Was Muhammad a good man?

[Gharib]

Name one person who surpasses Prophet Muhammed pbuh in any aspect of life, be it as a husband, a father, a leader, a general, anything you wish and lets compare.

 

[1robin]

Name one person who surpasses Prophet Muhammed pbuh in any aspect of life, be it as a husband, a father, a leader, a general, anything you wish and lets compare.

How's about the 99% percent of humanity that did not kill people for their own selfish reasons? How about the 40 Biblical authors that did not plagiarize a large portion of their holy texts, did not marry juveniles, nor refused to perform miracles (because they actually were from God). I can name at least 3 dozen better generals starting with Cortez, Lee, Eisenhower, Rommel, etc..... That will take enough time alone.

 

[McBell]

Name one person who surpasses Prophet Muhammed pbuh in any aspect of life, be it as a husband, a father, a leader, a general, anything you wish and lets compare.

Who gets to judge?
You?
How will that work other than you merely going "nuh uh"?

 

[psychoslice]

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

 

[FearGod]

How's about the 99% percent of humanity that did not kill people for their own selfish reasons? How about the 40 Biblical authors that did not plagiarize a large portion of their holy texts, did not marry juveniles, nor refused to perform miracles (because they actually were from God). I can name at least 3 dozen better generals starting with Cortez, Lee, Eisenhower, Rommel, etc..... That will take enough time alone.

You think that prophet Moses did fight his enemies due to God's order and that prophet Issa will be back in the end times to fight in the name of his father whereas prophet Mohammed was fighting for his own selfish reasons.

Do you think the Arab peninsula was in better condition prior to the era of prophet Mohammed burying their own newborns alive and fighting in daily basis,oppression of slaves,prostitution,adultery..etc.

Jaafar Bin Abi Taleb talked about that to the king of Habashis after explaining about the deteriorating situation they lived in before the prophet’s (pbuh) mission. He said: “We have lived under that until Allah sent us a prophet who was one of us, we knew his origin, honesty, integrity, and virtue, so he called upon us to unify and worship Allah and to abandon the idols we and our fathers used to worship. He ordered us to speak honestly, keep the trust, preserve kinship, good neighboring, and to abandon the prohibited, bloodshed, performing adultery, speaking false speech, and taking the orphans’ money.”

 

[Sha'irullah]

The amount of evidence you have posted in support of your claims is astounding.

You are demanding evidence for a claim which requires none. It is like asking for evidence that you are alive.

The only evidence I need is the claim that purports that the Ummah is a safe and moral society that is thriving in peace. The evidence for this is nil considering that me and you both know that it is a blood soaked society drenched in the sweat of the violent conquerors, dipped int he blood of the innocent, polished with the saliva of the dictatorial silver tongue and sought out with the mucus filled nostrils of the powerful and corrupt.

The Ummah is the house of bloodshed and the bedrock of intolerance. It stands as the pinnacle example of a land of religious ruled might and cowardly ran fear campaigns.
The archaic society hath never bore it's freedom nor prosperity because of the spread of Islam further into the crevices of the body of free intellectual thinking.

Islam contributed great good at the hands of Muhammad then went on further to spread great evil while simultaneously replacing it with peace. I do not look at Muhammad as a villain of any kind but as a man with hopes and dreams but failed in achieving them by not being able to establish them.

You are asking for evidence knowing fully well I am speaking of an interpretation of a man's will and desires not obscure historical claims. What you are asking of is only perpetuating intellectual dishonesty towards yourself

 

[Gharib]

You are demanding evidence for a claim which requires none. It is like asking for evidence that you are alive.

The only evidence I need is the claim that purports that the Ummah is a safe and moral society that is thriving in peace. The evidence for this is nil considering that me and you both know that it is a blood soaked society drenched in the sweat of the violent conquerors, dipped int he blood of the innocent, polished with the saliva of the dictatorial silver tongue and sought out with the mucus filled nostrils of the powerful and corrupt.

The Ummah is the house of bloodshed and the bedrock of intolerance. It stands as the pinnacle example of a land of religious ruled might and cowardly ran fear campaigns.
The archaic society hath never bore it's freedom nor prosperity because of the spread of Islam further into the crevices of the body of free intellectual thinking.

Islam contributed great good at the hands of Muhammad then went on further to spread great evil while simultaneously replacing it with peace. I do not look at Muhammad as a villain of any kind but as a man with hopes and dreams but failed in achieving them by not being able to establish them.

You are asking for evidence knowing fully well I am speaking of an interpretation of a man's will and desires not obscure historical claims. What you are asking of is only perpetuating intellectual dishonesty towards yourself

Yet another post full of facts and evidence.

I see a bunch of statements but no evidence.

 

[Gharib]

Who gets to judge?
You?
How will that work other than you merely going "nuh uh"?

Both you and I will judge.

You post your information on the person of your choice and I will post of Prophet Muhammed pbuh. It's a simple task, if I say a mere "nuh uh" without presenting better evidence from the life of my Prophet then consider yourself victorious.

 

[1robin]

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

This is actually a very complex discourse.

The man had called Christ good. Christ was saying you called me good and only God is good, so do you know with who it is you speak. This passage is often used to suggest Jesus was God. The whole conversation is very interesting and sophisticated.

 

[1robin]

You think that prophet Moses did fight his enemies due to God's order and that prophet Issa will be back in the end times to fight in the name of his father whereas prophet Mohammed was fighting for his own selfish reasons.

Yes Moses fought on God's order. There never was a prophet Issa so that one is irrelevant. Mohammad and his companions claimed the reasons for some of his battles was Muhammad not Allah. The first battle of Bard Muhammad's companion asked him specifically whether it was Muhammad or Allah that ordered the fight. Muhammad replied it was his own idea and because the caravan was full of loot. What would have been the first battle was called off by Muhammad. He either did not do as Allah ordered or Allah never ordered it to begin with. I do not think Allah exists but if Muhammad claimed Allah ordered the battle I have to allow that that could be possible but many were Muhammad's own tyrannical ideas.

Do you think the Arab peninsula was in better condition prior to the era of prophet Mohammed burying their own newborns alive and fighting in daily basis,oppression of slaves,prostitution,adultery..etc.

I have no idea but even if Muhammad made things a little better in some areas that is not evidence he was a prophet.

Jaafar Bin Abi Taleb talked about that to the king of Habashis after explaining about the deteriorating situation they lived in before the prophet’s (pbuh) mission. He said: “We have lived under that until Allah sent us a prophet who was one of us, we knew his origin, honesty, integrity, and virtue, so he called upon us to unify and worship Allah and to abandon the idols we and our fathers used to worship. He ordered us to speak honestly, keep the trust, preserve kinship, good neighboring, and to abandon the prohibited, bloodshed, performing adultery, speaking false speech, and taking the orphans’ money.”

Muhammad might have lessened some evils but he increased others. I do not make any claim one way or the other. Improvements are not proof of anything. Hitler changed a humiliated, destitute, and weak Germany into a thriving economy, with pride, and the most powerful army in the world over just a few years. Does that make him either a prophet or even good?

 

[1robin]

Yet another post full of facts and evidence.

I see a bunch of statements but no evidence.

There were no less facts in his statement than this one of yours. In fact I see no evidence in any of your claims at all.

Name one person who surpasses Prophet Muhammed pbuh in any aspect of life, be it as a husband, a father, a leader, a general, anything you wish and lets compare.

It would be hard to make a statement more ludicrous than that one.

 

[YmirGF]

Both you and I will judge.

That almost sounds reasonable too.

You post your information on the person of your choice and I will post of Prophet Muhammed pbuh.

But this is where your "challenge" becomes unreasonable. The fact is that no one else in history has had the amount of information written about them exclusively by their fanatical followers. Due to the inherent fanaticism it is extremely difficult to separate the myth from the possible reality. Therefore, any comparison is moot and relatively meaningless because faith claims aren't worth the paper they are written on.

 

[Gharib]

There were no less facts in his statement than this one of yours. In fact I see no evidence in any of your claims at all. It would be hard to make a statement more ludicrous than that one.

I did make a claim, but it was through a question. How about you address my question and prove me wrong then.

 

[Gharib]

That almost sounds reasonable too.

But this is where your "challenge" becomes unreasonable. The fact is that no one else in history has had the amount of information written about them exclusively by their fanatical followers. Due to the inherent fanaticism it is extremely difficult to separate the myth from the possible reality. Therefore, any comparison is moot and relatively meaningless because faith claims aren't worth the paper they are written on.

This almost sounded reasonable too, but then you over did it.

You have displayed wisdom Ymir. Both you and I know for a fact that no man's life has ever been recorded like that of Muhammed pbuh. You should teach these youngsters a thing or two.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If your conclusion results from you assumption above then of what use is it? I did not claim Muhammad was a false prophet and thereby claim Islam is a false religion. I looked for evidence he was and found only evidence he was not. I did not assume he was lying and make a conclusion I discovered evidence he was lying, plagiarizing, contradicting himself, acting tyrannical, killing for his own reasons, and exhibiting the classic symptoms of demon influence described in exhausting detail in the Bible and in the history of documented exorcism. After that plus a whole lot more became self evident I concluded he was a false prophet.

As you will find if review my posts I have said only two possible truths can apply to anyone claiming prophet hood.

1. If they are false prophets (not in contact with God or his emissaries) then they are the most evil category of people possible.
2. If a true prophet speaking on behalf of God then they are the most valuable and authoritative people possible.

There are potential ways as I illustrated plus many additional ones to determine the likely hood a person is in touch with a benevolent supernatural being but it is not an absolute science. My claims however have been what a true prophet would deserve not methodology required to determine if they were.

Let me state it a different way. Let's say a person demonstrated they were from God in some manner. In what way would their demands by invalid or unjust?

In this post I wasn't debating that Muhamid was a good man. I have debated the opposite at the begining of the thread.

What I am saying is what evidence can you provide that someone is moral by default because they came from god or was working under god's command?

I don't think there is any compelling reason to simply believe that someone is acting under any god. Untill which time they can provide evidence that they were working under some supereme being that gave them authority to bend our normal secular moral rules then I still hold them accountable as being immoral.

 

[YmirGF]

What I am saying is what evidence can you provide that someone is moral by default because they came from god or was working under god's command?

It is my opinion that when anyone plays the "god card" to explain their behavior we should treat them with a rather large dose of skepticism - to be generous - if not run away, screaming, to get away from said person ASAP.

I don't think there is any compelling reason to simply believe that someone is acting under any god. Untill which time they can provide evidence that they were working under some supereme being that gave them authority to bend our normal secular moral rules then I still hold them accountable as being immoral.

How do you tell is someone isn't merely delusional? They could still be utterly sincere and convincing.

 

[1robin]

I did make a claim, but it was through a question. How about you address my question and prove me wrong then.

I have already done so but here is a copy of it.

How's about the 99% percent of humanity that did not kill people for their own selfish reasons? How about the 40 Biblical authors that did not plagiarize a large portion of their holy texts, did not marry juveniles, nor refused to perform miracles (because they actually were from God). I can name at least 3 dozen better generals starting with Cortez, Lee, Eisenhower, Rommel, etc..... That will take enough time alone.

On a scale of 1 - 10 where 10 is best I would rate Muhammad at.

Morally - 2 or 3.
Militarily - 6 or 7.
Family life - ???.
But his having many wives and some of them very young is not good.
As a prophet - 1.
As a leader - 7.5.

 

[1robin]

In this post I wasn't debating that Muhamid was a good man. I have debated the opposite at the begining of the thread.

Then we can drop this point of agreement. However my statements were about his prophet hood which determined whether he was good or not. Once a man makes a claim to speak for God there is no neutrality. He is either the best of men or the worst.

What I am saying is what evidence can you provide that someone is moral by default because they came from god or was working under god's command?

The test for prophet hood is not nececerrily how moral they (though hey should be moral). It is whether the can predict the future with 100% accuracy, can perform miraculous acts. and whether they adhere to the narrative in exactitude the past Biblical prophets had.

I don't think there is any compelling reason to simply believe that someone is acting under any god. Untill which time they can provide evidence that they were working under some supereme being that gave them authority to bend our normal secular moral rules then I still hold them accountable as being immoral.

There are two very distinct issues here. I have been talking about one and you the other. I am making an ontological point, you an epistemological one.

My claim.

A man who truly is from God would have the greatest possible authority and justification for his actions, and commands.

Your response.

There is no way to know if any specific man is from God so none should be obeyed.

My response to this> My claim would still be true whether yours was true or not. You bring up a real problem but it does not affect what I said. It only affects the implementation of what I claimed not its truth. Fortunately Christians (as God knew of your problem before asked took care of it). He sends to no prophets making generalized claims to kill or go to war.

In the OT he was doing something quite different than in the NT. He was setting up a culture in order to reflect him and use as a conduit for his revelation. What Hebrew prophets demanded was only for Israel and those prophets came with signs and proof. Today prophets are sent to teach about the Kingdom of God. There are no prophets sent from God who are demanding anyone blow up abortion clinics of invade the Muslim middle east. There are only teacher prophets and their message is accepted or denied on a personal basis. So your question is a reasonable one but in the case of Christianity not applicable and in he case of my claim irrelevant.

 

[1robin]

How do you tell is someone isn't merely delusional? They could still be utterly sincere and convincing.

I know od a few ways to determine a prophet is a prophet.

Miracles - Muhammad refused to do them.

Prophecy - Muhammad never made any worthy of that title. Islam is often referred to as a "non-prophet" system.

Morality - Muhammad made mostly morally insane decisions and exhibited a tyrannical pettiness that is hard to conceive.

Agreement with former prophets - Muhammad distorted the message of the former prophets into unrecognizable form.

Lineage - Muhammad did not come from the line God said would produce all prophets. He came from the line said to be one that would plague their brothers with constant strife and war.

I can go on but those are the big 5 and if he got them all wrong the rest on the minor tests do not matter.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The test for prophet hood is not nececerrily how moral they (though hey should be moral). It is whether the can predict the future with 100% accuracy, can perform miraculous acts....

I agree. Anyone who claims to predict the future with accuracy or to perform miracles -- such a man has proven himself to be a false prophet.

Also, any man who claims that God has commanded him to kill the inhabitants of a foreign city -- that man has proven himself to be a false prophet.

It is good that we are finally nailing down these Prophet Tests. Do you have more?

There are no prophets sent from God who are demanding anyone blow up abortion clinics of invade the Muslim middle east.

I am so happy to hear you say that. Believe it or not, there are people who still see Joshua as a legitimate prophet of God. it's hard to understand why people cannot distinguish false prophets from true ones.