Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Muhammad under the guidance of Word of God established a most equitable, peaceful and rational society starting from Mecca, Medina and when Mecca became free under his control to the whole of the Arabian Peninsula and of course then in the whole world.
Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone and he was not trained to fight. Was he, please?
Regards

___________
Reference Post 24 in the thread "Worship of Mary not Biblical":
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 509#888509

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Post by JP Cusick »

paarsurrey1 wrote: Muhammad under the guidance of Word of God established a most equitable, peaceful and rational society starting from Mecca, Medina and when Mecca became free under his control to the whole of the Arabian Peninsula and of course then in the whole world.
Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone and he was not trained to fight. Was he, please?
I view Muhammad as similar to Abe Lincoln, because Lincoln was a non violent man who wanted to do right and wanted to make a better world, but for both Lincoln and for Muhammad they were pushed into unwanted wars and hostilities.

We need to look for that-of-God in all events because people make plans but God above is pulling the strings.

As is said = insha'Allah = "if God wills".
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7474
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am

Post by Wootah »

It's dangerous to see the good in wicked people and more dangerous to try to justify wicked actions because it's not healthy to support immorality.

For instance all criminals would claim to abhor violence but in their situation they had to do it.

But the criminal at least deserves some pity because we did not walk in their shoes. But the one that makes excuses for the criminal deserves far less pity because they are justifying evil.

Right now we have a mass delusion enforced by violence and fear where sane comments about a historical figure are not possible. The West is going to have to choose again between freedom and slavery and it is not clear it has the courage to do so.

We can talk sanely about Ghengis khan or Hitler or napoleon or Cesar or pharoah but not Mohammad. Why is that?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... hp?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Post by JP Cusick »

Wootah wrote: We can talk ... but not [about] Mohammad. Why is that?
The reason is the same for the past 1400 years - because the violent west (mostly Caucasians) are ruled by their never ending religious bigotry and racist bigotry against Muhammad and against the great religion of Islam.

That is the reason - and that is the only reason. FYI.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Wootah wrote: It's dangerous to see the good in wicked people and more dangerous to try to justify wicked actions because it's not healthy to support immorality.

For instance all criminals would claim to abhor violence but in their situation they had to do it.

But the criminal at least deserves some pity because we did not walk in their shoes. But the one that makes excuses for the criminal deserves far less pity because they are justifying evil.

Right now we have a mass delusion enforced by violence and fear where sane comments about a historical figure are not possible. The West is going to have to choose again between freedom and slavery and it is not clear it has the courage to do so.

We can talk sanely about Ghengis khan or Hitler or napoleon or Cesar or pharoah but not Mohammad. Why is that?
We can talk sanely about Ghengis khan or Hitler or napoleon or Cesar or pharoah but not Mohammad. Why is that?
One is welcome to talk about Muhammad sanely, no harm, please.
Did one read Quran to know the truth about Muhammad? Quran is the truthful source of important/crucial/salient points about the life events of Muhammad, and it recorded them while these happened as if a live transmission was going on. Right, please?

Regards
__________
"Anyone who says the Quran advocates terrorism obviously hasn't read its lessons on violence"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/isl ... 76246.html

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12313
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Post by marco »

JP Cusick wrote:
Wootah wrote: We can talk ... but not [about] Mohammad. Why is that?
The reason is the same for the past 1400 years - because the violent west (mostly Caucasians) are ruled by their never ending religious bigotry and racist bigotry against Muhammad and against the great religion of Islam.

That is the reason - and that is the only reason. FYI.
Muhammad's actions have been sanitised, as one would expect, by accounts written by his supporters. Perhaps you have read only those sanitised versions, an understandable flaw. Questions about how many Muhammad slaughtered and his attacks on caravans that led to war need to be researched, preferably outside of the hadiths. It is naïve to believe a peacemaker won many wars and got a great deal of spoils, to attract followers. Muhammad was an astute leader who needed to be ruthless and doubtless found it convenient to tell the listening natives that God spoke to him and offered them virgins. Ingenious. Jesus never thought of that.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Post by JP Cusick »

marco wrote: Muhammad's actions have been sanitised, as one would expect, by accounts written by his supporters. Perhaps you have read only those sanitised versions, an understandable flaw. Questions about how many Muhammad slaughtered and his attacks on caravans that led to war need to be researched, preferably outside of the hadiths. It is naïve to believe a peacemaker won many wars and got a great deal of spoils, to attract followers. Muhammad was an astute leader who needed to be ruthless and doubtless found it convenient to tell the listening natives that God spoke to him and offered them virgins. Ingenious. Jesus never thought of that.
I just see it as like the 2nd World War in that God was on the side of the Allies against the Nazis, and so the massive killings by the Allies against the Nazis and their collaborators was in fact ordained by God.

So too Muhammad was called by God to remove the horrible sin and sinners of that time and place, and Muhammad did as God ordained.

People preach the insanity of God burning people in their idea of Hell as if that were real - but then try to denounce the idea that God would sanction the killing of a real life sinner here and now in this lifetime.

The bastard shooter in Las Vegas was ordained by God to die - and rightly so.

Muhammad did as he was called to do - now if only the rest of humanity would do as we are called to do.

Jesus too did not come to bring peace nor to be be a peacemaker - see Matthew 10:33-36

In this world it has always been the tyrants and brutes who call "peace, peace" when they only want surrender and oppression.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12313
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland

Post by marco »

paarsurrey1 wrote:
One is welcome to talk about Muhammad sanely, no harm, please.
Did one read Quran to know the truth about Muhammad? Quran is the truthful source of important/crucial/salient points about the life events of Muhammad, and it recorded them while these happened as if a live transmission was going on. Right, please?
The problem with getting our information about Muhammad from the Quran, paarsurrey, is that it was Muhammad himself who produced the Quran at various "remembered" stages. If we want evidence about Joseph Smith we don't rely on what Joseph Smith tells us, surely. We do know Muhammad was a leader of some Arab factions who ultimately won a big following. Muhammad had the sense to make a religion out of his pronouncements, a religion that survives today in many conflicting branches, just like Christianity. For a man who abhorred fighting he certainly indulged his abhorrence.

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7474
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am

Re: Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to post 7 by JP Cusick]

Kind of like when God uses an evil empire against the Israelites to punish them?

How can you discern that God raised up Mohammad but not the Las Vegas shooter? Why can you call him a bastard shooter ordained to die and not call his victims the same?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... hp?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Muhammad abhorred fighting with anyone. Did he?

Post by JP Cusick »

Wootah wrote: Kind of like when God uses an evil empire against the Israelites to punish them?
You call them as "evil" (as in good or bad) but the scripture say that those other empires were doing God's service and that made them as righteous empires.

And I remember many text saying that God called them as "my servant" so they were not evil - they were righteous.

As said to the King of Babylon = "my servant" here in Jeremiah 27:6-10

So I am agreeing with your sentence above - yes it was like that.
Wootah wrote: How can you discern that God raised up Mohammad but not the Las Vegas shooter? Why can you call him a bastard shooter ordained to die and not call his victims the same?
I must accept the reality that God did know about the shooter, and God knew about the victims, and I believe that God minimized the event, as in God was with the Hotel security and God was with the police too.

I do say that I was wrong to call the shooter as a "b" as I was trying to make an emphasis and to show my own disapproval of the shooting, and yet it was a poor choice of words on my part.

I must say that I see the death toll in Las Vegas as 59 instead of 58 - that is counting the shooter.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Post Reply