The argument does seem sound. I'll summarize it for those who are too lazy.
"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have
not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die."
~GOD (Deuteronomy18:20)[1]
From this we gather: a) If a prophet speaks a word in God's name which God did not command him to speak, then he will die.
This implies: a') If a person speaks a word in God's name which God does not command him to speak, and he does not die, then he is not a prophet.
"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken."
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)[2]
From this we gather: b) Muhammad did speak words in God's name which God did not command him to speak.
Therefore, by a'), Muhammad is not a prophet.
and by the way, the person that wrote all that has got all their sources a bit messed up which is why theyve written a load of bob. he NEVER forced anyone into marriage and condemned it form happening...he said so himself that a woman must be asked thrice about if shes willing to go ahead with a marriage ceremony...and he didnt torture anyone coz he said "treat others in the way u want to be treated" and "hurting someones feelings is like breaking down the house of God"...
those dont sound like the words of a violent man do they?
The first accusation is pedophile. The best refutation to this is the behaviour of the Arabs who opposed Muhammad (pbuh). These people even made up falsehoods about him yet they forgot to use his marriage in their attack. These people were stronger in enmity than most, if not everyone after them.
Another accusation is murderer. Those people who broke treaties and covenants with the Muslims time after time and would take any chance to behave treachorously against the Muslims, even going as far as preparing for war. That is war, not murder.
Another one is assasination. The one who was killed planned to assasinate Muhammad (pbuh) and was openly hostile.
Another one is lecher. Maria al-Qibtiyya was given to the Prophet by the ruler of Egypt. Do you insult Abraham (pbuh) for his relationship to Haagar or David or Solomon (pbut).
The next one is torturer. The response can be found here:
The next one is narcissism. I'm confident that most people who study Islam, Muslim or Non Muslim will testify that he was anything but narcissistic.
The next one is looter. One of the first paragraphs is just so wrong. If he wanted to take advantage he could have lived in palaces or mansions like any other powerful leader but he lived very simply, even his bed was absolutely bare. Also, yes, the spoils of war are permissable.
The one after that is misogynist. This one is not worth the read. Almost every person, whether they are an enemy of Islam, scholar, Muslim will disagree with the statement that "women had more rights before Islam than after it." After that i stopped reading, it's clear to me that this personis filled with hate and actually doesn't care if they are telling the truth, lying or presenting things fully and accurately. If you want to know more about the points he mentions, then i'll answer you. It makes sense to want to know what Muslims have to say, we are the ones after all, who know the most about Islam and we'd like it if you actually asked us what the reasons or benefits are for certain things. It isn't fair to us for you to spread what may be false without knowing the Muslim position first.
Another one is cult leader. This is just one big attack. If you want to bring up an individual point the writer makes, i'll answer that.
Terrorist? The author is stretching it.
Notice i haven't given you a long answer. Short and simple.
If you want to discuss Islam, we'll happily discuss it but please don't use such extreme websites, it only weakens your position. You can ask about what you like, whatever objections they are but using websites like that breeds a really bad attitude, to the level that noone can debate with you.
Notice i haven't given you a long answer. Short and simple.
There are two points to be made - firstly, Muslims do not necessarily believe that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 is something which is endorsed by God. If a Muslim claimed this, it would only be a guess. There's every chance that Deuteronomy18:18-19 is not "divinely inspired" according to Muslims.
The reason that Muslims quote this verse is to say to Christians and Jews - "forget my beliefs for a moment - you've got this verse in the Bible, so why don't you believe in Muhammad"?
It is not a claim that the verse is definitely a miracle, it is a puzzlement at the fact that Christians and Jews claim to follow the Bible, yet when a verse appears which seems to be talking about Muhammad, they don't accept it.
Secondly, on the Satanic verses, wikipedia says:
Almost all modern Muslim scholars have rejected the story. Proposed arguments against the historicity of the incident can be found in Muhammad Abduh's article “Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt”, Muhammad Husayn Haykal's "Hayat Muhammad", Sayyid Qutb's "Fi Zilal al-Quran", Abul Ala Maududi's "Tafhim al-Quran" and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's "Nasb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq". Haykal points out the many forms and versions of the story and their inconsistencies and argues that "the contextual flow of Surah 'al Najm' does not allow at all the inclusion of such verses as the story claims". Haykal quotes Muhammad Abduh who pointed out that the "Arabs have nowhere described their gods in such terms as 'al gharaniq'. Neither in their poetry nor in their speeches or traditions do we find their gods or goddesses described in such terms. Rather, the word 'al ghurnuq' or 'al gharniq' was the name of a black or white water bird, sometimes given figuratively to the handsome blond youth." Lastly, Haykal argues that the story is inconsistent with Muhammad's personal life and is completely against the spirit of the Islamic message.
This story isn't going to convince any Muslims that Muhammad is a false prophet, since most Muslims don't believe this story anyway.
The author of that article has erroneously assumed that a Muslim must agree with the pronouncement of Deuteronomy 18:19, and has also erroneously assumed that the Satanic verses story is unquestionably true. This so-called "logical deduction" is far from rigorous.
From this we gather: a) If a prophet speaks a word in God's name which God did not command him to speak, then he will die.
This implies: a') If a person speaks a word in God's name which God does not command him to speak, and he does not die, then he is not a prophet.
Muhammad did die though
(Note, the verse does not say that the prophet will die immediately)
Plus, just because Deuteronomy says something, that doesn't make it true (as far as a Muslim is concerned).
"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken."
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)[2]
As I said earlier, the vast majority of Muslim historians and scholars don't believe this "Satanic verses" story. You just happen to have quoted one out of thousands who does believe it - but in general, Muslims do not.
"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken."
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)[2]
Hi. That is clearly a fabricated narration. Many sayings were spread around at the time after his death which were simply not true and were intended to create confusion and discord. That is one.
“I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I HAVE MERELY REPORTED IT as it was reported to me.(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)”
The book it is from is not of sahih hadith. Those are hadith which have been checked, are trustworthy and reliable.
Any rational attempt to refute the claims is acceptable in my books.
lol.
i converted
you just dont know what you're talking about
hahaha, carry on with those refuted claims, (one person made those claims , and even he was a weak narrator ) anyway, i leave you to your own conclusions
thanks for making islam interesting again, many moslems were asleep, now is time for revival.
what kind of demented thread is this? Putting a thread like this up will get Muslims angered.. and wth Muhammad PBUH wasn't any of that crap.. what a way to get Muslims attention.
To say that Muhammad PBUH would even 'think' of hurting a fly is an understatement !!! He was the one who stopped the burying alive of new born girls, he was the one who discouraged slavery, he was the one who taught men to treat women as their equals !!! and all this time the western world was in its dark ages.
Today's modern day society is based on his teachings, his principles and yet you people coin such filthy accusations for the Greatest Man ever to be born.
The information given in that link is not true at all. The facts given by that guy are baseless, his sources are flawed. The proof he gives is incorrectly translated from Arabic to English and misinterpreted. I suggest whoever wants to read about Muhammad's life read authentic books and then say something about it.
Wiki Support Team TSR Moderation Team: Moderator PS Helper
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kent
Re: Muhammad a pedophile, rapist and torturer?
Originally Posted by PFX
To say that Muhammad PBUH would even 'think' of hurting a fly is an understatement !!! He was the one who stopped the burying alive of new born girls, he was the one who discouraged slavery, he was the one who taught men to treat women as their equals !!! and all this time the western world was in its dark ages.
Today's modern day society is based on his teachings, his principles and yet you people coin such filthy accusations for the Greatest Man ever to be born.
The information given in that link is not true at all. The facts given by that guy are baseless, his sources are flawed. The proof he gives is incorrectly translated from Arabic to English and misinterpreted. I suggest whoever wants to read about Muhammad's life read authentic books and then say something about it.
Yet it is perfectly fine for Mohammed to lead Islamic conquests which killed thousands of people?
Thoughts? I am particularly interested in Muslims' viewpoints. Do you agree with this (I'm guessing not), and if not are you able to disprove it?
Edit: This thread is an invitation for a debate with the author of the article, not an open insult to Islam. No point in posting if you're not going to read the article.
Technicalities are so wonderful, aren't they? Still, keep in mind that I only gave the logical structure of the person's argument for the lazy reader. (The argument is sound.) I didn't convey the person's defense of the argument's premises. So, a one-sentence rebuttal may be amiss.
The reason that Muslims quote this verse is to say to Christians and Jews - "forget my beliefs for a moment - you've got this verse in the Bible, so why don't you believe in Muhammad"?
Originally Posted by tazarooni89
Muhammad did die though
(Note, the verse does not say that the prophet will die immediately)
Funnily enough, if you read "die" that loosely, then the verse completely loses all predictive power, and does not support Muhammad in any sense.
Discuss theological issues, which are issues inherent to a religion, not their political manifestations.
Re: Muhammad proven to be a False Prophet?
