Boy with this you confused the hell out of me dear three44
I feel that you guys are being a bit unreasonable. This guys is not even muslim in the strict sense. I never felt he defended Islam in an irrational, hopeless way. To the contrary, all he does is promote historical knowledge and lays out ground rules for an objective debate. I'll paste his last to comments, maybe you'll see something different.
If you look at Muhammad as the character of that time and the book is for the people living in & around Arabia of that time ., As a Lawyer, that professor can defend it, you can and I can.
BUT NOT AS WORD OF ALLAH/GOD.. This comment I got after saying God's plan does not make sense if you ask me, why like this, not like this, bla bla
"Sorry dude.. i did not ask you. YOuobviuosly have your way of looking at things. And you are right...you are not entitled to make judgments especially when they come from a background of lack of knowledge. Simple. Wife beating does have more than just economic consequences...and think of this coming in a culture where women were not even thought of having souls, as per the church fathers. SInce you seem so quick to jude...here is how I see it...not that it matters. If one does not know his/her religion, and then gives it up because of whatever complex, one should have the decency to not adduce stillborn arguments. If you don't know the language of the document, the cultural anthropology, nor even the role of a prophet except for what YOU assume it ought to be...when as I showed you, Samuel 1 would give you a different idea, then you see why professors and other academics have a certain attitude. Put it this way: if you were in my class, and I were to ask you ..do you know this rule, or that rule, or such a law..and you did not...or even the etymology of the word "prophet" and your answers showed that you did not, how you would look. Instead you are tossing around terms like 'acrobatics" and now "apologetic"...I can throw terms like "illogicaL" "uneducated" "back at you..but why bother? As I have noted several times before: you are entitled to your views. What i find ridiculous is your judging and talking about if you were God what you would do. Perhaps you should try focuising on what you are...a human with an admittedly limit data base in a particular field. IN such a case, one observes and keeps one's opinions. To engage others leads to statements that might seem condescending. And then when you don't know the basics of hermeneutic and the history of legislation as far semitic religion goes, then you see why this becomes from the very get go, a jejune encounter."
What all that stuff makes is Quran as a legal document Political Islamic ideology that may have been started by Muhammad(In FACT
I DOUBT THERE WAS a character called "Muhammad")
What I replied was something that he's got me and I should learn more about the history before and during Islam
That is fine I agree with him.. here are the links
History in connection with Violent/Non-Violent expansion of Islam[Prophet Muhammad-1]You can read many thread at
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=18&topicdays=0&start=0"It is not a matter of defeat or victory...for one has to go into a discussion with the idea that perhaps Muhammad may have been a prophet..as well as he may have been a charlatan. But such judgment is only reflective of objectivity if one has a background in study that is truly investigative.
No..No..No you can not say that
perhaps Muhammad may have been a prophet and Allah was chit chatting with him..
he may have been a charlatan.
he may have been cult leader
he may have been sex obsessed dirty old man..etc..etc...
That is NOT allowed in Islam.
If I come with the viewpoint that Muhammad is a prophet, or there is a god, no matter what is said and done that sounds idiotic from their edicts, then it is just as wrong. Thus far, while I have used the word God..my focus is one the verse qua verse, based on human history and anthropology....which is why I respect the older scriptures and do not accuse them of corruption...something many Muslims love to do."
The simple to question to ask is ..WHAT IS NEW IN THIS MOST RECENT Allah book that you can not find in other scriptures that were ther before the birth of Muhammad?
Again, I said in my earlier post I don't agree with the 'timelessness of the Quran with those adaptations of sunna', but his point is (probably) that I shouldn't immediately dismiss that as nonsense, or someone trying to bullshit himself out of something. That's not very objective and honest, and I agree with him on that.
Rest assured that my atheism is not affected at all. It's just a matter of correctly debating to me, I think that's also important.
I agree that debating correctly-TRUTHFULLY is very important.
It's (somewhat) like creationists trying to attack evolution on its weaker points without knowing enough about the basics of the theory. Yes, our arguments against Islam are more probably less ignorant then theirs against evolution, but see the knowledge as a continuum, not as "we are knowledgeable enough, creationists are not". With the OP I just wanted encourage knowledge and objectivity..
well it is not that relevant to Islam. That is only comparative investigation of other religion w.r.t to Islam.
Topic: Judging Muhammad and scripture