Why would anyone believe him?

Ron Webb wrote: Here are the word counts for our exchanges so far: Posted date          me    you June 29 at 9:52am    50     June 29 at 1:40pm        239 July 01 at 9:05am    220     July 01 at 6:15pm        703 July 04 at 4:39pm    999     July 05 at 2:08pm        1742 July 06 at 5:35pm    1071     July 07 at 7:17pm        2036 July 09 at 6:49pm    1412     July 11 at 9:48pm        2865 Your responses are about twice as long as what you are responding to.  Mine are almost always shorter.  If I adopted your style, we would very soon be writing volumes to each other.  I don't know about you, but I don't have time to read that much, let alone write it.

So you have time to do a tally of how many words you and I have used, but you don't have time to read or write a long response?  Well, no wonder!  You waste time on petty nonsense. 

For my part, I write as much as is necessary to drive home the point.  Sometimes, just a few words is not enough. 

Ron Webb wrote: How is it a different question?  The word "why" is right there, in the title of the discussion as well as opening post!

Ugh, this is like trying to teach a monkey. 

You asked "why" would "anyone" believe him.  I pointed out that people did believe him.  You responded initially by asking "why" they believed and then said that you didn't mean those people.  Get it? 

Ron Webb wrote: What other symptoms?  The only defining symptom of paraphrenia is auditory hallucinations.  Other symptoms may or may not be present.

So now you are having trouble with reading comprehension?  Or is it that you have a short memory?  In my response from July 7, I stated:

"Onset of symptoms generally occurs later in life, near the age of 60." 

Muhammad (peace be upon him) had his encounter at the age of 40, but paraphrenia generally effects older people. 

The article also states:

"The main symptoms of paraphrenia are paranoid delusions and hallucinations.^[1][6] The delusions often involve the individual being the subject of persecution, although they can also be erotic, hypochondriacal, or grandiose in nature. The majority of hallucinations associated with paraphrenia are auditory, with 75% of patients reporting such an experience; however, visual, tactile, and olfactory hallucinations have also been reported.^[1][6] The paranoia and hallucinations can combine in the form of �threatening or accusatory voices coming from neighbouring houses [and] are frequently reported by the patients as disturbing and undeserved"."

None of these symptoms can be applied to Muhammad (peace be upon him).  He never claimed to be hearing "voices" which were threatening in manner.  Nor did he hear voices coming from "neighbouring houses".

You simply cherry-picked a couple of symptoms and ignored the rest, just like a crackpot would. 

Ron Webb wrote: Evidence against my theories is not evidence in favour of yours.

But they are evidence that you have no explanations.  Your best "proof" is uncertainty. 

Also, I am referring to other evidence from other threads.  For example, the "Prophecy" thread in the General Discussion section.  Now I know you have tried to deny the prophecies, but the point is that the evidence is there.  You just try to deny it to satisfy your ego. 

Ron Webb wrote: No, I don't acknowledge that.  Lots of impostors are successful.

Yet you have failed to prove that he was an impostor.  In addition to that, you have failed to explain how he succeeded if he was an impostor. 

Ron Webb wrote: Again, I'm not trying to prove anything.  At this point, 1400 years later and based solely on anecdotal information filtered through fanatical believers, there is no hope in getting to the real story.  I'm just pointing out that the God Hypothesis is equally speculative, and a priori quite a bit less likely.

 
Maybe according to your confused mindset.  No one cares what you think.  If you cannot prove anything (or are not even "trying" to prove anything), then you are just wasting time, which is ironic given that above you were complaining about not having enough time to read or write long responses!   

Ron Webb wrote: Other prophets (allegedly) performed miracles.  Muhammad never claimed to, and the Quran (as I quoted) confirms that he was a warner only.

I have already refuted this nonsense.  You are just too full of yourself to admit that you are mistaken.  How fitting that you ignored point #2, where I showed that other prophets were also described as "warners", yet they also performed miracles.

Ron Webb wrote: According to the Pooya commentary to 21:3, they thought he used sorcery to make people believe.  IMHO it's more likely they just used "sorcerer" as a generalized term for heretic.  Or perhaps they said no such thing; it may be just a straw man created by Muhammad.

      

Look at how you just make up theories to satisfy your own skepticism.  No proof.  No logic.  Just a whole bunch of "IMHO" and "it's more likely" or "perhaps this" and "perhaps that". 

Let's look at the "Pooya commentary" on Surah Al-Qamar 54, which I cited previously, to prove once and for all, that you are an ignoramus in denial and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did perform miracles:

"The reference is a famous miracle of the Holy Prophet, recorded in several authentic traditions of the companions, particularly of the Ahl ul Bayt whose evidence is always true, performed at the insistent demand of the pagans and the Jews. The Jews who saw this miracle became Muslims but Abu Jahl said: "This is magic continuous". It is written in the Book of Joshua 10: 13: "So the sun stood still and the moon halted until a nation had taken vengeance on its enemies." So the Jews and the Christians cannot deny the possibility of "divine adjustment" in the solar system.

Some commentators think that the past tense is used here for the future-the moon will be rent asunder at the approach of the resurrection. Firstly authentic traditions relate the cleaving asunder of the moon, secondly the observation "this is magic continuous" in verse 2 leaves no room for the speculation of the enemies of the Holy Prophet. Even the Qadiani commentators, who habitually deny miracles, accept the incident to have taken place.

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

Those who deny the miracle performed by the Holy Prophet will be punished as the people of Nuh were punished. Refer to verses 9 to 15."

Ron Webb wrote: If you believe that this refers to an event that had already happened, then you must also believe that the Hour of Judgement was "nigh" 1400 years ago.  No, the splitting of the moon is a prophecy of an event yet to come, a sign that will herald the Hour of Judgment.

See the "Pooya commentary" above, non-Quranic scholar.  Your *****ic, pseudo-scholarly opinions mean nothing.

Anyone with even basic knowledge of Islamic eschatology knows that the meaning of the phrase "the hour of judgment is nigh" means that the splitting of the moon was one of the signs preceding the hour.  It did not mean that that hour was right around the corner.  In fact, there are many other signs which the Prophet stated had to occur before the hour would come.  Some of these signs have occurred.  Others have not.  One of the most significant signs will be the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him), which obviously has not happened yet.

Ron Webb wrote: Of course it makes sense.  Every new religion starts that way.

So it makes "sense" that Muhammad (peace be upon him) would have have invented his religious encounter in order to gain power and wealth, and then in his efforts to attain what he wanted, he antagonized the people he wanted it from?  Thank you for once again showing how nonsensical your theories are!  

If Muhammad (peace be upon him) had wanted power, he needed to appeal to his people.  Attacking their religion and their way of life would not have been the best way to go about doing that!  If you disagree, then maybe you should try it yourself and see what happens!  It was nice knowing you Ron!

Ron Webb wrote: My common sense tells me that the elites were already angry with him so he had nothing to lose in that regard.  My common sense tells me that he had more to fear from his friends and family who slept by his side, shared his table at dinner, etc.

Well then, your "common sense" could use a tune-up.  If the elites were already angry with him, they why did they make him such a lucrative offer?  They could have just continued to oppose him and make life difficult for him. 

As is typical of your inane babble, you completely ignored all the reasons I gave to show that your theories make no sense.  Your "common sense" can more fittingly be called "uncommon nonsense". 

Ron Webb wrote: So abandon his friends and family and accept protective custody with strangers?  That's your preferred scenario?

They weren't "strangers", you ignoramus.  Many of his most vile detractors were from his family.  His uncles Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were the leaders of the opposition.  They were the ones who made the offer to him.

Ron Webb wrote: But he did exploit the predominant pagan beliefs.  Did I mention that "Allah" was one of the pagan gods?  As for declaring that all the other gods are false, why wouldn't he?  He's a liar.  He can say anything he wants.  To pretend to be Allah, the only god, would make him more powerful than saying he is just one of many.

You just like making a fool of yourself, don't you?  

Did I mention that Allah was the title which ALL Arabs, whether Jew, Christian or pagan, used to refer to God?  Or do you not know how to read? 

Why would Satan start a new religion among a people who were already steeped in idol worship?  If anything, he would have wanted to continue the status quo.  Hence, making Muhammad (peace be upon him) think that one of the pagan gods, such as Hubal or the so-called "daughters of Allah" had chosen him would have made more sense. 

Ron Webb wrote: I would expect exactly that.  The best lies are wrapped in half-truths.  Of course he would say all the right things about justice and mercy and all that, to lull you into complacency.  Then he'd add just enough twists to cause mischief, inspire hatred of other groups, promote the likes of Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc.

What a load of nonsense!  The problem is that the rich people in Mecca opposed him for preaching social justice as well as attacking their religion.  To them, the idea of charity was anathema.  So, the only ones who were "lulled into complacency" were the poor and downtrodden while the rich and powerful remained obstinate.  That's not exactly an ideal situation for a supposed impostor or for Satan's plan to start a new religion for no apparent reason.

Furthermore, your idiocy and ignorance of what Islam teaches just goes to show that you are just another troll who pretends like he is interested in discussion but who is more interested in spreading his own false propaganda and prejudice.       

Ron Webb wrote: In fact, if I were such a mischievous spirit, I'd twist Islam one way, Christianity another, Hinduism another, and so on.  Then I'd be endlessly entertained as I watched them slaughter each other to prove which of them had the one true religion.  Just like they've been doing for the last few millennia, eh?

Well, don't worry.  You are not a "mischievous spirit", but you are one hell of a dumb guy!    For someone who doesn't even believe in "mischievous spirits", you certainly seem to know a lot about how they think.

Oh and like I said, it seems unlikely that a "mischievous spirit" would spend so much time on a prank, sticking with it for such a long time instead of just losing interest and moving to some other "prank".  This is all speculation, of course, but I love that I have gotten an atheist to make up assumptions about what Satan or a "mischievous spirit" might do!

Ron Webb wrote: It's not about Muhammad.  It's about the billions of Muslims and non-Muslims whose lives have been screwed up by religion.  I'd say that's worth a few decades of effort.

More mindless theorizing?  And now it's not about Muhammad, huh?  So, for some reason, the "mischievous spirit" had the foresight to know that starting a new religion would get people to kill each other, as if people didn't kill each for other reasons? 

And by the way, I and the majority of religious people, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, have not had our "lives screwed up by religion".  Your atheist mumbo-jumbo just goes to show how screwed up your views on religion are. 

By the way, some of the worst mass murderers in history were actually atheists.  Stalin and Mao Zedong  come to mind.  Moreover, people fight over many things, not just religion.  They fight over nationality, ethnicity, land, resources, wealth etc.  *****ic atheists such as yourself have just gotten bogged down on religion and have over-exaggerated its link to violence.  You should read David Berlinski's book "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions" for more on the fallacy of your argument. 

Ron Webb wrote: Refuted?  He did own slaves at the time of his death, right?  So that alone refutes your claim of "mule, swords and some land".  And I think we can assume that all those wives lived in houses, with furniture and clothing and pots to cook in, etc.

Which slaves did he own at the time of his death? 

And more of your assumptions?  When will you get your head out of the ground?  When will you admit that you are just a crackpot atheist who pretends to be knowledgeable but who is just a pathetic ignoramus? 

The houses where the Prophet's wives lived were simple.  They were not mansions with "furniture and clothing and pots to cook in".  As I said before, food was a commodity in his household.  That was due to the self-imposed poverty in which he lived and which his wives also shared with him as a condition of living with him. 

Ron Webb wrote: He needed a special dispensation from God to justify more than four wives.  Sure, the pagans also practiced polygamy, but eleven?  Plus concubines and slaves, plus numerous annulments and broken engagements?  I think any culture, pagan or not, would find that excessive.

I think you are just an i-d-i-o-t who makes up "facts" without proof.  As I said, polygamy and concubinage were accepted institutions in Arabia (and around the world).

There was no limit on how many wives or concubines a person could have.  As scholar Karen Armstrong states:

"In seventh-century Arabia, when a man could have as many wives as he chose, to prescribe only four was a limitation, not a license to new oppression." ("Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, p. 191)  

Ron Webb wrote: Let me be clear.  I agree that Muhammad was not interested in material possessions.  He cared about power, and he cared about women.  As a Prophet he got both, far more than he could have had as a successful trader.

If he wanted power, he would have accepted the offer he was made.  Your theories crumble in the face of the evidence.  And your uncommon nonsense only makes things worse for you.  Poor guy...

Ron Webb wrote: I'm not sure where you got that quote, but here (in part) is what Maulana Muhammad Ali actually says (page 524) about this verse: "The splendours of this world were not forbidden to any Muslim, but such transitory vanities were not to be admitted into the household of God's Prophet.  As he possessed the means, his wives would be allowed to depart with rich and ample gifts, if such was their desire."

Maybe if you read the entire quote, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.  Here is the part that you deliberately ignored:

"If the Prophet had allowed his wives to share in the general prosperity of his community, there could not have been the least objection.  But he received a revelation which deprived him and those most nearly related to him of those material benefits which others could easily acquire."

His community was prospering.  If his wives wanted a piece of that prosperity, the Prophet would ensure that they would get it.

Ron Webb wrote: His first two wives, before he had significant power, were in their forties.  Try telling a woman in her forties that she is "elderly" and see how that goes.   The rest were in their sexual prime, and most were described as beautiful.

Umm, demographics were a little different in those days.  What do you think the average lifespan was?  Was it the same as today?    A woman in her late forties or early fifties would have been beyond her sexual prime and could be referred to as being "elderly".  Hazrat Sawdah (may Allah be pleased with her) was not a young woman and was not in her prime, as Reza Aslan pointed out.     

Ron Webb wrote: I don't even know what to say in response to such a chauvinistic attitude.  Is that really how you value women?

I don't even know what to say in response to such an *****ic comment.  Wait, yes I do, and here it is: 

I wasn't saying anything about how I "value women", you i-d-i-o-t.  I was merely pointing out that a man who was only interested in sex would value virgins instead of widows.  Your idiocy and foolishness clearly knows no bounds!