Was Muhammad a good man?

[FearGod]

Let me explain something you do more than anyone I have ever debated or seen debate, anything, ever. It is called a dismissal of reality by death of a thousand qualifications. Apparently you have been at it so long and it is such a part of Islam you do not even realize you are doing it. It involves arbitrarily inserting qualifications into places they do not belong in order to restrict the possibility of having to admit inconvenient facts.

1. Instead of asking for evidence Muhammad killed women and children you ask for evidence it occurred in Spain (which was not mentioned). BTW Muhammad was not in Spain so it is irrelevant as well.

Because Muslims were following the teachings of the prophet,so was his teachings bad for Spain or the contrary

2. You use celebrations over the death of one of histories greatest mass murderes to contend with celebrations (far more and far larger) over the killing of innoscent people. What universe does that work in? He loved death and we gave him what he loved.

You didn't show any evidence that Muslims celebrated the death of the Americans.

MD Rabbi Alam chairs the National Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (NDPAAC), which is sponsored by the DNC. When interviewed by the Washington Free Beacon about his comments, Alam said this:

“My question was, ‘What’s the reason not a single Jew was killed on that day,’" Alam said, maintaining that his inquiries are based on facts, rather than a bias against Jewish people. "Was there a single Jew killed on that day?"

Reference : Missouri Democrat Says No Jews Died in 9/11 Attacks

[youtube]bVdAOmUduEQ[/youtube]
Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9 -11 - YouTube

3. You specify arbitrary dates for things that have no reason. You dismiss Islam's technological and scientific stagnation and futility in recent history with some untrue claims about the 7th century.

I mentioned the role of Islam in Spain and Europe during the Dark ages which is a fact

4. You use a peaceful verse (even though it was abrogated by many more violent verses) as a counter to the far more emphatic and numerous violent verses.

That is because of your ignorance about the actual meaning of the verses of the quran

5. You mistakenly apply definitions to weapons that do not belong based on inaccurate and irrelevant opinions.

Dirty is an English word which I can use to describe anything, i may call the dirty bomb(your terminology) as a smart bomb but that doesn't mean that I am talking about a guided bomb.

6. You misquote or misapply my claims to suite your agenda.

No I didn't and I have no agenda

7. You use far less scholarly historical resources but insist I should read history. This is ridiculous.

Such as your claim that Islam did nothing to Europe during the dark ages.:sarcastic

8. I have told you over and over I can't and should not watch utube, yet you post utubes over and over and over. Why can't you get this? I can only conclude your not reading my posts well at all.

Here I am reading and I said to you that it isn't man to man debate, all are welcome

This is not debate or argumentation, it is propaganda and cognitive dissonance. You are taking a lot of time and your bias renders any resolution impossible because you ignore or dismiss historical evidence as fast as I can supply it. please pick it up or I can't justify this much longer.

The truth hurts.:yes:
You can stop if you wish

 

[Sha'irullah]

I hope this argument has not muddled down to a "The Jews were behind 9/11" argument. That is by far one of the most evil and heartless conspiracy theories I have ever heard and only serves to provide more fuel for the "99% of Muslims are terrorists" hypothesis.

Jews do as much evil as everyone else. The issue though is that in this day of age Muslims and Western politicians are sharing slot 1 on the Dangers to Society list. Given enough time I am sure that Russia will be the next villain followed by England then followed by Canada(about time they became enemies for once).
Societal enemies come and go given to circumstances. There is no need on blasting one over the other in hopes in destroys the image of one group for the benefit of the maniacal one.

Almost all societies including Muslims and Jews have been a scourge upon humanity at one point int he past. America is a scourge as of now I may add. Maleficence is not a perpetual chain of events that last for eternity.

Muhammad was no different int his case as he to went through his cycles of evil and righteousness during his lifetime. He was a slaughter of sha'irah while simultaneously being one himself. Sort of ironic one could say. He brought death and he brought death and he brought peace based upon the fallacies of his actions and the very fact he was human.

 

[1robin]

Because Muslims were following the teachings of the prophet,so was his teachings bad for Spain or the contrary

If you want to know what Muhammad did you discuss Muhammad, not what his followers did. If I want to discuss Lenin I am not going to evaluate Stalin. Muhammad was not in Spain. The most peaceful Muslim's there are and the most despicable vile Muslim's to ever exist would both say they are following Muhammad and the other group is not.

You didn't show any evidence that Muslims celebrated the death of the Americans.

I had given up on your admitting anything historical that is not convenient by that time. It was on the news every single day for months. Let me ask you this if I provide very good evidence that Muslim's celebrated the death of innocent American's will you admit you are wrong? I am having trouble finding any reason to bother providing evidence for you. You do not care.

MD Rabbi Alam chairs the National Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (NDPAAC), which is sponsored by the DNC. When interviewed by the Washington Free Beacon about his comments, Alam said this:

“My question was, ‘What’s the reason not a single Jew was killed on that day,’" Alam said, maintaining that his inquiries are based on facts, rather than a bias against Jewish people. "Was there a single Jew killed on that day?"

Reference : Missouri Democrat Says No Jews Died in 9/11 Attacks

[youtube]bVdAOmUduEQ[/youtube]
Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9 -11 - YouTube

My Lord, your still u-tube videos as evidence. Do you ever read anything I post? Does anything said to you ever get through or make a difference.

I mentioned the role of Islam in Spain and Europe during the Dark ages which is a fact

There is some truth to it but it is an arbitrary claim that holds little merit on the whole. You can't arbitrarily pick specific bands of time and claim hat what occurred out weighs the rest of time. If you add up the science that Islam has done in totality and what Christian's have done in totality there is no comparison. Who gives a crap what occurred in a specific decade or two? Every list of histories greatest scientists and great breakthroughs is full of Jews and Christian and almost devoid of Muslim's. You are using an exception to deny the rule. Wherever Islam is practiced today as a state system includes some of the most backwards and primitive cultures on Earth. They use Russian and American technology because they have almost no technical capacity at all. They have one thing, oil money which is used to hire others to do most of the science.

That is because of your ignorance about the actual meaning of the verses of the quran

That is convenient, which I imagine why it is so often used by Muslim's. If anyone has an inconvenient understanding of the Quran (even if it is one shared by Muslim scholars) simply yell they are ignorant and punt. That is not an argument, it is a childish word fighting technique.

Dirty is an English word which I can use to describe anything, i may call the dirty bomb(your terminology) as a smart bomb but that doesn't mean that I am talking about a guided bomb.

You use of terms has nothing to do with what terms mean. You can say anything (apparently) and it could mean anything. I do not care how you wish to distort meanings and mangle a language. Debates take place on the common ground or proper terminology not what you warp words into meaning. Dirty bombs are actual things with very specific components. They are not what was dropped on Japan. If you can't admit a flaw as obvious as this one then that is evidence or a bias so blatant and an arrogance so absolute a debate is meaningless. You will defend anything no matter how wrong if it suites your narrative. BTW I am still not even going to dignify 9/11 conspiracies with discussion. They are the most pathetic arguments possible and do not deserve even acknowledgment.

No I didn't and I have no agenda

Yes you do. You are willing to defend improper use of terminology to further a narrative that is absolutely wrong. That is as bad as it gets. You must have some stubborn ideology that supersedes reality in order to do that.

Such as your claim that Islam did nothing to Europe during the dark ages.:sarcastic

What does tat even mean? I never said anything about what Islam did to Europe.

Here I am reading and I said to you that it isn't man to man debate, all are welcome

I have no idea what this means. Here you are reading what? You do not answer a question or statement from a person in a format they cannot access. If you wish to post u-tube videos as some kind of scholarship you can do that at any other time. This is as ridiculous as using my families opinions or books you cannot get where you live as arguments.

The truth hurts.:yes:
You can stop if you wish

It might hurt but that is irrelevant when you do not post any meaningful truth.

1. Your terminology is perfectly wrong and what is worse you cannot admit it.
2. U-tube is about the worst scholarship possible. Professional debates do not use u-tube, ever.
3. You use arbitrary exceptions in an attempt to deny a rule.
4. You use arbitrary time frames and locations that have no legitimacy as a response.
5. Your understanding of historical events is wrong far more than correct, and again what is far worse, you will not admit it.

If I was to select any argument I have ever been in that illustrated bias more obviously than any other. It would be one of yours. This stuff you use is textbook bias and an idealism that is determining your reality.

 

[1robin]

I hope this argument has not muddled down to a "The Jews were behind 9/11" argument. That is by far one of the most evil and heartless conspiracy theories I have ever heard and only serves to provide more fuel for the "99% of Muslims are terrorists" hypothesis.

Jews do as much evil as everyone else. The issue though is that in this day of age Muslims and Western politicians are sharing slot 1 on the Dangers to Society list. Given enough time I am sure that Russia will be the next villain followed by England then followed by Canada(about time they became enemies for once).
Societal enemies come and go given to circumstances. There is no need on blasting one over the other in hopes in destroys the image of one group for the benefit of the maniacal one.

Almost all societies including Muslims and Jews have been a scourge upon humanity at one point int he past. America is a scourge as of now I may add. Maleficence is not a perpetual chain of events that last for eternity.

Muhammad was no different int his case as he to went through his cycles of evil and righteousness during his lifetime. He was a slaughter of sha'irah while simultaneously being one himself. Sort of ironic one could say. He brought death and he brought death and he brought peace based upon the fallacies of his actions and the very fact he was human.

In the long sad history of distorted realities used to valid a preference, 9/11 conspiracies might be the worst of all.

 

[Sha'irullah]

In the long sad history of distorted realities used to valid a preference, 9/11 conspiracies might be the worst of all.

It is like the whole Bush 9/11 Conspiracy theory. I do not like Bush at all but I am not going to try and pin every negative act in American history on him, he is sort of an idiot to be honest. He reminds me of Barney Fife .

 

[1robin]

It is like the whole Bush 9/11 Conspiracy theory. I do not like Bush at all but I am not going to try and pin every negative act in American history on him, he is sort of an idiot to be honest. He reminds me of Barney Fife .

I cannot say how smart he is, but if he is an idiot he seems to be an honest and sincere idiot. I will take a well meaning buffoon over an dishonest genius any day. I would take either over what we have as a president currently. I agree with your reasoning concerning conspiracy theories used to justify some narrative. They are deplorable and indefensible and one of the greatest evils in history.

 

[littleoldme]

the opinion I have of this person is not listed...
we are applying our modern version of morality to a time where it was perfectly acceptable to stone people to death for being homosexual...

and to hold on to that set of morality for today is a form of anti social disorder
I'm just tired of the apologetics explaining away the fact that this tradition is dated and mundane...

isn't it time we question everything that has to do with claims that are unfalsifiable?

 

[Scimitar]

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum here. Been a casual observer for quite some time, but finally mustered up the will to join and make a post.

Since this thread is the one I've been reading most, I thought it would be fitting to start here.

First of all, as a comparative historian and someone who is studying eschatology, I've found the personage of Muhammad to be remarkable. In books highlighting the most influential people in history, the personage of Muhammad often comes 1st, leaving others trailing in second and third places...

...but who was Muhammad?

I suppose this thread opines on this question somewhat, but mostly I am reading the standard media induced mind conditioning from those who are trying their hardest to slander the personage of Muhammad by members here.

Do you think yourselves intelligent?

Have you picked up a book on the life of Muhammad not written by a non Muslim with an agenda? I hardly think so. I've read every book that was worth reading on the autobiography of Muhammad written by non Muslims, and so far the only one that I found myself placing into my prized booksehlf is the one written by Jewish Agnostic, Lezley Hazleton - and being a non Arabic speaking person I think she did a wonderful job it.

Past this, I have read the autobiography of Muhammad written by Muslim scholars and they were something to behold, in their arcane style of textual repetitiveness - but theres something more, something lost in the modern vernacular which the scholars - in their simplistic wisdoms - captured in their writings. There was essence, there was truth and there was context which painted a truer picture of the man behind the legend.

You've all mostly run with the media manipulated lamestream versions and think you have this as truth, when the truth is you are only regurgitating historically inaccurate facts about the man himself.

Of course, the Muslims here have (as usual) defended their position with much panache and have also maintained a high regard for Jesus - the man-god of Christianity.

personally, as someone who is sitting on the fence, I can tell you from my position it is clear to see who Jesus would call his followers in this debate. The Muslims and not the Christians.

The OP started the thread with a chip on his shoulder, with no desire to learn or exchange information - but instead to enter into a game of wits, where the tongue which strikes hardest wins? The hypocrisy of the OP is in the fact that Jesus never acted this way. he never provoked a situation, but Christians do it all the time.

The Muslims here are kind and God loving God fearing enough to once again humour your posts and respond with information and knowledge - which you Christians just ignore with the same old distraction tactic of "let's ask the Muslim another question shall we?"

And you think we causual observers on the internet do not notice?

You think we are clapping our hands and cheering you on?

are you really so self absorbed in your game of ego points that you've lost sight of your objective in this world?

I feel ashamed for you all.

 

[Orias]

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum here. Been a casual observer for quite some time, but finally mustered up the will to join and make a post.

Since this thread is the one I've been reading most, I thought it would be fitting to start here.

First of all, as a comparative historian and someone who is studying eschatology, I've found the personage of Muhammad to be remarkable. In books highlighting the most influential people in history, the personage of Muhammad often comes 1st, leaving others trailing in second and third places...

...but who was Muhammad?

I suppose this thread opines on this question somewhat, but mostly I am reading the standard media induced mind conditioning from those who are trying their hardest to slander the personage of Muhammad by members here.

Do you think yourselves intelligent?

Have you picked up a book on the life of Muhammad not written by a non Muslim with an agenda? I hardly think so. I've read every book that was worth reading on the autobiography of Muhammad written by non Muslims, and so far the only one that I found myself placing into my prized booksehlf is the one written by Jewish Agnostic, Lezley Hazleton - and being a non Arabic speaking person I think she did a wonderful job it.

Past this, I have read the autobiography of Muhammad written by Muslim scholars and they were something to behold, in their arcane style of textual repetitiveness - but theres something more, something lost in the modern vernacular which the scholars - in their simplistic wisdoms - captured in their writings. There was essence, there was truth and there was context which painted a truer picture of the man behind the legend.

You've all mostly run with the media manipulated lamestream versions and think you have this as truth, when the truth is you are only regurgitating historically inaccurate facts about the man himself.

Of course, the Muslims here have (as usual) defended their position with much panache and have also maintained a high regard for Jesus - the man-god of Christianity.

personally, as someone who is sitting on the fence, I can tell you from my position it is clear to see who Jesus would call his followers in this debate. The Muslims and not the Christians.

The OP started the thread with a chip on his shoulder, with no desire to learn or exchange information - but instead to enter into a game of wits, where the tongue which strikes hardest wins? The hypocrisy of the OP is in the fact that Jesus never acted this way. he never provoked a situation, but Christians do it all the time.

The Muslims here are kind and God loving God fearing enough to once again humour your posts and respond with information and knowledge - which you Christians just ignore with the same old distraction tactic of "let's ask the Muslim another question shall we?"

And you think we causual observers on the internet do not notice?

You think we are clapping our hands and cheering you on?

are you really so self absorbed in your game of ego points that you've lost sight of your objective in this world?

I feel ashamed for you all.

:clap

 

[Agnostic75]

Have you picked up a book on the life of Muhammad not written by a non Muslim with an agenda?

Here is something that was written by a Muslim.

Islam and Homosexuality

The Hadith and homosexuality: The Hadith are collections of sayings attributed to Muhammad. Many Hadiths (ahadith) discuss liwat (sexual intercourse between males). Two examples are:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."

"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)

There is at least one mention of lesbian behavior mentioned in the Hadith: "Sihaq (lesbian sexual activity) of women is zina (illegitimate sexual intercourse) among them."

Traditionalist orthodox Muslims generally claim that the Hadith literature contains the authentic sayings of Muhammad. Many liberal Muslims doubt their authenticity. The latter might point out that during the times of the first Caliphs, Muslims did not know what to do with individuals guilty of "liwat/lutiyya". No sahabi (companion) of Muhammad could quote a saying or decision of Muhammad relating to this question.

If traditionalist orthodox Muslims are right, what would your opinion be about that?

Civil unions are illegal in all predominantly Muslim countries, and some imprison homosexuals, or put them to death. Homosexuals are generally treated far better in Western countries than they are in predominantly Muslim countries.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

the opinion I have of this person is not listed...
we are applying our modern version of morality to a time where it was perfectly acceptable to stone people to death for being homosexual...

and to hold on to that set of morality for today is a form of anti social disorder
I'm just tired of the apologetics explaining away the fact that this tradition is dated and mundane...

isn't it time we question everything that has to do with claims that are unfalsifiable?

Actually, male homosexuality and pederasty in Arab culture has been widely practiced for centuries. There have been Arab poets who celebrated the beauty of boys. They had pretty much the same views on it as the Greeks and Romans did. It was fine for a guy to get it on with a teenage boy, but they were still expected to marry a woman and have kids. But they could get it on with a guy on the side. So they wouldn't have stoned a guy for having sex with another man. Male homosexuality is rife throughout the Arab world. There was an article on Vice about the widespread homosexuality in the Afghan military and how the American troops were shocked by it (so much for Americans being liberal Westerners).

All this homophobia in the Muslim world is largely a result of colonialism and attitudes inherited from the homophobic Christian Brits. The Brits enacted anti-gay laws wherever they colonized a country. That, and the Arab world doesn't so much reject male homosexuality per se but it's Western culture they reject. They don't believe in Western concepts of sexual orientation. Their views on it are a holdover from centuries ago, again stretching back to the Greeks and Romans. So they reject gay culture.

They may even try to deny the rate of homosexuality in their cultures, but it's an open secret. What else do you expect from a culture that mandates the segregation of the sexes? Adultery can get you killed so it makes sense for a young guy to relieve his sexual frustrations with his buddies.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Where is the both option?

 

[Scimitar]

Here is something that was written by a Muslim.

Islam and Homosexuality



If traditionalist orthodox Muslims are right, what would your opinion be about that?

Civil unions are illegal in all predominantly Muslim countries, and some imprison homosexuals, or put them to death. Homosexuals are generally treated far better in Western countries than they are in predominantly Muslim countries.

First of all, let me greet you with the Hebrew greeting of Shalom Alakum, and secondly with the Arabic greeting of Assalaam Alaikum - both mean "may the peace and blessing of God be upon you".

You posed a very important question.

First of all, since this question is about the Islamic stance on homosexuality, let us first investigate what the Quran says regarding this:

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

"What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165

This shows us that homosexuality is a sin according to God. These verses is also apply to women who are lesbian.

The idea is that God created male and female to procreate - not to enjoy each others bodies for the sake of sexual gratification.

Thus, we find in the Quran, verses which also warn us of fornication and adultery.

From my understanding, the punishment for fornication, adultery, homosexuality and lesbian activity is a stoning - however, in order for such to take place requires evidence. And evidence in shariah court is harder to produce than any other law system in the world - this itself is a little known fact.

I happen to know something of shariah law, as I've studied it. In this instance (proving that someone or a couple are guilty of homosexuality/lesbianism/fornication or adultery) requires 4 eye witnesses.

let me amphasise that again.

4 EYE WITNESSES.

And this is where it gets even harder to prove - all 4 eye witnesses have to witness penetration, meaning a penis has to be inserted into a vagina and witnessed by four onlookers who do not approve and are going to tell on you...

...do you see how problematic proving this can be?

Now, there was one instance when a Muslim woman who was alive during the time of the prophet had committed fornication and repented to God but still couldn't alleviate her sense of guilt. So what she did was go to the prophet muhammad best friend Abu Bakr (who became the first khaliph) and confessed. Abu Bakr replied "who else have you told about this?"

she replied "no one"

Abu Bakr replied "good, tell no one and make your repentance"

she then went away, and after some time, approached Omar, a close companion of the prophet and confessed. Omar replied "who else have you told?"

she replied "Abu Bakr"

Omar questioned "and what did he say?"

she replied "he told me not to tell anyone"

Omar: "then why are you telling me?"

In Islam, if you sin and repent and your sin is safe from the general public, it is generally believed that Allah has shielded your sin so do not make it known.

However, in the case of this woman, her guilt was too much and she wanted "hadd" punishment 9in this case by stoning) so she won't be punished in the hereafter.

So what did she do?

She went to the prophet Muhammad and confessed. the Prophet asked her if she was with child, she confirmed that she was. The prophet then told her to give birth to the child and suckle him until the child was off the weaning period and then to return by herself if she could tear herself away from motherhood.

The prophet was giving her a chance to live, and make right.

She went away, gave birth some months later and then suckled the child for 2 years... after which, she returned... she actually returned. No party was sent out looking for her, yet she returned to the prophet in order to receive the punishment.

the Prophet was having his hand forced here, I mean, he'd clearly given the woman a chance at freedom - but she returned for punishment according to the law.

So a pit was dug, and clear rules were set on how to stone. And one rule which no one ever mentions when it comes to the stoning - I will mention here:

If the person who is being stoned in the pit, climbs out of the pit off their own volition, then stoning has to stop.

She died in that pit, and didn't even attempt to climb out.

The Prophet said regarding the woman who was stoned to death: "She has repented such a repentance that, were it to be divided among seventy of Madina’s residents it would cover them. Have you seen a better repentance than her giving away herself for Allah."

The idea behind the harsh and severe punishment does not contradict with the spirit of Islam, actually it serves as a deterrent to the society. It protects a person’s family, lineage, and spread of moral decadence and diseases in society. When people realise the graveness of the sin, and that its punishment is most humiliating and painful, very few of them would dare to approach it.

The main and fundamental difference between modern western law and islamic shariah is this:

western law: curative measures
shariah law: preventative measures

You've all heard the saying "prevention is better than cure".

yet, when we apply it to a system that can govern the rules of society suddenly its seen as draconian, outdated, and barbaric... yet the stats don't lie.

The countries which have shariah law implemented in them, have some of the lowest crime stats in the world.

In stark contrast, in the west you find jails called "correctional facilities" where the only real thing that gets corrected is the criminals idea of how become a better career criminal - whilst draining tax money on their upkeep.

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

Mossi

 

[1robin]

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum here. Been a casual observer for quite some time, but finally mustered up the will to join and make a post.

Since this thread is the one I've been reading most, I thought it would be fitting to start here.

First of all, as a comparative historian and someone who is studying eschatology, I've found the personage of Muhammad to be remarkable. In books highlighting the most influential people in history, the personage of Muhammad often comes 1st, leaving others trailing in second and third places...

Welcome to the forum. As I have posted quite a bit in this thread I thought I should reply to you.

I have no problem with Muhammad being considered an influential person. Most lists I see have him second but he certainly belongs in the top 5. However discussing him on a secular basis like influence is not really relevant in a theological; forum. Since he claimed to be a prophet it is in that context he must be judged. I am afraid he fails miserably but will await your response before I get detailed as to why.

...but who was Muhammad?

I suppose this thread opines on this question somewhat, but mostly I am reading the standard media induced mind conditioning from those who are trying their hardest to slander the personage of Muhammad by members here.

Oh no. I see you are an anyone who disagrees with the Islamic Muhammad (even if they use overwhelming Islamic sources) must be brain washed or biased. I hope I am wrong.

Do you think yourselves intelligent?

Have you picked up a book on the life of Muhammad not written by a non Muslim with an agenda? I hardly think so. I've read every book that was worth reading on the autobiography of Muhammad written by non Muslims, and so far the only one that I found myself placing into my prized booksehlf is the one written by Jewish Agnostic, Lezley Hazleton - and being a non Arabic speaking person I think she did a wonderful job it.

if you review my comments about Muhammad my sources were almost always Islamic and accepted. I have absolutely no responsibility to only use those sources Islam deems acceptable. That in its self is evidence of what you complain about. I have found however I could make the same case against Muhammad as I have done so for years and only use Islamic sources.

Past this, I have read the autobiography of Muhammad written by Muslim scholars and they were something to behold, in their arcane style of textual repetitiveness - but theres something more, something lost in the modern vernacular which the scholars - in their simplistic wisdoms - captured in their writings. There was essence, there was truth and there was context which painted a truer picture of the man behind the legend.

I will tell you another truth. Islam's first dozen years were peaceful. Muhammad had maybe 250 converts. It's next dozen years were bloody. He was given command of troops and he robbed caravans, exacted vengeance on those that had rejected him, and killed his enemies whether a threat or not. In this period he had wealth, power, and vengeance to offer his converts soured to 100,000. Another truth: Christianity exploded in far more persecution for far longer. It required no brutality, revenge, or caravan loot in it's early years to convert astronomical numbers. That is a simple statement of fact. No favorite scholars, no special book shelves, just history.

You've all mostly run with the media manipulated lamestream versions and think you have this as truth, when the truth is you are only regurgitating historically inaccurate facts about the man himself.

Well I thought you were going to make a point somewhere but this is simply propaganda or just your venting and not an argument at all. If you want to discuss evidence and historicity let me know. Your ranting against anyone who holds a view that contradicts your narrative is not of interest to me.

 

[1robin]

Here is something that was written by a Muslim.

Islam and Homosexuality



If traditionalist orthodox Muslims are right, what would your opinion be about that?

Civil unions are illegal in all predominantly Muslim countries, and some imprison homosexuals, or put them to death. Homosexuals are generally treated far better in Western countries than they are in predominantly Muslim countries.

This ought to be good. A person who is the most prolific and relentless supporter of homosexuality in my experience against a person who represents one of the most intolerant groups towards homosexuality on earth. Mutually assured exasperation. I am not joking. This ought to be interesting.

 

[Scimitar]

Welcome to the forum. As I have posted quite a bit in this thread I thought I should reply to you.

thank you, I appreciate the time and effort you took to do this.

I have no problem with Muhammad being considered an influential person. Most lists I see have him second but he certainly belongs in the top 5. However discussing him on a secular basis like influence is not really relevant in a theological; forum. Since he claimed to be a prophet it is in that context he must be judged. I am afraid he fails miserably but will await your response before I get detailed as to why.

What standard do you use to measure whether a prophet was successful or not? please explain. Thank you.

Oh no. I see you are an anyone who disagrees with the Islamic Muhammad (even if they use overwhelming Islamic sources) must be brain washed or biased. I hope I am wrong.

Yes, you are wrong I apologise if you thought I was a high string Muslim. I'm actually very well versed in comparative theology. Thus, it does get my goat when i see key theological concept misrepresented by people who think theyb know something because they read a translation of a book and didn't read the commentary in order to understand the contexts.

I have a sneaky suspicion that you've done this too?

if you review my comments about Muhammad my sources were almost always Islamic and accepted. I have absolutely no responsibility to only use those sources Islam deems acceptable. That in its self is evidence of what you complain about. I have found however I could make the same case against Muhammad as I have done so for years and only use Islamic sources.

You may have used Islamic sources, but not context - and believe me when i tell you this, a lot of the works of Islam, still need to be translated into other languages. I'm fortunate enough to live in a very multi-cultural city and can have Arabic texts read to me. And thought I am learning Aramaic and Arabic alongside each other, I am nowhere near proficient in these languages.

I have understood these contexts because I had picked apart the same quotations you have posted in this thread and returned them to an imam/mufti of Islam and he sat me down with patience and spent time giving me the correct contexts - these took weeks, but weeks I invested because I wanted to know.

That was over 5 years ago.

Today, I am pleased to inform you that some of these collections have been translated into the English now, and one you should read is called "Tafsir Ibn Kathir" - it is the commentary and context of the Quranic verses by one of the most proficient scholars of islamic antiquity. I bought the collection, it set me back £90. Worth every penny. I'm so absorbed in it lol. It's truly a fascinating work.

I will tell you another truth. Islam's first dozen years were peaceful. Muhammad had maybe 250 converts. It's next dozen years were bloody.

Ah yes, you've explained the Makkanite period and the Madinite period, post migration.

He was given command of troops and he robbed caravans, exacted vengeance on those that had rejected him, and killed his enemies whether a threat or not. In this period he had wealth, power, and vengeance to offer his converts soured to 100,000. Another truth: Christianity exploded in far more persecution for far longer. It required no brutality, revenge, or caravan loot in it's early years to convert astronomical numbers. That is a simple statement of fact. No favorite scholars, no special book shelves, just history.

You do realise that the Muslims were exiled out of Makkah and were in the desert for 2 years, dying of hunger and thirst. Their properties and assets were shared out amongst the inhabitants of Makkah (polytheists) and thus, you will find the following verses in the Quran where God commands the Muslims to fight - even if they do not like to fight.

The Caravan raids refer to a series of raids which Muhammad and his companions participated in and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh. The raids were intended to weaken the economic and in turn the offensive capabilities of Mecca by Muhammad. However many of the early converts, who were from the Quraish saw this as means of vengeance against the persecution they endured in Mecca but more so, the Meccans had sold Muslim property (which they left behind after Hijra) and invested it on their caravans. In Medina's opinion, this was against Arab custom. The Muslims felt that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' persecution of Muslims.

This was the verse revealed to Muhammad by Gabriel the angel on account of God commanding gabriel to do so:

Quran 22:39–40.
"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will)." and also in sura Quran 2:190
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

And the context paints it clear that they are taking back what was theirs, on God command.

Even the bible teaches "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" - in the above verses, we find both themes in context.

You misrepresented the idea of Jihaad there. The very word Jihaad means to struggle, and when you ask a Muslim if he is in Jihaad, they usually answer "all the time, with myself" - they struggle to become better human beings - so they can be loved by God.

Well I thought you were going to make a point somewhere but this is simply propaganda or just your venting and not an argument at all. If you want to discuss evidence and historicity let me know. Your ranting against anyone who holds a view that contradicts your narrative is not of interest to me.

Well, I can understand that, so let's open a dialogue, yes?

Mossi

 

[Scimitar]

I wonder if you've seen the dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders and Arnood Van Doorn film which more or less regurgitates your stance on Islam? It went and got one heck of a reaction from the Muslims - they absolutely hated this video

Here it is:

*WARNING - contains scenes of violence which may be unsuitable for younger viewers*
[youtube]kIKCgRlwQUA[/youtube]

Do you agree with what's been implied in this video?

 

[1robin]

thank you, I appreciate the time and effort you took to do this.

You bet.

What standard do you use to measure whether a prophet was successful or not? please explain. Thank you.

His representation of God. Predictions that came true in every detail. Moral exceptionalism (I must have a liberal understanding that a man who serves God may be ordered to kill, etc but I see no evidence Muhammad got any divine order, he even said he didn't at Badr for example). The consistency of that prophet with all the other actual prophets. The credibility of his being called. Etc......

Yes, you are wrong I apologise if you thought I was a high string Muslim. I'm actually very well versed in comparative theology. Thus, it does get my goat when i see key theological concept misrepresented by people who think theyb know something because they read a translation of a book and didn't read the commentary in order to understand the contexts.

I will bring your knowledge of religion to the fore in a minute.

I have a sneaky suspicion that you've done this too?

Of course I know when preference is driving content. That is why I used Islamic sources so much. It is Islam's claims that drive mine.

You may have used Islamic sources, but not context - and believe me when i tell you this, a lot of the works of Islam, still need to be translated into other languages. I'm fortunate enough to live in a very multi-cultural city and can have Arabic texts read to me. And thought I am learning Aramaic and Arabic alongside each other, I am nowhere near proficient in these languages.

I have not debated in this thread for a while. It will take me a minute to catch up. However exactly what context is needed to see that when Muhammad's companion was asked before the battle of Badr whether Allah had ordered this or only Muhammad, Muhammad said the latter. It is because of the context that Muhammad's description matches up perfectly with biblical descriptions of demon possession concerning at least his initial revelation. Islam's histories are full of strange animal noises, shaking, foaming at the mouth of Muhammad. It was Muhammad's conclusion not mine that he was initially demon possessed. It was the Quran not my text that contains word for word stories out of known gnostic and pagan texts.

Anyway I propose we discuss what I think was the main issue in my posts. Muhammad's war record. Was it defensive, divine, or tyrannical? Is that a deal?

I have understood these contexts because I had picked apart the same quotations you have posted in this thread and returned them to an imam/mufti of Islam and he sat me down with patience and spent time giving me the correct contexts - these took weeks, but weeks I invested because I wanted to know.

How on earth could any single or even a dozen imam's know some secret historical contexts to the wide and varying range of all the claims I made? No man in history could possibly know all that.

That was over 5 years ago.

Today, I am pleased to inform you that some of these collections have been translated into the English now, and one you should read is called "Tafsir Ibn Kathir" - it is the commentary and context of the Quranic verses by one of the most proficient scholars of islamic antiquity. I bought the collection, it set me back £90. Worth every penny. I'm so absorbed in it lol. It's truly a fascinating work.

We can get to any reference work you want once a specific subject is determined.


Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Ah yes, you've explained the Makkanite period and the Madinite period, post migration.

Ok.

You do realise that the Muslims were exiled out of Makkah and were in the desert for 2 years, dying of hunger and thirst. Their properties and assets were shared out amongst the inhabitants of Makkah (polytheists) and thus, you will find the following verses in the Quran where God commands the Muslims to fight - even if they do not like to fight.

Are you suggesting Allah is vindictive? Did Christ get off the cross and call down those legions of angels or do what men normally do not do and take it. Muhammad does exactly what most men would do and takes revenge. There is nothing extraordinary or prophetic about that.

Saying this I am well aware my prophets killed as well. The entire difference will be in why they did so and that is where the issue will hang. As you say context and detail is where it will be resolved. I think it is all on my prophets side and not Muhammad's but that is what the debate will show.

The Caravan raids refer to a series of raids which Muhammad and his companions participated in and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh. The raids were intended to weaken the economic and in turn the offensive capabilities of Mecca by Muhammad. However many of the early converts, who were from the Quraish saw this as means of vengeance against the persecution they endured in Mecca but more so, the Meccans had sold Muslim property (which they left behind after Hijra) and invested it on their caravans. In Medina's opinion, this was against Arab custom. The Muslims felt that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' persecution of Muslims.

This should sum it up. Muhammad's companion recommended they assault caravans in general for two reasons, before a single one was robbed. Because the Arabs had made it a long standing tradition and that particular year the caravans were expected to be rich. It was only much later laid on Allah's table and some justification was invented.

This was the verse revealed to Muhammad by Gabriel the angel on account of God commanding gabriel to do so:

Quran 22:39–40.
"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will)." and also in sura Quran 2:190
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors."

That verse conveniently showed up after the first caravans were looted. WE will get into this in detail but I want to make one more point. According to Islam's story of Muhammad in the cave an angel who every single time he appears in the bible identifies himself and calms all fears, squeezing the life out of Muhammad. islams angels look like the bibles demons in every detail. Read what Muhammad did during revelations and compare that with the symptoms of the boy who Christ cast the demon out of. They are identical. You may think it was Gabriel in that cave, the evidence suggests it was not.

And the context paints it clear that they are taking back what was theirs, on God command.

The goods they often took back were never theirs to begin with. Your giving me the old Islamic excuse for what Muhammad did. I will be very generous and say maybe at times that is what he was doing. That is certainly not going to explain everything he did just concerning caravans alone. Badr was the first caravan raid but it was not supposed to be. Muhammad set out with a few bandits he knew to attack another caravan before this. Keep in mind you claim Allah was behind this. He figured out he was outnumbered so bad that even popping from an ambush was not enough. In the meantime a third party talked each side into withdrawing. Now did Muhammad fail to do as Allah asked as you say above, or did he set out to do as he wished and changed his mind? I can invent stories from a supposed God to excuse my sins but the issue is whether history bears that claim out. I claim it does not.

Even the bible teaches "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" - in the above verses, we find both themes in context.

That is right. The other applied to civil law after a trial and only guaranteed justice in clear cases of wrong. It was not used to kill poets, take caravans that had nothing of Muhammad's, behead prisoners by the hundreds, or invade other lands. It no longer applies to anyone anywhere. Unlike Islam there are no open ended calls for generalized violence. There are very specific instructions about a specific people or act and any violence outside that made the Jews may a heavy price. There are even stories of Muhammad's companions hearing him bad mouth a person. They took it entirely upon themselves to kill that person then when told about it Muhammad retroactively said Allah desired it. One is a regrettable necessity with a sinful people and a righteous God. The latter is what I expect of a tyrant who wants to justify his acts by divine decree.

You misrepresented the idea of Jihaad there. The very word Jihaad means to struggle, and when you ask a Muslim if he is in Jihaad, they usually answer "all the time, with myself" - they struggle to become better human beings - so they can be loved by God.

I did not mention Jihad. I mentioned Muhammad's all to human motivations for his acts. Early acts which your verses were latter written to justify. The meaning of Jihad appears to be ambiguous but it's most common usage is war against unbelievers and I believe it pre-exists Islam.

Well, I can understand that, so let's open a dialogue, yes?

Mossi

Very well. I posted some specific areas to discuss. Please chose from them or pick your own. I prefer in-depth specific discussions over generalized commentary. If you instead wish me to begin just let me know. Again welcome.

 

[1robin]

I wonder if you've seen the dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders and Arnood Van Doorn film which more or less regurgitates your stance on Islam? It went and got one heck of a reaction from the Muslims - they absolutely hated this video

Here it is:

*WARNING - contains scenes of violence which may be unsuitable for younger viewers*
[youtube]kIKCgRlwQUA[/youtube]

Do you agree with what's been implied in this video?

If your talking to me, I have never heard of anyone or any film you mentioned. I can't watch utube on my DOD server. Sorry.

I am sure I would not agree to any sensationalistic representation of Islam. I think the truth of Islam is in the center. It is not from any God worthy of the name, nor is it the greatest evil in history. It is probably the sincere claims and delusions of a semi-tyrannical military leader who used earlier and known faulty theological texts to construct a faulty but not wholly devoid of truth theological system for his own interests.