Was Muhammad a good man?

[AmbiguousGuy]

One could easily argue that both Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson were simply doing what they thought was right and made mistakes along the way....

And Jesus. And Abraham. And Gandhi.

 

[1robin]

And Jesus. And Abraham. And Gandhi.

Based on what standard did Christ make a mistake along the way?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Based on what standard did Christ make a mistake along the way?

My standard, of course. What other standard is there?

(And please don't answer "God's standard." Not unless you are willing to speak for Him and tell me what His standards are.)

 

[1robin]

No amount of belief makes something correct. Its appeal to popularity. At least half of all humans that have ever existed do not believe in the Christian Doctrine

I do not believe I ever equated the number that believe with proof. What I always say is when billions of people believe something it indicates the evidence is for it is substantial.

no I mean Muhammad. I agree that it is impossible to simply pinpoint a "moral" quantity.

I am lost here. My claim is that Muhammad would not be on the good end of any moral spectrum worth discussing and he is only relevant in the context of a prophet.

Not dumb luck but result of natural processes.

If you can find a natural process that can draw a line between immoral people and moral people you will probably get the Nobel because no one so far has even come close. Pick a line anywhere you wish and it would be produced by arbitrary means.

Actually there is no reliable information of that kind. In fact every statistic we have been able to find that is both reliable and credible says that the world is getting more and more civil.

That is completely wrong. I have posted approx. 100 stats and gave links to thousands. I am not doing so again. But I will say this.

1. More people have been killed by violence in the 20th century than all previous centuries combined.
2. Just from memory in the US school shootings are up.
3. Teen pregnancy is up.
4. The number of families with one parent homes are way up.
5. Drug use is up, shootings are up.
6. I think gambling debts are by 3000 percent or more.
7. Gang violence is up.
8. Home invasions are up.

Anyway just search for my posts. I have posted or given links to thousands of examples of moral decline between 1960 and 2012.

Then how about we assume that Islam is correct? What would the argument be then?

You must tell me what part of Islam we are assuming is correct. BTW that is not what I said. I said you must assume God could exist and then see what that would mean. If we assumed that something certainly exists then there is no debate necessary. Do you want to posit Islam as a possibility and see what that would mean?

What if he had the correct god inspired interpretation and the Christian version was warped?

Hypotheticals like this are not relevant. The textual history shows that the Bible has no been corrupted. Of course there is no way to be perfectly certain but let me supply a few facts that make it almost certain.

1. The Quran is one very suspicious man's word. The Bible is 40 plus men's words and most did not know each other.
2. The Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized words in human history. The Quran is I think about 90,000 words that have been strictly controlled. If you do not recognize why this is so vital let me know.
3. The Bible was copied by independent people and extremely prolifically. The Quran was strictly controlled by a few people. For example Uthman created a Quran he liked and had every competing version burned.
4. The Bible's core events are attested to by multiple witnesses or from multiple witnesses contemporary to the events. The Quran where it conflicts with the Bible is one very suspicious man's word 500 years after the events.
5. The Quran has entire sections virtually word for word plagiarized from well known gnostic and heretical sources. The Bible never borrowed from anything.
6. The Quran contains known scientific, historical, and philosophical false claims. The Bible has never been show conclusively to have been wrong about anything outside it its well known less that 5% scribal error.

I can do this all day but have not the time. The point is there is no absolute certainty but those plus other factors would make it all but certain that the Bible is the more reliable by far. In fact it is the most reliable text in ancient history by far of any type.

I get your points but I still don't think you get that all of them must rest upon the idea that Christianity is correct and Islam is wrong by default.
I can find just as many with things wrong with Christianity. I mean if Christianity is correct then that means that Muhammad is not God's prophet...and we all know that he is...so ...ergo ...Christianity is wrong. I mean its common sense here.

I think your missing something very important here. Islam (Muhammad) said to use the Bible as a judge to determine whether the Quran was from God. We know what the Bibles of his day contained. They still exist. Muhammad said the 7th century Bibles were to be used as a judge (would he have done that if he thought they were corrupt). However the Bible does not say the Quran is valid, it in fact condemns everything in it. I am not using a circular argument. I am not saying Jesus is right so Muhammad is wrong. I am saying that the evidence Jesus was right in every way that can be verified is light years ahead of the evidence Muhammad was right, but add on to that Muhammad said Jesus was right but no one in the 1800 years of the Bibles history even mentioned Muhammad. If you want to see who is right we can look into specifics but Muhammad validated the Bible's tests for prophet hood even though he was to ignorant to know they condemned him. I am using Islamic standards to condemn Islam.

Neither does he. For the record Hitler also brought up the German people in their lowest time with his ideals and views of god. Would that then give Hitler the same place...nay even higher than C.S. Lewis?

NO he did not. Hitler's flirtations with Catholicism are well established to have been an effort to court their influence. The instant the church refused you can see Hitler's writings immediately turn on God and Christianity with a vengeance. What he provided that Germany drew hope from was a very strong national pride which they lost in WW1, and he happened to come to power when the economy turned around.

From my perspective? yes. Yes I can.

I did not ask you whether you condemned him or not. I asked to if your condemnation had any ACTUAL justification or are you doing what most people do acting however you "feel" about things. A famous philosopher asked an atheist professor how he founded good and evil actions. The atheist responded with "by feelings, what else". The Christian responded by saying "Mr. X some culture love their neighbors based on feelings and some eat their neighbors based on feelings, do you have a preference".

What simple truth?

It just occurred to me that this is provable. I said the worst of all immoral people are false prophets.

The reason that is true is that they can do actions just as bad as anyone, but they have the even worse attribute of claiming they are doing so on God's behalf. Non-prophets can't do that.

Also the way you describe it is this. If Jesus is right then Muhammad sent 2 billion people to hell, if Muhammad is right then Jesus sent 4 billion people to hell. I mean thats still just BILLIONS of people going to hell. And if neither are wrong then that means millions and millions of people have killed needlessly.

That sounds eerily familiar to all the other religious based wars that were fought having nothing to do with Christianity.

I think you missed the point.

My point as that prophets are either the best or worst of people.

Either Muhammad or Christ (if either was right) have sent billions to Hell. In what way can any non-profit have done anything worse? If neither was right then men in their name have killed tens of millions. In what way can any non-profit claim to have done worse.

My point is the same as Lewis's people claiming to be prophets are either madmen and lunatics and have doomed millions or they are the greatest conceivable good. I used Muhammad and Jesus as the archetype claimers to prophet hood as examples.

Well this is an opinion. Do you have something behind it?

If a conclusion based on evidence is mere opinion then what claim of any type is not an opinion.

Simply that King David would fit the same description?

David was certainly sinful and readily admitted the fact. He was severely punished for his sins. The difference here is that all Christians admit David was sinful and wrong quite often, Muslims not only will not admit it, they claim Muhammad and David were sinless. One is true and the other is a lie and that is true to form for both. I however am consistent. I call David's sinful actions sinful. I also do not believe (but have to allow) that when Muhammad killed on instructions from Allah he theoretically could have been right. My point has always been and if you review this thread you will see is that in Muhammad's and his companions own words Muhammad killed without any instructions from Allah. I am consistent, Muslim's are not. I call X as X. Muslims call X as Y and there lies the problem. Review my posts for exhaustive research on what I have claimed.

Two quick examples:

1. What would have been Islam's first battle was called off because a third party resolved the issue and Muhammad was badly outnumbered. Now he either disobeyed Allah or Allah never ordered the attack. There is no possible right answer here. Muhammad was wrong either way.
2. The first actual battle was Badr. Muhammad's companion specifically asked if the attack was Allah's command or Muhammad's. Muhammad said it was his own. He was wrong. When David ordered Uriah killed he was wrong, and admitted it, suffered for it, and repented. Muhammad did not repent and Muslims do not admit the fault and that was only the first of many. I am consistent, Muhammad and Muslim's are not.

 

[1robin]

It can be subconscious wisdom/knowledge. You feel it in your bones. To grow from an experience doesn't take remembering every subtle detail even in this life. Where is the logic in demanding the perfect choice being made in one go around from a deity who made people flawed, corrupt, and logical, or at least capable of becoming so, to begin with.

If that was true then why were there more killings in the 20th century than in all the centuries before it combined. The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history.

God did not make people flawed, your Biblical doctrine is wrong. If one life is not enough to recognize we have gone terribly wrong so where in what way is an arbitrary number of lives we can't remember anything about enough? That is one bizarre rational. Exactly who is it that has reached this pinnacle of perfection anyway?

 

[1robin]

We are reincarnated. I personally know. Because i remember being born into this life. My SOUL remembers being born into this life. Not a past life...but i remember. We are reincarnated.

That is one of the most incoherent statements I have ever heard.

 

[1robin]

As for muhammad...he did what he thoilught was right at the time. Havent we all made mistakes we didnt know were mistakes at the moment we made a decision?? Yea.

Who in any universe would not recognize chopping off the heads of bound prisoners until we are exhausted was not wrong? What kind of psychopath strips a baby out of a women's arms so she can be stabbed to death for writing poetry unflattering to a supposed prophet?

 

[1robin]

Some people believe that we remember past lives we go to the spiritual realms after death. Some people can apparently remember past lives during their life.

That is not proven but let's pretend it is. At best that would account for 1 out of a hundred thousand people. Some system you got there? It fails 99,999 times out of 100,000.

 

[1robin]

Get to Know Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, from reliable sources first, then form an informed opinion:

About Muhammad - Reading Islam - OnIslam.net

Peace and Salam

Why should peace be granted to a man that stripped thousands of their own peace and even their lives?

 

[Sees]

If that was true then why were there more killings in the 20th century than in all the centuries before it combined. The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history.

God did not make people flawed, your Biblical doctrine is wrong. If one life is not enough to recognize we have gone terribly wrong so where in what way is an arbitrary number of lives we can't remember anything about enough? That is one bizarre rational. Exactly who is it that has reached this pinnacle of perfection anyway?

There were more killings/murders in the 20th century because of technology, a huge population, and many of the masses still being gullible to the preaching of politicians and religious leaders.... the ethical and moral understanding of mankind as a whole has risen.

2,000 - 3,000 years ago one of the good ole boys with authority saying, "GOD wills us to murder, rape, and gather plunder from our neighboring tribe...HE told me in a dream" - is much more likely to result in those actions being carried out than today.

Today we collectively realize how wrong slavery is among a host of other things that then even the "divine" couldn't figure out. Your average teenage has a higher moral code than the heroes of the Bible and a better understanding of how the world works.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your average teenage has a higher moral code than the heroes of the Bible and a better understanding of how the world works.

Indeed. But thankfully the Bible has been losing its authority over the years. I doubt many will take it too seriously or literally in another hundred years.

 

[Quagmire]

Why should peace be granted to a man that stripped thousands of their own peace and even their lives?

Man I wish cheap shots were against the rules.

 

[FearGod]

Why should peace be granted to a man that stripped thousands of their own peace and even their lives?

Prophet Mohammed had fought evil people and defensed the innocents but here is some real war crimes in history

Not less than 250000 civilians were killed in Japan by the nuclear bomb

50000 were killed in Samar island in the Philippines
" I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you kill and burn, the better it will please me... The interior of Samar must be made a howling wilderness...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_across_Samar#cite_note-nyt-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_across_Samar#cite_note-melshen-4 ”

— Gen. Jacob H. Smith​

reference: March across Samar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on several years of research, Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes:
Soon after the U.S. Marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children, and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the Marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight, and women who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another

Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed 400 sexual offences in Europe, including 126 rapes in England, between 1942 and 1945.[33] A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II.[34][35] It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and one historian has claimed that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common.

The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians, most of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on 16 March 1968. Some of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of Mỹ Lai and My Khe of Sơn Mỹ village during the Vietnam War.

Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture,[197][198] rape,[197] sodomy,[198] and homicide[199] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. These acts were committed by military police personnel of the United States Army together with additional US governmental agencies.[2

Reference : United States war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[psychoslice]

Indeed. But thankfully the Bible has been losing its authority over the years. I doubt many will take it too seriously or literally in another hundred years.

yes I feel the same way, I think it will be better for society on the whole.

 

[McBell]

Prophet Mohammed had fought evil people and defensed the innocents but here is some real war crimes in history

Not less than 250000 civilians were killed in Japan by the nuclear bomb

50000 were killed in Samar island in the Philippines
" I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you kill and burn, the better it will please me... The interior of Samar must be made a howling wilderness...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_across_Samar#cite_note-nyt-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_across_Samar#cite_note-melshen-4 ”

— Gen. Jacob H. Smith​

reference: March across Samar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on several years of research, Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes:
Soon after the U.S. Marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children, and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the Marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight, and women who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another

Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed 400 sexual offences in Europe, including 126 rapes in England, between 1942 and 1945.[33] A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II.[34][35] It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and one historian has claimed that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common.

The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians, most of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on 16 March 1968. Some of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of Mỹ Lai and My Khe of Sơn Mỹ village during the Vietnam War.

Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture,[197][198] rape,[197] sodomy,[198] and homicide[199] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. These acts were committed by military police personnel of the United States Army together with additional US governmental agencies.[2

Reference : United States war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are not only admitting that Mohammed did despicable things to others but are defending his despicable actions by pointing out the despicable actions of others?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not believe I ever equated the number that believe with proof. What I always say is when billions of people believe something it indicates the evidence is for it is substantial.

Um..in this very sentence above you have? You are claiming that if several people believe it then it is "evidence". This is not true. Ever.

I am lost here. My claim is that Muhammad would not be on the good end of any moral spectrum worth discussing and he is only relevant in the context of a prophet.

then we are done in this part of the debate.

If you can find a natural process that can draw a line between immoral people and moral people you will probably get the Nobel because no one so far has even come close. Pick a line anywhere you wish and it would be produced by arbitrary means.

Actually the have. Its never been a huge problem from the evolutionary viewpoint. Such a minor thing is not worth an award. We have known for over 100 years the basic way that it developed. [/quote]

That is completely wrong. I have posted approx. 100 stats and gave links to thousands. I am not doing so again. But I will say this.

1. More people have been killed by violence in the 20th century than all previous centuries combined.
2. Just from memory in the US school shootings are up.
3. Teen pregnancy is up.
4. The number of families with one parent homes are way up.
5. Drug use is up, shootings are up.
6. I think gambling debts are by 3000 percent or more.
7. Gang violence is up.
8. Home invasions are up.

1- Population difference more than makes up for that. Also there has been a huge disparity between how many we 'know" were killed and just educated guesses.

2- Yes they are. For explainable reasons might i had. Easy access to guns is another.

3-proportion wise? Nope. Back in the 1800's mothers were getting knocked up at 13-15 on average.

4- Yes. Not necessarily a bad thing. Women now have more economic independence so they are able to divorce without as much problems. Women are treated better this day in age than any in past. Rule of thumb gone and all.

5-I don't see how thats in any way connected to religious rates. (which by the way are higher than the founding of the US)

6- Less people on average actually gamble. However the economic crash might have something to do with this.

7- Source? Or is it just more highly reported.

8- Proportionally or total number?

You must tell me what part of Islam we are assuming is correct. BTW that is not what I said. I said you must assume God could exist and then see what that would mean. If we assumed that something certainly exists then there is no debate necessary. Do you want to posit Islam as a possibility and see what that would mean?

You have assumed that Christianity is correct and used that as evidence against Islam.

Hypotheticals like this are not relevant. The textual history shows that the Bible has no been corrupted. Of course there is no way to be perfectly certain but let me supply a few facts that make it almost certain.

Um...wat?

1. The Quran is one very suspicious man's word. The Bible is 40 plus men's words and most did not know each other.
2. The Bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized words in human history. The Quran is I think about 90,000 words that have been strictly controlled. If you do not recognize why this is so vital let me know.
3. The Bible was copied by independent people and extremely prolifically. The Quran was strictly controlled by a few people. For example Uthman created a Quran he liked and had every competing version burned.
4. The Bible's core events are attested to by multiple witnesses or from multiple witnesses contemporary to the events. The Quran where it conflicts with the Bible is one very suspicious man's word 500 years after the events.
5. The Quran has entire sections virtually word for word plagiarized from well known gnostic and heretical sources. The Bible never borrowed from anything.
6. The Quran contains known scientific, historical, and philosophical false claims. The Bible has never been show conclusively to have been wrong about anything outside it its well known less that 5% scribal error.

I simply cannot agree with literally any of this. The bible has never been mistranslated? Never been mistranslated? The translation to English had to be ratified by the Parliament! Also you have said repeatedly that the Bible has no flaws or at least allude that. That is not true. IT has been highly scrutinized and it has been left in the mud by many a people who have reviewed it. The total number of words mean nothing.

I can do this all day but have not the time. The point is there is no absolute certainty but those plus other factors would make it all but certain that the Bible is the more reliable by far. In fact it is the most reliable text in ancient history by far of any type.

Actually they are equally unreliable.

I think your missing something very important here. Islam (Muhammad) said to use the Bible as a judge to determine whether the Quran was from God. We know what the Bibles of his day contained. They still exist. Muhammad said the 7th century Bibles were to be used as a judge (would he have done that if he thought they were corrupt). However the Bible does not say the Quran is valid, it in fact condemns everything in it. I am not using a circular argument. I am not saying Jesus is right so Muhammad is wrong. I am saying that the evidence Jesus was right in every way that can be verified is light years ahead of the evidence Muhammad was right, but add on to that Muhammad said Jesus was right but no one in the 1800 years of the Bibles history even mentioned Muhammad. If you want to see who is right we can look into specifics but Muhammad validated the Bible's tests for prophet hood even though he was to ignorant to know they condemned him. I am using Islamic standards to condemn Islam.

I can use Christian standards to condemn Christianity.

NO he did not. Hitler's flirtations with Catholicism are well established to have been an effort to court their influence. The instant the church refused you can see Hitler's writings immediately turn on God and Christianity with a vengeance. What he provided that Germany drew hope from was a very strong national pride which they lost in WW1, and he happened to come to power when the economy turned around.

He didn't just "happen" to come to power. But my claim still stands.

I did not ask you whether you condemned him or not. I asked to if your condemnation had any ACTUAL justification or are you doing what most people do acting however you "feel" about things. A famous philosopher asked an atheist professor how he founded good and evil actions. The atheist responded with "by feelings, what else". The Christian responded by saying "Mr. X some culture love their neighbors based on feelings and some eat their neighbors based on feelings, do you have a preference".

I have already told you why. I have 100% of the claim power. If he kills me I have the ability to call it moral or immoral. Some may or may not agree with it. But it is a universal truth that I find it immoral. However there is no moral code in mass (as in a population) that eats people they care about. They do not find it immoral to eat other people because that falls outside their family dynamic. It falls outside the tribal "group".

It just occurred to me that this is provable. I said the worst of all immoral people are false prophets.

The reason that is true is that they can do actions just as bad as anyone, but they have the even worse attribute of claiming they are doing so on God's behalf. Non-prophets can't do that.

Well thats only if you assume that something bad done in the name of god is worse than not. Also the inverse. Can you make that point?

I think you missed the point.

My point as that prophets are either the best or worst of people.

Either Muhammad or Christ (if either was right) have sent billions to Hell. In what way can any non-profit have done anything worse? If neither was right then men in their name have killed tens of millions. In what way can any non-profit claim to have done worse.

My point is the same as Lewis's people claiming to be prophets are either madmen and lunatics and have doomed millions or they are the greatest conceivable good. I used Muhammad and Jesus as the archetype claimers to prophet hood as examples.

You must first provide evidence that something done in the name of god (good or bad) is worse than simply doing it for its own sake.

 

[1robin]

Indeed. But thankfully the Bible has been losing its authority over the years. I doubt many will take it too seriously or literally in another hundred years.

Where in the world do you guys get this stuff? Christianity adds a number of people every year that is equal to the population of Utah. Is a reality that only exists in your head a reliable place to live?

 

[McBell]

Where in the world do you guys get this stuff? Christianity adds a number of people every year that is equal to the population of Utah. Is a reality that only exists in your head a reliable place to live?

You seem to not be having any problems (outside of credibility) living in your own little world.

 

[YmirGF]

So you are not only admitting that Mohammed did despicable things to others but are defending his despicable actions by pointing out the despicable actions of others?

To be fair, the poor fellow doesn't have a lot to work with.

 

[FearGod]

To be fair, the poor fellow doesn't have a lot to work with.

To be Fair,your statement is ridiculous and a silly one and i did never find your opinions or views to be of any value the same exactly to the other guy silly comments.

What you bring here is what i may call a bull crap.