Was the Prophet Mohammad a False Prophet? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14944016
Yes he was.

David Wood is very entertaining too.



Mohammed was a paedophile and everyone fucken knows it.

Muslims follow a paedophile, let alone a dude who wanted to kill all Jews et al.


Also a White arab... No wonder they don't want pictures of Mohammad. .
#14944024
Godstud wrote:ALL religious prophets are false prophets.

That's just your opinion though whereas the presentation in the OP shows that Islam's own scriptural sources prove he was a false prophet which is a rather more serious confirmation than just your flimsy opinion based on nothing but your empty headed hubris.
#14944044
SolarCross wrote:That's just your opinion though whereas the presentation in the OP shows that Islam's own scriptural sources prove he was a false prophet which is a rather more serious confirmation than just your flimsy opinion based on nothing but your empty headed hubris.
Your opinion is based on some bullshit Youtube scholar, so... :lol: :moron:

Your opinion is the epitome of empty-headed hubris and bigotry. I can't keep up with you. :lol:
#14944048
Godstud wrote:Your opinion is based on some bullshit Youtube scholar, so... :lol: :moron:

Your opinion is the epitome of empty-headed hubris and bigotry. I can't keep up with you. :lol:

That "bullshit scholar" referenced the sources, but you have no sources but your own febrile onanism. You are the lightest of lightweights so go and pollute a thread about kittens doing the funniest things as that is the right place for you. I'll let you have the last word as I know that is important to you but I'll not waste any more time responding to your vacuous feelings.
#14944049
All you have is Ad hominems and personal attacks. You have no real argument. You quote some anti-mulsim twat from Youtube, your "go-to source". You don't need to project your own insecurities onto me.

My statement was absolute fact, and you know it. You can't prove that ANY prophet wasn't a complete con-man.
#14944053
Godstud wrote:My statement was absolute fact, and you know it. You can't prove that ANY prophet wasn't a complete con-man.


If you agree with us on Mohammad, why argue then? I don't care about your opinion on other Prophets. You agree on Mohammad, good!

I hate it when people argue just for the sake of arguing.
#14944304
Godstud wrote:I think they're all false, but for some reason you're picking on one? :lol:

There is a good logical reason to pick on that one: Islam, uniquely among major religions AFAIK, presumes to compel belief by force. Only someone who KNOWS he is a false prophet would need to force people's belief.
#14944402
Truth to Power wrote:There is a good logical reason to pick on that one: Islam, uniquely among major religions AFAIK, presumes to compel belief by force. Only someone who KNOWS he is a false prophet would need to force people's belief.
You've obviously never read the Bible, since there are numerous instances where they used force because someone wasn't part of the religion.

2 Chronicles 15:13 ESV
But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

There's more, too.

Dark passages
Does the harsh language in the Koran explain Islamic violence? Don't answer till you've taken a look inside the Bible


But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks.

If Christians or Jews want to point to violent parts of the Koran and suggest that those elements taint the whole religion, they open themselves to the obvious question: what about their own faiths? If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery. Of course, they are no such thing; nor is Islam.

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/i ... _passages/
#14944407
Simple answer.

Unlike the Koran, Christians and Jews have more Religious texts than just the Old Testament. Specifically the New Testament(God is Love, Turn the other cheek, Judge not least ye be Judged) and the Jewish Talmud(I.e the so called "Oral Torah").

So yeah, that arguement IS stupid.

Attacking the Old Testament or Tanakh as Jews call it, as if it is the whole Bible(nope, NT is in it) or whole Torah (Nope, Talmud is the "Oral Torah") is ignorant of the fact there is more than just those texts in Christianity and Judaism.
#14944438
Did Muhammad Exist? (Why That Question Is Hard to Answer)

is any plausibility to the claim that there was no Muhammad, that he was invented by early Arabic military leaders to give a name to a text they cobbled together to inspire their soldiers and build a new civilization on? In other words, that he was invented in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons as the militaristic Jews invented Moses?

Spencer’s theory, for example, is that one can adduce internal and external linguistic evidence that the Quran is just a redaction of a pre-Islamic Syriac holy text (or texts) actually foundational to a Middle Eastern sect of Jewish Christians centuries before (this is also now argued by others, including Karl Ohlig, discussed below). And certainly, Islam is actually just a sect of Christianity (as much as Muslims—and Christians—would be horrified to admit it; Islam is in many ways just the first Mormonism), and clearly descended from the obscure but more original Torah observant wing of Christianity (hence their common requirement of circumcision, their common prohibition against consuming pork, and other details). Other scholars have proposed similar theories (as even acknowledged on Wikipedia), that the Quran is not really all that original, and Spencer is drawing on their previous work—indeed, more experts continue to make similar arguments. But crucially, most others who do, didn’t and don’t conclude this entails Muhammad didn’t exist.

Indeed, Spencer’s theory is compatible with historicity, since Muhammad might have been the very one to do that adaptation and pass it off as an original work—adding, perhaps, details about himself and his use and gradual development of the treatise during his life. Although Spencer claims, “we can glean nothing” from the Quran “about Muhammad’s biography,” because such details are too vague, and it is not “even certain, on the basis of the Qur’anic text alone, that these passages refer to Muhammad, or did so originally”

Likewise, while even adding a historical Muhammad back into Spencer’s theory would still be damning to fundamentalism (which requires the text to have been revealed by an angel of God and not a half-assed plagiarism of heretical Christian scriptures)

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8574
#14944485
^ That's just silly because aside from the Koran there is the Sira and Hadith which talk about Mohammad in great length and in quite embarrassing detail, for example we know that he peed like a girl and his nightly orgies with his 9 wives / sex slaves resulted in his clothes being stained in semen. If some Muslim general wanted to invent a perfect example I am guessing Mo would be a lot less pathetic and deranged and a lot more heroic. Likely the biography would not be so long and detailed either.

Mo was pretending to be a prophet so to make his act more persuasive he used odds and ends of Christianity and Judaism and this it where the similarities come from.
#14944571
Godstud wrote:You've obviously never read the Bible, since there are numerous instances where they used force because someone wasn't part of the religion.

I have read it, and I am aware of such passages. The Old Testament is horrendous in its recounting of acts of barbarism, often under divine instruction. But I don't recall any passages that enjoin forcible conversion of gentiles as a permanent instruction from God, as Islam does conversion of the infidel.
2 Chronicles 15:13 ESV
But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

It's not clear that this refers to everyone in the world, rather than just people of Israel who backslide or are not pious enough, and it is not stated as of divine origin.
#14944588
I'd rather be converted(Islam) than killed(Christianity).

Nothing is ever of Divine origin, since there's no evidence of anything Divine. All prophets are false, by the very reasoning that there's nothing Divine. Alas, I digress.
#14944740
I actually find this interesting.

Apparently the case hinges on whether the Arabic words wateen and ahbar mean the same thing in both the Quran and the Hadith or not (which, let's be honest, none of us is qualified to say).

I wonder how many Muslim scholars even knew about this since then. I would expect that over 1400 years someone would notice the problem. Here is the most in-depth rebutall of the video that I have found - the author argues on linguistic grounds concerning those two words.

I guess a way to get around this, though a radical one, would be to go Quran-only, which actually is an option also.

Richard Carrier I respect, but invented Muhammad doesn't pass the smell test IMO (I haven't read the book by Spencer though). There is simply too much political, real-world stuff (which, I suppose, is not questioned) around him early on to be some kind of sock-puppet. Let's say Abu Bakr (for example) made him up as a source of authority. But if he was charismatic enough to get people to fight battles for him and establish alliances with other players, why even the need for a Muhammad? Wouldn't it be more effective to simply claim the Divine revelation for himself, if he thought that could bolster his position? What about the family and tribe of Muhammad (I don't think the existence of Banu Hashim is at all in question)? His purported wifes? Would they all be in on it too? And later the whole Shia fraction takes this fictional guy and runs with it as their source of authority? That's just off the top of my head and I am not even particularly well versed in early Islamic history.
Propaganda works

Remove the barriers to assimilation, and Blacks w[…]

Russia will not become friends with Europe even[…]

There was no such thing as Blacks, Black identi[…]

"It’s getting old detailing all the crappy wa[…]