Muhammad the Greatest: A Comparative Study

[Al-Fatihah]

You JUST said that eye-witness accounts are useless!

And if asked of what proof you have that Hitler or any of the people answered the challenge, your answer is "because a book says so", which any reasonable person can see is not proof. For saying so is not proof that it is so.

You discount both eyewitnesses and historians in one swoop here! I guess Christians don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy...

Response: The words "eyewitness accounts are useless" are mentioned no where. Anothe failed attempt.

---

You really don't know where you stand and right now you think you have us corned, your own stupidity blinds you to the fact we have destroyed every argument you have yet you insist that we have not, you really are clearly deluded and there is no cure for it. Hard evidence is not going to sway you, you have your book that's all you need, despite it being wrong about everything, we understand. We have Christians on here that are like you. Impossible to educate as you mind is so close and your head so far up your own arse it's impossible to reverse.

Response: The hilarity continues. You claim to have answered the challenge when you clearly haven't. Once again, the challenge clearly states for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible. So have you conquered a nation? NO. Have you conquered the street you live on? NO. Thus you've done absolutely nothing in answering the challenge and have been dodging it from the beginning. Thus your ducking and dodging to attempt the challenge once again confirms your denial to the fact that the qur'an is the true word of Allah. Debunked as usual.

[Darkstar]

You JUST said that eye-witness accounts are useless!
You discount both eyewitnesses and historians in one swoop here! I guess Christians don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy...

Response: The words "eyewitness accounts are useless" are mentioned no where. Anothe failed attempt.

Oh, but you certainly implied it, especially when pressed on it.
So, either accept eyewitness accounts for Hitler's rise to power, or throw out your own. Not to mention that thousand+ year old "eyewitness accounts" are not particularily reliable. Seventy year old ones, on the other hand, are much more apt to be trustworthy.

Yet if asked how you know that these historians were eyewitnesses, your answer is "because they said so", thus you debunked yourself again. For it still relies on hearsay that the eyewitness were actually eyewitness.

[Al-Fatihah]

Are you some kind of electronic toy? "Six different sayings in all!"
So if we say Hitler did the challenge, how is that dodging? You're the one dodging by claiming that we are, rather than answering the question. Can you prove that Muhammud succeeded in the challenge or can't you?

Response: Hitler didn't do the challenge, as the challenge proves. As for Muhammad succeeding the challenge, it was answered. I'm only one person. I can't answer dozens of post all at once. You'll just have to be patient until I get to it, which was just answered.

---

Sure, let's say I'm suggesting that. Please prove that he did.

Response: No. Let's not say you are saying that, and you actually say it as true. Otherwise, there is no reason for your question.

[Creed of Heresy]

Response: To the contrary, it's substantiated by the fact that you keep ducking and dodging from answering the challenge. A clear reaction that stems from the fact that you know you can't do it, thus suorting the fact that the challenge proves that the Qur'an is from Allah. Debunked again.

I already answered the challenge. Hitler. Karl Marx. The American Revolution. What, you think people woke up one day and thought "I'm going to risk my life to take over other countries and kill other people because my lot in life is a bit crappy?" Or "I'm gonna throw other human beings in an oven because they're rich?" No, nobody wanted to do that, otherwise they would've done it before Hitler's fiery speeches. He motivated them to do something they didn't want to do. Commit genocide. Wage total war. Kill innocents.

You then stated your silliness about "books aren't allowed." Your only "evidence" comes from a book.

So yes, you are right...debunked again. You've debunked yourself. I've only helped you along.

[Darkstar]

Response: Hitler didn't do the challenge, as the challenge proves. As for Muhammad succeeding the challenge, it was answered. I'm only one person. I can't answer dozens of post all at once. You'll just have to be patient until I get to it, which was just answered.

I just rejected you answer. You say that eyewitnesses are not reliable because they might not actually be eyewitnesses, and we shouldn't take their word for it because that would be hearsay.
[quote Al-Fatihah]Yet if asked how you know that these historians were eyewitnesses, your answer is "because they said so", thus you debunked yourself again. For it still relies on hearsay that the eyewitness were actually eyewitness.[/quote]
If we can't trust modern historians then how can we trust ancient nobodies?

[Al-Fatihah]

Oh, but you certainly implied it, especially when pressed on it.
So, either accept eyewitness accounts for Hitler's rise to power, or throw out your own. Not to mention that thousand+ year old "eyewitness accounts" are not particularily reliable. Seventy year old ones, on the other hand, are much more apt to be trustworthy.

Yet if asked how you know that these historians were eyewitnesses, your answer is "because they said so", thus you debunked yourself again. For it still relies on hearsay that the eyewitness were actually eyewitness.

Response: It ws not implied, as there is nothing synonymous to the words "eyewitness are useless"mentioned. You fail again.

So once again, Hitler proves nothing, bevause the qur'an challeneg proves that it is impossible from a hands-on eyewitness account. Therefore, any history claiming otherwise is false.

[Creed of Heresy]

The qur'an challenge proves nothing other than how silly an attempt at vindication it is.

You've been intellectually trounced, and you are now projecting your own failures upon us. "You are running around in circles, ducking and evading," you keep saying...yet all I've seen from you is ducking and evading, and utilizing circular logic.

Begone, noob.

[Al-Fatihah]

I already answered the challenge. Hitler. Karl Marx. The American Revolution. What, you think people woke up one day and thought "I'm going to risk my life to take over other countries and kill other people because my lot in life is a bit crappy?" Or "I'm gonna throw other human beings in an oven because they're rich?" No, nobody wanted to do that, otherwise they would've done it before Hitler's fiery speeches. He motivated them to do something they didn't want to do. Commit genocide. Wage total war. Kill innocents.

You then stated your silliness about "books aren't allowed." Your only "evidence" comes from a book.

So yes, you are right...debunked again. You've debunked yourself. I've only helped you along.

Response: You clearly answered nothing, when the challenge clearly states for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible. You've done none of the above. Debunked again.

[Gooders1002]

Could I personally do what Mohammed did, no, I not that good at manipulation, by somebody like Darren Brown, definitely he can manipulate anybody, even today. If you know the tricks of the mind you can have millions in the palm of your hand without them knowing it. Does that answer your question?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Could I personally do what Mohammed did, no, I not that good at manipulation, by somebody like Darren Brown, definitely he can manipulate anybody, even today. If you know the tricks of the mind you can have millions in the palm of your hand without them knowing it. Does that answer your question?

Ofcourse not, it's debunked anyway by the fundamentalist.