Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

I request all muslims not to respond to the Op until he learns to ask questions before making conclusions.

O and R0bin you have no right to talk open the old-testament.

FOuad this drive by commentary is beneath you especially since you did not read enough to notice I included all their acts of violence in my claims. I spent quite a few lines commenting on them. We do not believe they were sinless and so have no problem, you do claim it and so it is a problem for you on many levels and in many ways.

 

[1robin]

Polygamy is not wrong in the 3 abrahamic religions. ChriJuda's bible tells that marry infinite. In islam, marry 4 or just one.

Why do you say this? The Bible records many things that happened that God was not happy about. God made one women for one man from the very start. Abrahams womanizing has cost the world quite enough problems. God tolerated divorce and slavery but hates them both, polygamy is either this case or an outright sin punished by God in the Bible.

 

[F0uad]

FOuad this drive by commentary is beneath you especially since you did not read enough to notice I included all their acts of violence in my claims. I spent quite a few lines commenting on them. We do not believe they were sinless and so have no problem, you do claim it and so it is a problem for you on many levels and in many ways.

Nor did we say that Mohammed(saws) was sinless but those wars and things you mentioned have a context so its pretty easy to quote a website while you haven't researched a single quotation that you posted.

 

[WyattDerp]

Nor did we say that Mohammed(saws) was sinless

Muhammad is not just a good man. He is a prophet. And all of the prophets are sinless.

Didn't see anyone correct that, either, so..

 

[dynavert2012]

Just to know how great was Mohamed from some orientalists writings
[youtube]3NDiBna86Kc[/youtube]
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) character.mp4 - YouTube

if you want to know about prophet Mohamed just read his biography and don't let other form your opinion on behalf of you

 

[YmirGF]

Just to know how great was Mohamed from some orientalists writings

if you want to know about prophet Mohamed just read his biography and don't let other form your opinion on behalf of you

I've already read several biographies on your prophet. But I do agree, people should learn about this man and what he taught. What he taught wasn't exactly good news for non-Muslims.

That said it is always amusing how many Muslims will shake their fists at the very same orientalists when they were highly critical of Islam and Muhammad, but don't mind cherry-picking the good things they had to say.

 

[dynavert2012]

I've already read several biographies on your prophet.

do you remember the authors?
[/QUOTE]
What he taught wasn't exactly good news for non-Muslims.[/QUOTE]

for example?

 

[Kerr]

I did not vote. This is one poster (the one who published the poll) that I shall say publicly, unless he changes his tune, he will be out too, sooner or later. I'm not out yet. Is it obvious I am not one who decides? I am not one who decides such things. Thank God for that!

I didnt vote either. Dont know enough about Muhammad to do so. Nor do I see a point to call him an evil and horrible man (assuming he was), mainly because he lived over 1000 years ago.

 

[FearGod]

Yes the prophet PBUH was a fighter
Yes the prophet PBUH was a hero
Yes the prophet PBUH was brave

He fought the theives
He fought the oppressors
He fought the barbarians
He fought the ********

Who is fighting him now while he is absent,the cowards is fighting him.
Who is fighting him now,the theives in this world
Who is fighting him now,the oppressors in this world
Who is fighting him now,the barbarians in this world
Who is fighting him now,the ******** in this world

They wanted the theif to be free to steal the poor,because they are theives.
They wanted the murderer to be free,because they are murderers
They wanted the ******** to control poor people,because they are ********
They wanted the barbarians to be free in order for the stronger to kill the weaker,because they are the barbarians.

That is what they wanted,a world with atheism,the rich,the oppressors and the barbarians to control this world.

Islamophia,yes you have to fight ISLAM,because the thieves,barbarians and oppressors wanted to keep on fooling people to steal their wealth and employ women as prostitutes or models and if respected job then with low wages than men.


The story of Heroes
[youtube]sw8fHo24U3E[/youtube]
THE BEST ROLE MODEL - MUHAMMAD [P.B.U.H]

 

[Kerr]

That is what they wanted,a world with atheism,the rich,the oppressors and the barbarians to control this world.

An off topic comment, but that has nothing to do with atheism . I for one dont want a world ruled by social darwinism and tyranny, and I am an atheist.

 

[Pegg]

Muhammad is not just a good man. He is a prophet. And all of the prophets are sinless. Muhammad has 99 beautiful names.

if he is sinless, why did he die?

A sinless man has no need to die, Why?

Because it is sin that kills mankind.

 

[dynavert2012]

if he is sinless, why did he die?

A sinless man has no need to die, Why?

Because it is sin that kills mankind.

don't you believe that Jesus died? was he sinful?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Not between a God who demands absolute mono theism and pagan practices. That is about the worst possible inconsistency imaginable. BTW the point is what is more consistent with a man adopting paganistic ceremonies for monotheism. Is it God or a man who is borrowing whatever he wants to invent a religion?

You're looking at it like it's an 'either/or' dichotomy. I don't think it's quite so simplistic. It's quite possible, under the current topic, that the pagans had figured some things out for themselves, through whatever means.

If you are talking about the writing of the Church fathers that is not from God. Only the Bible is from God not the words of Christians. Christians have said an endless amount of things that are not true.

I'd say I agree, but it would be obvious that my reason for doing so would be considered biased.

Wel if you claim X telling what isn't X is not evidence. I claimed X and supplied a small portion of the undeniable evidence for it.

Many would say that many of the myths of the Egyptians were incorporated into Christianity. While this may or may not be true, I think there is a better example, and that's the myths of Mithras. Another I would say would be Apollonius of Tyana.

No, Christianity is the second covenant within the same religion as Judaism being the first covenant.

That's highly debatable, and I'm sure there's already threads here on this topic.

I could have understood this if it wasn't from a person who said Christianity was borrowed from paganism. Let's just admit you can't back that claim up

Actually, I said I didn't want to dredge up things that you probably have already looked into, not that I couldn't, so I said pretty much this:

and move you sound nice and I do not want to make a bigger issue out of it.

Agreed.

 

[Maija]

Sorry, don't have time to put this into my own words, rushing to get ready for work (TGIF...or TAIF...jk it's ALL the same ) These words say it best:

Muhammad's religious career is often divided into two periods: the Meccan Period which lasted for thirteen years, from the start of his revelations to his emigration to Medina; and the Medinan period, which lasted the remaining ten years of his life.

The Meccan Period is characterized by the more elliptical and otherworldly portions of the Qur'an, and by the story of the rejected and persecuted prophet. Had the assassination plot against him in 621 succeeded, his religious career would have been similar in broad outline to that of Jesus.

However, Muhammad escaped the trap set for him and went to live in the oasis of Medina. There he evolved from the charismatic head of a small group to the political and spiritual director of a large community. For the first time he had to wrestle with the challenges of creating a new society. The Qur'an continued to be revealed to him, but the focus of the message broadened now from the purely spiritual to include the more temporal issues of community building, lawmaking, and social institutions. Muhammad also came under formal military attack for the first time in Medina. Consequently, the Qur'an and Muhammad's teaching also focused on delineating the concept of the just war. Formal permission to fight is first applied in the Medinan Period:
"They will question you concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: 'Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar people from God's way, to disbelieve in Him and the Holy Mosque and to expel its people from it - that is more heinous in God's sight; and persecution is more heinous than fighting." (Qur'an 2:217)
Through most of the Medina period, the Muslim community was in mortal danger and surviving in a defensive mode. Between 624 and 627 especially, the Muslim community was often quite literally fighting for its life. It is no accident that the concepts of jihad and martyrdom were developed at this time.

Though the Qur'an takes on more temporal issues in the Medinan Period, it does not abandon the notions of spiritual striving and God consciousness that were hallmarks of the Meccan Period. Even the concept of defensive warfare is placed within the larger concept of jihad as striving for what is right. Though jihad might involve bloodshed, it has the broader meaning of exerting an effort for improvement, not only in the political or military realm, but also in the moral, spiritual, and intellectual realms. Muhammad is often cited in Islamic tradition for calling the militant aspect of jihad the "minor" or "little" jihad, while referring to the improvement of one's self as the "greater" jihad.


Other revelations and rulings during this period concerned the proper treatment of prisoners of war and non-combatants, the sanction against killing innocent civilians, and the respectful treatment of enemy corpses (in contrast to the custom of the time, which was mutilation.) The wanton destruction of property or agricultural resources was put off limits too.


With many of the billion-plus Muslims living in poverty or oppression, Islam has become a rallying point for independence movements worldwide. Since jihad and martyrdom were placed within a religious context during the Medinan period, some of these independence movements have deployed the same concepts as sanctified tools for motivating combatants in the face of overwhelming odds. Thus, some seek a military solution to their political aspirations.

At the far end of the spectrum lies a fairly recent tendency to justify acts of terror with quotations from the traditions of Islam. This exercise in legal sleight of hand, placed beyond the pale by all except the terrorists themselves, has bred enormous doubt throughout the world about the essentially peaceful nature of Islam.

Especially since the tragic events of September 11, most religious scholars around the world have rejected these interpretations as spurious. Rather, they have re-emphasized the Prophet's saying that "the true jihad is only that which exalts God's word, which is truth." The Qur'an condemns as an ultimate act of blasphemy actions that attempt to dismantle the very fabric of existence by destroying and spreading ruin on the Earth. Elsewhere it states that God has willed Muslims "to be a community of moderation." (Qur'an 2:143)

Again, sorry for the long quotation, but this says it better than I could and it's relevant and can clear up some things.

 

[F0uad]

Didn't see anyone correct that, either, so..

I don't belief prophets are sinless.. Mohammed(saws) himself asked for forgiveness each day.

 

[1robin]

Nor did we say that Mohammed(saws) was sinless but those wars and things you mentioned have a context so its pretty easy to quote a website while you haven't researched a single quotation that you posted.

You may not but the claim that all prophets are sinless is a very common Islamic belief at least among the ones I have talked to. This is the actual statement that my claim was in response to.

Muhammad is not just a good man. He is a prophet. And all of the prophets are sinless. Muhammad has 99 beautiful names.

So the person I was talking to believed it even if you do not.
Prove that I did not look into the context for the data I posted or retract the statement that I did not. These assumptions are getting to be an epidemic. I did track down the secular historical context to about half of them and was already familiar with about 1/4 more.

 

[Aquitaine]

Just the fact that he married a 6 year old and had like 11 wives leads me to believe he wasn't a decent character - especially since he was supposed to be some "Holy" man close to "God".

For an average Man at that time, in that area, this stuff wasn't really out of the ordinary. But for someone who clams divine inspiration, connection and authority to an apparently mercifull and moral God is something entirely different. As a Prophet, he should've known better.

 

[YmirGF]

One thing about Muhammad and the early period of his, for lack of a better word, "mission", is that it is indisputable that he used violence to further that mission. This is in stark contrast to people like Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Muslims will always tell us that that combative stance was purely defensive, and in a specific sense, it often was, however this idea blithely ignores that it was Muhammad's very mission that brought the persecution down on him. He had rattled a lot of people's cages for years and eventually they decided that they had to act to silence him. To their great credit the people of Mecca were extremely tolerant of the strange fellow in their midst for quite a long time. That he felt a need to fight them "defensively", when they decided that enough was enough is an interesting spin on the reality. In a very limited sense it is true, but it is stretching the truth, just a tad.


In a very real way, it is like the followers of David Koresh claiming that they fought a "defensive" battle against the FBI who raided their Wako, Tx compound. In some respects, that battle was defensive, from their viewpoint, but saying so ignores the reasons behind why the FBI moved against the Branch Dividians.

 

[1robin]

You're looking at it like it's an 'either/or' dichotomy. I don't think it's quite so simplistic. It's quite possible, under the current topic, that the pagans had figured some things out for themselves, through whatever means.

First let’s make sure we understand that the claims "There are many Gods" and the claim "there is only one God" Is about the most mutually exclusive claims as possible. It is also irrational to think a single God interested in people coming to know the truth and him are going to reward people if they are falsely following a bunch of non existent God's. That is like rewarding your children for choosing other parents. Beyond this there is no proof even theoretically available for what you claim. We must decide which explanation makes the most sense.

1. Allah despite the fact he is a severe disciplinarian when it comes to admission he and he alone is God, would still reward people fallowing an entire cast of false God's by giving them true worship information. If so then why did Muhammad tear up all the idols to these same God’s? No Allah fiercely hates polytheism or so Muhammad says.
2. Muhammad was a mere man who invented a religion to unite bands of independent Arabian tribes as the Jews were united. He did so by boring extensively from existing rituals and beliefs that have nothing to do with any actual real God or Gods.
No 1 is irrational, inconsistent, and just plain silly.
No 2 is perfectly satisfactory and consistent with thousands of facts.

I'd say I agree, but it would be obvious that my reason for doing so would be considered biased.

As you as you arrive at the correct answer the genetics of how you went about that is irrelevant. The Church fathers themselves would tell you their writings were faulty just as they were. I am sure much of it was right and it is a valuable source for historical events of the early Church but you were criticizing God and the Bible and their writing have nothing to do with that.

Many would say that many of the myths of the Egyptians were incorporated into Christianity. While this may or may not be true, I think there is a better example, and that's the myths of Mithras. Another I would say would be Apollonius of Tyana.

I will use Mithras as an example.

Mithraism was virtually non-existent in the Roman world until after the Gospels were written. It shows up in the Historical record in the 2nd and 3rd century AD. The Jewish people hated the Romans, the one thing they would never have ever done is borrow their religion. It is a self defeating argument. It is far more logical that these detail at least were borrowed from Christianity not the other way around and this is true for many of these parallelism claims.

He is said to be called the son of God just as Christ is.
False: He is the sun God not the Son of God. The actual words read: Greek: Huios(Son) and Helios(Sun). It is easy to see how ignorant people reading languages they can barely understand and with an agenda invented this claim.

Both are said to claim to have been born on Dec 25th.
False: Dec 25th is not a date the Bible ever records. It is something the Catholic Church invented hundreds of years later to make it easy for PAGANS to cross over. You have identified a genuine fault with Catholicism but not God, the Bible, nor Christ and it is not to hard to find a fault with the Church.

Mythras was virgin born.
False he was born from a rock in a cave. In fact the few that practiced the religion usually worshipped in caves because of this.
Mithraic Studies, Mithras, “wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix.” Franz Cumon, “The Dura Mithraeum” in John R. Hinnells (ed.), Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies (Manchester University Press, 1975), 173.

He had twelve apostles.
False. There is no evidence known of this.

Was crucified and resurrected as Christ was.
False. The belief was he finished his work and never died. He was taken into heaven in a chariot without any resurrection.

The Bible addresses this issue specifically:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.(2 Peter 1:16-18 ESV)

I can keep going with Mithras but there is little point and the rest are just as problematic or even worse.

That's highly debatable, and I'm sure there's already threads here on this topic.

That is not really important in this context. This is the context for Christianity and must be evaluated within that context. To not do so is like what many scholars do in modern times. First assume no God exists and then review scripture. Whether you agree or people debate it or not the context of Christianity is that it is a continuation of Judaism under the covenant of grace. If you could prove it wasn't then what people think about it might make a difference. I must evaluate claims within the context they are made. I examine Muhammad in the context of the claim of his being a prophet of God. I do not evaluate him as being an astronaut writing a continuation of Hinduism texts.

Actually, I said I didn't want to dredge up things that you probably have already looked into, not that I couldn't, so I said pretty much this:

Well look at it from my view point. Someone says that X is wrong. I disagree and so say bring forth the evidence and they refuse. IMO the original claim does not stand. I could say Muhammad was not of God and end it there but that is not productive. I must show that to be true even though the burden of proof is own Islam.

 

[1robin]

don't you believe that Jesus died? was he sinful?

He died for our sins not his. If you dissagree then post the evidence for his sins.