Can I honestly ask a serious question?

BeerWolf

And I don't mean to be disrespectful, just merely curious... but why do Muslims worship and idolise the Prophet Muhammad, declaring him as the "Perfect Muslim", when he was a blood lusting warmonger that killed, pillaged and raped people throughout his life... and when he died his disciples turned on each other and his family?

I mean, he was more akin to a violent gang leader... no ?

I mean... these are things that most people would outright CONDEMN of anyone today committing them...

Defender OF Faith

BeerWolf wrote: »

And I don't mean to be disrespectful, just merely curious... but why do Muslims worship and idolise the Prophet Muhammad, declaring him as the "Perfect Muslim", when he was a blood lusting warmonger that killed, pillaged and raped people throughout his life... and when he died his disciples turned on each other and his family?

I mean, he was more akin to a violent gang leader... no ?

I mean... these are things that most people would outright CONDEMN of anyone today committing them...

Your question will be taken seriously, I think this is a good thread to dispel any of the lies or misconception thrown around our beloved prophet, as clearly you seem grossly misinformed about him, as the Muhammed we know does not fit the description given by you.

To begin with can you really believe that 1.8 Billion people on this earth will follow and convert to a religion and put their love,faith and trust in a man with the descriptions you highlighted? unless you are accusing us all for being brainwashed fools who cannot think and use their own brains even when the first verse revealed in the Qur'an invited us to read and think, and when the word reflect and ponder occurred numerous times in the Qur'an.

To begin with we do not worship Muhammed(pbuh) in fact the only reason he forbade the Muslims for depicting him is because he was afraid to be worshipped beside God by being turned into an idol.

He refused and instructed his followers not to rise him to a position of divinity, he even scolds one of his companions when he says "what God wills and you will" saying angrily "You made me an equal with God?", preaching to his followers ''Do not adulate me as the Christians have adulated the Son of Mary. For I am but His slave. So say 'slave of God, and His messenger'.


The love we as Muslims and his companions have for him was described by Urwah during the negotiation of the peace of Hudaybiyah on behalf of Quraysh, by saying:

"I have visited the kings of Persia, Rome and Abyssinia, but I have not seen any leader more revered and respected by his people than Muhammad . If he ordered them to do anything, they do it without delay. If he performs Wudu (Ablution) they all seek the remainder of the water he used. They never look at him in the eyes, out of respect."


Indeed, the Prophet (PBUH) was not a wealthy or powerful figure who exercised his authority through force. In fact, he lacked the material means that would have enabled him to have such power over men. He used to tell his people in the words of the Qur’an, “Say, ‘I do not tell you I have the treasures of God, and I do not know the unseen. And I do not tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what has been revealed to me [al-Anʿām: 50].’”
Despite this fact, his Companions followed his commands and emulated his model to an extent that was unprecedented in the history of humanity. History has not known a man who has overwhelmed hearts through his majesty and the nobility of his spirit as did the prophet (PBUH). The Companions of the Prophet (PBUH) underwent the most excruciating difficulties and tests in which they demonstrated the sincerity of their commitment. They sacrificed their lives, wealth, and family bonds for the sake of their faith to an extent that was never seen again after their era.

When the pagans took Zayd b. Dathna (companion) out to execute him after he had been one of their prisoners, Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb (Leader of the Pagans at the time) said, “I summon you by God O Zayd. Would you prefer that Muḥammad was in your place today so that we execute him [instead] while you are with your family, safe from getting killed?” Zayd said to him, “By God, I would not wish for the Prophet to get pricked with a thorn in the place that he currently is [in exchange] for me to be sitting with my family.” Abū Sufyān said, “By God, I did not see anybody who loves another person the way the Companions of Muḥammad love Muḥammad.”


We are instructed as Muslims to love him more then our own selves. We can find in the way he lead his life the perfect examples to follow an implement into our own from how he treated out wives,neighbours,children,companions and even animals, he was a mercy to every form of creation, a man that possessed the perfect behaviour and manner.

He is the one who defended the rights of all humanity 1400 years ago.
He defended men's, women's and children rights
He commanded and fostered the love between relatives and neighbors
He established a coexistence relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims
He organized the relationship between the members of the family putting duties on sons and daughters towards the parents
He fought injustice, called for justice, love, unity and cooperation for the good.
He called for helping the needy, visiting the patients, love and exchanging advises between people.
He prohibited (by orders from God) bad manners such as stealing, lying, torturing and murdering.
He is the one who changed our lives and manners to be better:
A Muslim doesn't steal
A Muslim doesn't lie
A Muslim doesn't drink alcohol.
A Muslim doesn't commit adultery
A Muslim doesn't cheat
A Muslim doesn't kill innocent people
A Muslim doesn't harm his neighbors
A Muslim obeys his parents and helps them
A Muslim is kind to young and elderly people, to women and to weak people.
A Muslim doesn't torture humans or even animals, and does not harm trees
A Muslim loves his wife and takes care of his children and show mercy towards them until the last day of his life.
A Muslim's relationship towards his parents never stops even when they die

Defender OF Faith

Due to the length of the post I divided it into 2 parts/ Part 2/2:

Imaam Al-Maqdisi[Scholar] described him by saying:

The Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) was the bravest of the people. 'Ali bin Abu Talib (companion) said: "When the fighting got severe, and the people met their enemies, we used to find shelter with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings be upon him)."

He was the most generous of the people; he never said "no" when requested anything (permissible) from anyone.

He was the most patient of all people.

He was more shy than a virgin in her seclusion. He never fixed his gaze on (never stared at) anyone.

He never sought revenge for himself, nor did he ever get angry for himself. But whenever the boundaries of Allaah were violated, he used to avenge for them only, and when he was angry, no one could intercede with him.

The far and the near - the weak and the strong - were all equal before him as far as rights were concerned.

He never criticized any kind of food. If he liked it, he would eat of it. If not, he would refrain.

He never ate reclining, nor did he eat on a table. He never prohibited himself from enjoying the permissible things. If he found dried dates, he would eat them. If he found roasted meat, he would eat of that as well. If he found bread baked of wheat or barely, he would eat of it. If he found milk, it would be enough for him. He ate watermelon with fresh dates, and he was particularly fond of sweets and honey.

Abu Hurairah (companion) narrated: "Allaah's Messenger (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) left this world without satisfying his hunger even with barely bread."

It was also said: "Sometimes a month or two would pass before a fire was lit in the house of the Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him), and their food was only dates and water."

He would accept gifts of food and would give something to those who gave a gift to him. But he never ate from charity. He never indulged in luxurious food nor garments. He ate what he had and wore what he had.

He mended his own clothes and patched his own clothes. He helped his family with the daily household chores, and used to visit the sick among the people.

He was the most modest of the people, and would answer the invitation of any who invited him, whether that person was rich or poor, common or noble.

He loved the poor and the needy (from the believers), and attended their funerals, and visited the sick among them. He never insulted a poor man for his poverty, nor feared a rich (man) because of his power and status.

He would tie a stone to his belly out of hunger, preferring the provisions of the life of the Hereafter to holding the keys to the treasures of this wordly life.

Although he had many concerns, he always maintained a cheerful disposition, and offered a smile as a means of greeting.

He used to entertain the noble, and was generous to the virtuous people. He used to meet all the people cheerfully, and was never known to be rough or unkind to anyone.

He did not deny the permissible playing. He would jest, but would always speak the truth. He would accept the excuse from the one who gave it.

Anas (Companion) said: "I never touched silk or velvet softer than the hand of the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh), and never smelled any smell - regardless of what it was - that was more pleasant than the smell of the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh). I served the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) for 10 years, and he never said to me 'uff' (a minor harsh word denoting impatience) and never blamed me by saying, 'Why did you do so,' or 'why didn't you do so?'"

We believe that God the all-Mighty bestowed on His Messenger Muhammad perfect morals and perfect deeds.

This man did not obtain from this world what the emperors and kings have obtained from foods and drinks, even though he could of easily did so with his authority and the love of his followers, but most of his food was dates and water, sometimes he would tie a stone around his belly from hunger.

Then he died while his shield was mortgaged with a Jew indicating his poverty and the religion he came with continues to spread for the next 1400 years.

I highly suggest you read a honest unbiased biography about this man, I would suggest Lesley Hazleton "The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad" a non-Muslim agnostic Jew who doesn't hate or like Islam and hence her work would be highly credible and objective.

This is the Muhammed the Muslim know,love and follow not the one you described.

I will wait for you to support the qualities you believed Muhammed(pbuh) to be using the Islamic sources, but please do not go to an anti-Islamic site such as wiki-islam,answering-islam,Islam-explained.... and copy/past something here, Present the evidence summarised and we will replay,put in context and clarify as no evidence you will bring forward can ever support the qualities you believe Muhammed(pbuh) to posses.

Sources:
http://www.nursacredsciences.com/and-muhammad-is-his-messenger-loving-the-prophet-pbuh-and-the-significance-of-sending-prayers-upon-him/
Ar-Raheeq-ul-Makhtum"The Sealed Nectar" biography of Muhammad by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri.
http://sunnah.com/ [collection of Hadith]
http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/quran.htm [Qur'an commentary & translation]
http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Muhammad_the_Prophet_of_Mercy.pdf

Note: If in doubts of the authenticity of any of the Hadith or statement or incidents I presented, point it out and I will cite the full reference, I avoided doing it here as not to litter the thread with references.

BeerWolf

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

To begin with can you really believe that 1.8 Billion people on this earth will follow and convert to a religion and put their love,faith and trust in a man with the descriptions you highlighted? unless you are accusing us all for being brainwashed fools who cannot think and use their own brains even when the first verse revealed in the Qur'an invited us to read and think, and when the word reflect and ponder occurred numerous times in the Qur'an.

Excluding converts to, Muslims are born into it... and, in Islamic countries, by law [Sharia] are to remain a Muslim for their entire life. If they commit apostasy, to convert from Islam, they are greatly at risk of being arrested and/or executed.

It is because of this Sharia Law, that effectively creates fear to question anything with regards to Islam, that it effectively creates an institutionalized way of thinking among the Muslim populace of said Islamic countries... and basically a "How dare you question us?" attitude. And as such, I would have to say yes, it basically is a "brainwashing" thing when you're not allowed to question it, and strictly adhere to the rules.

To begin with we do not worship Muhammed(pbuh) in fact the only reason he forbade the Muslims for depicting him is because he was afraid to be worshipped beside God by being turned into an idol.

He refused and instructed his followers not to rise him to a position of divinity, he even scolds one of his companions when he says "what God wills and you will" saying angrily "You made me an equal with God?", preaching to his followers ''Do not adulate me as the Christians have adulated the Son of Mary. For I am but His slave. So say 'slave of God, and His messenger'.

And yet there have been countless attacks, killings and threats, etc. in his name --- completely counters his want of being worshipped, no ?

We are instructed as Muslims to love him more then our own selves. We can find in the way he lead his life the perfect examples to follow an implement into our own from how he treated out wives,neighbours,children,companions and even animals, he was a mercy to every form of creation, a man that possessed the perfect behaviour and manner.

He is the one who defended the rights of all humanity 1400 years ago.
He defended men's, women's and children rights
.
.
A Muslim's relationship towards his parents never stops even when they die

And yet MANY so called Muslims to not stick to any of these values, particularly of those in Islamic States... it's all very selectively where they see fit.

It's hard to believe this when countless Muslims are so readily inclined to hurl death threats, and to the extent to killing as well... EVERYWHERE, not just the Middle East.

He never sought revenge for himself, nor did he ever get angry for himself. But whenever the boundaries of Allaah were violated, he used to avenge for them only, and when he was angry, no one could intercede with him.

Again, I probably needn't mention the countless threats of Muslim doing so IN HIS NAME.

Aren't such acts, using his name, incredibly blasphemous?

Defender OF Faith

BeerWolf wrote: »

Excluding converts to, Muslims are born into it... and, in Islamic countries, by law [Sharia] are to remain a Muslim for their entire life. If they commit apostasy, to convert from Islam, they are greatly at risk of being arrested and/or executed.

It is because of this Sharia Law, that effectively creates fear to question anything with regards to Islam, that it effectively creates an institutionalized way of thinking among the Muslim populace of said Islamic countries... and basically a "How dare you question us?" attitude. And as such, I would have to say yes, it basically is a "brainwashing" thing when you're not allowed to question it, and strictly adhere to the rules.

You see my friend, the Qur'an & Islam do not want people to follow it blindly, God in the Qur'an mentions in several occasions that he gave us brains & intellect to question think & ponder, that there's no compulsion in religion, he invites us to question and ask. Islam is a religion that challenges and invites dialogue. "Bring forth your proof if you are truthful." [Surah al-Baqarah: 111]
Our Book, our Quran, doesn't just ask us to have faith. It challenges all criticisms. Collect them all together and bring them!

I don't know where is your understanding of Sharia coming from the only thing we as Muslims cannot question is the commands and laws of God, and those Muslims who are in doubts regarding them are free to questions to have their doubts clarified, even if you wish to criticize "Bring forth your proof if you are truthful" and be ready to accept the truth once proven wrong.



No modern Islamic state today really implement the Sharia, even Saudi Arabia as it deals with usury and interest and has aspects of inequality against women, to add that there are 56 Million Muslims living in Europe and no "Sharia" is forcing them to stick to their faith or question it.

BeerWolf wrote: »

And yet there have been countless attacks, killings and threats, etc. in his name --- completely counters his want of being worshipped, no ?


It's hard to believe this when countless Muslims are so readily inclined to hurl death threats, and to the extent to killing as well... EVERYWHERE, not just the Middle East.



Again, I probably needn't mention the countless threats of Muslim doing so IN HIS NAME.

Aren't such acts, using his name, incredibly blasphemous?

Indeed it's as they are tainting the Image of Islam & its prophet who himself said "The one who fight under blind banner is not from us" and such people are blinded by their own ignorance with respect to their religion, that's why I would kindly say not to make a judgement on Islam based on the actions of people rather then what it's prophet & the Qur'an teaches, before judging a Muslim be fair and:
1-Listen to this person, and watch his doings.
2-Compare his ideas and teachings with what is Islam and Prophet Mohammad PBUH ordered.
3-If you think that his thoughts are typical to that of Islam and Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) and then compare them with his doings; is he applying these teachings?
4-If he is applying these teachings and sayings, so for sure he represents Islam, if not then he calls himself a Muslim but doesn't represent Islam.

BeerWolf wrote: »

And yet MANY so called Muslims to not stick to any of these values, particularly of those in Islamic States... it's all very selectively where they see fit.

The prophet described the extremist as the Dogs of hell fire, according to the Scholars of today ISIS & its like belong to the sect of Khawarij in Islam.They have existed since the very early period of Islam and they will continue to cause strife in the Muslim nation as we can see today through the actions of ISIS whom most of their victims were Muslims. Such people and those who follow them are ignorant,ignoramuses ,young in age and foolish minded whom the prophet warned against.

"the Kharijites developed extreme doctrines that further set them apart from both mainstream Sunni and Shiʿa Muslims. The Kharijites were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to Takfir, whereby they declared other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deemed them worthy of death"


"The Kharijite ideology is based upon declaring Muslims to be unbelievers. Rejecting lawful obedience to the rulers & Justifying violence against Muslims and innocent people. The Kharijite earned their name (from the root kh-ra-ja meaning “to go out”) because they left Islam on account of their heretical innovations. They will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, meaning it will not be rooted in their hearts."


Source:
http://video.dusunnah.com/innovations/al-khawarij/the-correct-islamic-position-towards-isis-shaykh-saalih-as-suhaymee/ >> this source may interest you as it's the answer of Sheikh Saalih as-Suhaymee, a well known and respected scholar of the Islamic world on a questioner who is in support of ISIS and the Scholar answer regarding the group
http://www.faithinallah.org/dangers-of-the-khawarij-ideology-of-violence/

whydoc

I think you have to get closer to Prophet Muhammad's life from authentic resources.
I hope this would help;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89tu7PehnvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKyS-KZb9ZU&list=PL8017A75CD19C0443
https://islamicnafahat.wordpress.com/category/know-him/
Trending hashtag:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/whoismuhammad

Tom Dunne

BeerWolf wrote: »

he was a blood lusting warmonger that killed, pillaged and raped people throughout his life... and when he died his disciples turned on each other and his family?

I mean, he was more akin to a violent gang leader... no ?

I mean... these are things that most people would outright CONDEMN of anyone today committing them...

Can I ask why you think he was as you described above?

I refer you to the forum charter, specifically the section about gross generalisations.

somuj

There is not 700 million Muslims living in Europe. The entire population of Europe does not even exceed 800 million.

Defender OF Faith

somuj wrote: »

There is not 700 million Muslims living in Europe. The entire population of Europe does not even exceed 800 million.

Sorry should of doubled checked the fact the total population of Europe is actually 739.81 million according to the following source http://www.muslimpopulation.com/Europe/
I mistook the number for being the Muslim population in Europe the actual figure is 56.19 million.

~ Thanks for pointing it out I edited by post accordingly

myfreespirit

In post number 7, the OP is asked why the Prophet is described as "a blood lusting warmonger that killed, pillaged and raped people".
I refer you to the the books " Islam, A thousand years of faith and power" by Jonathan Bloom & Sheila Blair and also "History of Islam" by Justin Wintle.
The first describes the early years of Islam thus: "Raiding and warfare were the primary activities of the new community in Medina... in 624 at the Battle of Badr Muhammad and his small band of followers successfully attacked an important Meccan caravan" Further "... the battle of Uhud in 625 temporarily weakened Muhammad's authority.
From the "History of Islam": [Battle of the Trench"]...because the Meccans had been aided by the Quarayzah Jews, Muhammad orders the immediate massacre of 700 Quarayzah men and arranges for their women and children to be sold into slavery"
Warfare was thus a way of life for Muhammad and his followers in the early years of Islam.
So, based on this evidence alone, it is reasonable to assert, as the OP has done, that Muhammad was a warmonger and killer. This is not a gross generalisation, it is an accepted historical fact by reasonable historians.

Defender OF Faith

myfreespirit wrote: »

I refer you to the the books " Islam, A thousand years of faith and power" by Jonathan Bloom & Sheila Blair and also "History of Islam" by Justin Wintle.
The first describes the early years of Islam thus: "Raiding and warfare were the primary activities of the new community in Medina... in 624 at the Battle of Badr Muhammad and his small band of followers successfully attacked an important Meccan caravan" Further "... the battle of Uhud in 625 temporarily weakened Muhammad's authority

I haven't read the books but if what you just wrote is what is actually written then it's clearly a book of misinformation and misrepresentation written by people who had little expertise when it come to early Islamic history. Muhammed(pbuh) participated in wars. He was the spiritual leader of a nation and had to protect his follows and companions, read what I have written in post 2 & 3 and use common sense to deduce how can a man of such excellent character would be as you describe.

All his wars were for retaliation purposes to harm committed against the Muslims and to maintain the sovereignty and security of the state he established in Medina. He never transgressed,oppressed or started a war against innocent tribes or nations that did him or the Muslims no harm, during all of his campaign without an exception.

For me to give you the full context allow me to shed some light on the battles you mentioned namely the Battle of Badr and the circumstances sounding it, to show that Muhammed(pbuh) did what every sensible leader would to to protect his nation and civilians.

The battle of Badr:

Before I begin I would let to remind you that Muslims when migrating to Medina to escape prosecution and torture at the hand of Quriash left all the belonging,money,possessions and wealth behind, and this is why initially the prophet formed a bond of "Brotherhood" between the inhabitants of Madina and those coming from Makkah. Therefore as Quraysh had confiscated the property of Muslim Muhajirs[Those who left to Medina from Makkah] residing in Madina, it was only appropriate that the Muslims should also confiscate their merchandise and if they persisted in withholding the property of the Muhajir Muslims on account of their enmity and obstinacy, the Muslims should, as a retaliatory measure, divide their merchandise amongst themselves as war booty.

The prophet heard that Abu Sufyan[Leader of Quraish Caravan] was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men. Hence, the Prophet turned to his companions and said: "O people! It is the caravan of Quraysh. You can go out of Madina to take possession of the property of Quraysh. It is possible that your condition may improve".

As I mentioned, Muhammad's followers suffered from poverty after fleeing persecution in Mecca and migrating with Muhammad to Medina. Their Meccan persecutors seized their wealth and belongings left behind in Mecca.

In the circumstances the Prophet left Madina with 313 men in the month of Ramadan of the second year of migration to confiscate the property of Quraysh encamped by the side of the well of Badr.

While going to Syria Abu Sufyan had realized that the Prophet was pursuing his caravan. He was, therefore, careful at the time of his return and enquired from other caravans whether Muhammad had occupied the trade routes. It was reported to him that the Prophet had left Madina along with his companions and might be pursuing the caravan of Quraysh.

Abu Sufyan refrained from proceeding further. He did not see any alternative except to inform Quraysh about the impending danger to the caravan. He, therefore, hired a swift camel-driver named Zamzam bin 'Amr Ghafari and gave him the following instructions:

"Go to Makkah and inform the valiant men of Quraysh and the owners of the merchandise to come out of Makkah to guard the caravan against the attack of the Muslims"

Zamzam hastened to Makkah. As ordered by Abu Sufyan. He then stood up on his camel and cried: "O people! The camels which are carrying musk are in danger. Muhammad and his friends intend confiscating the merchandise. I am doubtful whether it will reach your hands. Help! Help!, his cries for help roused the Makkans and all their brave men and warriors got ready to go.


The Prophet encamped in the northern passage of Badr at the foot of the mountain called,'al-'Udwatud Dunya' and was waiting for the caravan to pass when a fresh report was received. It was reported to the Prophet that the people of Makkah, who had come out to protect the caravan, were centralized in the same environs and various tribes had participated in forming this army.

Abu Sufyan, the leader of the caravan meanwhile managed to flee the Muslims. He also appointed a man to go and inform Quraysh that the caravan had been saved from attack by the Muslims and they should, therefore, return to Makkah and leave it to the Arabs to settle the affairs with Muhammad.

When the representative of Abu Sufyan conveyed his message to the chiefs of Quraysh, Abu Jahl[Chief of a Major tribe] insisted that they should go to the region of Badr, stay there for three days, kill camels, drink wine and hear the minstrel girls sing so that their valour might reach the ears of the Arabs and they should have a high regard for them for ever.

The fascinating words of Abu Jahl made Quraysh wait at that place and halt at an elevated point in the desert behind a mound. Heavy rain made movement difficult for them and kept them from proceeding further.

The Muslim army was made up of 300-317 men, 82-86 Emigrants. They were not well-equipped nor adequately prepared. They had only two horses and 70 camels, one for two or three men to ride alternatively.

The Quraish marched with enormous army of 1000 men, six hundred wearing shields, 100 horses, and 700 camels, and luxurious provisions to last for several days. They wanted to make this a victory that would put fear into the hearts of all the Arabs, and wanted to crush the Muslims once and for all and the odds were overwhelmingly in their favor. The Muslims knew the odds that were apparent to both sides: 100 against 300, 700 camels against 70 camels, 100 horses against 2, enormous provisions against none, an intent and preparation for war against an unprepared group of believers. Still, despite all odds, they had a strong faith and trust in God and devotion to Muhammed(pbuh) and they were willing and even hoping to give their lives for this cause, something Quriash did not have. After a series of event[Whom you can read about in the link provided] the war was inevitable.

This battle ended however with a victory to the Muslims and the following casualties: fourteen men from amongst the Muslims were killed. As regards Quraysh seventy of them were killed and seventy others were captured.

From this you can clearly see that Muhammed(pbuh) did not succeed in confiscating the Quraish caravan even though it had possessions previously confiscated by Quraish that belonged to the Muslims nor did he wished to go to war, but rather the battle of Badr whom we believe was largely due to divine intervention the Muslims were successful in.
It was Quraish that instigated the Muslim to kill an annihilate them. the battle of Uhud was an act of retaliation for their loss in Badr again the enmity was began from their side.

Islam is not a religion of wars and bloodshed, every verse about Jihad and warfare is read in the context of this verse: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." & "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly."


Muslims at the time did not want war, but they did not sit on their homes and wait to be slaughtered by their enemies, they were instructed to fight back in self defence and even when they do they are instructed not to transgress and go to extremes.


The battle of Badr as you can see in no way compare to the scales of the atrocities and death which had happened in previous nor modern wars, but rather it was a defensive war the Muslims had to fight in order to protect themselves from annihilation.

Full source, more details & references review page 211 regarding the "Battle of Badr";
http://media.thechosenone.info/ebooks/english/Ar-Raheeq_Al-Makhtum_The_Sealed_Nectar_English_(TheChosenOne.info).pdf

myfreespirit wrote: »

From the "History of Islam": [Battle of the Trench"]...because the Meccans had been aided by the Quarayzah Jews, Muhammad orders the immediate massacre of 700 Quarayzah men and arranges for their women and children to be sold into slavery"

I will talk about this incident and the battle of Trench & Uhud later. For now it's enough for you to know that the battle of Uhud was started by Quraish as a retaliation for their losses in Badr & the Muslims again fought a defensive war.

The battle of Trench was a war whereby Muhammed(pbuh) army of 3000 was besieged in Medina for a whole month against an army of 10,000 men gathered from the Arabian Tribes loyal to Quraish and others who hated the Muslims, again another defensive war.

The treason and subsequent sentencing of the Qurayza tribe is a topic which many people grapple with due to a lack of understanding of the event, its context and the realities of pre-modern tribal warfare.

The tribe you mentioned betrayed the treaty they had with the prophet and attempted to make way for the Quraish army to enter Medina, in other word committed treason to the state in the worst possible time, and due to their treachery put the Muslims and the inhabitants of Medina in immense danger.The Qurayza, a tribe who lived in Medina alongside the Muslims, had broken their treaty of non-hostility with the Muslims established 5 years earlier, at the height of the Battle of the Trench, and intended to attack them from within, and if they succeeded due to the practices of warfare at the time and their established hatred against Islam; this army of 10,000 would have cleansed the Medina from every single Muslim man,women and child alive .

Muhammad(pbuh) attempted to hide his knowledge of the activities of Banu Qurayza; however, rumors soon spread of a massive assault on the city of Medina from Qurayza's side which severely demoralized the Medinans.
The Muslims found themselves in greater difficulties by day. Food was running short, and nights were colder. The lack of sleep made matters worse.So tense was the situation that, for the first time, the canonical daily prayers were neglected by the Muslim community. Only at night, when the attacks stopped due to darkness, could they resume their regular worship.

But before they could complete their treacherous acts, the siege on Medina suddenly ended, leaving the Qurayza alone and caught red-handed. They quickly fortified themselves, and finally surrendered after a 25-day siege of their fort.

As for choosing the sentence, the Prophet (pbuh) gave the Qurayza tribe the choice of whom from amongst the Muslims they desired to judge the punishment for their treason. They selected Sa’d ibn Mu’adh, the Ansari chief who was a former ally before Islam, but was now on his deathbed after being wounded during the Battle of the Trench, which the Qurayza helped provoke through their treason.

Sa’d swiftly pronounced that all fighters would be executed, and the women and children become captives. He claimed his decision was based on the Mosaic penalty for their crime; some say he was referring to the passages of Deuteronomy 20:12-14. As a hadith in Bukhari narrates, this was the second time the Qurayza intended hostilities towards their Muslim neighbors; after the first incident, they had been forgiven, while another affiliated tribe was expelled from Madina. The second violation, however, was an existential threat, as it was an act of treason in the thick of a siege by the Meccans.

During the history of civilisations and even today in some of the world nations, treason against one own state, especially during warfare is a crime punishable by death. These same fighters who were suppose to protect Medina during the battle of the Trench, decided to commit treason and would not have hesitated in killing the Muslims if their plane succeeded.

The women and children were not harmed because they were true non-combatants, and it was one of the hallmarks of Islam that in times of war, the Prophet (pbuh) forbade their killing. The one exception was the capital punishment of a woman from Qurayza who had killed one Muslim man during the war.

Hence, this incident was not a genocide or massacre or extermination as some would try to portray, nor was it about religion, the number of those killed differed between narrations most of which had a weak chain, however the most correct of these with the strongest chain of narrators, state that between 40-400 Men all of which are fighters were killed. This incident was about tribal warfare and treaties, and the punishment for treason during a time of war with an external enemy.

For more context and details about the issue of Bnu Quarayzah:
#1)http://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/31644
#2)http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=99502

I highly suggest you read a honest full biography about the life of the prophet(pbuh) I think I have already made a suggestion in my previous post, a brother WhyDoc provided some excellent sources as-well, and to add to it I will present an online link of the book Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum(The Sealed Nectar)By Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri "A detail and inspiring account of the life of Prophet Muhammad (s), based on authentic historical documents."

http://media.thechosenone.info/ebooks/english/Ar-Raheeq_Al-Makhtum_The_Sealed_Nectar_English_(TheChosenOne.info).pdf

myfreespirit

Thank you for your reply. However the substantive facts have not been addressed in your posting. The statement about Muhammad's warmongering and pillage (razzia raids carried out for economic reasons in the early years of Islam) are clearly set out in both sources quoted, but you attempt to cast doubt on these sources and do not address the killing of 700 human beings by Muhammad (a religious leader at that time) at all. Did or did not Muhammad order the killing of human beings in pursuit of ensuring the imposition of his own religious doctrine? Did or did not Muhammad order the enslaving of innocent women and children because they were associated with his enemies? The concept of collective punishment is a particularly egregious one and is of course unacceptable to most right-thinking people,yet this is what happened in the case of the Quarayzah women and children following the Battle of the Trench. The original posting seems to be unchallenged.

myfreespirit

Apologies in advance for the double posting, but to correct any misperception about the authors quoted (Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair) in an earlier post, they were Professors of Islamic Art at Boston College at the time of writing their book. They were also principal consultants to a documentary film "Islam: Empire of Faith". Clearly then, they are people with a deep knowledge of their subject matter. For those interested in reading the book, it is published by Yale University Press.

Defender OF Faith

myfreespirit wrote: »

but you attempt to cast doubt on these sources and do not address the killing of 700 human beings by Muhammad (a religious leader at that time) at all.

Yes I did please review my post.I did not case a doubt I gave the full context of the incident and provided authentic sources as a follow up, please refer back to them.

myfreespirit wrote: »

Did or did not Muhammad order the killing of human beings in pursuit of ensuring the imposition of his own religious doctrine? Did or did not Muhammad order the enslaving of innocent women and children because they were associated with his enemies?
The concept of collective punishment is a particularly egregious one and is of course unacceptable to most right-thinking people,yet this is what happened in the case of the Quarayzah women and children following the Battle of the Trench. The original posting seems to be unchallenged.

Absolutely not. Review my post again, especially the first reference I provided which I will link below.
You also need to understand and study the Realities of Pre-Modern Tribal Warfare and the concept of tribal loyalty as there was no collective punishment involved.What happened was a war between Banu Qurayza and Muhammad(pbuh) initiated by them, review page 312 of the Seerah Book I will referenced linked again at the bottom to read about what Banu Quraya did and their role in the battle of the Trench/Ahzab.

This tribe could have been responsible for the annihilation of every single Muslim soul living in Medina at the hand of 10,000 men if their treacherous ploy had succeeded.
The link of the chapter directly will be provided below.

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/31644
page 312 of the following biography referenced in the previous post; http://media.thechosenone.info/ebooks/english/Ar-Raheeq_Al-Makhtum_The_Sealed_Nectar_English_(TheChosenOne.info).pdf

You have not challenged my post at all, in fact I don't even think you read it. Review post 1 and 2 which I wrote about the excellent characteristics of the prophet and use common sense to question as to how a man of such excellent behavior would be as you described. I invite you to read,reflect and be open minded on the answer I present to you and not to stick blindly with whom you think Muhammed(pbuh) to be and reject any thing which may challenge this notion.

Again I repeat my invitation that you read a honest full biography about the life of the prophet(pbuh). I provided sources in my previous post and brother WhyDoc provided some excellent sources as-well, and to add to it I will present an online link of the book Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum(The Sealed Nectar)By Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri

http://media.thechosenone.info/ebooks/english/Ar-Raheeq_Al-Makhtum_The_Sealed_Nectar_English_(TheChosenOne.info).pdf
Thanks ~

myfreespirit

A study of the 2 books cited in post number 10 will allow most reasonable people to make up their own minds on the original post about Muhammad. Clearly we will not agree on the facts stated in the books, however, the justification used for the killing of human beings in post number 11 is deeply worrying and (in my own opinion) wholly unacceptable.

Defender OF Faith

myfreespirit wrote: »

A study of the 2 books cited in post number 10 will allow most reasonable people to make up their own minds on the original post about Muhammad

Thank you my friend for naming them I will make sure to read them critically when I have the time, but allow me to say that you seem to take what's written on these books as the most honest,accurate unmistakable and unchallenged description of the life of Muhammad(pbuh). I respect these two individual intellect as you have said and I quote they are "Professors of Islamic Art at Boston College at the time of writing their book. They were also principal consultants to a documentary film "Islam: Empire of Faith"

However being a professor of Islamic art is not enough at least from an academic view for us to consider them an authority on the Seerah of the prophet Muhammed(pbuh), the life 7th century Arabia, and Arab norms and practices at the time especially when it comes to warfare to allow you to study Muhammed(pbuh) campaigns with a unbiased mindset.

Muslim scholars of Seerah have spent their life specializing in studying, reading and attempting to understand the biography of Muhammad(pbuh). If they arrived at the conclusion you believed Muhammad(pbuh) to be, non of them would follow,put his faith and trust on a man with the characteristics you described.

The biography I referenced was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following an open competition for a book on the life of Muhammad in 1979. The book competed with 170 other entries. The book has undergone extensive revision. Making the book highly authentic and reputable source and biography of Muhammed(pbuh) more so then the books you presented.

myfreespirit wrote: »

the justification used for the killing of human beings in post number 11 is deeply worrying and (in my own opinion) wholly unacceptable.

Read again and tell me what was the justification? I see you continue to try and paint Muhammed(pbuh) in a negative light by saying "Human beings" unqualified, why dont you add the adjective "treacherous Human beings" whose actions could of lead an army of 10,000 Men to annihilate every single innocent Muslim in Medina whom were already starved and kept in a siege for 24 days. So tense was the situation that, for the first time, the canonical daily prayers were neglected by the Muslim community, during a war of transgression against them instigated by the Jews living in Medina themselves!

"Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war."

I also suggest you refer back to post 1 and 2 which I wrote about the excellent characteristics of the prophet and use common sense to question as to how a man of such excellent behavior would be as you described and would in fact contradict it & the sources I provided to expand your knowledge regarding the situation, as there's only so much I could write without dragging the post for too long.

Tom Dunne

myfreespirit wrote: »

In post number 7, the OP is asked why the Prophet is described as "a blood lusting warmonger that killed, pillaged and raped people".
I refer you to the the books " Islam, A thousand years of faith and power" by Jonathan Bloom & Sheila Blair and also "History of Islam" by Justin Wintle.
The first describes the early years of Islam thus: "Raiding and warfare were the primary activities of the new community in Medina... in 624 at the Battle of Badr Muhammad and his small band of followers successfully attacked an important Meccan caravan" Further "... the battle of Uhud in 625 temporarily weakened Muhammad's authority.
From the "History of Islam": [Battle of the Trench"]...because the Meccans had been aided by the Quarayzah Jews, Muhammad orders the immediate massacre of 700 Quarayzah men and arranges for their women and children to be sold into slavery"
Warfare was thus a way of life for Muhammad and his followers in the early years of Islam.
So, based on this evidence alone, it is reasonable to assert, as the OP has done, that Muhammad was a warmonger and killer. This is not a gross generalisation, it is an accepted historical fact by reasonable historians.

What your selective quotations omit are the other pertinent facts, taken from the Amazon.com summary of the book:

In its first thousand years - from the revelations given to Muhammad in the 7th century to the great Islamic empires of the 16th - Islamic civilization flourished. While Europeans suffered through the Dark Ages, Muslims in such cities as Jerusalem, Damascus, Alexandria, Fez, Tunis, Cairo and Baghdad made remarkable advances in philosophy, science, medicine, literature and art.

So we can all selectively quote to advance pretty much any agenda we like.

looksee

Again, DoF is using the argument that 'it says in the Quran, therefore it is correct'. Any sources that offer alternative arguments are dismissed because the only source of fact relating to Islam is in the Quran. The Quran is quoted to prove that the Quran is correct, which is entirely circular.

DoF alternately argues that the Quran cannot be wrong, then 'the Qur'an & Islam do not want people to follow it blindly'. The long answer about the virtues of the Prophet given above is only relevant if you first accept without doubt that it is from an unquestionable source. And the source cannot be questioned. More circles.

This is exactly the same as an atheist saying to a believer (of any type) 'how do you know God exists' and the believer answers, 'because he does, because I believe that he does'. There is no movement from those positions, and the discussion becomes pointless.

However, the bottom line is this: if a non-Muslim goes into a country that operates on Islamic principles, and does something that offends local law, custom or belief he is punished or at least deported, that is not unreasonable. It should follow that if a Muslim goes into a non-Muslim country he must similarly expect to accept local laws, customs and beliefs. If these laws and beliefs accept that satire and free speech are acceptable, then the Muslim either accepts them, or goes to a country that more in line with his beliefs. Using violence to protest about things that do not fit an individual's beliefs is not acceptable to either non-Muslims or (you state) Muslims.

Defender OF Faith

looksee wrote: »

Again, DoF is using the argument that 'it says in the Quran, therefore it is correct'. Any sources that offer alternative arguments are dismissed because the only source of fact relating to Islam is in the Quran. The Quran is quoted to prove that the Quran is correct, which is entirely circular.

Madam, with all due respect, I don't think you have taken the time to read what I presented as we are discussing the life and history of Muhammad(pbuh) and his characteristics as a person, I was using references to Seerahs and biographies of the prophet to make you understand Muhammed(pbuh) as a person whos characteristics completely opposes that which is often portrayed. Overall I think I presented less then 5 Qur'anic verses so far.

This is not circular, this is a person who brings up an incident with very little background,information and understanding regarding it leading him to make unjust conclusions, my attempt to provide these details and make you re-evaluate your conclusion.

looksee wrote: »

DoF alternately argues that the Quran cannot be wrong, then 'the Qur'an & Islam do not want people to follow it blindly'. The long answer about the virtues of the Prophet given above is only relevant if you first accept without doubt that it is from an unquestionable source. And the source cannot be questioned. More circles.

You might wish to understand more about the fundamentals of Islam before diving into more complex issues, we Muslim have two sources of authority and information regarding our religion the first and most important is the Qur'an the book of God, the second is the Hadith a collection of authenticated sayings of our Prophet Muhammed(pbuh).

The Hadith is used to understand and explain some meaning of the Qur'an, for example the Qur'an mentions that Muslim must prayer, however details of the prayer & how it's performed is given in the Hadith.What gives the Hadith authority is that God himself speaks in the Qur'an instructing the Muslims to follow the prophet:
"He who obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah ; but those who turn away - We have not sent you over them as a guardian."[4:80]

Any Hadith which the Scholars of Hadith had deemed authentic are unquestionable and accepted by the Muslims as something which our prophet have said to his companions 1400 years ago.

looksee wrote: »

This is exactly the same as an atheist saying to a believer (of any type) 'how do you know God exists' and the believer answers, 'because he does, because I believe that he does'. There is no movement from those positions, and the discussion becomes pointless.

We are discussing Islam here and to discuss Islam we need to discuss the authority upon which Islam is build upon & these are the Qur'an & Hadith, similar to discussing any academic work you refer back to reputable sources whether you want to speak about Pharmacology, medicine or pharmacy.

looksee wrote: »

However, the bottom line is this: if a non-Muslim goes into a country that operates on Islamic principles, and does something that offends local law, custom or belief he is punished or at least deported, that is not unreasonable. It should follow that if a Muslim goes into a non-Muslim country he must similarly expect to accept local laws, customs and beliefs. If these laws and beliefs accept that satire and free speech are acceptable, then the Muslim either accepts them, or goes to a country that more in line with his beliefs. Using violence to protest about things that do not fit an individual's beliefs is not acceptable to either non-Muslims or (you state) Muslims.

Yes of course totally in agreement, but you have to also understand that for every insult or offence there will be a reaction, & not everyone will understand satire, when you depict a man in such a vulgar manner that completely oppose even his physical characteristics described, whom 1.8B people in the world deem to be the most perfect Human begin to have walked this earth and a reverent man of God, expect some sort of a reaction, not every one among them will understand/get your point as I do.

looksee

Yes of course totally in agreement, but you have to also understand that for every insult or offence there will be a reaction, & not everyone will understand satire, when you depict a man in such a vulgar manner that completely oppose even his physical characteristics described, whom 1.8B people in the world deem to be the most perfect Human begin to have walked this earth and a reverent man of God, expect some sort of a reaction, not every one among them will understand/get your point as I do.

No, I do not expect a reaction. Westerners can be offended by Muslim actions - some of which I have referred to in earlier posts which you have not addressed, but include abusing UK police, demanding Sharia Law in the UK, and significant numbers of Muslims who cover their faces in public. How many cases of violent reaction have there been to these instances? Certainly I am not aware of any non-Muslims going into a Muslim country and killing people because they are offended.

Defender OF Faith

looksee wrote: »

No, I do not expect a reaction. Westerners can be offended by Muslim actions - some of which I have referred to in earlier posts which you have not addressed, but include abusing UK police, demanding Sharia Law in the UK, and significant numbers of Muslims who cover their faces in public.How many cases of violent reaction have there been to these instances? Certainly I am not aware of any non-Muslims going into a Muslim country and killing people because they are offended.

Yes and you have the right to be offended by these actions, however you are trying to generalise a minority action on a majority, every time a terror act is committed in the name of Islam, it almost always performed by individuals that are connected to well known and established terrorist groups such as Al-Qadea,Taliban & ISIS all of which represent along with their members less then 0.001% of the Muslim population denounced by both the Muslims & non-Muslims alike, Muslims like myself while being offended with such Cartoons are not going around to commit violence because of them. We will respond to such situations in the way Islam actually teaches us to respond, when insulted or offended and that's certainly not causing harm to the offender, but through an intellectual,spiritual and academic response.

So likewise I am certainly not aware of any normal,typical Muslim going to Europe to kill people because of something that offended him.

keyboardmouse

I found this thread needing to vent. I've always been a critic of religion, any religion. With Islam making such a, shall we say, mark on modern society today I decided to investigate and study it. I must say, if ever I found a system in disarray, it is Islam. You talk of the Prophet being good? I find countless passages in the Koran in which Muhammad acts in ways that are staggering, then has a convenient revelation in order to get himself out of a jam.

I'm talking here of his allowing himself the spoils of war and conquest, in which women are included by the way, which no other prophet did. Allowing himself intercourse with a 9 year old. Advising his followers not to pull out during rape of women, I could go on and on but I'll stop myself.

It's apparent to me Muhammad was making it up as he went along, suiting himself at every turn. And like many other religious figures, such as the God of the Old Testament, turns out to be little short of a Barbarian.

Yet we should follow his example? No, don't think I will. No throwing gays off roof tops around my house thanks.

BeerWolf

Defender of Faith, I've got a few questions for you that might be going a bit off topic.

• What is your opinion on Sharia Law?
• a) Would you be strongly against it? Why? -OR-
• b) Would you advocate for it's implementation in Westernized countries like that in Europe and the US? Why?
  
  • If implemented, would you adhere to it's strictness and want it enforced as such [i.e. Sharia Police]? Should non-Muslims adhere to it in certain areas? Why?

Defender OF Faith

keyboardmouse wrote: »

I found this thread needing to vent. I've always been a critic of religion, any religion. With Islam making such a, shall we say, mark on modern society today I decided to investigate and study it. I must say, if ever I found a system in disarray, it is Islam. You talk of the Prophet being good? I find countless passages in the Koran in which Muhammad acts in ways that are staggering, then has a convenient revelation in order to get himself out of a jam.

I'm talking here of his allowing himself the spoils of war and conquest, in which women are included by the way, which no other prophet did. Allowing himself intercourse with a 9 year old. Advising his followers not to pull out during rape of women, I could go on and on but I'll stop myself.

It's apparent to me Muhammad was making it up as he went along, suiting himself at every turn. And like many other religious figures, such as the God of the Old Testament, turns out to be little short of a Barbarian.

Yet we should follow his example? No, don't think I will. No throwing gays off roof tops around my house thanks.

My friend while I appreciate your contribution on this thread regarding Muhammed(pbuh), I find myself surprised at your claim to be a critic of religion, while not presenting a shred of evidence to support what you described, what you presented is the testimony of someone deeply ignorant of Muhammed(pbuh) and the religion of Islam that you claimed to have "studied".

The Muhammad you described is not exist. I follow the Man described in posts 1&2 of this thread which you appear to have not read. I suggest when being critical about Islam you criticize it based on its authentic sources and not what foolish anti-Islamic misleading sites like wiki-Islam,answering-Islam,thereligionofpeace or faithfreedom say, even Wikipedia is a more honest & unbiased source then these.

If you believe Muhammad(pbuh) is as you describe then "Bring forth your proof if you are truthful." [Surah al-Baqarah: 111]. If however you made up your mind concerning the character of Muhammad(pbuh) don't bother to take this discussion any further as we will get nowhere.

The only point you brought to the table was Muhammed(pbuh) Marriage to Aisha(RA) which was discussed in the "Ask About Islam thread" post number 176,182 and 187; which I invite you to read if you wish to discuss the issue further so I dont have to repeat myself.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057120128

Defender OF Faith

BeerWolf wrote: »

Defender of Faith, I've got a few questions for you that might be going a bit off topic.

• What is your opinion on Sharia Law?
• a) Would you be strongly against it? Why? -OR-
• b) Would you advocate for it's implementation in Westernized countries like that in Europe and the US? Why?
  • If implemented, would you adhere to it's strictness and want it enforced as such [i.e. Sharia Police]? Should non-Muslims adhere to it in certain areas? Why?

Yep, the question appear to be more suited for the "Ask about Islam" thread therefore I will post the question & the answer over there if you don't mind, also for other brothers who may wish to give their opinion on the matter.

El_Duderino 09

DOF

I might be more interested in your posts if you made clear which parts you are copy pasting from other sites and provide a link. It comes across as dishonest to pretend they are your arguments and I suspect if you had actually read and understood them, you could summaries them them to only include the relevant bits instead of blinding with BS.

Cheers.

Defender OF Faith

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

DOF

I might be more interested in your posts if you made clear which parts you are copy pasting from other sites and provide a link. It comes across as dishonest to pretend they are your arguments and I suspect if you had actually read and understood them, you could summaries them them to only include the relevant bits instead of blinding with BS.

Cheers.

What I do is supply any source which I have read from, and place a * on anything directly copied with the appropriate source referenced below, or give the direct page number in the source if what am referring to is a book as you can see in some of my posts.

Nevertheless thanks for the response. I will take more care however to reference what I paraphrase more accurately, as it's part of my belief that from the blessing of knowledge, referring it back to its sources,people. I hope you understand that in the internet, especially on a forum to avoid lettering your post with references and source; it's difficult to take treat the matter with the same seriousness and accuracy done when presenting an Academic work.

In the other hand I invite you to actually read what I presented as I am not foolish enough to simply copy/write something I don't understand, that would potentially contradict each other; I make sure I review a post multiple times and even after that edit it frequently to insure its accuracy & honesty, especially on a discussion were people can question and argue against what I presented & more importantly when am talking about my prophet (pbuh). I cannot put an incident taken out of context into its original context especially when it's part of the prophet Biography in just a few lines.
It takes a single question to make an accusation but the answer may extend to several minutes.

If you wish to question the authenticity of any Hadith or story/incident presented it please point it out and I will supply the citation.If you doubt the honesty of any statement I presented point it out and I will tell you whether I wrote it myself otherwise or cite its source.

To add that I cannot reference everything I write as something are accepted as common Islamic knowledge & arguments such as Muhammad(pbuh) marriage to Aisha(RA) which the previous poster have mentioned, I have not asked him to provide proof for this as it's well known however the rest of his testimony must be proved as it's clearly not common Islamic knowledge.

El_Duderino 09

It reads like an academic dissection of a fairy tail.

Take this bit here:

The love we as Muslims and his companions have for him was described by Urwah during the negotiation of the peace of Hudaybiyah on behalf of Quraysh, by saying:

"I have visited the kings of Persia, Rome and Abyssinia, but I have not seen any leader more revered and respected by his people than Muhammad . If he ordered them to do anything, they do it without delay. If he performs Wudu (Ablution) they all seek the remainder of the water he used. They never look at him in the eyes, out of respect."


Indeed, the Prophet (PBUH) was not a wealthy or powerful figure who exercised his authority through force. In fact, he lacked the material means that would have enabled him to have such power over men.

He has no power/He has loads of power...
He never exercised the power (Which he doesn't have) through force, except when he was sacking towns and cities. But that's OK because they had offended him somehow beforehand. Also his victims were not murdered because a good muslim would never murder therefore his killings must have been righteous.

It's the biggest circular argument I have ever seen and it's ok to delude yourself with this nonsense. But cogent argument it is not.

Forget I posted. Carry on

Defender OF Faith

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It reads like an academic dissection of a fairy tail.

Take this bit here:

The love we as Muslims and his companions have for him was described by Urwah during the negotiation of the peace of Hudaybiyah on behalf of Quraysh, by saying:

"I have visited the kings of Persia, Rome and Abyssinia, but I have not seen any leader more revered and respected by his people than Muhammad . If he ordered them to do anything, they do it without delay. If he performs Wudu (Ablution) they all seek the remainder of the water he used. They never look at him in the eyes, out of respect."

Indeed, the Prophet (PBUH) was not a wealthy or powerful figure who exercised his authority through force. In fact, he lacked the material means that would have enabled him to have such power over men.

He has no power/He has loads of power...
He never exercised the power (Which he doesn't have) through force, except when he was sacking towns and cities. But that's OK because they had offended him somehow beforehand. Also his victims were not murdered because a good muslim would never murder therefore his killings must have been righteous.

It's the biggest circular argument I have ever seen and it's ok to delude yourself with this nonsense. But cogent argument it is not.

Forgive me, I mistook your question for being a serious question & that's why I originally thanked it.

If I knew you were this arrogant & ignorant, I would not have bothered to make a replay. Clearly your mind is made up about who Muhammad(pbuh) was and nothing will change your position going as far as rejecting an authentic testimony I presented based on nothing other then your very own sentiment, without any evidence to back it up, going as far as accusing me of delusion while ironically no one here is more deluded,miss-informed and unknowledgeable about Muhammed(pbuh) then you.

Claiming that the argument is circular purely because it does not fit your description of who Muhammad(pbuh) was cannot be more illogical,irrational and absurd, you might wish to also revise the definition of what a "Circular argument" is before applying it here.

"Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade"

My conclusion is based on the fact that Muhammad(pbuh) is completely innocent of the characteristics the OP described. I used authenticated sayings and verses to support it as my premise, if you wish to reject their authenticity that's fine, but you then have no right to make any judgement about Islam as any Islamic source you base your judgement on is according to you "Unauthentic/fairytail" even when the Muslims accept it as authentic.

"If you wish to question the authenticity of any Hadith or story/incident presented it please point it out and I will supply the citation.If you doubt the honesty of any statement I presented point it out and I will tell you whether I wrote it myself otherwise or cite its source."

I presented you with the actual characters of Muhammad(pbuh) 1.8B Muslims believe him to be among them are Scholars of the Seerah who have read and understood his life more then you will ever wish for, however since they did not suit your preformed idea and image of Muhammad(pbuh) they are obviously fake.

To me this is not an argument, it's me presenting the truth about Muhammad(pbuh) and "If you believe Muhammad(pbuh) is as you describe then "Bring forth your proof if you are truthful." [Surah al-Baqarah: 111]. If however you made up your mind concerning the character of Muhammad(pbuh) don't bother to take this discussion any further as we will get nowhere"

So far only one person to whom I am thankful for, other then the OP had made a comment regarding Muhammed(pbuh) and provided an incident as an evidence to which I gave my replay refuting it by correcting him as politely as I can & inviting him to re-evaluate his evidence. If you wish to continue this discussion present your evidence please so I can have a ground to stand on since I cannot refute your personal sentiment & don't quote me something Ali Sena,Sam Shamoun or Silas have said.

El_Duderino 09

As it happens I did hope to learn something so keep your wig on.

That block of text was simply amalgamating bits and pieces from you first response to OP.

I was hoping for actual information about Mohammad. You replied with a list of desirable characteristics and claiming Mohammad to be the greatest possessor of those characteristics, ever. It's not a real person you described. I've only ever heard of 2 people described in those terms, Mohammad and the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. I don't think either of them are realistic representations of a real person. That's why I referred to your account of Muhammad as a fairytail.

I would have been interested in finding about about the actual person of Muhammad. The Prince Charming you described is not likely to be a faithful representation of anyone.

Defender OF Faith

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As it happens I did hope to learn something so keep your wig on.

That block of text was simply amalgamating bits and pieces from you first response to OP.

I was hoping for actual information about Mohammad. You replied with a list of desirable characteristics and claiming Mohammad to be the greatest possessor of those characteristics, ever. It's not a real person you described. I've only ever heard of 2 people described in those terms, Mohammad and the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. I don't think either of them are realistic representations of a real person. That's why I referred to your account of Muhammad as a fairytail..

I really appreciate your desire to learn my friend, however it doesnt appear to me as such, since you are not asking questions or trying to falsify my statements rather you claim that the Muhammad(pbuh) I described does not exist even after the authentic sources I provided, which I mean the least you can do is prove them false and all the Hadith I quoted were weak and fabricated; I can only deduce that one of two things;

A) You studied about Muhammed(pbuh) from a corrupt source and blindly accepted it as the truth without looking at the other side of the story.
You know what I presented is the truth, yet you wish to deny it due to your arrogance and for the sake of argument even if you cant prove it to be false.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I would have been interested in finding about about the actual person of Muhammad. The Prince Charming you described is not likely to be a faithful representation of anyone.

I will take this as a testimony of a person who rejected the truth about Muhammad(pbuh) as a fabrication and a lie yet could not hide the nobility and excellent character of the man described, thank you .

Yes this is the "Prince charming" we love,follow and adore yet however he's much much more then simply "Charming" (pbuh). He's the most perfect Human being to have walked this earth. Ranked at No.1 in Michael Hart "100 influential", honored by US supreme court as one of the greatest lawgivers of the world in 1935. This man children would run up to because they knew how merciful he was, he promised he who take care of an orphan child to be with him in paradise. He declared killing non-combatants to be illegal and placed severe restrictions on how warfare could be conducted.

At a time when people were burying their daughters alive he was the one that gave honors to daughters, he loved his daughter Fatima so much so that he would stand and kiss her between her eyes every time he sees her. This is a man whom we can relate to for guidance and direction in every aspect of our life even in one's private relationship with his wife.

And verily, you (O Muhammad SAW) are on an exalted standard of character.68;4


If you believe my representation not be faithful then "Bring forth your proof if you are truthful." [Surah al-Baqarah: 111]. I referenced a couple of biographies about the prophet and brother Whydoc presented some good sources as well which will validate what I have presented that's if you are actually willing to learn the truth about Muhammad(pbuh) and discard those mis-represented twisted picture you painted of him in your mind.

Enlighten me though what biography,article,site did you read to come to the conclusions you made? and what made you say that the character you believe Muhammad to be is in reality him? you might actually know the prophet of Islam better then 1.8B people! I would be fascinated to learn from an expert like yourself, about his true characteristic based on your proof and evidence.
As what you my friend believe Muhammed(pbuh) to be, and what we Muslims believe him to be are two extremes that will never meet and only one of them is the actual truth.

Tom Dunne

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Forgive me, I mistook your question for being a serious question & that's why I originally thanked it.

If I knew you were this arrogant & ignorant, I would not have bothered to make a replay.

That's personal abuse. No more of it, or you will be taking a holiday from the forum.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

A) You studied about Muhammed(pbuh) from a corrupt source and blindly accepted it as the truth without looking at the other side of the story.
You know what I presented is the truth, yet you wish to deny it due to your arrogance and for the sake of argument even if you cant prove it to be false.

How do you know that the Qur'an isn't a corrupt source? You claim that Muhammed is/was the most perfect human to have ever existed based on the writings of the Qur'an. Other posters suggested that he was maybe not so perfect based on other sources. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

Just to be clear I cut out the rest of your quote to save space on the page.

keyboardmouse

I'm surprised at your challenge to bring forth evidence, as if you have read the same material I have, you know exactly what evidence I can lay before you. I'm not talking about Islam bashing websites, I'm talking about direct quotes from both the Q'uran and the Hadith's themselves. The supposed words straight from the mouth of God and the words of people (who had it from Tom, who heard it from Mary, who swears Frank told Jack) some eh....200 odd years after the "fact" in the Hadiths.

So shall I bring forth the evidence for Muhammad's character in my opinion for you?

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

My friend while I appreciate your contribution on this thread regarding Muhammed(pbuh), I find myself surprised at your claim to be a critic of religion, while not presenting a shred of evidence to support what you described, what you presented is the testimony of someone deeply ignorant of Muhammed(pbuh) and the religion of Islam that you claimed to have "studied".

El_Duderino 09

Wow I don't like to see stereotypes acted out like this.

I suppose there's not much point carrying on taking personal abuse from your self. Might I presume you behave more like your Sweet Prince in real life?

I suppose I had just picked up information about Muhammed the same way I picked up bits about other historical figures, TV, Podcasts, conversations etc. If I hear he was raised by his uncle and worked as a merchant, that is a realistic statement because I know there are uncles and merchants. Therefore It could be true (I still don't KNOW if it's true but its a realistic data point).

Then it goes off the rails when he says he was visited by an angel. Who says he was visited? No witnesses, no corroborating evidence, HE simply says it and you believe it.

Look I came here wondering if anyone could provide some more realistic data to add to my information about Muhammed. Instead you carry on the fairytail. If this is the level of the evidence you have about this fictional character.

History is a tricky science. Contemporary accounts of Julius Cesar say that he was a demi-god. Do you simply accept that account? I ask that seriously because if you believe the Muhammed account you provided, then you could believe anything. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you will reject the fantasy parts of the account and leave the realistic parts for further consideration.

Look I probably shouldn't have come to the Islam looking for a realistic account of history. I was after doing some serious research for a different topic and clicked on boards for a break.

I was coming from reading scientific research where people have put serious effort into following the truth, and I had put serious effort into understanding the information. Then seeing this thread, with nonsense thrown about and accepted so freely, I chimed in. Probably should have left you do discuss your fairytails on your own.

In spite of your insults and generally child-like credulity, I will continue to be interested in finding out about historical figures like Muhammed. I'm only interested in the real history though, not the "kiddies-table" version served up in your posts.

Defender OF Faith

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

How do you know that the Qur'an isn't a corrupt source? You claim that Muhammed is/was the most perfect human to have ever existed based on the writings of the Qur'an. Other posters suggested that he was maybe not so perfect based on other sources. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

Just to be clear I cut out the rest of your quote to save space on the page.

I think you asked a very important question as to why mine is right and theirs are wrong to which am grateful.

Let me kindly remind you that other sources base their sources on the Islamic text which is the Qur'an and Hadith, by corrupt I meant that these sources will use the Islamic sources out of context and twist and falsify the information using unathenticatied incidents and/or weak/fabricated Hadith,for which they depends on people ignorance to accept without looking at the otherside of the story. For example post number 10 where the writer assumes based on two incidents taken out of context that Muhammed(pbuh) was X and Y, were do you think he got these incidents from? if you assume that the Islamic sources are corrupt then you have no right to give pass on any judgement about Muhammed(pbuh) as any assumption you make about him is based on sources which are in your opinion corrupt.

Secondaly why is mine right and theirs wrong? well so far each evidence presented to prove that their conclusion/"right is right" originated from Islamic sources and all were taken out of context with very little understanding of Muhammed(pbuh) Seerah, I simply corrected and gave the context while politly asking him to re-evaluate his/her conclusion.

Chances are your version of Muhammed(pbuh) is based on incidents derived from the his Seerah/biography which you could not understand properly leading you to your conclusion regarding his character, which are again Islamic sources, what I wrote about Muhammed(pbuh) in post 1 & 2 is based on authenticated Hadith and again incidents from the Seerah if you want to prove my right to be wrong then you have to show that everything I posted is taken out of context or is false/fabricated & I was in fact lying about the fact that they have been authenticated.

keyboardmouse wrote: »

I'm surprised at your challenge to bring forth evidence, as if you have read the same material I have, you know exactly what evidence I can lay before you. I'm not talking about Islam bashing websites, I'm talking about direct quotes from both the Q'uran and the Hadith's themselves.

Oh please do! The Qur'an challanges people to bring forth evidence so bring it forth if you believe it to be true, and chances are everything you will provide is taken out of context and possibly misunderstood by you as I assume you dont have any qualification in Islamic scholarship,Qur'an the sciences of Hadith or Arabic to actually be commenting fairly on anything you provide, I on the other hand will not make my own comments but will depends on those qualified to provide your answers I will simply paraphrase and cite what they say.

I just invite you to provide your evidence one at a time so I can have a chance to replay to each appropriatly before you move on to the next.

Defender OF Faith

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Wow I don't like to see stereotypes acted out like this.

I suppose there's not much point carrying on taking personal abuse from your self. Might I presume you behave more like your Sweet Prince in real life?

I suppose I had just picked up information about Muhammed the same way I picked up bits about other historical figures, TV, Podcasts, conversations etc. I

Really then no wonder you believe him to be as you described, review the posts on page 1 where WhyDoc and myself provided some biographies/sources of Muhammed(pbuh) if you wish to read & expand your knowledge base. You came here claiming that what I said is false without actually providing evidence or proofs as to how!I also wish to know the "Historical sources" you used so I can study them myself and expand my knowedge base.

I mean seriously how can you make up your mind about a person if you have not even read a single biography about his life?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think you asked a very important question as to why mine is right and theirs are wrong to which am grateful.

Let me kindly remind you that other sources base their sources on the Islamic text which is the Qur'an and Hadith, by corrupt I meant that these sources will use the Islamic sources out of context and twist and falsify the information using unathenticatied incidents and/or weak/fabricated Hadith,for which the depends on people ignorance to accept without looking at the otherside of the story. For example post number 10 where the writer assumes based on two incidents taken out of context that Muhammed(pbuh) was X and Y, were do you think he got these incidents from? if you assume that the Islamic sources are corrupt then you have no right to give pass on any judgement about Muhammed(pbuh) as any assumption you make about him is based on sources which are in your opinion corrupt.

Again, cut some of your quote for brevity, if you feel I am taking what you said out of context let me know and I'll re address.

OK, so if I assume that Islamic sources (i.e the Qur'an) are corrupt/false I immediately disallow myself from making any judgment about Muhammand? Is that correct? By that logic then to engage in a discussion about him I have to accept the Qur'an as stone cold fact, thus negating the point of a discussion at all.

Just to be clear by the way I am not in any way having a go at you or want an argument, you are fully entitled to your opinion and my questioning of your religion is not meant to be disrespectful or aggressive at all. Simply just asking.

El_Duderino 09

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Really then no wonder you believe him to be as you described, review the posts on page 1 where WhyDoc and myself provided some biographies/sources of Muhammed(pbuh) if you wish to read & expand your knowledge base. You came here claiming that what I said is false without actually providing evidence or proofs as to how!I also wish to know the "Historical sources" you used so I can study them myself and expand my knowedge base.

I mean seriously how can you make up your mind about a person if you have not even read a single biography about his life?

OK I'm saying this for the 3rd time so maybe it's not me who is not interested in learning.

I don't think I have anything like a complete understanding of Muhammed I am interested in finding out more about him.

Your description however was more suited to an animated children's pop-up book. Not a trace of reality so I feel totally free to dismiss your fairytail account and keep looking for historically realistic accounts of Muhammed. I also dismiss similar accounts of The Kim Dynasty in North Korea and Julius Cesar.

There is a truth out there but what you're serving ain't it. I am totally confident of that.

Defender OF Faith

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Again, cut some of your quote for brevity, if you feel I am taking what you said out of context let me know and I'll re address.

OK, so if I assume that Islamic sources (i.e the Qur'an) are corrupt/false I immediately disallow myself from making any judgment about Muhammand? Is that correct? By that logic then to engage in a discussion about him I have to accept the Qur'an as stone cold fact, thus negating the point of a discussion at all.

I think we are not standing on the same footing with regarding the definition of "False/corrupt" what exactly do you mean when you say a source is false & corrupt?

I understand that you might not believe in God/or a Christian and hence Muhammed(pbuh) to you is the author of the Qur'an however that does not make the Qur'an it self corrupt as a historical source of reference unless you prove that it has been corrupted over the 1400 years that passed as we Muslims believe that the Qur'an have been prefectly preserved by the letter from the time of muhammed(puh) till today.

similary the Sahih Hadith which are authenticated sayings accepted by the Scholars of hadith to have been said by the prophet 1400 years ago again just because you dont believe Mumamed(pbuh) to be a prophet of God does not negate the historical accuracy of these sources unless of course you wish to study the sciences of Hadith and prove otherwise.

Until you can prove that both of these sources are historically corrupt and have been fabricated and forged both of which the whole of Islam is based on, then you cannot dispute with anything I say unless you use the same source to prove I have taken it out of context or it was not authenticated.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I think we are not standing on the same footing with regarding the definition of "False/corrupt" what exactly do you mean when you say a source is false & corrupt?

I understand that you might not believe in God/or a Christian and hence Muhammed(pbuh) to you is the author of the Qur'an however that does not make the Qur'an it self corrupt as a historical source of reference unless you prove that it has been corrupted over the 1400 years that passed as we Muslims believe that the Qur'an have been prefectly preserved by the letter from the time of muhammed(puh) till today.

similary the Sahih Hadith which are authenticated sayings accepted by the Scholars of hadith to have been said by the prophet 1400 years ago again just because you dont believe Mumamed(pbuh) to be a prophet of God does not negate the historical accuracy of these sources unless of course you wish to study the sciences of Hadith and prove otherwise.

Until you can prove that both of these sources are historically corrupt which the whole of Islam is based on then you cannot dispute with anything I say unless you use the same source to prove I have taken it out of context or it was not authenticated.

I mean I think the Qur'an is either wholly or partly made up. I am relatively happy to accept that Muhammad existed and set up the religion we know as Islam. But I am not happy to accept that he was God's representative on earth. I don't believe there is a God/supreme being at all.

How do I prove a book whose author is long dead is completely a lie? I don't know to be honest. How do you know that the bible is fake and that Jesus Christ wasn't actually the son of God? Why is the Qur'an more believable than the bible?

Again I think both the Qur'an and the bible are unreliable historic sources and I am not trying to turn this into a Muslim vs Christian debate. I am simply asking how you prove a book written hundreds of years ago is fake?

El_Duderino 09

So you just assume everything, which is positive about Muhammed, is true unless proven false? That's not how truth works. you know that's not true or else you would believe the fantastical account of the Kim Dynasty and Julius Cesar.

I'm open to real information about the person of Muhammed. If it fits better in a fairytail, then I consider it really unlikely to be truthful and will feel free to dismiss it.

Honestly I don't think we can ever know for sure, but we can build up a picture until we have a realistic view. It appears you are interested in anything which is positive about Muhammed and assume it to be true.

Follow me for a second and see where such an uncritical view leads.

Someone claims Muhammed was a wonderful conversationalist. Muslims accept this positive claim without thinking. Now the claim becomes established. Someone says Muhammed is the funniest person who ever lived. Again muslims accept the claim without question. Someone says Muhammed is the wisest person who ever lived, Muslims swallow it whole. Now someone suggests he made a poor decision in one instance and muslims reject that claim because it has already been established that Muhammed was the wisest person to ever live. Therefore his decisions cannot be questioned.

Fast froward to the present day and you have a list of maximally desirable characteristics applied to Muhammed and Muslims swallow it whole without question.

How can You tell that The Kim Dynasty in Korea are faithfully represented in their fairytail accounts? Maybe you do accept those accounts. If so I have a bridge to sell you.

sbsquarepants

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

We are instructed as Muslims to love him more then our own selves. We can find in the way he lead his life the perfect examples to follow an implement into our own from how he treated out wives,neighbours,children,companions and even animals, he was a mercy to every form of creation, a man that possessed the perfect behaviour and manner.

He is the one who defended the rights of all humanity 1400 years ago.
He defended men's, women's and children rights

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl doesn't really seem all that interested in childrens rights to me. Today he'd be jailed and called a scumbag - and rightly so.
Perfect behaviour my arse!
The word for people like that is paedophile, not perfect.

Defender OF Faith

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I mean I think the Qur'an is either wholly or partly made up. I am relatively happy to accept that Muhammad existed and set up the religion we know as Islam. But I am not happy to accept that he was God's representative on earth. I don't believe there is a God/supreme being at all

You can believe what you wish really it does not affect what's presented here. I am asking you what sources did you use to know about the character of Muhammed(pbuh) and what ever you read about him(pbuh) will be derived from the Qur'an, Hadith and Seerah the question is whether the incidents you used to determine the characteristics you believe Muhammad(pbuh) to be are actually in the context of Seerah or have been authenticated and not forged/fabricated lies put against Muhammed(pbuh).

Review post 10 were the question made the conclusion that Muhammad(pbuh) was a warmonger and killer based on 2 incidents of the Serah to whom he was given an incomplete picture of which I then put into contexts in the subsequent posts.

When you say Muhammed(pbuh) was X,Y and Z you are basing this purely on incidents of the Seerah of verses in the Qur'an taken out of context.

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

How do I prove a book whose author is long dead is completely a lie? I don't know to be honest. How do you know that the bible is fake and that Jesus Christ wasn't actually the son of God? Why is the Qur'an more believable than the bible?

The issue for you as an atheist should be whether you can prove that the Qur'an we have today is the same Qur'an present 1400 & and that the book which according to you Muhammad(pbuh) wrote is not the same book we have today; unlike the bible were many different versions exist there's only 1 version of the Qur'an we believe to have been perfectly preserved.

Defender OF Faith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl doesn't really seem all that interested in childrens rights to me. Today he'd be jailed and called a scumbag - and rightly so.
Perfect behaviour my arse!
The word for people like that is paedophile, not perfect.

Everything you have said is false, Muhammed(pbuh) Marriage to Aisha(RA) was discussed in the "Ask About Islam thread" post number 176,182 and 187; which I invite you to read if you wish to discuss the issue further so I dont have to repeat myself.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2057120128

Wurzelbert

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

[...]
A Muslim doesn't steal
A Muslim doesn't lie
A Muslim doesn't drink alcohol.
A Muslim doesn't commit adultery
A Muslim doesn't cheat
A Muslim doesn't kill innocent people
A Muslim doesn't harm his neighbors
A Muslim obeys his parents and helps them
A Muslim is kind to young and elderly people, to women and to weak people.
A Muslim doesn't torture humans or even animals, and does not harm trees
A Muslim loves his wife and takes care of his children and show mercy towards them until the last day of his life.
A Muslim's relationship towards his parents never stops even when they die

a few questions, some of which i have asked before and never received real answers:

- were those killed by boko haram innocent by the standards of the quran?
- were those killed french cartoonists innocent by the standards of the quran?
- did mohammed ever lead armies on campaigns of conquest?
- did mohammed ever raid a caravan or an oasis?
- could the halal slaughtering of animals not be seen as torture in a way?

Defender OF Faith

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you just assume everything, which is positive about Muhammed, is true unless proven false? That's not how truth works. you know that's not true or else you would believe the fantastical account of the Kim Dynasty and Julius Cesar.

I'm open to real information about the person of Muhammed. If it fits better in a fairytail, then I consider it really unlikely to be truthful and will feel free to dismiss it.

Honestly I don't think we can ever know for sure, but we can build up a picture until we have a realistic view. It appears you are interested in anything which is positive about Muhammed and assume it to be true.

Bring me forth what you consider to be "Real information about Muhammed(pbuh)" that lead to your conclusions regarding him.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

You can believe what you wish really it does not affect what's presented here. I am asking you what sources did you use to know about the character of Muhammed(pbuh) and what ever you read about him(pbuh) will be derived from the Qur'an, Hadith and Seerah the question is whether the incidents you used to determine the characteristics you believe Muhammad(pbuh) to be are actually in the context of Seerah or have been authenticated and not forged/fabricated lies put against Muhammed(pbuh).

Review post 10 were the question made the conclusion that Muhammad(pbuh) was a warmonger and killer based on 2 incidents of the Serah to whom he was given an incomplete picture of which I then put into contexts in the subsequent posts.

When you say Muhammed(pbuh) was X,Y and Z you are basing this purely on incidents of the Seerah of verses in the Qur'an taken out of context.


The issue for you as an atheist should be whether you can prove that the Qur'an we have today is the same Qur'an present 1400 & and that the book which according to you Muhammad(pbuh) wrote is not the same book we have today; unlike the bible were many different versions exist there's only 1 version of the Qur'an we believe to have been perfectly preserved.

I think this is where people start to get frustrated with religion. You say that there is only one real source of information on Muhammad the Qur'an, Hadith and Seerah and everything else is either a lie or taken out of context. If you refuse to accept that these texts may be inaccurate or open to question then there is no source for debate. People exaggerate, people lie. OK Muhammad may have been perfect (I don't believe that either but I'll go with it for now), but the person who hand copied the Qur'an certainly was not. It would also be in the best interest of the person copying the text to glorify Muhammad to get as many converts as possible. If you don't think that scenario is even remotely likely then I will end my participation in this thread here and now.

On the second point you ask me to prove that the Qur'an today is identical to the original version. You are the one making the statement so it is up to you to prove it. I could easily say that today I saw a dragon. You can't disprove that statement, but that doesn't make it any less false. In that case it would be up to me to prove I saw a dragon as I am the one making the claim.

Defender OF Faith

Wurzelbert wrote: »

a few questions, some of which i have asked before and never received real answers:

1)- were those killed by boko haram innocent by the standards of the quran?
2)- were those killed french cartoonists innocent by the standards of the quran?
3)- did mohammed ever lead armies on campaigns of conquest?
4)- did mohammed ever raid a caravan or an oasis?
5)- could the halal slaughtering of animals not be seen as torture in a way?

I have numbered your questions to answer them accordingly:

1) Yes they were innocent
2)Yes they were innocent
3) All his wars/Campaigns were for retaliation purposes to harm committed against the Muslims and to maintain the sovereignty and security of the state he established in Medina. He never transgressed,oppressed or started a war against innocent tribes or nations that did him or the Muslims no harm, during all of his campaign without an exception.

"Indeed, Islam is a religion that seeks to maximize peace and reconciliation. Yet, Islam is not a pacifist religion; it does accept the premise that, from time to time and as a last resort, arms must be taken up in a just war."

4) Every single Caravan Muhammed(pbuh) have ordered to be captured without an exception have belonged to Quriash or to a tribe which was planning to attack/start and instigate war with the Muslims living in Medina.

"I would let to remind you that Muslims when migrating to Medina to escape prosecution and torture at the hand of Quriash left all the belonging,money,possessions and wealth behind, and this is why initially the prophet formed a bond of "Brotherhood" between the inhabitants of Madina and those coming from Makkah. Therefore as Quraysh had confiscated the property of Muslim Muhajirs[Those who left to Medina from Makkah] residing in Madina, it was only appropriate that the Muslims should also confiscate their merchandise and if they persisted in withholding the property of the Muhajir Muslims on account of their enmity and obstinacy, the Muslims should, as a retaliatory measure, divide their merchandise amongst themselves as war booty." P11

5) If you wish to discuss the Halal method of slaughter you are welcome to ask the question in the "Ask about Islam" thread as it's not the topic of this thread.

Defender OF Faith

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I think this is where people start to get frustrated with religion. You say that there is only one real source of information on Muhammad the Qur'an, Hadith and Seerah and everything else is either a lie or taken out of context. If you refuse to accept that these texts may be inaccurate or open to question then there is no source for debate. People exaggerate, people lie. OK Muhammad may have been perfect (I don't believe that either but I'll go with it for now), but the person who hand copied the Qur'an certainly was not. It would also be in the best interest of the person copying the text to glorify Muhammad to get as many converts as possible. If you don't think that scenario is even remotely likely then I will end my participation in this thread here and now.

I didn't say or even implied that my friend what I meant to say that these sources will use the Qur'an,Seerah and Hadith as they are their only source of information regarding Muhammed(pbuh) if you believe there to be other sources about Muhammed(pbuh) then these then please present them as I am currently not aware of them, however such sources will omit important information and often manipulate the translations in order to suit their purpose and what the questioner presented in post number 10 is a good example.

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

On the second point you ask me to prove that the Qur'an today is identical to the original version. You are the one making the statement so it is up to you to prove it. I could easily say that today I saw a dragon. You can't disprove that statement, but that doesn't make it any less false. In that case it would be up to me to prove I saw a dragon as I am the one making the claim.

Proving whether this statement is false or correct does not affect what I presented nor does it affect what will be presented, as any argument presented will be using the Qur'an & Hadith we have present today & hence I don't feel or see that need to go into the details of how the Qur'an was preserved.

El_Duderino 09

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Bring me forth what you consider to be "Real information about Muhammed(pbuh)" that lead to your conclusions regarding him.

If your a Christian it's your duty to make sure that Muhammad(pbuh) was 100% a false prophet and that the Qur'an is not the book of God to guarantee that the truth is on your side, just like myself as a Muslim must prove that Jesus(pbuh) was not the Son of God but rather one of his greatest messengers and that the concept of trinity is false to guarantee that the truth is on my side.

Now am not going to get into such debate as there are multiple debates between Muslims and Christian apologist out their on the topic. I am here to answer questions regarding my faith and nothing more.

Christian/Muslim disproving each other to make sure their own is the 'one true religion' is the saddest thing you have said here. I have no interest in disproving Islam. I consider Islam and Christianity to be equally ridiculous. That's why I didn't bring either of them up.

Real information about Muhammed would be an interesting telling of the story of Muhammed. I understand he was an influential character in history but I'm not interested in how you have mythologised an interesting character and made him into a, frankly boring, characture.

The nonsense version of Muhammed as maximally 'insert desirable characteristic here' is disrespectful to the real historical figure.

Anyway thanks for the chat.