Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[ChristineM]

And if I extend it to "My religion is better than Atheism" then as per English language you "belittle" Atheism
At least @ChristineM will support me on this [Of course she will not feel belittled, that is a totally different issue. But as per definition it is "belittling"]

I kind of support you but its more than that. Saying my religion is better than atheism is implying that atheism is a religion which not only belittles atheism is demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of atheism.


BTW. Have you ever looked at the "Kinsey scale"? It shows that only a small percentage of the population are 100% hetro or homo. Most people lie somewhere in between.

Edit, there are several on RF who are faithful to their derivative of the abrahamic faith who rejoice in belittling atheists.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I've heard many highly respected historical scholars give lectures about the life of Mohammad. There are too many to list, all you need to do is google them and you can spend the next six months listening and reading

So you have declined to provide any respected historians and instead mentioned only a video that has been discredited. Why am I not suprised?

Let me assist you by focusing on one of your allegations about Muhammad whom I believe to be a prophet and Messenger of God. I presume that in regards to your allegations that Muhammad personally beheaded 900 people, this is a reference to the Banu Qurayza. As a brief overview lets review the story as understood by many.

During the battle of the Trenches, the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe in Medina) were throught to have colluded with the Quraysh tribe who had travelled to Medina with the explicit intention of defeating Muhammad and his followers (Muslims). Although Banu Qurayza had a treaty with the Muslims, this was broken. Initially Banu Qurayza were neutral but then colluded with Banu Qurayza clearlyin breach of their treaty with the Muslims. According to the story, a judgement on the Banu Qurayza was made by Sa`d b. Mua`add (who was dying from a wound from the battle), and he ordered all the men to be killed and the women and children enslaved. The number said to be killed, according to the story, was in the many hundreds.

Walid N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed that the Banu Qurayza were killed on quite such a large scale. Arafat disputes large-scale killings and argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. Arafat relates the testimony of Ibn Hajar, who denounced this and other accounts as "odd tales" and quoted Malik ibn Anas, a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, whom he rejected as a "liar", an "impostor" and for seeking out the Jewish descendants for gathering information about Muhammad's campaign with their forefathers. Ahmad argues that only some of the tribe were killed, while some of the fighters were merely enslaved. Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing", while Meir J. Kister has contradicted[clarification needed] the arguments of Arafat and Ahmad.

In recent times, the historicity of this event has been put into question by Hans Jansen and Fred Donner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Doubts_about_the_historicity_of_the_event

So we have four reputable historians listed who have doubts about the veracity of the account you have deliberately exagerated. They are are renowned Islamic scholars.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25203706?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakat_Ahmad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Jansen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Donner

The authenticity of the story relies heavily on an historian Ibn Ishaq who relies on oral traditions or stories passed down through word of mouth. Arafat proposes the view that the story of Banu Qurayza in Ibn Ishaq's "Sira" is probably in part confused with the story of what occurred in the Roman wars, which were confused in the minds of the descendents of the Banu Qurayza, who Ibn Ishaq took many details of the story from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

The fact is that there are three sides to every story. His side, her side, and what really happened. We don't know for certain what happened and it simply suits your Islamophobic agenda to portray Muhammad in the worst possible light.

 

[Danny1988]

So you have declined to provide any respected historians and instead mentioned only a video that has been discredited. Why am I not suprised?

Let me assist you by focusing on one of your allegations about Muhammad whom I believe to be a prophet and Messenger of God. I presume that in regards to your allegations that Muhammad personally beheaded 900 people, this is a reference to the Banu Qurayza. As a brief overview lets review the story as understood by many.

During the battle of the Trenches, the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe in Medina) were throught to have colluded with the Quraysh tribe who had travelled to Medina with the explicit intention of defeating Muhammad and his followers (Muslims). Although Banu Qurayza had a treaty with the Muslims, this was broken. Initially Banu Qurayza were neutral but then colluded with Banu Qurayza clearlyin breach of their treaty with the Muslims. According to the story, a judgement on the Banu Qurayza was made by Sa`d b. Mua`add (who was dying from a wound from the battle), and he ordered all the men to be killed and the women and children enslaved. The number said to be killed, according to the story, was in the many hundreds.

Walid N. Arafat and Barakat Ahmad have disputed that the Banu Qurayza were killed on quite such a large scale. Arafat disputes large-scale killings and argued that Ibn Ishaq gathered information from descendants of the Qurayza Jews, who embellished or manufactured the details of the incident. Arafat relates the testimony of Ibn Hajar, who denounced this and other accounts as "odd tales" and quoted Malik ibn Anas, a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, whom he rejected as a "liar", an "impostor" and for seeking out the Jewish descendants for gathering information about Muhammad's campaign with their forefathers. Ahmad argues that only some of the tribe were killed, while some of the fighters were merely enslaved. Watt finds Arafat's arguments "not entirely convincing", while Meir J. Kister has contradicted[clarification needed] the arguments of Arafat and Ahmad.

In recent times, the historicity of this event has been put into question by Hans Jansen and Fred Donner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Doubts_about_the_historicity_of_the_event

So we have four reputable historians listed who have doubts about the veracity of the account you have deliberately exagerated. They are are renowned Islamic scholars.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25203706?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakat_Ahmad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Jansen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Donner

The authenticity of the story relies heavily on an historian Ibn Ishaq who relies on oral traditions or stories passed down through word of mouth. Arafat proposes the view that the story of Banu Qurayza in Ibn Ishaq's "Sira" is probably in part confused with the story of what occurred in the Roman wars, which were confused in the minds of the descendents of the Banu Qurayza, who Ibn Ishaq took many details of the story from.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

The fact is that there are three sides to every story. His side, her side, and what really happened. We don't know for certain what happened and it simply suits your Islamophobic agenda to portray Muhammad in the worst possible light.

I don't trust Muslims to tell me their version of events because the Koran tells you guys it's OK to lie to us infidels. I only believe independent accounts of history, Islamic scholars accuse the Christians of changing the Bible three times but they can't tell us what was actually changed so that exposes them as liars.

I simply don't trust Muslims because Mohammad said it was OK to lie, it is forbidden for us Christians to lie because it doesn't glorify our God.

 

[ChristineM]

it is forbidden for us Christians to lie because it doesn't glorify our God.

However, that does not stop many christians lying. Just read through these threads, the number of different "claims", regarding the christian religion and bible are as many and varied (and contradictory) as the number of christians telling the tail.

Also i believe your interpretation of Taqiya is some way far of the mark.

 

[stvdv]

I kind of support you but its more than that. Saying my religion is better than atheism is implying that atheism is a religion which not only belittles atheism is demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of atheism.
BTW. Have you ever looked at the "Kinsey scale"? It shows that only a small percentage of the population are 100% hetro or homo. Most people lie somewhere in between.
Edit, there are several on RF who are faithful to their derivative of the abrahamic faith who rejoice in belittling atheists.

Thanks for replying Christine. I explained this man before, but he didn't get it, so I thought "okay my mistake not being clear". But glad you confirmed this time was clear

When I was writing this, it passed my mind "Christine Might even feel a link to religion here". I am really in tune with Atheism I think. So a double lesson

So to take religion feeling out of the equation and just the "belittling" part in it, I probably I should have phrased it as:
If I say to you "My religion is better than Atheism [being lack of religion]" then as per English language you "belittle" Atheism

@ChristineM:
* I never heard of "Kinsey scale" before. I would be "left from 0". If I imagine myself to be a woman, I still would prefer a woman.
* I have seen many who rejoice in belittling Atheists/Atheism. I did see a few exceptions though, more than in real life.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks for replying Christine. I explained this man before, but he didn't get it, so I thought "okay my mistake not being clear". But glad you confirmed this time was clear

When I was writing this, it passed my mind "Christine Might even feel a link to religion here". I am really in tune with Atheism I think. So a double lesson

So to take religion feeling out of the equation and just the "belittling" part in it, I probably I should have phrased it as:
If I say to you "My religion is better than Atheism [being lack of religion]" then as per English language you "belittle" Atheism

I could reply, "my atheism is better than religion because it does not rely on historical fantasy".. but i won't

 

[Spiderman]

22 jul 2018 stvdv 019 33 info
I try to explain why "My religion is better than Atheism" equals to "belittling" Atheism [Of course I know the Atheist won't feel belittled, being smart. But still it is "belittling"]


When you tell someone: "My religion is better than your religion" you imply to him "Your religion is less good than my religion", this is called "belittling".
When you tell someone: "My preference is Christian religion" then you imply NOTHING about HIS religion. Just your preference. No comparison. Hence no "belittling"


That was my guess also. That is why I kept it to 3 lines in my previous reply.


Good example. Because it will show exactly the same, but maybe you see it when using "sex" as example.


No that is so totally NOT my logic. Here you misunderstand me completely, meaning 180 degrees wrong.


You are hetero (as am I). So our preference is towards women. No problem so far. Now using your analogy:

So we have A: Preference "man/woman" +Preference "Jesus"
So we have B: Preference "man/man" +Preference "Jesus"
So we have C: Preference "man/woman" +Preference "Buddha"
So we have D: Preference "man/man" +Preference "Buddha"

How I would argue:
I choose option "C" today. So I say "I prefer as a man to have sex with a woman" + "I prefer as a man to pray to Buddha"

I do not think any further than this [no better than in my mind]:
In my mind does not exist the phrase "straight sex is better than gay sex" ==> do you think "straight sex is better than gay sex"
In my mind does not exist the phrase "gay sex is better than straight sex"

In my mind does not exist the phrase "Buddha is better than Jesus"
In my mind does not exist the phrase "Jesus is better than Buddha" ==> do you think "Jesus is better than Buddha"
Hence:
In my mind does not exist the phrase "My religion is better than Your religion" ==> do you think "Your religion is better than My religion"

Those Ideas [better than] did exist only in your mind, not in my mind:
Hence your remark "I suppose we disagree on a fundamental level"
On my simple statement "My religion is better than your religion" then as per English language you "belittle" the other religion

You are not the first Christian who really could not see this.
I think I know how this happened
When from young age you were always told "Jesus is the only way", "My religion, Christianity, is better than other religions"
Then after a few years for you it has become a fact "My religion is better than your religion"
And you don't even see it as "belittling" anymore, because it is a fact for you
Fact meaning "That what is true for you MUST be true for all humans"

But I can assure you that on RF if we are going to do a poll, that I am not the only one in this
At least @PopeADope will support me on this [to be sure of this, I did not use Muhammad in my example]

And if I extend it to "My religion is better than Atheism" then as per English language you "belittle" Atheism
At least @ChristineM will support me on this [Of course she will not feel belittled, that is a totally different issue. But as per definition it is "belittling"]

I don't like to belittle anyone because of their beliefs.

If they adhere to something that justifies hate and violence, I object to it, and try to get people to see there is something seriously wrong with that!

 

[stvdv]

I don't like to belittle anyone because of their beliefs.
If they adhere to something that justifies hate and violence, I object to it, and try to get people to see there is something seriously wrong with that!

I know you don't "belittle", that's why I could safely use you as an example.

If you see injustice I think it is good to tell someone. I read many times "Thoughts, words, and deeds should be one". See is "thought", so telling seems the way to go IMO

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't trust Muslims to tell me their version of events because the Koran tells you guys it's OK to lie to us infidels. I only believe independent accounts of history, Islamic scholars accuse the Christians of changing the Bible three times but they can't tell us what was actually changed so that exposes them as liars.

I simply don't trust Muslims because Mohammad said it was OK to lie, it is forbidden for us Christians to lie because it doesn't glorify our God.

So Muslims are liars and Christians are honest! You certainly don't make any efforts to hide your prejudice and contempt for Islam. You seem blind to major faults within your own religious traditions too.

Had you taken the time to read the links provided you will see that not all the scholars listed are Muslims and at least one is a Christian.

On the right hand corner of each post, often perople indicate their religious faith. I'm a Baha'i, not a Muslim. I'm here to assist better understanding and tolerance of peoples of different faiths.

As with all major religions an enormous emphasis is palced on truthfulness and honesty. If Muslims follow the Quran they should always tell the truth:

“O you who believe! Have Taqwa of Allah and speak (always) the truth”
Surah 3370

A true Muslim should follow all the prophets, not Just Muhammad. That included Moses and Christ:

We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac,
Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all)
prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them . . .
Surah 2:136

In regards the New Testament and gospels they should be considered as the inspired word of God, though many Muslims through misunderstanding believe the gospel to have been corrupted.

 

[siti]

History has recorded that Mohammad was a mass murderer, who personally beheaded over 900 people

In recent times, the historicity of this event has been put into question by Hans Jansen and Fred Donner.

So we have four reputable historians listed who have doubts about the veracity of the account you have deliberately exagerated.

OK - obviously we need a balanced view here:

Early Islamic historian ibn-Ishaq apparently recorded this account in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad and indicated that the prophet personally beheaded hundreds - perhaps as many as 900 according to the estimates he records - of the Banu Qurayza. Certainly modern scholars disagree as to the historicity of this account but certainly it is a claim recorded and repeated by early Muslims in the first couple of centuries of the Islamic period. The fact that this account was not only accepted, but with approval, by early Muslim writers, does suggest that they religiously approved of violence.

More importantly for the current discussion, @adrian009, you are surely skating on thin ice by making reference to Hans Jansen and Fred Donner. Both of these scholars very strongly reject the historicity of Islamic sources of the first two centuries of the Islamic period - which rather puts paid to Abdu'l Baha's confident assertions of the barbarity of the pre-Islamic Arab tribes - which is attested to only by Islamic tradition originating in the first couple of centuries after Muhammad. Of course the Qur'an makes a few references to the "age of ignorance" (jahiliyyah) - but a religious text promoting a new religion would be expected to say that wouldn't it? Anyway, I really don't think you have done Muhammad's "Messenger of God" case any favours here - one of these scholars, Hans Jansen, even rejects the existence of Muhammad as a historical person altogether - well I suppose if you don't exist at all, you can't be accused of chopping people's heads off - but you can't very well be a Messenger of God either!

 

[Danny1988]

OK - obviously we need a balanced view here:

Early Islamic historian ibn-Ishaq apparently recorded this account in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad and indicated that the prophet personally beheaded hundreds - perhaps as many as 900 according to the estimates he records - of the Banu Qurayza. Certainly modern scholars disagree as to the historicity of this account but certainly it is a claim recorded and repeated by early Muslims in the first couple of centuries of the Islamic period. The fact that this account was not only accepted, but with approval, by early Muslim writers, does suggest that they religiously approved of violence.

More importantly for the current discussion, @adrian009, you are surely skating on thin ice by making reference to Hans Jansen and Fred Donner. Both of these scholars very strongly reject the historicity of Islamic sources of the first two centuries of the Islamic period - which rather puts paid to Abdu'l Baha's confident assertions of the barbarity of the pre-Islamic Arab tribes - which is attested to only by Islamic tradition originating in the first couple of centuries after Muhammad. Of course the Qur'an makes a few references to the "age of ignorance" (jahiliyyah) - but a religious text promoting a new religion would be expected to say that wouldn't it? Anyway, I really don't think you have done Muhammad's "Messenger of God" case any favours here - one of these scholars, Hans Jansen, even rejects the existence of Muhammad as a historical person altogether - well I suppose if you don't exist at all, you can't be accused of chopping people's heads off - but you can't very well be a Messenger of God either!

The vast majority of Muslims, don't know the basic facts about their religion. They can get into serious trouble if they ever question Islam's authority over their lives.

 

[siti]

The cast majority of Muslims, don't know the basic facts about their religion.

This is not a thread about Muslims - its a thread about whether Muhammad was a Messenger of God. The first couple of centuries of Islam are obscure, just as the first few centuries of Christianity are. In both cases, whatever the truth about their origins, by the time we start to get anything like reliable historical information, there is no question that they (both) were an intolerant and blood-thirsty lot and still are...the point of my post was not to take sides in a religious name-calling contest, but to point out that the history of the period of the rise of Islam being obscure, it is not sensible to base interpretations of the validity of Muhammad's status as a "Messenger of God" on sources and traditions that emerge from that era. We simply don't know whether Muhammad really did what ibn Ishaq recorded - and we don't know how backward and barbaric the pre-Islamic Arab tribes really were. Both of these ideas - one that you have used to discredit Muhammad and one that Abdu'l Baha used to highlight Muhammad's possession of divine wisdom (by effectively discrediting pre-Islamic Arab culture) are, at best, dubious attestations based solely on Muslim traditions that cannot be confirmed.

 

[Dawnofhope]

OK - obviously we need a balanced view here:

Obviously.

Early Islamic historian ibn-Ishaq apparently recorded this account in his biography of the Prophet Muhammad and indicated that the prophet personally beheaded hundreds - perhaps as many as 900 according to the estimates he records - of the Banu Qurayza. Certainly modern scholars disagree as to the historicity of this account but certainly it is a claim recorded and repeated by early Muslims in the first couple of centuries of the Islamic period. The fact that this account was not only accepted, but with approval, by early Muslim writers, does suggest that they religiously approved of violence.

In considering the life and teachings of Muhammad it is more useful to make comparisons between Moses and King David, rather than Christ. When reflecting on the historicity of Moses, King David, and Muhammad, it would be best to consider accounts of their lives interwoven with mythology. As we both know, other than the OT we don't have too much to go on in what we know of Moses and David. There's a plausible case they didn't exist at all.

Ibn Ishaq is one of the earliest known biographers of Muhammad and while providing much useful information, is not reliable for all sorts of reasons. The Arabs were a very male dominated culture. Men like to brag about their personal conquests and those of their heros exagerating the truth and telling highly embellished stories. Muhammad did extremely well to subdue and unite them. Allegedly He was much more effeminate than the quintessential alpha male but that's another story. Despite His best efforts as a spiritual educator, it wasn't long after his death before disputes about his successor broke out along with a rapid expansion of territory including the Holy land, and the Muslims conquered by the sword. Muhammad's teachings were much better reflected amonsgt the ummah during the Abbasid period and hardly at all through the Umayyad Caliphates.

More importantly for the current discussion, @adrian009, you are surely skating on thin ice by making reference to Hans Jansen and Fred Donner. Both of these scholars very strongly reject the historicity of Islamic sources of the first two centuries of the Islamic period - which rather puts paid to Abdu'l Baha's confident assertions of the barbarity of the pre-Islamic Arab tribes - which is attested to only by Islamic tradition originating in the first couple of centuries after Muhammad. Of course the Qur'an makes a few references to the "age of ignorance" (jahiliyyah) - but a religious text promoting a new religion would be expected to say that wouldn't it? Anyway, I really don't think you have done Muhammad's "Messenger of God" case any favours here - one of these scholars, Hans Jansen, even rejects the existence of Muhammad as a historical person altogether - well I suppose if you don't exist at all, you can't be accused of chopping people's heads off - but you can't very well be a Messenger of God either!

My purpose in making use of scholars from varying backgrounds is to demonstrate that from the perspective of historic critical analysis and scholarship we have no real basis for assuming that the story of the massacre of the men of Banu Qurayza happened at all let alone as Ibn Ishaq described it. We do have a narrative of Muhammad's life though with embellished blood thirsty stories that appealled to many Arab men after Muhammad passed away and later ammunition for the Christian missionaries. These stories are rightly questioned by many Muslims. That is why we look to the Quran for God's guidance and not the Sirat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophetic_biography#Authenticity

 

[siti]

In considering the life and teachings of Muhammad it is more useful to make comparisons...

...while providing much useful information, is not reliable for all sorts of reasons...

My purpose in making use of scholars from varying backgrounds is to demonstrate that from the perspective of historic critical analysis and scholarship we have no real basis for assuming that the story of the massacre of the men of Banu Qurayza happened at all let alone as Ibn Ishaq described it.

Yes - there is a technical term for this kind of approach: cherry picking.

The reality is, we have no reliable sources about anything Muhammad may have said or done - if he really existed as the person attested to by Muslim tradition - from any earlier than 2 centuries after his "appearance". Do we?

And the early interpretations of Islam and the Prophet's life, that, as you rightly point our, appeal more to testosterone than spirituality, are, in fact, the foundation upon which the Islamic Caliphates were established - aren't they?

And by the time the Abbasids had full control of their empire such that they could genuinely champion peace over violent oppression, Muhammad had been dead 200 years and nobody was really quite sure whether any of the tales that had been written about him between his lifetime and theirs was really true or not - let alone whether it was of divine origin or not - were they?

And it was for this reason that scholars in the Abbasid period invented the "science of hadith" - in an attempt to validate the confusing array of contradictory opinions about Muhammad's life and teachings that had built up over the preceding couple of centuries - isn't it?

And that is precisely what they did - cherry picked the accounts depending on their own interpretation of Islam and the Qur'an (the text of which we also have no extant copies from the first two centuries of Islam) - isn't it? Just as ibn-Ishaq and al-Zubayr et al had cherry-picked on behalf of the more bloodthirsty Umayyad Caliphs and their subjects a century or so earlier.

Bottom line - we have absolutely no idea what Muhammad really said or did so how can anybody make a convincing - let alone compelling - case for his "Divine Messenger" status?

 

[Muffled]

You are very honest, that is good. You are not the only "not moving on" #MeToo.

After 10 years India, seeing "Unity in Diversity" I went to a Baptist Church four years. But they were judgmental, stayed judgmental and will die judgmental.
The good thing: I was optimistic hoping to find "common ground" between the different Messengers/devotees". The lesson I was unrealistic so got desillusioned??
I knew it after 2 days I think. But kept on going for 4 years. Then I understood "Fata Morgana", it will never happen. At least I gave it a really good try [my last try]

At least I know that my "gut" feeling is quite good.

So are you saying the judgment was wrong or that you just didn't want to admit you were wrong?

 

[Muffled]

"Thou art God. I am God. All that groks is God" is a quote from Robert A. Heinlein's 1961 sci-fi novel "Stranger in a Strange Land".

I have read several of Heinlein's books including that one although I don't remember the quote.

I believe Heinlein's understanding of religion is lacking but he certainly doesn't lack in imagination.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

If he was a messenger of a god, it wasn't any god I'd want to have a message from.

 

[stvdv]

So are you saying the judgment was wrong or that you just didn't want to admit you were wrong?

They were judgmental. I was right from the beginning. I am in tune with my feeling. I only turned the other cheek too often. Now I just avoid judgmental people.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I learned about his life many years ago, one youtube documentary comes to mind

Ah, yes, Youtube, the pinnacle of scholarly information.

There are too many to list

Well, one was apparently so bad he can't travel to some places because he's a hateful idiot. Wanna try again? Something with facts to back it up, like archaeology or something? Christian accounts can't be trusted because not only was their Jesus monopoly threatened, but the spice trade was profitable and they couldn't stand someone else making tons of money on it.

Historical fact: google it.

1 other very important lesson I learn from this parable "None can see the full truth/glory of God (elephant)"

Well, except for the people walking up to it who aren't blind.

it is forbidden for us Christians to lie because it doesn't glorify our God.

Then why does the NT call Satan the Father of Lies and the one who deceived Eve? None of those things are even remotely true. Thus, the NT is encouraging lying.

The vast majority of Muslims, don't know the basic facts about their religion. They can get into serious trouble if they ever question Islam's authority over their lives.

LOL, irony alert.

Ibn Ishaq is one of the earliest known biographers of Muhammad and while providing much useful information, is not reliable for all sorts of reasons. The Arabs were a very male dominated culture. Men like to brag about their personal conquests and those of their heros exagerating the truth and telling highly embellished stories.

Yeah, it's like how the conquest of Canaan supposedly involved hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, who wouldn't have been able to fit in an area like that without skyscrapers and stuff. They just inflated numbers to make it seem more epic than it was.

Bad story: We had 50 soldiers with some sticks fight and kill about 40 other guys with swords.

Great story: We had 10 soldiers with sticks and the sun stopped and meteorites or something and whatever and we totally hacked the heads off maybe 10 million bad guys and we took their women and cows.

Edit:
*soldiers hold up a banner* MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

 

[Hawkins]

Muhammad claimed to be a Messenger from God and this claim is now accepted by over 1.5 billion Muslims world wide.

Muhammad is just a human copy cat having a bad understanding of what a messenger is.

God's message is about a fundamental approach of how humans can pass along a piece of information. It is a process of faith in testimonies. It's about the gathering of information from human eyewitnesses of God Himself. Muhammad is not an eyewitness of God as all the OT prophets are. he's a counterfeit only claimed to have acquired hearsay from a suspected angel.