Muhammad the Greatest: A Comparative Study

[DeistPaladin]

The challenge is:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

This must be the Muslim analog to the "would-they-have-died-for-a-lie" argument often used by Christians.

The argument, such as it is, follows a similar pattern of heavy reliance on the folklore of the religion combined with an argument from incredulity or "I can't imagine why people would act this way unless something supernatural had happened."

The problems with both arguments are similar:

1. You're using folklore to prove mythology. The details of early Christian persecution are likely exaggerated or outright fabricated by the victorious church. How reliable is the history of Muhammad's ministry and the ascendant Islamic faith? My understanding is this history is largely reliant on folklore and oral traditions.

2. Even if it were so, such things do happen with no supernatural activity. Crazy cults form that convince people to give up their beliefs, their money, their family and even their lives. It happens all the time even today.

3. The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Is this the best evidence you can offer?

By the way, I was just visited by an angel who told me we live in a natural universe governed by predictable laws best understood through science and reason. God wants us to stop believing in religious nonsense and instead use science to find the answers. You can't prove that didn't just happen and I'm an honest man so I wouldn't just make that up.