Why Mohammed was not a prophet:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time.

Yet Muhammad's life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Qur'an 33:50).

He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia.

Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin.

He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6‐year‐old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others.

He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.

Why Qur'an is not from God:

Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his miracle is the Qur'an. Yet, a cursory look at the Qur'an reveals that this book is full of errors. Qur'an is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in this book, let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged people to produce a “surah like it” or find an error therein, yet Muslims would kill anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and violence truth is the first casualty.

I do not think Islam or the Koran is a good path for modern humans. Much of it is culturally sourced, and the widespread practice of brutality to women, racism, thievery, lying, terrorism, war, aggression, revenge, and obsession with a “sacred” text that most of it's believers have actually never read is purely barbaric.

I do not believe Mohammed was a prophet or even a saint. I do think he was probably someone like Hitler or Saddam Hussein or Stalin.

I think you people are 600 years delayed in your awareness of the human condition and what it truly means to be alive.

The only Hell is the one you have made for so many of your brothers and sisters, while alive on this earth.

I do believe in God and life after human death, but it is probably nothing like you think it is. The only virgins you will ever have sex with are the slaves you steal from the innocent families throughout history.

1. the concept of “prophesy”,
2. the concept of God's Messenger,
3. the persona of Muhammad and the validity of Islam.

They are considered below:

1. The Concept of Prophesy
   1. The original meaning of the word “nabi” or (“navi” using modern Hebrew pronunciation) in the Hebrew books of Torah and Naviim (parts of the “Old Testament”), which is translated as “prophet”, was just a person who speaks out in public on various topics of public interest. Thus, there is a reference to a woman, whose son was killed in a war, and she “began to prophesy”. And Sha'ul (Saul, Talut), the first king of the Israeli tribes, at one point in his life joins a group of prophets, and becomes one of them, then he leaves them and goes back to being a king. So, “prophesy” did not mean “saintliness” or even “righteousness”, it simply meant the activity of talking to the public on public issues. Thus, if Sandy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, who started a public campaign against the war, had lived at the times of the Old Testament, it would have been said about her, “her son was killed in a war, and she began to prophesy”.
   
   
   2. Later the word “prophesy” started being used only with reference to the prophets mentioned in the Old Testament. But, even then it did not presume “saintliness” or “righteousness”, but of a person who at some time in the Hebrew history spoke out on some important topics and who is mentioned, or quoted in the Old Testament as a prophet. This is how “prophesy” is seen in the religion of the Jews.
   
   
   3. In the Qur'an the words “prophet” (nabi) is used in the sense of ordinary (not “saintly”) people who spoke out to the people as in (a) above, but is restricted to those calling to justice and righteousness. It includes all the persons mentioned in the Old Testament as in (b) above, but is not limited to that group and includes those mentioned in the New Testament, including Jesus the son of Mary. It is also suggested in the Qur'an that there had been prophets not mentioned in the books of the Bible, nor in the Qur'an.
   
   
   4. Muhammad was born among people who were idol worshippers, and he preached to these people that the only god worth worshipping is the Creator of the Universe, to which the Hebrews referred as Elohim, and the Arabic equivalent of which is Allah (the Greatest God). His preaching was similar to the activities as in (b) and (c) — he promoted, clarified and perfected the religion of the prophets that preceded him, and in that sense he was a prophet. He did not claim to be any supernatural or mythical “saint”, in the sense as the word “prophet” is used in the passage quoted by you. But, unlike some prophets, whose activities were limited to preaching, he was also a legislator and a practical leader, similar to Moses. Moses lead his people from slavery to freedom, but he died before having established a state. Muhammad had established a state which was governed by the laws laid down by him which were based on the religion preached by him. It is recognised by objective non‐Muslim historians that his laws and government were the most advanced and just for his historical period.
   
   


2. The Concept of God's Messenger
   
   Founders of religions like Moses or Muhammad are exceptional people. It is impossible to take an ordinary person and train him or appoint or elect him to be a Moses or Muhammad. Such people appear at a certain time and place independently of any human will. And in that sense they are “sent by God” — This is the meaning of “messenger of God”.
   
   (For the meaning of “God” see: God — They Still Argue About It).


3. The Attacks on the Persona of Muhammad and the Validity of Islam
   
   As far as the various allegations about Muhammad in the passage quoted by you, we shall leave it to you, as an exercise, to trace their sources, and to verify their truthfulness. We shall not spend our time on refuting these allegations, because for the issue of validity of Islam they are irrelevant.
   
   Even, if they were all true, it would not make any difference to the issue of “stopping Islam”, because the world view as presented in the Qur'an does not depend on the persona of Muhammad, but stands on its own merits. Thus, even if Muhammad were as “bad” as the passage quoted by you suggests, or even, if it had been proved that he never existed, but is a “fictional character”, the Qur'an does exist, and the ideas in it are valid, independently of who was the author of these ideas.
   
   And the main importance of the ideas of the Qur'an, is that the concept of God on which Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based, has been clarified and brought to a level which does not go against human reason. This makes Islam the ultimate development of religion, as a science, which withstands logical analysis, unlike Christianity which can only be based on blind belief.
   
   The passage quoted by you is aimed at “discrediting” Islam by attacking the persona of Muhammad, but this is like trying to prove that a mathematical theorem is wrong by saying that the mathematician who introduced it was a bad man. Such approach only shows the moral and intellectual weakness of those who use such argument.
   
   For a comparison of the 3 Abrahamic religions see:
   Judaism, Christianity and Islam — A Clash of Civilizations?.

Thank you for visiting our websites.

1. You confuse religion as a system of ideas, with behaviour of people associated with that religion. We have dealt with this distinction in a few of our articles and we shall not deal with this issue here, but refer you to the articles on our website.


2. You see Muslims as a kind of race descending from a common ancestor. This is a false assumption, but, again, we have dealt with this in our articles, and shall not repeat this here.


3. You presume that the people you are corresponding with are “Muslims” in the sense of (2) above (as you understand it) who follow “their Mullahs”.

Nowhere on our websites we state that we follow any religion, or that we “represent” any “ethnic” or “religious” group or “follow” anybody at all. We write about religion among other topics, because it is a subject relevant to the current state of the world. To understand our views you need to read our articles without any preconceived ideas. We are familiar with the 3 religions, and write about them, but we are not “religious” (i.e. blind followers of anything), as most people understand this word.

If you seriously want to comment on what we write, you should (1) quote the URL of the article you are commenting on, (2) cut‐and‐paste the passage from our article on which you want to comment, (3) explain logically why you believe that passage is wrong, (4) limit your comments to that particular passage. Then we could either agree with you assertions, or explain to you why we cannot agree with them.

But you ascribe to us beliefs which we have not expressed, but which you imagine us to believe, and then argue with these beliefs. Then you produce a collection of your opinions which raise a host of subjects to deal with any of which seriously would require a lengthy article or even a book.

Religion and human behaviour are “big subjects”, on which one can write many books. And for reasons of time we cannot write books for each individual site visitor (a few hundred a day). But we have dealt with some of the subjects raised by you in over 200 of our articles, which, if published as a single volume would be an over 1000 page book. And these articles only touch upon some of the subjects, and are but a tip of an iceberg.

So, we shall limit our comments to a short summary of your views:

1. You seek to place yourself in a position of “moral righteousness” by vilifying a group of people and their beliefs. Neither of which you are familiar with, but make frivolous assumptions.


2. The sources of you views are:
   
   
   1. the current “War on Terror” propaganda, which uses vilification of Islam to justify wars and atrocities committed by the American government and their allies in the current wars,
   
   
   2. “residual Christianity”. You probably (you have not said so, but it appears to be so from your writings) no longer believe that Jesus is a Son of God, but your view of God, and prophesy are based on Christianity. And the essence (and error) of the Christian view of God is that it is possible for Man to know what the Creator of the Universe consists of, where It can be found, and how It should behave. You are moving away from this classical Christian view, but have not yet freed yourself from it completely. And some of your ideas are distinctly Muslim, and have parallels in the Qur'an. So, you might not be aware of it, but you are moving from Christianity to Islam.

For our view of “terrorism” see:
Definition of Terrorism

And, for your own sake, before forming “opinions” do try to make an effort to inform yourself on the subject of your interest, rather than “soaking up” anything that make yourself feel better about yourself.

Thank you for visiting our websites.

“Why do you see throwing bombs from an aircraft and killing hundreds of Afghans as an ‘act of heroism by our boys’, but, when an Afghan hero sacrifices his life to kill a few enemies so as to drive the foreign invaders from his country, you call it ‘a barbaric crime against innocent people’?”

“Why do you tell us to forget your atrocities against us, while, when your people are killed, you say ‘we shall never forget’?”

And what you see as the “World” they see as a gang of criminals committing atrocities against their people whom their “heroes” fight by whatever weapons they have — which is often home made bombs strapped to their bodies activated at a place which they can access.

And the truly innocent people who get killed in such acts are just “collateral damage”.

To some degree this happens in any conflict between groups of people. People take sides and see their own “atrocities” as “heroism”, while the “heroism” of their “enemies” as “atrocities”.

But, while you are being fed the War on Terror propaganda, those in power who are feeding it to you are quite happy to cooperate with the same “terrorists” whom they vilify one day and praise and support another day and call them “freedom fighters” when it suits their politics.

If you want to really understand other people, you have to be able to see the world with their eyes.