Was Muhammad a good man?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thats why i said you raised a good point,Yes i agree with you they aren't true Muslims as what they do has nothing to do with real Islam.

Ah. Sorry, I misread you. That's why I gave you a chance to explain.

 

[Maldini]

I live in a country that contains 70 million of that 2 billion, which btw is a bloated figure, and 95% of them are not devoted Muslims, and I'm sure 95 % of your 2 billion is not anymore devoted than 95% of chrisitans.

Secondly, there was a time when NO ONE thought that Earth is a globe. At least now lots of people don't believe in god.

Thirdly, even if your 2 billion figure is true, what about the other 5 billion? I'm sure you realize that 5 >2 .

If Allah's message is so true, how come he has not been able to make even half of the earth population Muslims?

 

[FearGod]

I live in a country that contains 70 million of that 2 billion, which btw is a bloated figure, and 95% of them are not devoted Muslims, and I'm sure 95 % of your 2 billion is not anymore devoted than 95% of chrisitans.

Secondly, there was a time when NO ONE thought that Earth is a globe. At least now lots of people don't believe in god.

Thirdly, even if your 2 billion figure is true, what about the other 5 billion? I'm sure you realize that 5 >2 .

If Allah's message is so true, how come he has not been able to make even half of the earth population Muslims?

This is as silly as your religion title is.

I think silly posts don't deserve any kind of reply.

 

[Maldini]

This is as silly as your religion title is.

I think silly posts don't deserve any kind of reply.

Silly why? Cause it made you realize your argument is silly?

It's silly, because it's a reply to a silly argument. It must be really awful to lose a silly argument.

And I have the same appreciation toward my religion title that you have to yours.

 

[FearGod]

Silly why? Cause it made you realize your argument is silly?

It's silly, because it's a reply to a silly argument. It must be really awful to lose a silly argument.

And I have the same appreciation toward my religion title that you have to yours.

Your argument is silly because you are assuming that God should make all the people of earth as Muslims if that was the right religion.

Your religion title as "my penis" is childish and silly,it is like saying i follow my penis which is indeed depressing.

 

[Maldini]

Your argument is silly because you are assuming that God should make all the people of earth as Muslims if that was the right religion.

Your religion title as "my penis" is childish and silly,it is like saying i follow my penis which is indeed depressing.

It's way less depressing than Islam.

You were the person who thought people who find Islam an awful religion are wrong since there are 2 billion people who follow Islam passionately.

Allah clearly stated in Quran that he only accepts Islam as a religion, so why his religion has not been able to satisfy even half of the wold? Is it because how god made them? God made more than half of people not believing in his true religion? So Is god actually hurting people on purpose? ( you see where I'm going with this? )

I ask any third party to be a judge and say which of our statements is more silly.

And I meant my argument to be silly, if I wanted to criticize Islam I'd have more advanced ways of doing it. Much better than the way you tried to defend Islam.

 

[FearGod]

It's way less depressing than Islam.

You were the person who thought people who find Islam an awful religion are wrong since there are 2 billion people who follow Islam passionately.

Allah clearly stated in Quran that he only accepts Islam as a religion, so why his religion has not been able to satisfy even half of the wold? Is it because how god made them? God made more than half of people not believing in his true religion? So Is god actually hurting people on purpose? ( you see where I'm going with this? )

I ask any third party to be a judge and say which of our statements is more silly.

And I meant my argument to be silly, if I wanted to criticize Islam I'd have more advanced ways of doing it. Much better than the way you tried to defend Islam.

i didn't say so,we were talking about the prophet.

re-read the previous posts as it seems that you did understand nothing of it.

 

[Maldini]

Over 2 billions on earth follow his message and respect him as a messenger.

Could you please tell me how many in this world know you ? and i wonder if even they care to know you.

This is obviously you validating Mohammad and his religion since 2 billion people are his followers.

Don't go back on your silly comment, unless you admit it was silly.

 

[FearGod]

This is obviously you validating Mohammad and his religion since 2 billion people are his followers.

Don't go back on your silly comment, unless you admit it was silly.

That wasn't even the issue.

 

[Maldini]

That wasn't even the issue.

If you didn't think that way, you wouldn't use this.

 

[icehorse]

Full disclosure, I didn't read all 198 pages of this thread

I wonder if anyone has brought up the "fatal flaw" argument? Ideas, objects, and people can all have "fatal flaws". An automobile that is 99.99% perfect except that occasionally the wheels fall off, is not a great car. It's got a fatal flaw.

It seems to me that Muslims set an extremely high bar for their prophet. He is held out as the ideal role model for all Muslims. As such, if he has even a few fatal flaws, he cannot be considered the ideal role model.

So all the arguments about Muhammad's good deeds fall in the face of even a few bad deeds.

 

[FearGod]

Full disclosure, I didn't read all 198 pages of this thread

I wonder if anyone has brought up the "fatal flaw" argument? Ideas, objects, and people can all have "fatal flaws". An automobile that is 99.99% perfect except that occasionally the wheels fall off, is not a great car. It's got a fatal flaw.

It seems to me that Muslims set an extremely high bar for their prophet. He is held out as the ideal role model for all Muslims. As such, if he has even a few fatal flaws, he cannot be considered the ideal role model.

So all the arguments about Muhammad's good deeds fall in the face of even a few bad deeds.

Don't you realize that we are talking about a person that lived before 1400 years ago,so what ever flaws you can bring for discussion,you can never able to prove it really happened,that tactic can be used for presidential elections.

 

[YmirGF]

Full disclosure, I didn't read all 198 pages of this thread

I wonder if anyone has brought up the "fatal flaw" argument? Ideas, objects, and people can all have "fatal flaws". An automobile that is 99.99% perfect except that occasionally the wheels fall off, is not a great car. It's got a fatal flaw.

It seems to me that Muslims set an extremely high bar for their prophet. He is held out as the ideal role model for all Muslims. As such, if he has even a few fatal flaws, he cannot be considered the ideal role model.

So all the arguments about Muhammad's good deeds fall in the face of even a few bad deeds.

The fatal flaw is that all too many Muslims see Islam as being "the perfect religion". If that is the case Islam cannot change and therein lies the fatal flaw.

In regards to Muhammad, this is why there is so much energy put into these peculiar "scientific miracles in the Qur'an" claims because when faced with reality, Muslims must literally warp the text of the Qur'an so that there is no contradiction. The problem with that is that scientific understanding, by nature, increases, whereas Islamic thought, by nature, ossifies.

 

[YmirGF]

Don't you realize that we are talking about a person that lived before 1400 years ago,so what ever flaws you can bring for discussion,you can never able to prove it really happened,that tactic can be used for presidential elections.

More to the point, Feargod, is that even when a valid wrinkle is brought up, Muslims very rapidly sweep the point under the rug in a vast array of fancy apologetic's dreamed up over the last 1400 years.

 

[FearGod]

More to the point, Feargod, is that even when a valid wrinkle is brought up, Muslims very rapidly sweep the point under the rug in a vast array of fancy apologetic's dreamed up over the last 1400 years.

I can't see a valid wrinkle,except if you accept stories to be a tangible evidence and for me it is silly evidence.

 

[YmirGF]

I can't see a valid wrinkle,except if you accept stories to be a tangible evidence and for me it is silly evidence.

My point, exactly.

 

[gnostic]

If you know the definition of "a Jew" then you will understand that a Jew refers to a people and not a nation.There was a nation called Judah and its citizens were called Jews.That nation Judah is no more in existenance because it vanished.
Secondly if you read your bible carefully.
genesis 12:1....."The Lord said to Abram, Go forth from your native land and from your father's house to the land that I will show you".
genesis 12:6,7
"Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land.
The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring, I will give this land.” So he built an altar there to the Lord, who had appeared to him.

I have asked you to read Genesis 17, which give a far more complete details on promises or COVENANT that god gave to Abraham and to his line (the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

Why do you continually ignore this chapter and remain fixated on Genesis 12:1-8? Is that all you will read? What are you afraid of?

I don't even believe in the story myself, and I am not afraid at looking genesis 12 & 17, and attempting to understand the texts as they are. I am not even Jewish, but I can see that you only selectively reading only what you want read, and refused to read or understand more.

Let's try this one more time.

You stated that the only land promised to Abraham was Shechem because of Genesis 12:6.

Canaan was a lot larger than Shechem itself, compromising much of the land (off Canaan) that the Israelites would later conquered and occupied, led by Joshua, after Moses' death. This is when Abraham's covenant was finally completed. (See Book of Joshua.)

But I am getting ahead of myself. This is what god said to Abraham about one of god's covenants in Genesis 17:

7 I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God.”

Do you not see?

It clearly state he will give "all the land of Canaan", not just Shechem, to Abraham's descendants, as COVENANT. No where does this chapter (Gen. 17) mentioned Shechem.

And when god say "offspring" in 17:7-8 (see in above quote, in red and bold - your offspring), he meant only one of them - Isaac. Although Ishmael does receive a blessing from god, god deny Ishmael this COVENANT.

Isaac was born yet, but that very day, god announced (or prophecied) Isaac coming conception and birth in the following year (Genesis 17:15-16 & 18:10). Abraham thought it wasn't possible for Sarah give birth to a son, 90 year of age, so Abraham told god, to give the COVENANT to Ishmael, but god said no, the COVENANT will go to Sarah's yet-to-born-son.

There is nothing special of Hagar giving birth to Ishmael, or Keturah giving birth to each of her children, because both women were younger and more fertile than Sarah. Sarah was approaching 90 and barren, before god announcing that she will give birth to a son. Wouldn't Sarah's pregnancy and Isaac's birth considered to be "miracles"? A birth of special "offspring", who will inherit his father's COVENANT.

18 And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!” 19 God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.

Clearly, Abraham's "offspring" is clearly referring to Isaac who will receive god's COVENANT, not Ishmael. God rejected Abraham's persuasion that Ishmael should be given the COVENANT (17:18).

And the COVENANT that will be made "for his offspring after him", meaning Isaac's offspring - Jacob - because "him" is "Isaac".

Lastly, to you and scimitar:

Israel itself was always referred to by God as the sons of Israel, meaning - the sons of Jacob, and their progeny.

"hear O Israel, the Lord God is ONE" - was God talking to a piece of prime real estate? or to a people?

The idea that Israel is a physically bordered piece of land is preposterous and bastardising the true biblical concept of it... modern day, a country called Israel exists - when in history it never did.

Jerusalem was part of a wider territory called Judah, which was a region placed within a country called Palestine - there was never an Israel.

Israel - the bordered and engineered nation of today, is the beast of the earth.

The Israelites were a nation when they left Egypt and wandered the wilderness for 40 years, just as much as they had conquered Canaan, and later ruled by 3 kings (Saul, David & Solomon) were a nation.

And here, they would be more than just 12 tribes, but a nation, with kings:

16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”

Clearly 17:8, Abraham's descendants - Israelites - will receive Canaan, and 17:16 showed that they will be nation with kings, even after the nation will split in two after Solomon's death. Because god gave the land to the Israelites, then yes, it is speaking of the people and to "prime real estate", because they are one.

 

[Ryujin]

The fatal flaw is that all too many Muslims see Islam as being "the perfect religion". If that is the case Islam cannot change and therein lies the fatal flaw.

In regards to Muhammad, this is why there is so much energy put into these peculiar "scientific miracles in the Qur'an" claims because when faced with reality, Muslims must literally warp the text of the Qur'an so that there is no contradiction. The problem with that is that scientific understanding, by nature, increases, whereas Islamic thought, by nature, ossifies.

Though I am not Muslim, I have to fundamentally disagree with your last sentence. For literal centuries, the Muslim world was, for the most part, the only place in the world that science and progress flourished and thrived. In fact, I would argue that the concept of scientific understanding as we know it, which is without being polluted by mysticism and guesswork where gaps in knowledge occur, was created by Muslims between 750 ad and the sacking of Bagdad. In fact, I think that the opposite of what you say would be true. I think that where Islamic thought goes, by nature, scientific understanding increases.

I do see what you're saying though. Historically, civilizations, which happen to be Islamic, are sometimes hindered by their unwillingness to evolve and adapt with the changing world. I'm just saying, it is important to afford Islamic thought the respect it deserves for all it has done for the world.

Furthermore, I think that it may not be fair to attribute this "Fatal flaw" as you call it to the religion itself. For example, Japan also had a very conservative religion once that could be accused of having this "Fatal flaw". Had a Meiji restoration-like event, that modernized and updated the culture and therefore the religion( since in both cultures at the time the religion and culture were inescapably tied together) for the modern world had happened in the Muslim world instead of Japan we would probably be able to level the same criticism at Shinto for not changing with the evolving world today. But it did evolve, proving that the issue was not tied to the religion, per say, but the culture. I believe that the same is true for critiques of Islam, that is to say, that any problems are more likely due to the local culture rather than the religious thought and philosophy.

 

[YmirGF]

Though I am not Muslim, I have to fundamentally disagree with your last sentence. For literal centuries, the Muslim world was, for the most part, the only place in the world that science and progress flourished and thrived. In fact, I would argue that the concept of scientific understanding as we know it, which is without being polluted by mysticism and guesswork where gaps in knowledge occur, was created by Muslims between 750 ad and the sacking of Bagdad. In fact, I think that the opposite of what you say would be true. I think that where Islamic thought goes, by nature, scientific understanding increases.

Given that the Siege of Baghdad was in 1258 you have unwittingly underscored my point about ossification, though I'd put the end of Islamic scientific influence a bit later with Isabella and Ferd's takeover of the Iberian Peninsula, formerly known as Andalus. From that point Islamic scientific efforts waned and have remained, to this day, virtually non-existent. 756 years is an awefully long time considering the explosion of the sciences since that period, in which, Muslims have had precious little direct involvement. Remember, the Ottoman Empire was on the rise back then, so theoretically this Islamic scientific achievement should have continued. It didn't.

I do see what you're saying though. Historically, civilizations, which happen to be Islamic, are sometimes hindered by their unwillingness to evolve and adapt with the changing world. I'm just saying, it is important to afford Islamic thought the respect it deserves for all it has done for the world.

That is not altogether true though. The important contributions from some brilliant Muslims is not quite the same as Islamic thought, in general, which is far more concerned with nitpicking religious interpretations.

Furthermore, I think that it may not be fair to attribute this "Fatal flaw" as you call it to the religion itself.

Why not? The gold standard of Islamic thought, The "Noble" Qur'an, states:

"This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."

Since Allah says that Islam is already perfect, what is there that CAN be changed? Who would seriously dare?

For example, Japan also had a very conservative religion once that could be accused of having this "Fatal flaw". Had a Meiji restoration-like event, that modernized and updated the culture and therefore the religion( since in both cultures at the time the religion and culture were inescapably tied together) for the modern world had happened in the Muslim world instead of Japan we would probably be able to level the same criticism at Shinto for not changing with the evolving world today. But it did evolve, proving that the issue was not tied to the religion, per say, but the culture.

But therein is the rub. Islam transcends cultures and it is a grave mistake to think of the Muslim world as a single culture. It isn't. If it was a localized phenomena, I'd be inclined to agree as your observation would be somewhat obvious.

I believe that the same is true for critiques of Islam, that is to say, that any problems are more likely due to the local culture rather than the religious thought and philosophy.

Forgive me, but this sounds almost like an appeal to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Ryujin]

Given that the Siege of Baghdad was in 1258 you have unwittingly underscored my point about ossification, though I'd put the end of Islamic scientific influence a bit later with Isabella and Ferd's takeover of the Iberian Peninsula, formerly known as Andalus. From that point Islamic scientific efforts waned and have remained, to this day, virtually non-existent. 756 years is an awefully long time considering the explosion of the sciences since that period, in which, Muslims have had precious little direct involvement. Remember, the Ottoman Empire was on the rise back then, so theoretically this Islamic scientific achievement should have continued. It didn't.

That is not altogether true though. The important contributions from some brilliant Muslims is not quite the same as Islamic thought, in general, which is far more concerned with nitpicking religious interpretations.

Why not? The gold standard of Islamic thought, The "Noble" Qur'an, states:

Since Allah says that Islam is already perfect, what is there that CAN be changed? Who would seriously dare?

But therein is the rub. Islam transcends cultures and it is a grave mistake to think of the Muslim world as a single culture. It isn't. If it was a localized phenomena, I'd be inclined to agree as your observation would be somewhat obvious.

Forgive me, but this sounds almost like an appeal to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Fair enough, I can accept that rebuttal.

One thing, though. You make a point that the Muslim world was not a single culture and so a Meiji restoration-like event wouldn't have worked, but it is important to remember that, though the Muslim world was never one unified culture, during the time period that the Meiji restoration happened in Japan much of the Muslim world had been united for centuries under the Caliphate. And much more of the Muslim world would still accept the teaching of the Caliph, even though they weren't directly ruled by him, similar to the pope's influence in the middle ages. I'm not saying that there would not have been resistence to such a major reform, indeed even in Japan there was numerous rebellions. They had lived as one country, united by their religion, because, as you say, Islam transcends culture. They could have still had a Meiji restoration-like event had it come from the caliph, I would argue.

Also, just to nitpick, to say that Al-Andalus still had scientific influence by the time of Isabella's takeover of the Iberian Peninsula would be a stretch, since it had declined terribly by that point.