Sure a lot of killing going on in the religion he was called up to meet Allah to be instructed
on how to pass this new religion on to the people. Two choices accept or die. Choice is what any religion should be about. But I'm glad I have a few other opitions.
One being I need nothing but faith. And I don't need a church telling me what that faith need to be. The other is being able to question my religion (if I belonged to a church, which I don't)
I like freedom and faith they go nice together.

__________________
Yea can't keep the words of your great leader.

Prophet Muhammad - “Do you love your creator? Love your fellow-beings first.”

Pretty much basically false.

Even people like Sayyid Qutb didn't believe that.

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

Yes, he actually existed.

This isn't true. While the Arabs generally didn't draw his face (in order to prevent people from idolizing him) the Persians had no such reservations. Early Islamic persian art does depict Muhammad with a face.

Also, Early Arabic Islamic art also depicts Muhammad, but with a cloth over his face.

You are leaving out the Quran, which was formulated by Muhammad and written down upon his death. Since then, the Quran has remained in the language that it was written: Arabic.

Not to mention that there are the works of not only Ibn Ishaq, but also of Hisham and Tabari, as well as hundreds of thousands of hadiths which later formed the major collections which are now a part of the Islamic religion for many Muslims.

Mecca was too far south to be an important hub for far eastern trade (which is what made the Ridda wars under Abu Bakr so vital). Mecca was a trading hub for Arab tribes who became Muslim, so of course the records are going to be Islamic. The first major empire in the region was Arabic/Islamic.

Or it could be because the Quran specifically forbids idoltry (aka religious images) and pictures or symbols of any kind inside of mosques.

Sunnah, otherwise known as Hadiths and there are hundreds of thousands of them.

That is not how early Islam was spread. Also, the Quran specifically states that there shall be no compulsion in religion.

faith.

one element of faith (to my understanding) is that it implies you believe something even though you do not have definitive proof.

it seems that the requirements for religion to prove the existence of their deities and/ or prophets implies that the followers do not have very strong faith. so what if there is no pictures of mohammad? does not prove he never existed. lots of people existed who were never recorded or drawn. belief that he did exist is just a matter of faith.

same with jesus. perhaps he existed, perhaps he was crucified, perhaps these are all stroies written for local (and at the time current) political reasons 2000 years ago. all of these are possible. if you are christian, you probably have faith that he was divine. but that is no more or less than a muslim has in mohammad.

BTW, the initial post on this thread is perhaps not entirely accurate.

A List Of Biblical Contradictions

Have any of you people realised that these religions (Islam and Christianity) would not have started if it were not that the people of the day had credible evidence that these people existed? I mean, do you really think that Christianity would have spread like wildfire if it were not for some inexplicable events that happened which amazed the people back then? Do you think people would have become Muslims if they never saw Muhammad and had not believed in him?

__________________

How have you been Bourne? You know, I think for the first time, I disagree with you. I'm not saying it's toilet paper, etc, but I don't think it's a question that needs to be asked. To me it's trying to discredit someones faith, which I'm opposed to. I'm not saying we shouldn't ask questions, etc, but to ask the question as to wheter or not he even existed, you know, that's going to far for me. Again, it's not that we shouldn't challenge things, but to challenge them just to make a point, I don't know, it's just wrong. What is he trying to accomplish in asking this question? Debate? No, probably not. Because most believers aren't going to change their minds. No, he's looking for an argument. He wants to make people look foolish, question themselves, etc. Nothing to do with debate. You can challenge some of the actions that people take in the name of religion, that's different. But to challenge the basis of their faith, that's wrong. If you don't believe, leave them alone and move on with your life.

__________________
24 Empty Missile Tubes, A Giant Mushroom Cloud...IT's MILLER TIME!

Source was both biased and factually inaccurate...useless flame bait yet again.

__________________

I object on that.......

When the Muslim army led by prophet mohammed himself, invaded/liberated others lands, they (Muslim Army) used to call their enemy to embrace Islam or face death.
of course, for weak, small enemies they would have no option but to submit to Islam.....isn't this compulsion.....yes it is not in a direct way, but it is still a form of compulsion.

for those people, who surrender without fighting and didn't convert to Islam, they would have to pay "high Taxes" -in arabic: Jiziya", why they should pay taxes? because they are not Muslims.
Again, for poor people who can't afford these Taxes, they wound not have another choice but to convert to Islam.

Now, in every religion, there are 2 kinds of rules: the first is the basic -original rules- put by the founder of the religion. and the second are "opinions" put by people other than the founder, accumulated through time and eventually became substantial religious rules.

nowadays: 2008- location:Mosul-Iraq.
Islamists who control the city force non-muslim minorities to pay extra high Taxes or face death or convert to Islam.
Now, you may say.......OK, they are radical Muslims who practice compulsion in religion, but that is not what Islam is about..........
I would say that would be true if Prophet Mohammed had not practiced it himself. it is a fact that in all many wars Prophet Mohammed led, he practiced compulsion in religion.

Your options are:
fight or convert to Islam
surrender and choose between paying "Taxes" or conversion to Islam

those options were not introduced by Usama Bin Ladin or Al-Thawahiri....those options were introduced and practiced by prophet Mohammed....which makes them basic rules.

Hint: I am not judging whether compulsion in religion is a good or a bad thing....I am just saying: compulsion in religion exists in Islam -not just as a personal practice by radicals, but as a basic constitutional rule-