1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Muhammad a good man?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by kassault37, Apr 18, 2013.

?
  1. He was a great man and those who insult him must be punished!

    60 vote(s)
    27.9%
  2. He was a great man, but people are free to insult him

    47 vote(s)
    21.9%
  3. He was not a good man, but we should respect him because I believe in respecting other religions

    23 vote(s)
    10.7%
  4. He was a terrible man and we should condemn his awful actions!

    85 vote(s)
    39.5%
  1. Assad91

    Assad91 Shi'ah Ali

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,814
    Ratings:
    +158
    Alhumdulillah we have a great man to look up to! Alhumdulillah we have a great man to follow! His example is the greatest!

    Alhumdulillah! الحمد لله‎

     
  2. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,091
    Ratings:
    +14,868
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    I rather expect that the pagans of Mecca would not be so kind in praising Muhammad. He wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of them. If the truth be told, he wasn't particularly tolerant or understanding of anyone who stood against him.
     
  3. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +359
    Religion:
    Christian
    Medina was no pick-nick either. Many who criticized him wound up dead, "converted", or vanished. And if you "God forbid wrote a poem against him then it was all over.


    FROM ALI DASHTI'S "23 YEARS: A STUDY OF THE PROPHETIC CAREER OF MOHAMMAD", (3) page 100:

    "Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated."



    And prior to listing all of the assassinations Muhammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes on page 97:


    "Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax."



    Did you ever notice how the earlier Meccan Quran, written when Muhammad was weak and to entice the Jewish population is all about peace? However the latter Medina Quran, written when Muhammad was strong and when the Jews had rejected Islam there is constant violent instruction from Allah? However since the Quran is arranged in a haphazard non chronological order it is harder to see. Many scholars actually claim the Meccan and Medina Qurans should be considered two separate versions. Also the later violent verses abrogate the earlier peacefull ones.

    I have no problem with God ordering violence but when he does so for Caravans for loot, the torturing of people to find out the location of wealth, nor does he kill for unflattering poetry it does not sound like the God I know.
     
    #83 1robin, Apr 19, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  4. kassault37

    kassault37 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2013
    Messages:
    50
    Ratings:
    +3
    Well as history has it Muhammad was a warrior, do you expect tolerance from a man of war! That's how Islam spread, into Persia, at one point into Europe and the brutality of expanding Islam into the Indian subcontinent.

     
  5. Maija

    Maija Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    518
    Ratings:
    +105
    Matthew 10:34
    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

    look for controversy and you will find it. There comes a time for everything
     
  6. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    42,632
    Ratings:
    +7,328
    what does this have to do with the thread?
     
  7. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +359
    Religion:
    Christian
    This has nothing whatever to do with physical violence. The sword is used as a metaphor for the word time after time in the Bible. You may misinterpret your own scriptures if you wish but please leave mine intact. The word is a sword because it divides. It makes a son leave his father to follow God, it makes a patriot defy his country to be obedient, it makes a women refuse to marry a non-theistic man to stop temptation for existing. The truth (sword or word) causes division between it and lies. That is what is being discussed in this verse. Jesus caused many divisions he never killed anyone especially women, poets, or husbands of wives he wanted. The only time his apostles ever struck anyone he rebuked them and healed the man. Contrast that with Muhammad. BTW if you want and indepth interpretation for this verse just ask.
     
  8. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,091
    Ratings:
    +14,868
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    You see, I don't take that passage literally, but rather, metaphorically. In my view he is talking about the "sword of reason" to cut through the theological drivel he was born into, whereas Muhammad literally took up the sword to literally fight any who opposed him.
     
  9. Maija

    Maija Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    518
    Ratings:
    +105
    exactly, and the same way when the quran talks struggle it uses the word "jihad", when it talks of war it uses qital.

    so neither religions are propgating violence if u go to source, if u want to dislike modern muslims fine, but to dislike original source without having studied is ignorant
     
  10. dynavert2012

    dynavert2012 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    285
    Ratings:
    +32
    Mohamed also died for our sins :p
     
  11. Quagmire

    Quagmire Imaginary talking monkey
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    48,111
    Ratings:
    +9,256
    Religion:
    I am not an athiest.
    That's not an argument. That's a sermon.
     
  12. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    70,968
    Ratings:
    +29,172
    Religion:
    Erotic Dancing Girls
    I think if you judge Muhammad according to the standards of his time and place in history, he was in some ways forward thinking and in other ways more usual for his time and place. Much the same could be said for just about any relatively progressive person living before the current age.
     
  13. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +359
    Religion:
    Christian
    It does not work like that. There is no dependance between what the sword means in teh Bible and what Jihad means in the Quran.

    Hold the phone. Both religions undeniably include instructions to fight. I wil not be coaught up in theis denailism concerning my faith. There is nothing that allows violence of anykind in the NT but the OT has many violent action God mandated. I never said anything about likin Muslims of any age. I have studied the Quran and my information usually comes from historical scholars that have studied it far more than most. Many times it comes from Islamic scholars. Muslims just can't take criticism of anykind. The first complaint and Islamiphobia and bias is used as some type of bizarre defense. Don't claim I have no researched (you have no way of knowing) show that my claims are wrong. My claims are this:

    1. The OT allows for violence in the service of God and God orders all legitimate acts of violence. If commited without God's approval God punished it severly.
    2. The NT does not allow for physical violence on any level.
    3. The Quran is filled with violence especially when Muhammad became strong enough to throw his weight around. It does not simply allow it as an unfortunate reality it promotes it at times depending on Muhammad's strength at the time. He assasinated people (or ordered it), invaded locations, raided caravans for money, detroyed Holy Sites, and fought many battles. Most are devoid of any Godly reason to have been fought. Most are simply Muhammads thin skin and terrible temper and they do not resemple those in the OT. They look exactly like what I believe they are. The acts of Muhammad who made up a religion to unite the Pagan Arab tribes in order to weild a powerfull cohesive force to impose his diabolical will.
    My God never killed anyone because they wrote a poem he didn't like. Muhammad killed at least four for that reason alone, others for money, other for petty revenge, others to get women etc.....
     
  14. The Sum of Awe

    The Sum of Awe Realitarian

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    14,161
    Ratings:
    +1,149
    Religion:
    Stoicism
    Then why shouldn't we respect that belief, but respect your belief? Because your belief says you're right?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Pegg

    Pegg Jehovah our God is One

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,465
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Jehovah's Witness
    Jesus did not merely 'die'.... he was 'killed'. There is a difference.
     
    #95 Pegg, Apr 19, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
  16. sunni56

    sunni56 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +12
    Firstly, he didn't die. And secondly, they are not mutually exclusive terms, a person who is killed is dead.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. sunni56

    sunni56 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +12
    I'm shocked at some of the ultra-pacifist criticism of Islam on here. If we had that mentality in 1940, we'd all be speaking German here in Europe thanks to the Third Reich.
     
  18. Pegg

    Pegg Jehovah our God is One

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,465
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Jehovah's Witness
    they are very different terms and mean completely different things. The outcome may be the same, but 'reason' for their death is not.

    Jesus was killed. He was murdered. That isn't a case of just dying... its a case of having your life taken away unjustly.

    When someone gets very old and eventually dies of age related causes, that is a just death because it came naturally, not forcibly.
     
  19. sunni56

    sunni56 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +12
    Mutually exclusive events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Dead" and "killed" are not mutually exclusive.
     
  20. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +359
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well you are the first in hundreds of Muslims I have debated to even mention it. How do you know? I have relative but absolute proof of what Christ did. Islam does not even offer it for Muhammad and the mistake will not be known until too late. BTW most Muslims deny that can even take place at all, emphatically. Muhammad had plenty of his own sins to pay for. How can a mere man that was apparently just as or even vastly more sinful than most die for anyone else’s sins, or even his own? I do not think you must be familiar with the complexity and sophistication of substitutionary atonement. Muhammad is ineligible to even think of doing what Christ did.
     
Loading...