bad people.

The test for prophet hood is not nececerrily how moral they (though hey should be moral). It is whether the can predict the future with 100% accuracy, can perform miraculous acts. and whether they adhere to the narrative in exactitude the past Biblical prophets had.

True. Though Muslims Claim he has met this and more. What is your take?

There are two very distinct issues here. I have been talking about one and you the other. I am making an ontological point, you an epistemological one.


My claim.

A man who truly is from God would have the greatest possible authority and justification for his actions, and commands.

Your response.

There is no way to know if any specific man is from God so none should be obeyed.

My response to this> My claim would still be true whether yours was true or not. You bring up a real problem but it does not affect what I said. It only affects the implementation of what I claimed not its truth. Fortunately Christians (as God knew of your problem before asked took care of it). He sends to no prophets making generalized claims to kill or go to war.

In the OT he was doing something quite different than in the NT. He was setting up a culture in order to reflect him and use as a conduit for his revelation. What Hebrew prophets demanded was only for Israel and those prophets came with signs and proof. Today prophets are sent to teach about the Kingdom of God. There are no prophets sent from God who are demanding anyone blow up abortion clinics of invade the Muslim middle east. There are only teacher prophets and their message is accepted or denied on a personal basis. So your question is a reasonable one but in the case of Christianity not applicable and in he case of my claim irrelevant.

Your claim only works in the bubble of "correctness". You must say "Assuming god exists in the context of the argument then a prophet would have ...."

But I have brought the question of how would one go about determining if one is a prophet or not. I find the second to be far more real world for the sake of the debate about a real person.

 

[1robin]

I disagree and agree at the same time. I think that people can do good works in the name of god and that still makes them good people. I think people can do bad works in the name of god and still be bad people.

The bible makes it very clear that even good works done for something other than God are not actually good. For example God appreciated the 2 mites that poor lady age as an offering much more so than those that donated large sums because they were doing it for recognition.

I can't agree with a person who was asked by God to do something was doing anything wrong because the acts was distastefulness to another person. You can't do any good following a false God, and you can't but do God if following a true and benevolent God. If you do not grant the theoretical existence of a perfect God then it is impossible to rightly evaluate the issue.

True. Though Muslims Claim he has met this and more. What is your take?

1. Muhammad as said by his closest companions to have had symptoms that are an exact match for Biblical demon oppression. Foaming at the mouth, hating any cross he saw, making animal life noises, and convulsing. His first experience led him to believe he was demon possessed.
2. The Bible inaugurate prophets based on their lineage to Issac. Muhammad descends at best from Ishmael. Ismael was not to inherit the covenant given to Abraham and was to trouble his neighbors consistently just as Muhammad did.
3. Prophets if they are from God prophecy with 100% accuracy. The Bible contains 2500 of them and at best Muhammad has a couple of very week attempts at prophesying,
4. The Bible say that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is not of God. He did.
5. Prophets came with signs and wonders to validate their being from God. When Muhammad was specifically provide miracles as the older (Biblical) prophets have done he flat said he could not.

This is enough but the list could go on and on.

Your claim only works in the bubble of "correctness". You must say "Assuming god exists in the context of the argument then a prophet would have ...."

Well of course God must be allowed at least theoretically to exist. This whole topic has no meaning if we do not assume a God exists to send prophets.

But I have brought the question of how would one go about determining if one is a prophet or not. I find the second to be far more real world for the sake of the debate about a real person.

That question is certainly of vital importance (but is independent of the claim I made). I will tell you how a Christian would resolve anyone's claim to be a prophet.

1. Is what he is saying perfectly consistent with the Bible in every way.
2. Can he produce miraculous events so as to confirm his supernatural source.
3. Is he in the line of prophets that God began with Abraham.
4. Does he live (as best he can) within the commands of God.

If I find someone who met all 4 then I would begin to think he should at least be paid attention to.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The bible makes it very clear that even good works done for something other than God are not actually good. For example God appreciated the 2 mites that poor lady age as an offering much more so than those that donated large sums because they were doing it for recognition.

I can't agree with a person who was asked by God to do something was doing anything wrong because the acts was distastefulness to another person. You can't do any good following a false God, and you can't but do God if following a true and benevolent God. If you do not grant the theoretical existence of a perfect God then it is impossible to rightly evaluate the issue.

So if I go and help someone by giving them food, or shelter ect but I don't do it in the name of the christian god am I still doing good?

1. Muhammad as said by his closest companions to have had symptoms that are an exact match for Biblical demon oppression. Foaming at the mouth, hating any cross he saw, making animal life noises, and convulsing. His first experience led him to believe he was demon possessed.
2. The Bible inaugurate prophets based on their lineage to Issac. Muhammad descends at best from Ishmael. Ismael was not to inherit the covenant given to Abraham and was to trouble his neighbors consistently just as Muhammad did.
3. Prophets if they are from God prophecy with 100% accuracy. The Bible contains 2500 of them and at best Muhammad has a couple of very week attempts at prophesying,
4. The Bible say that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is not of God. He did.
5. Prophets came with signs and wonders to validate their being from God. When Muhammad was specifically provide miracles as the older (Biblical) prophets have done he flat said he could not.

This is enough but the list could go on and on.

I really should have clarified. But you gave me exactly what I said in text so I can't complain. What I meant was how do you make claim that Christian examples of prophets are "real" while Muslim ones are not? And I mean that in a vaccume of Isalm vs Christianity based on the independent aspects. You can make a list as far as the day is long why Christianity is correct according to the bible and Christian doctrine. Islam can do the same in reguard to the Koran or Muslim teachings. But more or less I got my answer.

Well of course God must be allowed at least theoretically to exist. This whole topic has no meaning if we do not assume a God exists to send prophets.

Not for the idea that he is a good person or not. That can be independent of god's existence much less his phrophethood. The concept that a phrophet is automatically inherently "moral" is a little more convoluted. For example is it possible for god to be immoral? And if its impossible for god to be immoral then doesn't that mean he isn't all powerful? For an all powerful being would have the capability of being both moral and immoral at will? This is where the can of worms opens up to in such assurtions.

That question is certainly of vital importance (but is independent of the claim I made). I will tell you how a Christian would resolve anyone's claim to be a prophet.

1. Is what he is saying perfectly consistent with the Bible in every way.
2. Can he produce miraculous events so as to confirm his supernatural source.
3. Is he in the line of prophets that God began with Abraham.
4. Does he live (as best he can) within the commands of God.

If I find someone who met all 4 then I would begin to think he should at least be paid attention to.

I get that is "the Christian perspective" but do you have any way of providing evidence for a phrophet if say one were to exist now? Other than simply stating what the bible says is there a determining factor that could be used?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yet another post full of facts and evidence.

I see a bunch of statements but no evidence.

Yet another post filled with mockeries and false assumptions

 

[Sha'irullah]

Something I am not seeing here though is a Muslim defending their prophet from the narrative claims of him killing and slaughtering individuals like cows. His immoral behavior and immoral concepts are also not being defended as well.

Many good things can be said about Muhammad which is fine and dandy but what about the barbaric actions he has been narrated as portraying?


How about I start it off with this......

Surat an-Nisa ayat 34 - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

 

[FearGod]

Something I am not seeing here though is a Muslim defending their prophet from the narrative claims of him killing and slaughtering individuals like cows. His immoral behavior and immoral concepts are also not being defended as well.

Many good things can be said about Muhammad which is fine and dandy but what about the barbaric actions he has been narrated as portraying?


How about I start it off with this......

Surat an-Nisa ayat 34 - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

i can see that you are ignorant about Islam.

Do you think that the prophet was bad because he was a brave commander fighting the oppressors.

Do you think nowadays wars is a moral ones.

Islam protects women from prostitution which is widespread nowadays that women sell their bodies for a bunch of dollars.

[youtube]BXJBj7Rj0yg[/youtube]
RE: Wife Beating in Islaam!!! - Abdur Raheem Green - YouTube

 

[1robin]

So if I go and help someone by giving them food, or shelter ect but I don't do it in the name of the christian god am I still doing good?

The act was probably good but that would not make the one doing it good. The reason I stated what I did was to separate acts done for recognition but claimed to be for God. In one sense an atheist acting benevolently is good and in another it is neutral. It is very hard to understand that without faith. I have faith and it is still a little hard. I will only say that acts done for purely for God as per his instructions, have no possibility of being bad. I would need the context of the original discussion to make this any clearer but am in too big a hurry to review at the moment.

I really should have clarified. But you gave me exactly what I said in text so I can't complain. What I meant was how do you make claim that Christian examples of prophets are "real" while Muslim ones are not? And I mean that in a vaccume of Isalm vs Christianity based on the independent aspects. You can make a list as far as the day is long why Christianity is correct according to the bible and Christian doctrine. Islam can do the same in reguard to the Koran or Muslim teachings. But more or less I got my answer.

This is another complex one but a less confusing one that that above.

1. The Quran acknowledges Biblical prophets. The Bible condemns Muhammad.
2. So by both Islamic and Christian standards prophets came from only the line of Isaac, of course this eliminates Muhammad as a prophet so the intellectual gymnastics begin.
3. God (in the Bible) said his prophets would predict the future with 100% accuracy. That is a pretty good test even from secular standards. No one in history has ever been 100% accurate about the future other than Biblical prophets. Even false prophets can have limited visions of the future but they are never as exhaustive or as accurate as God's actual prophets.
4. The Bible says all prophets will confirm the Biblical narrative in every detail. Muhammad gutted the most central claim of Christianity and do disqualified himself yet again.
5. Islam only has one potential prophet, the Bible is full of them. Their one pseudo prophet violated every test for true prophet hood the Bible lists.
6. So I am contrasting the several dozen Biblical prophets that met every test of prophet hood against a single prophet who never prophesied and could not perform miracles when asked to. It is not much of a contest.

I can get much more detailed and exhaustive but I am unsure if you wish prophet hood evaluated in strictly a theological context that you do not subscribe to. If you do just let me know.

Not for the idea that he is a good person or not. That can be independent of god's existence much less his phrophethood. The concept that a phrophet is automatically inherently "moral" is a little more convoluted. For example is it possible for god to be immoral? And if its impossible for god to be immoral then doesn't that mean he isn't all powerful? For an all powerful being would have the capability of being both moral and immoral at will? This is where the can of worms opens up to in such assurtions.

There was a legendary scholar named C.S. Lewis who set out to prove the Bible wrong and gave it up as impossible and concerted. I will post what he said about Christ and his being a good man because it would apply to anyone claiming prophet hood.

C.S. Lewis > Quotes > Quotable Quote
C.S. Lewis
“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.”


― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Quote by C.S. Lewis: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the r...

I get that is "the Christian perspective" but do you have any way of providing evidence for a phrophet if say one were to exist now? Other than simply stating what the bible says is there a determining factor that could be used?

There is a reason why the Bible supplies certain tests for prophet hood.

1. Only a man empowered by God could predict the future with 100% accuracy time after time.
2. Only a man empowered by God could suspend natural law and perform events in contradiction to them.

There are others but I would think even from a secular perspective that would be one heck of a foundation to seriously consider that person a potential prophet.

 

[ladybug77]

Why are we judgeing someone other than ourselves?? Seems foolish. Why does it matter if he was good or bad?? Maybe he was neither and both. This seems of no concern to carry on with honestly.

 

[1robin]

Why are we judgeing someone other than ourselves?? Seems foolish. Why does it matter if he was good or bad?? Maybe he was neither and both. This seems of no concern to carry on with honestly.

When the teaching of a man are inspiring his followers to fly planes into buildings it becomes very relevant what kind of man he was.

 

[ladybug77]

Dude...that. was treason. America did that to america so they would have a reason for war.

 

[psychoslice]

This is actually a very complex discourse.

The man had called Christ good. Christ was saying you called me good and only God is good, so do you know with who it is you speak. This passage is often used to suggest Jesus was God. The whole conversation is very interesting and sophisticated.

Yes I don't believe that Jesus was god in the flesh, he declared God through him, as we all can do.

 

[ladybug77]

Yes I don't believe that Jesus was god in the flesh, he declared God through him, as we all can do.

Thanks again!!! We agree on much.

 

[psychoslice]

Thanks again!!! We agree on much.

Yes we seem to, that's great.

 

[YmirGF]

Dude...that. was treason. America did that to america so they would have a reason for war.

You do understand that this particular viewpoint is promoted by certifiable lunatics, correct? :beach:

 

[1robin]

Dude...that. was treason. America did that to america so they would have a reason for war.

What? This is not a fringe 911 conspiracy thread. Did America make them scream Allahu Akbar as they took out thousands of innocent people? Did we supply the money from a half dozen terrorist organizations and Islamic nations that funded the attack?

Never mind. Don't answer those. It's too early for that garbage.

There are entire forums where these hyperabsurd 911 claims are shot down before they finish typing them. It is actually quite humorous to see those whacked out theories torn apart by metallurgical experts and military analysts.

 

[1robin]

Yes I don't believe that Jesus was god in the flesh, he declared God through him, as we all can do.

I do not bother too much with the Trinity as it is unresolvable and makes no difference concerning salvation. I must do the same thing whether Christ was God or divinely inspired. However that is what that verse means. Jesus was letting the guy know who the man himself had claimed Jesus was.

 

[ladybug77]

Whats a lunatic?? Whats crazy? Whats sane? I would take crazy anyday. Sane is too boring.

 

[YmirGF]

Whats a lunatic?? Whats crazy? Whats sane? I would take crazy anyday. Sane is too boring.

To seriously propose that one does not appreciate the difference between what are, arguably, ideas of a lunatic and what are the sound arguments of a rational mind, is to reveal the possibility that ones cheese has already slipped off ones cracker and that one is already merrily dancing on it. Dare to be different, eh?

 

[Sha'irullah]

i can see that you are ignorant about Islam.

Do you think that the prophet was bad because he was a brave commander fighting the oppressors.

Do you think nowadays wars is a moral ones.

Islam protects women from prostitution which is widespread nowadays that women sell their bodies for a bunch of dollars.

[youtube]BXJBj7Rj0yg[/youtube]
RE: Wife Beating in Islaam!!! - Abdur Raheem Green - YouTube

Do not dare use Abdur Green's videos. I have better things to do then listen to a borderline terrorist speak about Islam. Green is nothing but a moron who speaks fanciful.

Seriously have you not paid attention to this man at all? Nothing in this video is being backed up by any ayah or narrative texts such as Sahih Muslim or Bukhari. Qur'an contradicts itself and external texts so anything else just adds fuel tot he every burning flame of Qur'anic contradictions as well.

You are also using reverse arguments as you are speaking of wars in the present tense as immoral like that of the past. Are you admitting that Muhammad's battles were immoral?

 

[YmirGF]

Do not dare use Abdur Green's videos. I have better things to do then listen to a borderline terrorist speak about Islam. Green is nothing but a moron who speaks fanciful.

Seriously have you not paid attention to this man at all? Nothing in this video is being backed up by any ayah or narrative texts such as Sahih Muslim or Bukhari. Qur'an contradicts itself and external texts so anything else just adds fuel tot he every burning flame of Qur'anic contradictions as well.

You are also using reverse arguments as you are speaking of wars in the present tense as immoral like that of the past. Are you admitting that Muhammad's battles were immoral?

If a husband has a responsibility to ensure his wife and children are on the straight path to Allah, doesn't that contradict the injunction on "there is no compulsion in religion". The only way a man could ensure his family was on the "straight path to Allah" would, necessarily, be through compulsion.