Holy Prophet, pbuh - some modern views

shafique Whilst some here incessantly repeat discredited Orientalist views about early Islam and the Holy Prophet, Muhammad, pbuh - some non-Muslim scholars have gone beyond the hype, researched the facts and reached the the conclusion that there is a gulf between the 'Fox News' portrayal of Islam and reality.
Let's start with a conclusion that the Holy Prophet, pbuh, is the most influential man in history and the reasons why the author came to this conclusion:
(Highlighted portion is for eh - he believes in the quaint view that all Biblical experts are wrong when they say Paul is the main author of Pauline Christianity and that we should rather believe the Bible's version of history as accurate - when Biblical scholars all now agree that Pauline Christians inserted false verses into the bible)

Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History
My choice of Muhammad to lead 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 religious and secular levels. . .
. . . it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role to the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.
Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition he played a key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran. [The Quran, Muslims believe, is the revealed Word of God.]
Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular leader as well as a religious leader. In fact as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time. . . [When Muhammad died in 632, he was the effective leader of all of southern Arabia. By 711, Arab armies had swept completely across North Africa to the Atlantic Ocean. In a scant century of fighting, the Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean -- the largest empire that the world had yet seen.]
. . the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. 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.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon Hey! It's good to see that you're back to your old form of mindless copy/pastes of any non-Muslim who writes something supposedly positive on Muhammad that can now by posted on a message board.
I was wondering how many Aisha comments it would finally take.
Meanwhile....

some non-Muslim scholars have gone beyond the hype

....earth to shafique.
Michael Hart isn't a scholar on anything closely resembling theology or history. He's an astrophysicist who moonlights as a historian, similar to another non-scholar, Karen Armstrong. shafique Yeah, yeah - Father O'Conner and Professor Hans Kung are less knowledgeable about the history of the NT than you are and anyone who disagrees with your view of Islamic history hasn't done the in-depth research you have done. I'm just starting with Hart who clearly gives his reasons why Muhammad, pbuh, is ranked higher than Jesus, for example. It is interesting that you don't address the issues raised but rather choose to attack the person who wrote it. I didn't expect you'd do otherwise. But let me give you a chance to redeem yourself (I'm generous that way) - what in the above extract do you believe is wrong and where is your evidence to back up this belief of yours? For example, he clearly states that St Paul is the author of much of Pauline Christianity - this is in line with what Father O'Conner and Hans Kung have concluded - is Hart mistaken here when he echos what these Biblical scholars have concluded?? Cheers, Shafique event horizon Do you want me to explain to you why the sky is green while I'm at it? Just curious, or do you want to type out a few lengthy posts on topic you have no understanding of? event horizon

It is interesting that you don't address the issues raised but rather choose to attack the person who wrote it.

What issues were raised? Did the author claim Muhammad, who had relations with a nine year old girl, was a moral man and a class act?
Don't think so.
Why don't you find some other article from the internet to copy/paste that actually addresses/covers up Muhammad's personal defects before you confuse 'influential' for 'ethical', 'moral' and 'upstanding' once again. shafique I happen to believe in what I have quoted Hart as saying - unlike the people you have quoted, I agree with what he says fully and in full context. You have had to dis-own what Hugh Kennedy says about early Muslim campaigns after quoting him selectively and drawing wrong conclusions about massacres. You also quoted Hans Kung in favour of your view that the Bible contains no contradictions and was tampered with - but failed to notice that if you had continued reading, Kung disagrees with your view. With Father O'Conner - you couldn't find a way to 'dis' the Biblical scholar who has studied and written books on Paul, so you just chose to ignore the fact he also concludes that Pauline Christians inserted misogynistic verses into the Bible. All these guys agree with what Hart has written above - so, I ask again - what specifically don't you agree with the quote given and what are you basing this view on? Simple question I would have thought. Cheers, Shafique event horizon

You also quoted Hans Kung in favour of your view that the Bible contains no contradictions and was tampered with - but failed to notice that if you had continued reading, Kung disagrees with your view.

Lie. I didn't quote Kung in favor of my view that the Bible didn't contain contradictions. I *quoted* Kung to explain the meaning of the greek word diakanos in the New Testament.
&highlight=kung#307792
It had nothing to do with contradictions. I can't tell if you're deliberately falsifying what was said (again) or if you're simply slow.
I think it's a combination of both but, for now, I'll just assume you're deliberately posting lies.
You have a pretty distorted perception of reality.

With Father O'Conner - you couldn't find a way to 'dis' the Biblical scholar who has studied and written books on Paul

There's nothing to 'dis'. I was the one who informed you that that passage in the New Testament is considered by some scholars to be an interpolation. This was way back when you did not know what an interpolation meant - just like you now don't know what the words scholar or contemporary mean.

All these guys agree with what Hart has written above

Sure they do.

Simple question I would have thought.

There's nothing to explain. You're simply too deluded to understand what someone writes and what you think they write. This thread is already proof of that. shafique So we agree Kung and O'Conner disagree with you over your denial that misogynistic verses (contradictory ones) were inserted by Pauline Christians into the Bible. Fair enough - it took some time, but good that you've now acknowledged this. I'm still waiting to read what exactly you disagree in Hart's quote above - it doesn't appear to be the fact that St Paul is responsible for much of the Bible and Pauline Christian theology - so c'mon what don't you agree with and what is your 'belief' based on? Cheers, Shafique event horizon

I'm still waiting to read what exactly you disagree in Hart's quote above

I can't explain this to you anymore than I can explain to you why the sky is green. You're simply reading paragraphs and misunderstanding what is *actually* being written.
Just like your lie that I quoted Kung to address the contradictory passages in the NT.
But it's no surprise you haven't addressed that as well. Are you having trouble reading, or is it a distorted perception of reality with you? shafique So you can't explain what you disagree in the quotation I gave. I knew this would end up in another 'all mouth, no trousers' revelation. Cheers, Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
event horizon It should speak volumes you have not addressed your blatant lie. Although I see you still want me to explain to you why the sky is green. Let me know when you read a few books on primitive Christianity and get back to me. shafique The question I asked was quite simple - what do you disagree with in the quote I gave from Hart in the first post. I understand you want me to deal with Kung disagreeing with you about contradictions in the Bible - but there is a thread on that subject - 'Contradictions in the NT' - we can take that up there. In this thread it is relevant to the extent that Hart's quote agrees with what eminent Biblical scholars all conclude in relation to Pauline Christianity. Therefore, I presume you don't criticise Hart for stating this same view in support of his ranking. It therefore must be something else he wrote that you disagree with. Or (more likely) you didn't actually read what Hart wrote and just thought to try and discredit him because you cannot comprehend how someone could rank Muhammad, pbuh, above Jesus? So, what do you disagree with Hart on - and what is this based on? My point (obviously) is that your Islamophobia is based on Orientalist fantasies which are not now shared by serious 21st century historians (or those who read 21st century historians). Cheers, Shafique event horizon Why would you want to bring the issue of your claim up in another thread when you posted the lie in this thread? I provided the link for anyone to click on and read for themselves.
Didn't you claim that I had quoted Kung in support of the fact that the New Testament does not contain contradictions?

You also quoted Hans Kung in favour of your view that the Bible contains no contradictions and was tampered with - but failed to notice that if you had continued reading, Kung disagrees with your view.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion, especially when I clearly explained why I was quoting Kung to you on the other thread when I said:

Han Kung addresses the word 'diakanos' and so I'll type from his book, Women in Christianity:

Did you think that I couldn't easily find the post in question or does this stem from your own distorted perception of reality?
Anyways, I'll wait for your response in this thread since this is where you lied about what I had posted.

In this thread it is relevant to the extent that Hart's quote agrees with what eminent Biblical scholars all conclude in relation to Pauline Christianity.

Is it safe to say that when you mean all eminent Biblical scholars, you actually mean anyone you can find on trusty google? shafique

event horizon wrote:
Why would you want to bring the issue of your claim up in another thread when you posted the lie in this thread[? I provided the link for anyone to click on and read for themselves.

Hart says something that Kung etc agree with and that you argue you know better - see the quote I highlighted about Pauline Christianity owing more to Paul than Jesus.
You quoted Kung to explain a Greek word and yet at the same time were arguing that the NT did not contain forged verses - I merely pointed out that had you carried on reading you would have found that Kung disagrees with your view that the NT does not contain contradictions or inserted verses.
That fact still remains, despite your bluster.
As does the question - what do you disagree with in Hart's quote given in the first post, and what are you basing your disagreement on?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique As for eminent scholars, I have merely quoted Father O'Conner who has written books about Paul and is an author of books on the Canon, and Professor Hans Kung, a scholar you chose to quote.
On the other hand, you have failed to produce one (yes one ) scholar that agrees with your quaint view that the Bible contains no contradictions or that Pauline Christians did not insert polemical verses into the Bible.
But let us not get distracted from the fact you've been found out criticising Hart but appear to not have read what I quoted him as saying.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon

Hart says something that Kung etc agree with and that you argue you know better - see the quote I highlighted about Pauline Christianity owing more to Paul than Jesus.

Must have missed this. But what comment from Kung shows that he agrees with what Hart wrote? I'll assume this comment can only be found in your imagination, just like your quaint belief that I had quoted Kung to address the consistency of the New Testament when I had clearly quoted Kung to address how the word diakanos is used in the New Testament.

I merely pointed out that had you carried on reading you would have found that Kung disagrees with your view that the NT does not contain contradictions or inserted verses.

Err. No, you didn't. You claimed that I had quoted Kung in regards to non existent contradictions in the New Testament.

You also quoted Hans Kung in favour of your view that the Bible contains no contradictions and was tampered with - but failed to notice that if you had continued reading, Kung disagrees with your view.

Please don't compound one lie by making more up to explain your first one.

But let us not get distracted from the fact you've been found out criticising Hart but appear to not have read what I quoted him as saying.

My "criticism" of Hart was in regards to your claim that he was a 'scholar' on the topics he had written about - namely a historian/theologian. Since Hart does not describe himself as either a historian or theologian that I know of, I was simply correcting your habit of exaggerating certain factoids in your posts based on your distorted perception of reality. event horizon

no contradictions or that Pauline Christians did not insert polemical verses into the Bible.

Your repeated use of the term of "Pauline Christian" simply reveals your ignorance on the topic you're pontificating on, once again.
You simply have no idea what you're pontificating on, just like your claim that Paul was the first to not require Gentiles to follow Jewish Law. It's so unbelievably ignorant that I can't address your posts which are chalk full of so many inaccuracies that you continue to regurgitate no matter how often you are told you *don't* know what you're talking about.
You're like a child who thinks he's smarter than the med students because they won't play operation with him. shafique I see you are avoiding my simple question about what specifically you disagree with Hart's words in my first post. Fair enough - you tend to over-react when I remind you that Biblical scholars also laugh at your assertion that the Bible contains no contradictions or that Pauline Christians did not insert verses into the Bible. Cheers, Shafique Berrin Event horizon haven�t you fed up yet�noone really cares who pauline christans are or what they had done or what they had tought? Some 1200 years before prophet jesus there was prophet moses with torah and some 600 years after prophet jesus there was the prophet mohammed with quran. I am sure if muslims were allowed to tamper quran.., some 300 years after prophet mohammed there would have been an another religion revealed to restore it �by the same God�. But there is not and that itself is the reality and says a lot for someone who is comprehesive rather than political thinker.. So where is your arguments based on this line of chronological history of revelations? The critical question is as I wrote before� Do you believe that there is only one creator and that, the same creator is the owner of the same message? Unlike humans God doesn�t keep changing his mind, he made up his mind of what he wanted from humans long before he created the souls� Hence the same creator kept restoring when humans tampered with his will/message and spoiled it all� I do agree that some of the verses of quran are very heavy on the souls of humans which was the very reason why both christians and jews distorted the same exact message. We, believing muslims are happy with it all and don�t have the luxury to pick the verses we like and condemn the rest, as we are promised that the message is permenant to stay the same way. Only the Creator has the authority to choose to dictate on us or to give permission to believers for certain applications to maintain the order and justice in the world amongst humans. This is why we are revealed and thought religion and this is why there is life after death and hell and heaven and that is why the world is a testing ground for humans. Does that make sense to you? If not there is no more reason why you should escalate further spins to question and blame islam and muslim believers.. Islam is not revealed to be the possesion of muslims only. It is arrived for all human kind� You like it or don�t like is up to you as long as you can bear your accountability in the hereafter. It�s not muslims fault that they choose to believe the creator hence apply the quranic principles therefore your aguments cannot be with muslims but only with God � the creator�.. And if your argument is with the creator than stop haggling and stay patient until you die, otherwise we can�t help you here� You understand that? I am sure you read a lot of books but could you also please for once or twice try to read quran from the begining till the end without being bias. Rudeboy gave a very good link with excellent commentary�how about starting from there�. Here� http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=1