Is Islam a myth?

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
676
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
You said NOTHING about pork or blood, that comment was SPECIFICALLY about Jesus - per you!

Huh? I said "even though what the Arabs tell us is the truth, is practically the same as what the Jews believe."

I can't see why you thought I was referring to Jesus.
Obviously, most people know that the majority of Jews reject Jesus.
Do you really think that I'm that daft? :) [ no answer required ]

Jews certainly do not believe that Jesus is God or that God has 3 parts.
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
676
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
I am still not convinced that someone will not have to be the adult in the room..

Meaning what exactly?
By the very nature of this thread, I'm defending the truth of the Qur'an against .. well, as many disbelievers who want
to participate.
I don't see anything wrong with this type of debate.

You might see it as "a slanging match", with people feeling insulted etc.
It seems that people don't want to connect truth with rationality.
They want to make faith an arbitary one of their choosing.

People are free to think what they like, as am I. I am not making personal comments.
I'm arguing against the theology .. the methodology.

Perhaps you think that such a debate is not suitable for an Interfaith forum.
Perhaps you think that we should just pay each other "lip-service" and that our respective religions "belong" to the individual.
In the same way, you bring up proselytizing.

I don't see you having debates. You just make the occasional comment.
I agree with Tone .. people often bring up this rule in order to silence people whom they don't agree with.
 

Cino

Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
Admin
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
1,967
Points
108
Location
Germany
At school, we studied a play by German writer Lessing, once. Back then, I thought it was kind of dull and old-fashioned, but this thread reminds me of its continued relevance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_the_Wise

To sum up the play for you: Have you considered that none of us in here is in possession of the ultimate truth? And that by sharing what understanding of it we do have, we all approach it together? And that the things we bicker about might not even be true?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
@RabbiO is talking about the tone of the debate. He is quite right. Where I've been guilty I do apologise. We're supposed to be gentlemen and adults here. Please report posts that do not meet IO standards, regardless of the author
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,135
Reaction score
676
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
To sum up the play for you: Have you considered that none of us in here is in possession of the ultimate truth? And that by sharing what understanding of it we do have, we all approach it together? And that the things we bicker about might not even be true?

It's inevitable, that some people will feel as if their faith is being threatened or mocked when another person
attacks the theology of the trinity, regardless of whether that person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist.

If somebody insists that God is a trinity, then that is their belief. If a person believes that our beliefs
don't need to be rational, then that is their belief. If a person feels insulted by somebody who thinks otherwise,
I wonder why that is? If they are so sure about it, then they should feel sorry for the person who doesn't believe as they do.

It is not disrespectful to have a rational debate about any topic. It only becomes disrespectful
when people make personal comments. I sometimes give replies to posts in a light-hearted manner.
My intention isn't one of making fun .. it is designed to lighten the tone.
I'm sorry if anybody takes it personally.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
Would like to direct attention to this essay by @SchorlarlySeeker
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19624/#post-341788

The blue emphasis here is mine:

So far as I can see, based on readings I am involved in, the esoteric and exoteric really can’t be reconciled easily, if at all. There are reasons for this which I will describe briefly.

Exoteric wants things tidy, all cleaned up, logical, in line, orderly, scientific and simple. No messy contradictions or puzzling paradoxes are allowed if at all possible. Everything has to be smooth, well groomed, hair cut missionary style, slick and easily accessible and understood by all. Keep it simple stupid, the lowest denominator of concepts, words, and desires that even children grasp the ideas and themes. In short, it wants total control. It will let knowledge out in the speed it chooses, the quality it accepts for the public and only then will allow it to be read, digested, and believed. It controls. That is the essence of the exoteric.

Esoteric, its brother, is best summed up by the scripture, “The Spirit bloweth where it will.” While the exoteric clamps onto control, the esoteric is entirely free to take wings at any time and any place, simply because it knows the Spirit is in charge, not the intellect. The intellect cannot control the Spirit. There is no control with the exoteric, because that is not the desirous thing. Logic, order, and neat systemization is irrelevant to the Spirit. The revelation will come when the Spirit decides to charge, not when the person decides it is time for the Spirit to go to work.

The exoteric is external, loud, almost boisterous with its claims, banging out information for the world to see, grasp, hear, and latch onto. It is effort magnified through teaching, indoctrination, systematic elaboration over and over again so the public gets the point. It sells its knowledge in public, steadily, and non-stop, step by step fashion so as no mistakes can possibly be made if it can be prevented from making them. It is official, judicious and determined to get the word out. It demands obedience of the esoteric to bow to its doctrine and will. The esoteric doesn’t even consider worrying about what the exoteric thinks or does, whether it follows its paths or not. It is entirely irrelevant to the esoteric how the exoteric responds to its whispers of truth in the souls of men.

The exoteric claims it alone possesses the truth and fights with other exoteric claims for the simple reason that every exoteric claim, no matter how contradictory of other exoteric claims insists it alone possesses the truth. It is exclusive, divisive, and never at one in its views.

There has always and only been one doctrine to the esoteric, though its methods may be numerous, and culturally defined and performed, its symbolisms can reflect great variety based on where in the world the Spirit has blown and inspired men and women.

The exoteric is always out in front, seen of men, and insists on public acknowledgment and fame. It is a steady outward manifestation insisting on being popular, accessible, and airing its doctrines with a megaphone, to clearly, and unmistakably be seen by men, the more, the better. It insists its interpretation of history is correct. If knowledge is lost to its way of thinking this is a negative for all mankind, an apostasy, a heretical doctrine, a blasphemy. It can be refuted and defeated, and so, underneath all its bluster, it is paranoid more or less. It has no choice because it can never be sure if the esoteric is with it or not.

The esoteric can bob up and down, be seen, and then go invisible to the exoteric, for long stretches of time if need be. It is never lost, or defeated, it just goes invisible to the exoteric, yet always working whether visible or not. It has no desire, let alone need, for proofs, logical analysis or the cheering of men in public forums. It has no creeds, articles of faith, rules to follow or buildings to exist within. The esoteric needs no advertisement of its truth, it works through the still small voice within, not the loud logical stentorian demonstrating its truth systematically to a willing public. It seeks not popularity, but souls in need of its light. The exoteric demands faith in it, the esoteric demands faith in inner self. The exoteric demands submission to its priesthoods, powers, principalities, and quorums. The esoteric suggests submission to the universal light within, and asks time to learn to see that light within.

The exoteric can lead to the esoteric enlightenment, but esoteric never leads to exoteric enlightenment as the truth, because the truth cannot come from outside oneself. This the exoteric cannot grasp, the esoteric knows for certainty it comes from within or not at all.

This is part of the difficulty to working esoterically. It has enemies from who ought to be its friends. It is not about power or wealth, but knowledge. The exoteric needs power and wealth in order for it to continue being a show for mankind rather than a substance. It needs buildings, temples, clothes, and media to spread its message or hope through it alone. The esoteric needs no trappings such as these. They are a complete distraction. The temple is oneself, not some expensive building. The temple is the world and stars one has access to 24 hours a day. Access to the exoteric trappings is limited and definitely guarded. The esoteric is holy wherever or whenever one is in the world. It needs no group, demands no intermediate blockades, other than one’s own desire or lack thereof to tap into the stream of the holy.

True religion means a linking back to the Source of All, the One. It is what constitutes spirituality as opposed to being obedient to others demands. The only demand is upon oneself. One can never tell another who wishes for esoteric insight that obedience must be performed, since obedience is irrelevant to where the Spirit blows. It can strike at anytime, anyplace, anywhere, anyone. When esoteric people gather, there is not an undergirding necessity for agreement of ideas, hopes, and doctrines. There is not conformity, there is inquiry, learning, intelligence sharing with intelligence gifted. There are no heretics in the esoteric. The very thought makes no sense at all.

The ways of the Spirit are infinite and from infinity which stretches out across infinity, including all opposites, paradoxes, contradictions, normalities, abnormalities, and conceptualizations. The Canon is the individual soul, not an outside source. The loyalty is to one’s own search for enlightenment, not to another’s interpretations, influences, or determinations concerning doctrines, scriptures, or acceptable procedures to please a god of any kind. The God is within. The exoteric wants a relationship to a God without, to be in agreement with God, the esoteric recognizes the God within is one’s very self, there is no relationship, there is awakening to know One is it. It’s not one in agreement alone, it is One, period.

So far as I can understand, the exoteric cannot see the legitimate revelations and enlightenment in any others while the esoteric see the revelations and enlightenment in all mankind no matter where on earth they are, nor in how they express it. The light flows through all mankind, not one group to the exclusion of the others. The expression, symbolisms, and metaphors differ with the esoteric expression of enlightenment, with cultural inflections, of course. But the message is just one message throughout history, best expressed as Tat Tvam Asi, “Thou Art That,” that is, thou art the divine in the universe, just expressed in the many.

The goal of the Divine One is the unifying of the many back to itself. That is the core of the esoteric doctrine, no matter how it differs in expression of symbolisms, experiences, etc. It is not about aligning with correct doctrines, it is about experiencing the unification, regardless of country, gender, race, or beliefs. It has nothing to do with agreeing with interpretations of the scripture in alignment and agreement as with the exoteric. It is not about conformity, it is about experiencing the Divine.

So far as I can tell, this is the essential difference of the two ways of religion. The exoteric will not tolerate the exoteric unless and only if it aligns with exoteric thinking and doctrines and knowledge, nothing else is allowed. The esoteric is not nearly in such a narrow corridor because it has no need for the exoteric to agree with anything of what it says. It cannot be and will not be a missionary way because there is nothing to share publicly. Everything is internal for oneself. There is no need to even attempt a conformity of experience, because, The Spirit bloweth where IT will. The speed, the timing, the path comes from God, not controlled by human institutions. It is a direct connection, not a testimony based on what someone else says or believes.

The exoteric wants to be in control of the Spirit and tell it where it blows, the esoteric simply follows where the Spirit blows. The exoteric will not and cannot agree with the esoteric, while the esoteric doesn’t care what the exoteric believes, it follows what it gets straight from the Divine itself. That, in a nutshell is the entire column of experience between the two. The exoteric would crucify Jesus again if he came and taught His Gospel, the esoteric would embrace it. The exoteric has never been correct about the truth, it is all about outward appearance of possessing the truth. The esoteric has never been wrong about the truth, though it is expressed in myriads of different manners, the doctrine is always the same. That is the essential difference
 
Last edited:

ScholarlySeeker

Well-Known Member
Messages
229
Reaction score
114
Points
43
I would have to agree with you on that.
Well, it depends on which group of Jews are being discussed. There are Messianic Jews these days who do believe in Jesus after all. If we are talking Orthodox, then sure. But there are many different groups of Jews though not as many as Christians. I'm not arguing, just noting the historical circumstance of today.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
At school, we studied a play by German writer Lessing, once. Back then, I thought it was kind of dull and old-fashioned, but this thread reminds me of its continued relevance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_the_Wise

To sum up the play for you: Have you considered that none of us in here is in possession of the ultimate truth? And that by sharing what understanding of it we do have, we all approach it together? And that the things we bicker about might not even be true?

No.

Expansion: there's always the chance that everyone is wrong, but in my experience it's the way a dismissive teacher breaks up a fight - by telling them they are all in the wrong and collectively punishing everybody rather than searching for the truth of the matter. Plus collective punishment is illegal under international law.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
Add to it, Mohammad's desire for young women. All his life he had to do with a women 25 years older to him. Then he married another old women, Sawda. That is why, his child-wife, Aisha was the light of his eyes. Between the age of 52 and 62, he married some 11 women (He had Allah's special permission). Actually hadiths say that when he heard that one of his companions was marrying an old woman, he asked him why was he doing so? Did not he like young women?

May i ask how it concerns you what a man does with a woman in wedlock?
Was it any different in any other culture?
What law was being broken? Here in England it's probably illegal to paint a swastika on a little boy's head. And probably also to burn a widow.
At what age does a woman begin to be attractive? What changes from the day prior to that day?
What do you mean, "he had to do..."? He loved his first wife. Who are you to project such contempt?

"Be your own guru"? No, if it means this.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
The Qur'an itself says that much of it is figurative. It also warns about arguing about their meaning.
God knows their meaning, and He is able to guide whomsoever He wills.

Some thing clearly aren't figurative. Historical events are historical events. What is declared unlawful is unlawful.

I think the Quran admonishes against arguing over things that are unknowable (as logic dictates) either way. But they can be discussed, just not crystallised into opposing camps.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
Very convenient. Allah will guide according to the words that he has given to his messenger who holds the sword. Differ at your own risk.Yeah, you tell me!Nothing wrong. Islam too worships the God of Ibrahim (alayhi ṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu), so no problem. Same brood, same talk, same walk.
People of the book.
What a disgusting way to talk to people. You are not debating and you are not responding to arrogance. You are throwing in fact-free slanders and stereotypes. This typifies your posts. You do not debate. I am well aware of Hinduism's teachings by the way, and Buddhism's. They're not as innocent as you'd probably have people believe. I find the teachings shocking. But l don't want to mudsling nor go off topic.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
If only that were true. In principle, perhaps. In practice, quite the opposite.

And my understanding is that Islam agrees with the Jewish Bible to the point of Abraham and the exile of the son by the handmaiden, and from the son by Abraham's wife the Bible is ignored. Quoting from the ignored portion in support of the Prophet of Islam seems to me to be an attempt at blurring boundaries...unless I missed something?

That's just not true. You have not researched Islam and / or you are just creating a straw man.

Islam teaches stories of various prophets because they were real. The Bible also has stories of some of those prophets but not all. Some are not in the Bible. The Qur'an has stories of some Bible prophets but not all. Some are not in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an corrects the Bible without even stating that it's correcting the Bible. Also the Qur'an contains major and also innocuous details about some prophets that aren't in the Bible, which shows that the Qur'an doesn't really take its cue from the Bible, it's just God telling it like it is, whether or not it's also in the Bible.

The Bible was distorted. The Bible quickly became unviable, save for some prophets that came along to reform the religion, but soon after their passing, the temple franchises moved back in and corrupted the writings.

The Qur'an appeared when it was finally all lost. I'm not sure exactly what happened to make the Bible finally all lost but it may have been the death of the Seven Sleepers who slept in a cave for about 300 years when fleeing Emperor Decius, who was persecuting Christians. The Seven Sleepers probably in my opinion died in the late 500s, and thereafter all was lost, but the people in the Levant were known to be expecting a new prophet soon.

The Qur'an does not base its differences on genealogies and heritage, it is not a tribal book but a book for all mankind, including eskimos and Australian aborigines.

The Bible said the progeny of Isma'il would be blessed.

and so on.


I recommend you read the Qur'an, hadith, and books on Islam from, ooooh, i don't know ... a community of killer whale bone carvers in Alaska. No, erm ... from Islamophobes? No, hey wait, even better idea: from Muslims. Yes try that. Try using Muslim sources including their core texts. I'm not asking you to believe, just to be factual.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
What gives one faith the right to claim God's word above all others? Their own scripture says so? But the other faiths insist that no -- it is their own scripture alone which is God's true word. How is it to be decided?

Surely if God speaks to my soul, that is between me and God. Why should I need to go out there trying to correct and educate others that their own faith is wrong, and mine alone is right? God knows the heart of every human being. God meets us where we are. Wherever we are?

It's understood that rulers use religion to oppress and to gain power and so on. But why do the people need to?

God gives that right. You're not him.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
Look, I don't care what you believe. I've written a number of times now, if Islam is the path that feeds your soul, and teaches you, then it is the path for you. But to mock and otherwise deny my path for me, that it is not rational while claiming that your way is rational is less than intellectually honest. Faith *requires* setting aside "rational reasoning" for certain matters. It is inevitable. To point at irrationality in one faith to justify the irrationality in another is counter-productive and not intellectually honest.

You do care, you typically shame Muslims for their beliefs by making fraught comparisons with secularism, whilst not using the same critique for, say, atheism or other faiths or even your own self. Every time you write about Islam on here, it is negative, punitive, rhetoric. Your words are logically fallacious e.g. always interchanging Islam with Muslims, and moreover the cherry picked reports about Muslims you select are, well, cherry picked. I believe you do this to avoid one core issue: there is nothing wrong with the Islamic religion, and / or you haven't even studied it. So you take it around the houses instead, that man , he fed a seagull some alkaseltzer, the seagull suffered, Jefferson would never do that, l remember it was the summer of 1854, look this article, see, tolerance of all, but you Muslim lot aren't like that, bla de bla de bla de bla. Always the same gish gallop from you. Use facts. Be relevant.
 
Last edited:

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
Islam can believe in the Incarnation,
Oh my years!!!!
Islam does not believe in Incarnation. It is anathema. This is a major issue and as such our Prophet or our Qur'an would have mentioned Incarnation is okay. In fact, they taught the opposite, again and again and again.

Christ was a word from Allah. That is to say, Allah says "Be!" and a thing is. Not that Allah incarnated bodily.


born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit.
When we are talking theologically and not mundanely, nothing is by the power of anything but Allah. We have a saying oft-repeated in times of distress, taught by our Prophet in hadith: "There is no power and no strength except with Allah."



Jesus is clearly no ordinary man.
No, Jesus was no ordinary man, agree. He was Messiah. You might want to look the term up and ask yourself is it congruent with being God?



It can believe in the Ascension.
We do believe in Ascension, not that we might. We do.


I fail to see why it cannot believe in the Resurrection.
You fail to see why we cannot believe in Resurrection of Christ? When your Bible even teaches that people have ascended bodily into heaven whilst alive?

Because our holy book tells us he wasn't killed. (probably because as Messiah, he still had unfinished business) This is basic stuff bro, whether you believe it or not. May l ask if you are well acquainted with Islam because on every point you make, there is an error. I make zero errors or if l do, l take correction gladly. I have no use for error, l ditch it quick quick.



I have the Gospel of He who is the Only-Begotten Son of God (to which I think Islam agrees)
Oh my years!!!! No. We do not believe Jesus was the son of God. LOL!
Please, just, read a book about Islam by a Muslim or even better, the core scripture from Allah.
Then the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Then some other books by Muslims.


, who lived, preached, died and ascended into Heaven (all of which Islam agrees). I don't need 'another' Gospel.

Well, that precludes all debate. What a way to talk. Why do you come to a thread about Islam on a forum predicated on debate, if to just say you don't need to know anything new?
 
Last edited:

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,468
Reaction score
2,683
Points
108
Islam does not believe in Incarnation. It is anathema.
Yes, I subsequently checked my claim and see that it's wrong. I wasn't aware of the logic of the argument.

Jesus was no ordinary man, agree. He was Messiah. You might want to look the term up and ask yourself is it congruent with being God?
He was seen to be many things.

We do believe in Ascension, not that we might. We do.
OK.

You fail to see why we cannot believe in Resurrection of Christ? When your Bible even teaches that people have ascended bodily into heaven whilst alive?
Bodily ascension does not rule out Resurrection.

Because our holy book tells us he wasn't killed.
Ah. OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM

Aupmanyav

Search, be your own guru.
Messages
2,109
Reaction score
687
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
May i ask how it concerns you what a man does with a woman in wedlock?
Was it any different in any other culture?
What law was being broken? Here in England it's probably illegal to paint a swastika on a little boy's head. And probably also to burn a widow.
At what age does a woman begin to be attractive? What changes from the day prior to that day?
What do you mean, "he had to do..."? He loved his first wife. Who are you to project such contempt?
Who would not like to be 'a man of God', if that allows a person to marry 11 women, mostly young, towards the end of his life after spending 25 years of life with a woman 25 years older than himself, and get 20% of the 'ghanimat' (gift from God) that his followers amass in wars?
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
Bodily ascension does not rule out Resurrection.

What l was saying is: your Bible already has precedent for it, so it's not so weird that we might also believe Jesus bodily ascended to heaven.
Also yes, of course, you can have the sequence of resurrection from the dead, then bodily ascension.
I hope you realise why we consider this anathema by the way. It sets the scene for a very bad person forecast to come one day. Feel free to google our propecies.
 

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
Who would not like to be 'a man of God', if that allows a person to marry 11 women, mostly young, towards the end of his life after spending 25 years of life with a woman 25 years older than himself, and get 20% of the 'ghanimat' (gift from God) that his followers amass in wars?

1. Who are we to compare and contrast prophets?
2. Married 11 woman? Make it 22, 33, l'm not bothered. Really l'm not.
By the way, all but one of those women were from previous marriages. He took in a lot of widows and divorcees from broken homes. That is why he was allowed over the prescribed limit of 4 wives.
3. Mostly young? What is young? I already asked you similar questions but you skip them. This is clearly subective, as you don't elaborate objectively.
And so it becomes weird. You see:
- This is clearly in your mind
- This is clearly about your aesthetics, your desires
- And usually it means you are hiding a very intense personal desire. If l am wrong may l die horribly. But l've lived long enough to know this type of personality, the Sexual Purist type.
- The desire clearly focuses around "young", and is hiding behind a foil that old is best (whatever old is), and in fact, no sex is even better. Likely sour grapes. But i guess soured grapes are better than ...
4. You then contradict by criticising the Prophet's (peace be upon him) marriage to Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her), his employer, who was some years his senior.
5. The Prophet only got 20%? Shocking. He should have gotten more, and should have kept it.
6. I'm not sure how much he really got. Are you? Was it really 20%? You're not trustworthy as a source.
7. I'm not sure what ghanimat is.
8. I do know that the Prophet was often pushed around by his generals - they were loose coalitions of families and tribes that often just wanted more for their own selves.
9. The Prophet was the state. All the money of the state flowed from him. The spoils weren't even all for him.
10. The Prophet went to sleep with nothing and woke with nothing, and between waking and sleeping, he processed huge amounts of wealth for his people.
11. He slept on the floor. He died with a small debt, l believe, settled with selling a piece of armour.
12. The Prophet forbade his family to receive charity after his death. They were people not for this world but the next.
13. The Prophet wouldn't even let his own daughter inherit an orchard after his death. His family were to leave this world with nothing. They were not for this world. I doubt anybody loved their daughter more than our Prophet and l doubt any child loved their parent more than Fatima, may Allah be pleased with her.

It disgusts me that you can hold a noble person in such contempt, and that you keep avoiding pertinent counter-questions. I am done with this restaurant mentality, wherein everything in your narrow space is the way you see it, and that narrow space is all that you see. It's self perpetuating small mindedness and your comments aren't open to debate, they just flame.
 
Last edited:

SufiPhilosophy

Evolution by mutation has never been observed
Messages
241
Reaction score
44
Points
28
8. I do know that the Prophet was often pushed around by his generals - they were loose coalitions of families and tribes that often just wanted more for their own selves.

I regained my buried account just to make this correction (beause it is a grave sin to intentionally speak a lie about our Prophet, so l could not leave this statement uncorrected / unqualified) : Our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassalam) was not actually pushed around. What l meant was, people would try to push him around, and were pushy with him, and of course there were also wealthy Quraysh families that were trying to get their existing pantheon absorbed into Islam. None of them ever succeeded.

The Qur'an even admonishes followers for bursting into his house. That's how likeable a person he was, people would just take liberties sometimes. I cannot think of anybody better than our Prophet Muhammad. I'm nowhere near him but l find no fault in him.

The more l study his sayings and the Qur'an revealed through him, the more perfection l see. There's no reason to follow Islam these days, it's very much hated by the world but l cannot deny the truth that it is perfect. It holds up to all scrutiny. Nothing else on earth does, and l have made honest research into other belief systems.
 
Top