Was Muhammad a good man?

[YmirGF]

really, i wonder from the question, and at first i think i got it wrong till i found illykitty a "native English speaker" got it as me, so i decide to take my turn.

Welcome to the chopping block.

the reasons are too much from Quran, hadith and the prophet's biography for example, Allah said "And they said, "Why was this Qur'an not sent down upon a great man from [one of] the two cities? وDo they distribute the mercy of your Lord?" 43:31-32
and said "Has the message been revealed to him out of [all of] us?" Rather, they are in doubt about My message. Rather, they have not yet tasted My punishment."38:8

Ah yes, the Allah trump card. It is a sorry fate for those who dare to stand in the way of Islam. Such is the religion of piece(s)... from the start, so it would seem.

from those verses we got that they have a great problem with prophet Mohamed as a person as he wasn't a great person among them, he wasn't habib ibn Amro, nor alwaleed ibn elmogheera those great persons from those cities "Mecca and Taif" and so they couldn't accept a normal man among them to rule them specially that he wasn't the richest, oldest, neither a tribe leader.
they were rich, powerful, rulers and then you asked them to follow a normal man even if he's messenger surly they had to resist.

Oddly, it is also held that Muhammad was a deeply respected person. I wonder how that squares with the above? But again, this narrative is provided by fanatical followers of Muhammad, so one can't put too much stock into this line of reasoning.

also, most of arab has a problem that the messenger wasn't selected among their tribe and this was the main reason of one like Amro ibn Hesham "Abu jahl" refused to be a Muslim although he seems was convinced that Mohamed is really the god's messenger, just because he's from a different tribe and so this gave this tribe a privilege on his one, it's the stupid Arab's pride.

Thank goodness that Muhammad wandered into their den of stupidity and tried to show them the light. I guess it couldn't possibly be the case of a prophet wannabe who had outgrown his welcome... after many years of his endless harping...

another reason with the message itself, prophet Mohamed was a messenger like all of those previous messengers, and so he faced what all of them faced, did the people welcome a messenger before?

Indeed, there is this desperation, actually from day one of Islam, to insert Muhammad into the Jewish prophetic tradition. Evidently the vast majority of Jews at the time were quite unimpressed with his assertions. Well, they did pay rather dearly for their doubt.

no, Jesus wasn't welcomes, Moses, Abraham, Noah indeed no one was welcomed and this is what Waraqa had told the prophet when he went to him with his wife asking abut his first revelation " " Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Messenger () described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Messenger () asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." and what was Mohamed came by? he came to them by Justice and equality between them, no difference between white & black, Arab & non Arab, rich & poor, man & woman all are equals in the sight of Allah, so surly this was disliked by the powerful people, they want to keep their power, strength and leading position. and Mohamed will equal between them and their salves, so surly they didn't accept that easily. and that indicated in the Hadith of Ja'far bin Abi Talib to Nigashi 'O king! we were plunged in the depth of ignorance and barbarism; we adored idols, we lived in unchastity, we ate the dead bodies, and we spoke abominations, we disregarded every feeling of humanity, and the duties of hospitality and neighborhood were neglected; we knew no law but that of the strong, when Allah raised among us a man, of whose birth, truthfulness, honesty, and purity we were aware; and he called to the Oneness of Allah , and taught us not to associate anything with Him. He forbade us the worship of idols; and he enjoined us to speak the truth, to be faithful to our trusts, to be merciful and to regard the rights of the neighbors and kith and kin; he forbade us to speak evil of women, or to eat the substance of orphans; he ordered us to fly from the vices, and to abstain from evil; to offer prayers, to render alms, and to observe fast. We have believed in him, we have accepted his teachings and his injunctions to worship Allah, and not to associate anything with Him, and we have allowed what He has allowed, and prohibited what He has prohibited. For this reason, our people have risen against us, have persecuted us in order to make us forsake the worship of Allah and return to the worship of idols and other abominations. They have tortured and injured us, until finding no safety among them; we have come to your country, and hope you will protect us from oppression.” and this speech was in the attendance of Amr ibn Elas "he was an infidel at this moment" and he really dislikes that speech, why? because he wanted to keep his benefits, his position and his power, how to equal between him and a slave like belal ibn rabah, this was fully rejected by them at this time.

Indeed it is no mystery why people did not flock to Muhammad at the first opportunity. Their petty selfish desires kept them from seeing the endless mercy that Muhammad represented... until of course they plotted against him and then they learned the meaning of wrath.

and so wonder if we found that some tribes came to the prophet offering him to accept Islam on condition to have the leadership after him, and surly his answer was refusal as ruling is according to Allah's will gives it to who he wills and there's no kingship in Islam

Caliph ring any bells? The word of the Caliph was law. Theoretically, he was much more than a mere king.

also they used to gain lots of money of making idols and selling it to the pilgrims in the season of pilgrimage and so if they become monotheists, this great trade will be ended and they'll lose a lot of financially rewards

Rewards that Muhammad felt that he deserved apparently... those naughty pagans, eh?

it's too many reasons, but this just a quick tour

Not terribly impressive, but a fair opening salvo.

 

[Quagmire]

Indeed, there is this desperation, actually from day one of Islam, to insert Muhammad into the Jewish prophetic tradition. Evidently the vast majority of Jews at the time were quite unimpressed with his assertions. Well, they did pay rather dearly for their doubt.

Really? How so? I know there were rare instances of persecution against the Jews later in Islams history (still, nothing compared to what they routinely suffered in Christian Europe) but I've never heard of anything comparable until the anti-Jewish uprising in Islamic Grenada in the late 11th Century.

 

[illykitty]

Well done, illykitty. That is exactly what the narrative would have you believe, however, there is the unfortunate reality that all chronicles of Muhammad's plight were written by his somewhat fanatical followers. Given that that is the case, it's not likely that they would ever portray him in anything but a flattering light. The poor guy was just trying to bring the perfect religion to mankind, for pity sakes. However, that is not likely how his detractors saw him, though any comments they may have had about said "prophet" have been permanently eradicated from the historical record by the peace-filled prophet's minions.

If that's what you want to believe. You asked a question and I answered it to the best of my knowledge and ability. I'm not here to convince you.

However I question to why would so many people follow him if he didn't give them a better alternative to life. But that's just me.

 

[YmirGF]

Really? How so? I know there were rare instances of persecution against the Jews later in Islams history (still, nothing compared to what they routinely suffered in Christian Europe) but I've never heard of anything comparable until the anti-Jewish uprising in Islamic Grenada in the late 11th Century.

You're not serious, right?

 

[YmirGF]

If that's what you want to believe. You asked a question and I answered it to the best of my knowledge and ability. I'm not here to convince you.

However I question to why would so many people follow him if he didn't give them a better alternative to life. But that's just me.

I know, illykitty. My basic premise is that if something sounds too good to be true then one must be aware of the possibility that it isn't true. For example, have you ever read a portrayal of Muhammad from Muslims sources that ever cast Muhammad in less that a perfect light? It's all peace, love and beards.

 

[GURSIKH]

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history.\.

ya it is , Timur in his autobiography admitted the killing of nearly one hundred thousand (one lakh) Hindus in one day .

 

[Cordoba]

The Wise Leader, peace be upon him:

Discover Prophet Muhammad's manners, wisdom and leadership:

The Wise Leader (Peace be upon him) - About Muhammad - Reading Islam - OnIslam.net

 

[Gharib]

Well done, illykitty. That is exactly what the narrative would have you believe, however, there is the unfortunate reality that all chronicles of Muhammad's plight were written by his somewhat fanatical followers. Given that that is the case, it's not likely that they would ever portray him in anything but a flattering light. The poor guy was just trying to bring the perfect religion to mankind, for pity sakes. However, that is not likely how his detractors saw him, though any comments they may have had about said "prophet" have been permanently eradicated from the historical record by the peace-filled prophet's minions.

Do you have any evidence for what you claim or is that it, it's just a baseless claim.

Just because there is more good said about him than bad then that means he forced people to write good things and he killed those who didn't obey. Sounds logical to you doesn't it Ymir?

 

[YmirGF]

Do you have any evidence for what you claim or is that it, it's just a baseless claim.

The lack of evidence speaks volumes, Gharib. The only accounts we have of these times are written by his followers.

Just because there is more good said about him than bad then that means he forced people to write good things and he killed those who didn't obey. Sounds logical to you doesn't it Ymir?

Hehe. You make it sound like there are some commentaries still around that speak badly of him. That is the point, Gharib. There are no commentaries around, from that era, that speak badly of Muhammad. Considering the amount of opposition that he faced, that is peculiar. The only reports that still exist are those of his fanatical followers.

 

[FearGod]

The lack of evidence speaks volumes, Gharib. The only accounts we have of these times are written by his followers.


Hehe. You make it sound like there are some commentaries still around that speak badly of him. That is the point, Gharib. There are no commentaries around, from that era, that speak badly of Muhammad. Considering the amount of opposition that he faced, that is peculiar. The only reports that still exist are those of his fanatical followers.

ٍDo you think the one hadith foretelling about the recent events were also fabricated hundreds of years ago by his fanatic followers.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Iraq would withhold its dirhams and qafiz; Syria would withhold its mudd and dinar and Egypt would withhold its irdab and dinar and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started, the bones and the flesh of Abu Huraira would bear testimony to it

 

[YmirGF]

ٍDo you think the one hadith foretelling about the recent events were also fabricated hundreds of years ago by his fanatic followers.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Iraq would withhold its dirhams and qafiz; Syria would withhold its mudd and dinar and Egypt would withhold its irdab and dinar and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started and you would recoil to that position from where you started, the bones and the flesh of Abu Huraira would bear testimony to it

It's not much of a prediction, Feargod.

I predict there will be fierce winds in the land known as Florida and the crows shall seek shelter, the ox will pass water, women will wail but the faithful will persevere.

 

[Gharib]

The lack of evidence speaks volumes, Gharib. The only accounts we have of these times are written by his followers.

I'll leave you to think a little deeper on your own statement.

Hehe. You make it sound like there are some commentaries still around that speak badly of him. That is the point, Gharib. There are no commentaries around, from that era, that speak badly of Muhammad. Considering the amount of opposition that he faced, that is peculiar. The only reports that still exist are those of his fanatical followers.

There are commentaries which speak bad about him, that is not to say that they are true though. But you don't seem to know much about Muhammed.

 

[YmirGF]

I'll leave you to think a little deeper on your own statement.

*sigh*

There are commentaries which speak bad about him, that is not to say that they are true though. But you don't seem to know much about Muhammed.

Indeed. What was I thinking?

 

[FearGod]

It's not much of a prediction, Feargod.

I predict there will be fierce winds in the land known as Florida and the crows shall seek shelter, the ox will pass water, women will wail but the faithful will persevere.

It is a prophecy and not prediction.

The events happened as prophesied,First Iraq,next Syria and then Egypt.

Why not first Saudi Arabia,next Yemen and then Iraq ....etc

It is impossible to be just a stroke of luck.

 

[Gharib]

It is a prophecy and not prediction.

The events happened as prophesied,First Iraq,next Syria and then Egypt.

Why not first Saudi Arabia,next Yemen and then Iraq ....etc

It is impossible to be just a stroke of luck.

Maybe he copied the Jewish and Christians texts, that would explain it. (sarcasm)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is a prophecy and not prediction.

The events happened as prophesied,First Iraq,next Syria and then Egypt.

Why not first Saudi Arabia,next Yemen and then Iraq ....etc

It is impossible to be just a stroke of luck.

Actually it is possible. You mean to say improbable. And even then its not really...

 

[YmirGF]

Actually it is possible. You mean to say improbable. And even then its not really...

When you add the Islamic notion of predestination to the mix it's not hard to see why they see this as being valid.

 

[1robin]

The Japanese attacked a military site in pearl harbor and not a civilian site as the American did in killing thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I will say it again. You do not want to debate military history with me. The Japanese attacked every type of target on several islands in the Hawaii chain. Houses, businesses, churches, and yes military targets. Between then and when we dropped the bombs they attacked millions of Chinese civilians and committed the greatest act of rape in history (It is called the rape of Nanking)
Nanking Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)

The tortured, raped, and enslaved pacific islanders on more than 100 islands and on more than one continent. Germany and Japan had bombed population centers before we began to.

Even if none of that was true we still saved between 2.5 and 4 million lives by dropping the bombs instead of invading Japan.

You do not want to debate military history with me for two reasons. You have no idea what your talking about and I do. I will prove it.

1. Everything you said above is wrong and you are grossly ignorant (not stupid) about the events. Japanese atrocities against civilians is a list longer than you can possible read.
Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Japanese Atrocities Committed Against Filipinos in WWII

2. I have no idea why your trying to condemn the nation that saved the world but if you knew anything about what your talking about, you could have picked much better examples. The fire bombing raids against Japan and Germany were worse by far than the atomic bombs we dropped. If I have to give you information to use you are in out of your depth.

You will never accept any facts because of your confirmation bias.

Post some facts and we will see. You got every fact you mentioned above wrong.

You condemned the wars of the prophet against the aggressors whereas you blesses the wars of the Americans.

I did not condemn the wars of Muhammad in a war context. Prophets may fight if God orders it. However I do condemn them as acts of God because many of them Allah never gave the order to carry out. Many of them were also against people who could not defend themselves and were for greed, power, and revenge......not God. If we are using a war context he may have been justified in quite a few battles, but if in a prophet context he was not, in many.

So all wars need atomic bomb in order to save livings,how silly is your excuses for killing the innocents.

There is only one war where we used them. Inventing hypotheticals to make a point that nothing I said justifies, is absurd and meaningless. I am sorry you are wrong, but do not compound the problem by defending what was wrong. Millions of lives were saved by dropping those bombs on the nation that produced the war to start with.

This is a very easy equation for you to solve

Assume x = Number of livestocks
Number of sheep = x - 4
Number of goats = x - 6
Number of cows = x - 8
What is the actual number of the livestocks

I am not your puppet, but what the heck. You set this problem up in a horribly bungling way. Based on what you meant the answer is either X or X-4+X-6+X-8.

If a teacher set up a problem this ambiguous the students should fail them. I actually think it is incoherent now that I review it.

Speaking about myself,the trinity for me is a very stupid concept

What does what you think matter? Since you can not even get the simplest history correct what you think is stupid has no meaning. The trinity has been called the most mysterious and sophisticated doctrine in any theology at any time. It might be true, it might be false, but what it certainly is, is not stupid.

No i don't

Yes you do. Or maybe you just read it and assign it whatever meaning you wish it had. No trouble, and of no value either.

What a silly examples.

You just have no grasp of history what so ever do you. If you think what Alexander the great did is silly then what you think is silly, is silly and ignorant. What he did is greater than what Muhammad did in every single category there is. Muhammad is a child compared to what Alexander did. Cortez conquered a nation of 30 million with less than 1000 Christian knights. Islam looses battles where they outnumber their enemy by 80 - 1. No comparison.

Just as the lists of scientists proved you wrong so to will the lists of the greatest conquerors.
Ten of the greatest: Historical conquerors | Mail Online
10 - Genghis Khan
10 - Napoleon Bonaparte
10 - Adolf Hitler
10 - Alexander the Great
10 - Julius Caesar
10 - Tamerlane
- 8 - Atilla the Hun
10 - Hernan Cortez
+ 12 - Francisco Pizarro
10 - Suleiman the Magnificent
10 - Charlemagne
10 - Hirohito
Greatest Conquerors in History - Hurt or Heal

Well what do you know the names I gave are on the list and your is not. Again.


1) British............13.01........................22 .63%.................458 million (1938)
2) Mongol...........9.27..........................16. 11%................110 millon (1200s)
3) Russian...........8.80.........................15. 31%................176.4 million (1913)
4) Spanish...........7.72.........................13. 43%.................68.2 millon (1600s)
5) Qing Dynasty....5.68..........................9.87%.... .............432.2 million (1851)

15) Japanese........2.86...........................5.9 7%................134.8 million (1938)
Top 3 Greatest Conquerors in Human History (the British is nothing...) - Page 4 - Historum - History Forums

Looky there not one Muslim in the list. Again.

What kind of civilization they did achieve

Alexander took over 4/5ths of the civilized world. Built the greatest library in history, the greatest lighthouse in history, contained some of the first great scientists like Ptolemy, governed from Egypt through Babylon and to India. Cortex conquered a nation which were cutting each others hearts out so the sun would rise and made it into a thriving continent known as Catholic South America (it was bigger than the entire Islamic empire has ever been). Darius controlled 4/5ths of the civilized world. Created the first aqueducts, huge building projects, an army larger than Islam ever had, and an economic powerhouse. You know all that silly stuff Islam didn't do.

Alexander empire was collapsed few years after his death.Cortez was fetching for treasure and gold and Darius was just a great king

No it did not. It existed for hundreds of years under his four generals even through Roman times. However Islam almost wiped themselves out when Muhammad died. Cortez was after Gold but was also trying to convert a nation of millions of pagans that sacrificed each other on alters by the tens of thousands into Christians. He did so in the most remarkable military actions in human history. Muhammad never did anything 1/10 as great as Cortez did in any battle he ever fought.

No but i have a leisure in discussing stupid thoughts that you believe in such as thinking of God can be a man if he wished or even a dog if he wished so.

The only stupid thing is claiming a God that can't do squat is omnipotent, a prophet who did not prophecy is prophetic, or an exceedingly most sinful man is sinless. Once you do that you lack any credibility to call anything else stupid.

Yes the Americans have a honorific history such as the bounty paid for each Indian scalp and slaving..etc :yes:

You do not know anything about the most well known events in military history. Do not try and compound the problem by telling me (a member of an Indian tribe and an American) what occurred during the settling of this nation. It is better to be thought ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt....so the saying goes. If I was you I would get away from history. Your obviously way out of your depth and everything about history you said here I showed was completely wrong. It won't make any difference to you but it was proven none the less.

 

[1robin]

Really? I've seen this explained many times and you can read it up in any life biography of him, heck there's even movies and animation (Muhammad is not shown though as respect towards him and Muslims)... IIRC, it goes something like this (I'll verify later and correct this if wrong - it's early in the morning)...

At the begining the Rulers didn't do anything because he didn't have much followers (and a lot of them were slaves or relatives). Then more people began to follow him, they started to feel threatened because the Quran says Polytheism is wrong and the pilgrimage to Mecca was making them a LOT of money! People would pray to the many gods there and gave away lots of gold to them. If Islam caught on that meant no more big money for them.

They offered him many things, prestige, women, wealth and he refused because he believed in his message, he knew Islam was correct and many others followed. They tortured and killed many converts, the first was a woman, the 7th convert to Islam (Sumayyah bint Khayyat). I can't imagine most Meccans lived well under the Pagan tribes either.

I hope I'm also not wrong in assuming they felt threatened about the changes in lifestyle Muhammad was proposing as well... Making slaves be treated nicely and giving them freedom whenever you can, treating women well (they used to burry infant/children alive simply because they're female), etc. It was the way of the tribes for so long for them it was normal. They didn't like this one bit!

I'm hoping this did justice as an explanation and I'm sorry if I made any mistakes, I'm sure others can explain too and probably better than me, since I have only gotten this information by reading some bits at a time and seeing his life story in movies and such.

I have a different but related question.

The first 10 years of Islam were peaceful and Muhammad could barely scrape together 250 followers from his family and friends. Its next 12 years were brutal, violent, and involved raiding caravans for loot to distribute. Islam grew to 100,000 over those years when money, blood, and power were available.

The question is this. Why does Islam sell when it comes with power, money, and blood, but does not sell when it has only its self to offer?

Christianity's early years are the opposite. It grew when persecuted by it's own nation and the greatest empire on Earth and it did so explosively when it only had its self to offer.

 

[1robin]

So basically, all of your arguments, as well as your belief system in total, are based on "facts" that aren't actually facts at all, just tenets of faith.

Of course, I suppose believing that they are facts--or merely "believing" that you believe them to be ---could also be called tenets of faith.

But only by people who have no idea at all what faith actually is.

His being resurrected is by far the best explanation of the facts granted by both sides of NT scholarship. I usually pay strict attention to where I use fact and faith but in a thread where the other guy usually grants revelation I was not as carful. No historical or theological claim is ever resolved to a certainty (in fact no claim of any kind does not include a faith component of some degree). They are resolved to a probability. Christ being raised from the dead is by far the best explanation of the historical claims agreed to by most scholars on either side. They grant three main relevant historical claims among countless others that apply here.

1. Jesus appeared on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority*. I put that asterisk there to let you know I expect you to make a mistake very common to your side concerning this claim.
2. He was killed by Rome on a cross.
3. His tomb was found empty.

The best explanation from these events and many others scholars grant is that he was resurrected but that claim is not a fact. No historical claim of any type ever is, but it is dang close.