Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.

Ah yes, this is all very facinating. Only if I may plant a seed in the minds of the flock. Consider for a second that Christianity and islam and jews even are not the exact portrayal of God that they would program you to believe.

I am not atheiest or the like, however, I do not think god is what your books of blind faith would portray him to be. Nor does he have that much invested in humanity on the grander scale of things.

SO then the question is, how would that assertion play into a argument that would seemingly be irrelevant at this point?

All petty religious bickering aside.....like Jesus, homeboy was off'd....usually because of my favorite sin...pride.

Any inclination of the importance of either or, outside of the shallow respective publications that trumps up a bias point of view decrying the other, is just....i dunno......a mute point?

I mean no jest to anyones paticular belief...do what you feel you have to, only don't be surprised if everything isn't what you think it is. God works in such ways that aren't meant to be understood by man nor beast.

Especially if it turns out that everything you believe to be true, turns out to be false.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


maybe Jesus came back down and kicked his butt...

reply to post by RamsOnTop


If you can disprove it go collect that 50,000 dollars. There a lot more links out there I just hit the first ones I came across.

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by old_god

 

The cure to disease of this world lies in our past, with the Prophets and Saints, if we took the time to study them and work out what made them successful as human beings, rather than attacking their character as we so easily do in this day and age of ignorance.

Oh but you seek success...that is...so outside of the character of many a prophet. Except for those who went around to kill, rape, enslave and plunder.

You just generalised most of the human race since the dawn of time (or the accidental fart of a amoeba). Character is so rare a commodity these days but I like to think it's quite telling of a person.

I highly doubt we have anyone of any calibre in any position in this day and age that we can all truly look up to as a moral compass so we must look to the past.

When you apply Occam's Razor, you deduce that if this persons enemies also commented favourably towards his character then there must be something unique about this individual?

Because you have natural fear of something does not mean that your specific view is correct (and neither is mine) however you should be respectful of other peoples views, no matter how misguided they may seem to you unless you are presented an opportunity to correct that view in a sympathetic manner.

I am simply stating some points of view in line with some known information about a person from the past, not my personal views on your or anyone on this thread.

Do not presume anything or assume everything (this egotistical trait is the reason we are in the mess we are in now).

Originally posted by DumbTopSecretWriters

Originally posted by old_god
Some incredibly ignorant, presumption and dumbfounded posts as usual but that's nothing new on ATS these days.

Hats off to poster above, someone did their homework. We pale in comparison to these people of our past as we would do well to try and live up to some of their characteristics if we are to make a change in this world, religion and culture aside...

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the secular and religious level. ...It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. ...It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

Dr. William Draper in 'History of Intellectual Development of Europe'

The cure to disease of this world lies in our past, with the Prophets and Saints, if we took the time to study them and work out what made them successful as human beings, rather than attacking their character as we so easily do in this day and age of ignorance.

It is so much easier to be cruel than it is to show kindness as kindness these days is considered a sign of weakness and inferiority.

Read history, Islamic Academics and Historians believe he eventually died of the poison he had part ingested many years ago while at meal.

Show me a valid proof if you speak the truth ? funny thing is you can't, the lame excuse indgested with you're oppinion to downgrade this man by saying some islamic academics historian proves that he was poisoned..Please i'm waiting for proof, because i have mine to refute.

edit on 14-5-2012 by DumbTopSecretWriters because: (no reason given)

Okay you have me confused mate. I lauded your post and you mocked mine? I am referring to the Seerat of the Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him) i.e. authentic chains of narration that form his life and ultimately death.

I think you might be sitting a little high on your chair today, stop procrastinating on your own posts because you make no sense to me now (I lauded a post where you have listed quotes that commend the Prophet Muhammed to which I also add my reply to and then you refute my reply, thereby refuting your own post as well...)....

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Then subscribe to that guy's list. David Wood knows his stuff, he's one of the many of us who decided to go get a Quran to read it for ourselves and let Yeshua's Holy Spirit show us what is in it.

Who's David Wood? The guy in the video?
Yeah, sure... first he relies on Allahs word in the Koran to make his argument.... and then makes other videos criticising the Koran... the same book that he used to make his argument. So just how do you make a claim based on scripture if you dont believe in it?
Its like an atheist quoting from the bible for his advantage....and then going on to ridicule the bible as a work of fiction.

Also note that in the video, after the 20 minute mark he tells muslims "Islam is submission to God, not to Mohammad".... so he is basically acknowledging that Allah is indeed God, and the Koran, the revealed word of God.

Clever, but he is not admitting Allah is God, he is poking holes in Islam, incase you fail at understanding sarcasm. We (true believers in Yeshua) know that our God is not "the supreme rock god" of the ka'aba nor is he a bloodthristy moongod that desires his people to explode themselves with bombs to kill other people for their assurance of going to heaven.

edit on 14-5-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

And you just lost all credibility with your post right there with your "my god is superior to your god" statement.

Firstly, the majority Muslims do not worship a "rock god", the Kabah was assigned by god as central place for people to focus their worship towards, showing their submission to god who is omnipotent and above his own creation...Just take a look at a picture of the milky way or galaxy winding around a centre and then take an honest look at a picture of the Kabah when it has 8 million+ people congregating around it, performing the same motion, coincidence or providence, your choice.

Secondly they do not worship a "Moon God", that was a myth propped up to defame the majority of Muslims (who by their passive nature did not rise up to such accusations).

The people that you are referring to are the minority Wahabi's & Salafi's (who get all the exposure by the media), that take a very hard lined literal view of everything.

I make a point not to mock other peoples beliefs, regardless if they are different to mine so try to do the same please and state facts, not fiction.

Originally posted by nusnus
reply to post by stupid girl

 

Talk about confusing historical facts with personal opinion.

Surely you jest?
That would be like me announcing that I ate a doorknob made out of steak this morning for supper last night because I'm a vegetarian.
Not only is it utterly absurd, but also contradictory in and of itself.
However, I suppose I would have to add, "And that's the supper-at-breakfast for champions," to bring it up to par with your opinionated reply.
However, my statement would still leave you scratching your head, wondering what to even do with it and whether or not to waste your time with a reply.
Nowhere in my post do I state my personal opinion, nor did I allude to such.
Please reference the specific statements that I made in my post that you construe as personal opinion.
On second thought, please don't, as there aren't any, and this is my last post in this thread regarding this off-topic subject.

The whole moon god thing is a hoax and has been proven to be so ages ago, so I'm not even going to go into it. Skorpion beat me to it

it was put forward by Christian fundy websites.

Really?
I was under the impression that it was still a valid point of contention that remains unresolved.

Most academic theories are discussed for decades before they are either abandoned as dead ends or adopted as truth. The proponents and opponents of this theory both readily admit they are awaiting further research and archaeology to vindicate their claims. Many have resorted to making hasty accusations in testy debates. This may make it difficult to distinguish between what is fact and what is pure rhetoric. We, however, invite the reader to take a scholarly "wait and see" approach to this subject.

Unless you are privy to information that current academia today is not, then this argument stands.
Here is a link to a page that references debates for and against this postulation:
On-going Debate of Pre-Islamic Allah

Please note that there are twice as many arguments referenced that are against this postulation, versus those referenced that are in favor of it.
Here, I'll even throw in another rebuttal against it on your behalf due to the gross lack of reference to support your post:
Muslims Don't Worship A Moon God

If judged simply on the quality and substance of information referenced in each debate to support their respective claims, the argument "for" is clearly in the lead thus far, as long as one is not blinded by the superficiality of political correctness or the disillusionment of media propaganda.

Just the argument that is set forth at the following page alone:
Did The Meccans Worship Yaweh God?
stomps a mud-hole in all the Islamic arguments, combined, even if only for the sheer volume of diverse texts and peer-research used to substantiate their argument.

Which is in glaring contrast to the Islamic arguments that almost exclusively use only the Koran as substantiative support for debate.

Surely I don't have to point out the obvious?

The Quran describes God as 'placeless, formless, without boundaries' therefore, anything physical that is worshipped is not God.

I guess while we're off topic you figure we may as well go all out.
I'll play along for the moment, albeit against my usual practice of refusing to participate in an obviously vain effort to debate dogma and further derailment of a thread.
I'm assuming your statement would include the Koran? Which is revered as being the direct, spoken word of their god through the angel Gabriel? The staunch rules concerning the handling of, which could easily be construed as bordering on idolotry?
Proper Handling of Koran
US Department of Defense Guidelines to Handling a Koran

Once again, surely I don't have to point out the obvious.

Doesn't matter if they use the same name. Get my drift?

It does if, in fact, they are the same entity.
And no, I do not get your drift.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by stupid girl

 

The origin of the Islamic "Allah" goes back to pre-Islamic times.

Yeah.... all the way back to Ishmael, blessed son of Abraham... who God "was" with as he was growing up.

In pre-Muhammedan times, an idol dedicated to Hubal was worshipped at Mecca, and being the chief god of the Kaaba, the position of which was next to the black stone which Muslims kiss today.

Where are you getting all this from? Let me guess, some christian fundamentalists website?

from wiki...


Devotees of Hubal fought against Muhammad's followers at the Battle of Badr. After Muhammad entered Mecca in 630, the image of Hubal was removed from the Kaaba.

After defeat by Muhammad's forces at the Battle of Badr, Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, leader of the Quraysh army, is said to have called on Hubal for support to gain victory in their next battle, saying "Show your superiority, Hubal". When Muhammad conquered Mecca in 630, he removed and had destroyed the statue of Hubal, along with the other 360 images at the Kaaba, and re-dedicated the structure to Allah.

Thank you for providing this additional information. None of which serves to discredit any of the information mentioned in my post.

reply to post by old_god


seerat ul mustakin? lol....Still waiting for proof.

reply to post by old_god

Secondly they do not worship a "Moon God", that was a myth propped up to defame the majority of Muslims (who by their passive nature did not rise up to such accusations)

The whole "moon god" myth has been propagated only by christian fundamentalists.... who feel the need to teach their brainless flock that Islam is a false religion dedicated to the "moon god".

I mean, if Islam was really about "moon-god" worship? Why would muslims deny that? The reality is that muslims realise that Allah forbade worship of created objects (moon included) and did things that Christians believe the God of the bible did.

edit: Christians are FULLY aware of this (since they claim to know the Koran), but yet propagate the lie that Allah is a moon god.

reply to post by stupid girl

Thank you for providing this additional information.

You are most welcome.... stupid girl.

None of which serves to discredit any of the information mentioned in my post.

It does because you claimed "In pre-Muhammedan times, an idol dedicated to Hubal was worshipped at Mecca, and being the chief god of the Kaaba, the position of which was next to the black stone which Muslims kiss today."..... and the fact that Mohammad had the idol of Hubal destroyed proves that Islam not only has nothing to do with Hubal.... but played a role in destroying Hubal.... stupid girl.

Have a nice day, stupid girl.

Originally posted by old_god

..... that was a myth propped up to defame the majority of Muslims (who by their passive nature did not rise up to such accusations).

Wait....what?
Passive nature?
I am at a total loss on how to even respond to that, therefore I will say nothing.

I make a point not to mock other peoples beliefs, regardless if they are different to mine so try to do the same please and state facts, not fiction.

I have not mocked your religion.
I have stated facts.
The fact that you disagree with them, does not constitute them a mockery.

Originally posted by old_god

I make a point not to mock other peoples beliefs, regardless if they are different to mine so try to do the same please and state facts, not fiction.

I just wanted to say thank you, and I respect you for that and respect also your opinion. While we are all entitled to our own belefs, it is most beautiful when we can discuss those differences while having respect of one another. It is to people like you that I enjoy discussing with.

It is difficult sometimes to keep a level head when a person feels they are being attacked from all sides, I find myself sometimes failing in this regard to keep always the best manners no matter what, and know it is something I must work on, self is the greatest battle of all.

But people like you always keep me going, because you show me that we can be better, and discuss and have differing opinions while still having respect of the other.

Thank you again

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is a 1978 book by Michael H. Hart, reprinted in 1992 with revisions. It is a ranking of the 100 people who, according to Hart, most influenced human history.

Guess what folks , muhammad s.a.w is on TOOOOOOOP..No.1

Wikipedia

reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters


You would think that if people claim that Mohamed was one of the most influential people in history, they would also be interested in finding out who killed him. Some one should file a wrongful death suit so we can legally exhume the corpse. This could bring to light additional evidence. I saw a medical examiner’s program on TV where they were able to determine the cause of death by examining the maggots eating the corpse. This is the kind of professional investigation we need

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


The information is this video is clouded by the narrators smart ass attitude. What he is saying is accurate and important for people to understand. It's just a shame because this clearly is a guy who grew up thinking that his jokes were funny, but nobody had the heart to tell him they weren't.

Sadly, I am sure a few people who could have legitimately learned from this video were instead turned off by this guys lack of a human personality

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by stupid girl

 

Thank you for providing this additional information.

You are most welcome.... stupid girl.

None of which serves to discredit any of the information mentioned in my post.

It does because you claimed "In pre-Muhammedan times, an idol dedicated to Hubal was worshipped at Mecca, and being the chief god of the Kaaba, the position of which was next to the black stone which Muslims kiss today."..... and the fact that Mohammad had the idol of Hubal destroyed proves that Islam not only has nothing to do with Hubal.... but played a role in destroying Hubal.... stupid girl.

Have a nice day, stupid girl.

So glad you can read my user-name. And even more so, that you are able to entertain yourself by using it as a double entendre.

I'm still trying to understand how the destruction of a statue proves Islam has nothing to do with Hubal. How does that affect long-held association and the assumption of reference?

If I burn a crucifix, that does not serve to disassociate what is referenced by it.

Having said that, "thou doth protest too much, me thinks....."

reply to post by redneck13


Again , muhammad wasn't killed , he died due to illness and there's no historical evidence to suggest that he was killed by poisoning.Period.

Benjamin Bosworth Smith (1784-1884) was an American Protestant Episcopal bishop. He was born at Bristol, R. I., and graduated at Brown University in 1816. The following year he was ordained, beginning his ministry at Marblehead, Mass. He held several pastoral charges and was for a time editor of the Episcopal Recorder at Philadelphia. His last rectorship, in Lexington, Ky., he held until 1837, though in 1832 he had become Bishop of the diocese. While he was presiding Bishop (from 1868), a separatist movement, which became the Reformed Episcopal Church, was organized under the leadership of Bishop Smith's own assistant bishop, George David Cummins. He published Saturday Evening (1876) and Apostolic Succession (1877).

Do you know what he said about muhammad? coming from a prominent (Expert) christian is astonishing , not like bigots, ignorant little brainers in here...

Reverend Bosworth Smith in 'Muhammad and Muhammadanism,' London, 1874

"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life." "In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."

Link
____________________________________________________


Azan in church?....makes you wonder ??

reply to post by DumbTopSecretWriters

We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."

Rofl, Islam is not unique in it's origin it steals from the other older religions around it and then slaps "Abraham wuz here" on the side and expects you to believe it originated from Abraham, with gross inconsistences such as the replacing of Isaac by Ishamael as proscribed by Muhammad. Islam says Solomon was the greatest and wisest king and blah blah blah when jews and christians both know he fell to sorcery and building idols to Molech and Ba'al for his pagan wives which caused YHWH to punish him by causing his son's kingdom to fracture and Judea split with Israel.