Do you think Pope is wise in making this statement even in quote? (ritual, America)

[sindbad5]

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri

Muhammed did conquer the Arabian peninsula. Everyone knows it happened, including Muslims.

If you read the history exactly in this point - not after that, and didn't satisfy with biasd tellings (and how many it is) you'll find a great example of how to live a high quality life, full of dideaction and faith, full of helping others to make it further better.

most of respectful academic researchs about the prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) agreed on his greatness in all aspects of life, and war doubtlessly part of the life.

war is bad, nobody love wars.
but what do you do if it's imposed on you? i bet most of u will say: we fight back.

prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) was in charge of reaching the people to tell them the Allah message.

some tribes (from hundreds of tribes on the arabia, mainly his tribe Qurish) prevented him from that.

he asked them not to belive if they don't, but let him reach other tribes to do his duty, they refuse and start to fight muslims.

Mohamed has to defend the new religion from the aggression of qurish and some other tribes that make allies with it, and to make a path to reach other tribes,

he always said to qurish : "don't be in the middle between me and others" [or as he said].

after qurish realised that it can't defeat the new state of islam, qurish asked for a treaty, the prophet stopped the war at once (by the way, he was opposed by some of Sahaba, the elites of muslims), the prophet realized that the treaty will make the message reach others not only in aribia, but in persia and byzanta.

another face of the prophet wars i want to enlight: how muslims were fight?
most of the time, the prophet look at the non muslims as a potential muslim or a peacable non-muslim, and so, it's not so wise to go deep in fight.

another thing: the prophet ordered the fighters only to fight who fights them, not to kill a woman, a child, olders, and non-armed man, even he ordered the muslims not to cut a tree, or to fill up with earth wells, except if the combat demand that kind of action.

Originally Posted by GloriaPatri

... Islam in and of itself is not evil or violent.

so also its messanger, Mohamed [peace be upon him and upon all prophets till Adam]

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by sindbad5

most of respectful academic researchs about the prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) agreed on his greatness in all aspects of life, ...

Who might they be? Who are the independent scholars who might expose the errors in the following from the Mohammed and Mohammedanism?

The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career. His earliest and chief biographers are Ibn Ishaq (A.H. 151=A.D. 768), Wakidi (207=822), Ibn Hisham (213=828), Ibn Sa'd (230=845), Tirmidhi (279=892), Tabari (310-929), the "Lives of the Companions of Mohammed", the numerous Koranic commentators [especially Tabari, quoted above, Zamakhshari 538=1144), and Baidawi (691=1292)], the "Musnad", or collection of traditions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (241=855), the collections of Bokhari (256=870), the "Isabah", or "Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed", by Ibn Hajar, etc. All these collections and biographies are based on the so-called Hadiths, or "traditions", the historical value of which is more than doubtful.

These traditions, in fact, represent a gradual, and more or less artificial, legendary development, rather than supplementary historical information. According to them, Mohammed was simple in his habits, but most careful of his personal appearance. He loved perfumes and hated strong drink. Of a highly nervous temperament, he shrank from bodily pain. Though gifted with great powers of imagination, he was taciturn. He was affectionate and magnanimous, pious and austere in the practice of his religion, brave, zealous, and above reproach in his personal and family conduct. Palgrave, however, wisely remarks that "the ideals of Arab virtue were first conceived and then attributed to him". Nevertheless, with every allowance for exaggeration, Mohammed is shown by his life and deeds to have been a man of dauntless courage, great generalship, strong patriotism, merciful by nature, and quick to forgive. And yet he was ruthless in his dealings with the Jews, when once he had ceased to hope for their submission. He approved of assassination, when it furthered his cause; however barbarous or treacherous the means, the end justified it in his eyes; and in more than one case he not only approved, but also instigated the crime.

Concerning his moral character and sincerity contradictory opinions have been expressed by scholars in the last three centuries. Many of these opinions are biased either by an extreme hatred of Islam and its founder or by an exaggerated admiration, coupled with a hatred of Christianity. Luther looked upon him as "a devil and first-born child of Satan". Maracci held that Mohammed and Mohammedanism were not very dissimilar to Luther and Protestantism. Spanheim and D'Herbelot characterize him as a "wicked impostor", and a "dastardly liar", while Prideaux stamps him as a wilful deceiver. Such indiscriminate abuse is unsupported by facts. Modern scholars, such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme, Margoliouth, give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Mohammed's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity. The various estimates of several recent critics have been ably collected and summarized by Zwemer, in his "Islam, a Challenge to Faith" (New York, 1907). According to Sir William Muir, Marcus Dods, and some others, Mohammed was at first sincere, but later, carried away by success, he practised deception wherever it would gain his end. Koelle "finds the key to the first period of Mohammed's life in Khadija, his first wife", after whose death he became a prey to his evil passions. Sprenger attributes the alleged revelations to epileptic fits, or to "a paroxysm of cataleptic insanity". Zwemer himself goes on to criticize the life of Mohammed by the standards, first, of the Old and New Testaments, both of which Mohammed acknowledged as Divine revelation; second, by the pagan morality of his Arabian compatriots; lastly, by the new law of which he pretended to be the "divinely appointed medium and custodian". According to this author, the prophet was false even to the ethical traditions of the idolatrous brigands among whom he lived, and grossly violated the easy sexual morality of his own system. After this, it is hardly necessary to say that, in Zwemer's opinion, Mohammed fell very far short of the most elementary requirements of Scriptural morality. Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents. . .And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him".

... certainly not the kind of guy I'd want as a neighbor in civilized society.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Who might they be? Who are the independent scholars who might expose the errors in the following from the Mohammed and Mohammedanism?

Why don't you dig up H.M. Balyuzi's email and ask him. Or I suppose you could contact him through his publisher.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Booko

Why don't you dig up H.M. Balyuzi's email and ask him. Or I suppose you could contact him through his publisher.

I haven't a clue what this means ...

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Who might they be? Who are the independent scholars who might expose the errors in the following from the Mohammed and Mohammedanism?

That is a source from the semi official Catholic mouth piece. Can we hear perhaps from Wiki?

[greatcalgarian]

Like this:

Overview

Born to ‘Abdu’llah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muttalib, Muhammad initially adopted the occupation of a merchant. The Islamic sources indicate that he was a charismatic person known for his integrity. [8] The sources frequently say that he, in his youth, was called with the nickname "Al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين ), a common Arab name, meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and even was sought out as an impartial arbitrator. [4] [8] Welch, noting the frequency of Muhammad being called as "Al-Amin", suggests the possibility of "Al-Amin" being Muhammad's given name as it is a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name, A'mina [4] (Arabic:آمنه). Muhammad often retreated to a cave on a mountain outside Mecca called Hira for contemplation. In the year 610, when Muhammad was about forty, he said he had been been visited in the cave by the Angel Gabriel who commanded him to recite verses sent by God. These revelations continued, he said, for the next twenty-three years, until his death. The collection of these verses is known as the Qur'an.
He expanded his mission as a prophet, publicly preaching strict monotheism and warning of a Day of Judgment when all humans shall be held responsible for their deeds. He did not wholly reject Judaism and Christianity, two other monotheistic faiths known to the Arabs, but said that he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect those teachings.
Many in Mecca resented his preaching and persecuted him and his followers. Eventually, in 622, he was forced to move out of Mecca in a journey known to Muslims as the Hijra (the Migration). He settled in the area of Yathrib (now known as Medina) with his followers, where he was the leader of the first avowedly Muslim community.
The Meccans started attacking Medina. Even though the attacking armies were several times stronger in numbers and in weaponry, Muslims defeated these invaders every time they attacked.[citation needed] Muslims finally took back Mecca under the leadership of Muhammad after eight years of exile and took control of the city. Not a single drop of blood was shed in the process of taking over Mecca by Muhammad. The Muslims subsequently removed all pre-Muslim religious objects, which they considered idols, from the Kaaba. Most of the townspeople accepted Islam. Deputations began to come in from other Arabian tribes. The conditions for their adherence were: the acceptance of Islam, the destruction of pre-Muslim religious objects, and the payment of the 'zakat' (tax) for the support of the poor community. In March 632, Muhammad led the pilgrimage known as the Hajj. On returning to Medina he fell ill and died after a few days, on June 8.
Under the caliphs who assumed authority after his death, the Islamic empire expanded into Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, North Africa, much of the Iberian Peninsula, and Anatolia. Later conquests, commercial contact between Muslims and non-Muslims, and missionary activity spread Islam over much of the Eastern Hemisphere, including China and Southeast Asia.

[greatcalgarian]

The sources of Mohammed's biography are numerous, but on the whole untrustworthy, being crowded with fictitious details, legends, and stories. None of his biographies were compiled during his lifetime, and the earliest was written a century and a half after his death. The Koran is perhaps the only reliable source for the leading events in his career.

Actually, Jesus also falls into the same category


http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

http://ca.geocities.com/greatcalgari...rsollBible.htm

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

[kai]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Actually, Jesus also falls into the same category


http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

http://ca.geocities.com/greatcalgari...rsollBible.htm

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

its not a competition ! i am interested in any historical information on the prophet