So actually FD all your questions about 'erring' was in fact a big red herring.

All you are interested in is whether or not Muhammad's known actions were moral or not.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 8:42pm:


Is that a different question to whether they were mistakes?

Saying that you think Muhammed erred is a red herring in the context of how to interpret his known actions.

Quote:


Do you think Muhammed intended the current global situation for Islam?

Quote:


I disagree. Being too stupid or lazy to see the consequences is not a moral out.

Perhaps the example of communism might make it more obvious. In Russia, China etc they got the intended consequences they wanted - shared wealth. Yet the unintended consequences - vastly less total wealth and oppressive government - still make it a mistake.

And you are missing the point. I did not start this thread to have another discussion about the morality of Muhammed's actions, but to get a straight answer on what you meant about Muhammed erring, as you made it sound like it was a significant reinterpretation of Islamic doctrine. If you stopped worrying so much about what you think I am saying without actually saying it, and focused instead on what I am actually saying, you would look far less evasive.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 9:38pm:

I am by no means the first to make that point.  There is simply NO new idea in Islam that is an improvement on any of the revealed religions before it.  The only new thing in Islam is force, subjugation and violence mandated by religion.  Nothing else is new in Islam.

As Manuel II Palaiologos said:  "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only bad and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."


Your task is laid out right there, Gandy. A question posed 600+ years ago and still unanswered. Can you answer satisfactorily?

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:45pm:


I don't. But I thought you were just saying that the 'sanitised' nature of the sources was the whole problem.

Are you now saying there are mistakes which we ignore? I honestly don't know what you are getting at FD.

Trust me fd to insist muhammad erred is nothing different to what all muslims already believe. You could say its literally an article of faith.

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 10:30pm:


Firstly I'm not sure that it is. Secondly, I've already said its nothing to do with theology, and everything to do with the nature of the sources (writers who were biased).