Deficiency

[andak01]

The clerics of a religion does not matter as much compared to the actual founders of a religion. Use people of similar status. Like Buddha, Joseph Smith, Moses and L.Ron Hubbard. For the words of these people are often seen as timeless. As applicable then as it is today.

Alrighty then, I pick Henry VIII, founder of the Church of England. What was his record with women? What was his record with the Jews? What was his stance on slavery? How tolerant was he of other faiths?

And in the context of Mohammad’s life women are seen as inferior to men. So what I said is still correct in this aspect.

In the context of the 7th century all women were inferior to men whether they were Muslim, Christian, Jewish or other. Daughters were buried alive, war widows were prostituted, divorcees were destitute. Muhammad changed that for the better. If anything, the Mullahs are taking a step backwards from the respect afforded women in the early days of Islam. Women such as Aisha were teachers of religion and they came to the mosque together with men and made their voices known. The image of Mohammad speaking to women contrasts with today's Taliban who don't even bother to converse with women in any fashion. The image of him answering their questions in a mosque contrasts with that of today's partitioned mosques.

I know those already. The way I see Mohammad, he was mostly a man of kindness, and sometimes a man of utmost cruelty. Sort of like me.

trollty. Is that a word?

PS, hey dont forget my post right above this.

I've never understood why you are so certain that'll get under my skin. There really isn't anything to it.

[Agnosthiest]

Alrighty then, I pick Henry VIII, founder of the Church of England. What was his record with women? What was his record with the Jews? What was his stance on slavery? How tolerant was he of other faiths?

LOL! I was referring to the prophetic founder, dude. The very person responsible for the core doctrines & beliefs of the religion. The writer of its holy books. The original utterer of its religious wise sayings. Your Henry VIII example could not even compare to a cleric. He wasnt even recognized as a saint even to the adherents of the sect. None of his words were seen as religiously timeless.

In the context of the 7th century all women were inferior to men whether they were Muslim, Christian, Jewish or other. Daughters were buried alive, war widows were prostituted, divorcees were destitute. Muhammad changed that for the better. If anything, the Mullahs are taking a step backwards from the respect afforded women in the early days of Islam. Women such as Aisha were teachers of religion and they came to the mosque together with men and made their voices known. The image of Mohammad speaking to women contrasts with today's Taliban who don't even bother to converse with women in any fashion. The image of him answering their questions in a mosque contrasts with that of today's partitioned mosques.

I admit, Mohammad did make things a little better for women. But women were still seen as inferior to men. So there is nothing wrong in taking his hadith words for its face value…the belittling of women.

trollty. Is that a word?

The point is, Mohammad’s character was pretty consistent with most of us. Mostly kind and sometimes cruel.

I've never understood why you are so certain that'll get under my skin. There really isn't anything to it.

Instead of total prohibition would it not make a lot more sense to just allow women to pray without prostrating?

[andak01]

None of his words were seen as religiously timeless.

You don't recognize the sayings of Muhammad (SAW) as religiously timeless either. So, I'd wonder that you have more problem with him than Henry VIII or for that matter Joseph Smith, who also claimed to have received a revelation.

I admit, Mohammad did make things a little better for women. But women were still seen as inferior to men. So there is nothing wrong in taking his hadith words for its face value…the belittling of women.

Poking fun at the women present, certainly. Muhammad (SAW) never tried to belittle women. He showed far too much respect for them for that.

The point is, Mohammad’s character was pretty consistent with most of us. Mostly kind and sometimes cruel.

I guess, most of us who have repeated assassination attempts on our lives, who forgive people who desecrated our relatives on the battlefield, who have our friends tortured and exiled because of their beliefs, who maintain a sense of humor in spite of all that, who lead a nation and an army and remain humble, who free slaves and make them leaders, who cry when they believe they have committed wrong against their fellow men. If you can say that about yourself, then yes, you're consistent with him.

[Agnosthiest]

You don't recognize the sayings of Muhammad (SAW) as religiously timeless either. So, I'd wonder that you have more problem with him than Henry VIII or for that matter Joseph Smith, who also claimed to have received a revelation.

I am referring to how adherents see their founders.

But personally I dont have any problem seeing the timelessness on a truly wise sayings. Jesus, Buddha, and Guru Nanak have some very good sayings that goes beyond religion...and holds true for everyone. I have yet to hear some really good & original ones from Mohammad.

Muhammad (SAW) never tried to belittle women. He showed far too much respect for them for that.

He had respect for women, obviously at some level above that of his generation. However the very fact that he alleged some disabilities in their intellect and religion...is evidence that:

1. He still saw them as inferior.
2. He belittled their abilities.

I guess, most of us who have repeated assassination attempts on our lives, who forgive people who desecrated our relatives on the battlefield, who have our friends tortured and exiled because of their beliefs, who maintain a sense of humor in spite of all that, who lead a nation and an army and remain humble, who free slaves and make them leaders, who cry when they believe they have committed wrong against their fellow men.

Who also assassinated a nursing mother to protect his reputation, who escalated the conflict by raiding meccan caravans, who beheaded POWs for heaving a personal grudge on him, who committed genocide, who tortured a jew to get their treasure, who forced a child-bride to have sex, etc.

If you can say that about yourself, then yes, you're consistent with him.

Mohammad's consistency with the rest of is simply with regards to the simple idea of "Mostly kind and sometimes cruel". Thats what its like to be human.

Even Jesus showed cruelty, at one time.

[andak01]

Who also assassinated a nursing mother to protect his reputation, who escalated the conflict by raiding meccan caravans, who beheaded POWs for heaving a personal grudge on him, who committed genocide, who tortured a jew to get their treasure, who forced a child-bride to have sex, etc.

Your opinion and interpretation. I read the same things as you do and don't come to the same conclusion. We do not see Muhammad as an aggressor but rather as a peacemaker. All of the battles during his lifetime resulted in less loss of life than individual battles of other conflicts. In fact, more people have died in Iraq than died on both sides of all Muslim conflicts during the life of the Prophet. More people were killed by Henry VIII than in all the battles of Islam during the life of the Prophet. For that matter, Thomas Jefferson was responsible for the genocide of the Indians and was more in favor of slavery than the Prophet.

We don't see the possible complete destruction of the Ummah as a personal grudge. We don't see the successful battles of early Islam, completely in line with common contemporary practice, as genocide and we don't see Aisha as a rape victim.

I know all of that is difficult for you to grasp. For example, I doubt you spend your days pondering the genocide perpetrated by Joshua, who left no POWS, women or children. I doubt you refuse to think of Lot as the salt of the earth simply because he bore children by his daughters (GEN:19:30-37).

Mohammad's consistency with the rest of is simply with regards to the simple idea of "Mostly kind and sometimes cruel". Thats what its like to be human.

We never deny Muhammad's humanity. But this history in a vacuum you have is rather amusing. According to it, if a people breaks a treaty with another people and confederates with their enemies to destroy them, it's the fault of those attacked in the first place if things don't go as planned.

[Agnosthiest]

Your opinion and interpretation. I read the same things as you do and don't come to the same conclusion.

As we all know, if you are in love with something you are blinded to its flaws.

In all fairness I would also say that those who are against something would largely see the flaws more than the benefits.

What is needed is a balance between us. But obviously the intensity of your feelings for your new religion exceeds my feelings against it. You are more biased than I am.

In fact, more people have died in Iraq than died on both sides of all Muslim conflicts during the life of the Prophet.

I agree. That would be a fact. But please think before you post. The population between then and now is many millions times over. So obviously there are more casualties today.

Besides, the killings today are largely between muslims.

More people were killed by Henry VIII than in all the battles of Islam during the life of the Prophet. For that matter, Thomas Jefferson was responsible for the genocide of the Indians and was more in favor of slavery than the Prophet.

i dont think you can even come up with the figures of casualties during mohammad.

We don't see the possible complete destruction of the Ummah as a personal grudge. We don't see the successful battles of early Islam, completely in line with common contemporary practice, as genocide and we don't see Aisha as a rape victim.

you cant smell your own bad breath either. seriously, the best way to know you have bad breath is for someone else to point it out to you. same thing with morality, dude.

For example, I doubt you spend your days pondering the genocide perpetrated by Joshua, who left no POWS, women or children. I doubt you refuse to think of Lot as the salt of the earth simply because he bore children by his daughters (GEN:19:30-37).

Oh I did. One of the reasons I left Christianity.

We never deny Muhammad's humanity.

What is amusing is that muslims keep saying that as a mantra and yet they refuse to see or admit his human failings. His human sins.

I am more objective than you are. I can see both the positives and negatives in his life.

[andak01]

I am more objective than you are. I can see both the positives and negatives in his life.

Let's cut to the chase. The reason that a religion founded by a man who ordered the burning of monestaries and the killing of nuns doesn't bother you more than the religion founded by the man who executed the traitors of Medina is how you perceive the danger to yourself from the adherrents of each religion. It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether we look upon Muhammad as without sin or not.

You certainly can't be so naive as to attempt to proselytize me to Buddhism. If we knew as much about the life of Buddha as we do about Muhammad, perhaps Buddha would also appear more human. In the case of Buddha, we can't say within a century of when he died.

According to the Pāli historical chronicles of Sri Lanka, the Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa, the coronation of Aśoka (Pāli: Asoka) is 218 years after the death of Buddha. According to one Mahayana record in Chinese (十八部論 and 部執異論), the coronation of Aśoka is 116 years after the death of Buddha. Therefore, the time of Buddha's passing is either 486 BC according to Theravāda record or 383 BC according to Mahayana record. However, the actual date traditionally accepted as the date of the Buddha's death in Theravāda countries is 544 or 543 BC, because the reign of Aśoka was traditionally reckoned to be about 60 years earlier than current estimates (based on Aśoka's own inscriptions, and therefore among the soundest dates in early Indian history).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Contrast this with the incredible detail we have on Muhammad. Neither Buddha nor Jesus ruled a country or led an army. If they had, they would have been subject to all of the responsibilities that such enterprises entail as well as criticism for decisions that cost people their lives.

He succumbed on Monday, June 8, 632, in the city of Medina.

[Agnosthiest]

Let's cut to the chase. The reason that a religion founded by a man who ordered the burning of monestaries and the killing of nuns doesn't bother you more than the religion founded by the man who executed the traitors of Medina is how you perceive the danger to yourself from the adherrents of each religion. It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether we look upon Muhammad as without sin or not.

That is somewhat correct, though I cannot agree with you that Henry VIII founded a religion. (sect, yes, religion-no)

Now I dont really see any personal danger. What concerns me is the danger to humanity in general. I am afraid that Islam (if successful) would spoil much of humanity's achievements in basic freedoms, economy, arts & sciences. Turning the world into a globalized Saudi Arabia.

You certainly can't be so naive as to attempt to proselytize me to Buddhism. If we knew as much about the life of Buddha as we do about Muhammad, perhaps Buddha would also appear more human. In the case of Buddha, we can't say within a century of when he died.

No I dont. At best I only hope to make you realize that the Islam isnt perfect. The first step to that is seeing Mohammad's human sins.

Contrast this with the incredible detail we have on Muhammad. Neither Buddha nor Jesus ruled a country or led an army. If they had, they would have been subject to all of the responsibilities that such enterprises entail as well as criticism for decisions that cost people their lives.

Thats probably the very reason why they shied away from politics. Their personality types and philosophies in life would never have allowed that. Its obvious that they knew too well how politics corrupt even the best of souls.

[Womble]

Also, it would seem that the context for 7th century speech for you is 21st century feminism. I'd like to see how kind to women's rights were 7th century Rabbis.

Rabbis or prophets?

You are forgetting here that rabbis are only rabbis, interpreters of the Law who can be wrong and can disagree with each other. Some of those quoted in the Talmud say that women are "querulous and garrulous", yet others insist that women are superior to men in both their faith and in their power of discernment- and you are free to decide whose word to take. The words of a prophet, however, are binding on the entire religion.

[andak01]

It isn't as cut and dry as being able to quote a Hadith. There are ahadith of varying levels of reliability. Depending on who related the hadith, how many people related it and how what was said fits consistently with other ahadith, a hadith may be judged at various levels of authenticity. There are hadiths that relate to aspects of daily life which are open to ijtihad (decision) and those relating only to religious practice which are not. An outsider reading random translated ahadith is as likely to approximate Islam's real meaning as a man throwing darts at a dartboard of Talmudic sayings is to understanding Halachic law.

As for your concept of the cruelty of the Prophet, there were wars during his lifetime and if you put yourself squarely on the side of the losers of those wars without questioning their motives, of course you will find him cruel. It's possible that the descendents of the victims of Hiroshima will find Truman cruel, although Americans generally have absolutely no problem with that action.

Understand that Muhammad is dead and he is human. We all agree on that. For Muslims to extend his enemies and animosities to people who wouldn't be born for another 14 centuries is folly. The same goes for people who extend us to be the perpetrators of percieved wrongs that happened 14 centuries ago. Muslims may do good or evil, but very few of them, even if it is their stated goal in any way approximate the actions of Muhammad, and certainly not all of them.

[Agnosthiest]

It isn't as cut and dry as being able to quote a Hadith. There are ahadith of varying levels of reliability. Depending on who related the hadith, how many people related it and how what was said fits consistently with other ahadith, a hadith may be judged at various levels of authenticity. There are hadiths that relate to aspects of daily life which are open to ijtihad (decision) and those relating only to religious practice which are not.

Most of the hadiths we quote come from Bukhari and Muslim- the most reliable hadiths.

An outsider reading random translated ahadith is as likely to approximate Islam's real meaning as a man throwing darts at a dartboard of Talmudic sayings is to understanding Halachic law.

why complain about it when its your very own Islamist linguists and scholars who made these translations.

As for your concept of the cruelty of the Prophet, there were wars during his lifetime and if you put yourself squarely on the side of the losers of those wars without questioning their motives, of course you will find him cruel. It's possible that the descendents of the victims of Hiroshima will find Truman cruel, although Americans generally have absolutely no problem with that action.

and how on earth does an enemy’s ***eevil*** motives justify torture and genocide committed on them?

What about you? You place yourself squarely on the side of the winners without questioning their motives, of course you find their every deed justifiable. Is that fair? Cant we find a middle ground here? Practically in every war there are atrocities on both sides. As was the american’s use of a-bombs on japanese cities. That was atrocious.

Muslims may do good or evil, but very few of them, even if it is their stated goal in any way approximate the actions of Muhammad, and certainly not all of them.

But the practitioners of dhimmification isnt limited to the few. And that’s what truly bothers me.

[andak01]

Most of the hadiths we quote come from Bukhari and Muslim- the most reliable hadiths.

What Sahih means is, yes he probably said it. But how you interpret what he said is another matter. If you see him as a cruel man whose only intention is to bring pain to women, then what he said will appear cruel. If you see him as full of playfulness and humor, then it may appear pointedly ironic.

why complain about it when its your very own Islamist linguists and scholars who made these translations.

I'm not complaining. You think Islam is evil and cruel and wish to do away with it. I'm just saying that we can come to a conclusion of loving Islam without being evil and cruel because we don't start from the same axiomatic beliefs as yourself. Namely:

- We believe Muhammad was a loving, caring, gentle, humorous human being who loved and protected women and children. If you start from that basis, everything he said has a different meaning.

- We believe that the Muslims were just refugees from a wicked group of people.

- We believe that Muslims defended themselves against those wicked people.

These things as I say are axiomatically opposed to your own beliefs that he and all Muslims were nothing more than criminals. In order to arrive at that, since the vast majority of surviving history was written by Muslims, you must take certain bits of history as Gospel and others as lies. For example, if Ibn Ishaq says the Qaraiza were slaughtered, you believe it. If he says they betrayed the Muslims and broke treaties, you don't.

What about you? You place yourself squarely on the side of the winners without questioning their motives, of course you find their every deed justifiable. Is that fair? Cant we find a middle ground here? Practically in every war there are atrocities on both sides. As was the american’s use of a-bombs on japanese cities. That was atrocious.

Nobody in my family would have done it any other way. My own uncle claims he owes his life to that decision. I'm a different generation and more ambivalent, however; I can see their point. I don't think supporting that makes them genociders.

[Agnosthiest]

What Sahih means is, yes he probably said it.

oh it means much more than that. googling around tells us that muslims see it as meaning: "authentic", "genuinely transmitted", "strong" & "correct".

But how you interpret what he said is another matter. If you see him as a cruel man whose only intention is to bring pain to women, then what he said will appear cruel. If you see him as full of playfulness and humor, then it may appear pointedly ironic.

I see him as an average arab human being from the dark ages who like most of us had a good capacity for humor, kindness and sometimes cruelty. But being from the dark ages, had a very poor view of women. probably not as bad as most people back then, but still poor.

You see, Andak, I am not purely one-sided. I try to be objective too.

These things as I say are axiomatically opposed to your own beliefs that he and all Muslims were nothing more than criminals.

Here you go again judging another person as if you can read my mind! Its starting to annoy me, my friend. You really think I see you as a criminal??? You are being too paranoid, man. You are mistaken. Relax a bit, will ya?

I'm not complaining. You think Islam is evil and cruel and wish to do away with it. I'm just saying that we can come to a conclusion of loving Islam without being evil and cruel because we don't start from the same axiomatic beliefs as yourself. Namely:

- We believe Muhammad was a loving, caring, gentle, humorous human being who loved and protected women and children. If you start from that basis, everything he said has a different meaning.

- We believe that the Muslims were just refugees from a wicked group of people.

- We believe that Muslims defended themselves against those wicked people.

I agree. I agree. I agree. The only difference is I could see that...

-Though Muhammad was a loving, caring, gentle & humorous person, he wasnt perfect and sometimes did terrible, unrighteous things.

-Sometimes the oppressed, in defending themselves- crosses the line and turns into oppressors themselves. We can see that happening in Israel all the time. And that was the case when muslims massacred the POWs/'all able bodied men' of an entire jewish tribe.

For example, if Ibn Ishaq says the Qaraiza were slaughtered, you believe it. If he says they betrayed the Muslims and broke treaties, you don't.

I believe both. Those jews broke the treaty and Mohammad cleansed them for it.

Nobody in my family would have done it any other way. My own uncle claims he owes his life to that decision. I'm a different generation and more ambivalent, however; I can see their point. I don't think supporting that makes them genociders.

I would have done it too. But isnt that what people call "a choice between two evils"? "Kill countless of innocents or get killed".

which reminds me....

you always insisted that jesus would have done the same thing had he led a nation. well how about his apostles? they have led a nation of new believers but they never resorted to violence even though they suffered much more compared what mohammad & followers would suffer centuries later.

[andak01]

Here you go again judging another person as if you can read my mind! Its starting to annoy me, my friend. You really think I see you as a criminal??? You are being too paranoid, man. You are mistaken. Relax a bit, will ya?

I guess you should see me as a criminal or a potential one, since you think that I subscribe to an inferior, evil religion and I refuse to apostate. That seems to bother you no end.

-Though Muhammad was a loving, caring, gentle & humorous person, he wasnt perfect and sometimes did terrible, unrighteous things.

-Sometimes the oppressed, in defending themselves- crosses the line and turns into oppressors themselves. We can see that happening in Israel all the time. And that was the case when muslims massacred the POWs/'all able bodied men' of an entire jewish tribe.

I'd be perfectly at home believing that was a mistake. Muhammad (SAW) did make mistakes. However, his intention was good. The decision to kill the POWs was not entered into lightly, and BTW was eerily echoed some centuries later by Richard the Lionhearted. This time it was 3,000 Muslims, not 700 Qaraizah and it was for lack of a ransom, not out of concern for the safety of the Ummah.

When it became apparent that Saladin was not willing to pay the terms of the treaty at Acre, Richard had more than 3,000 Muslim prisoners executed on August 20 outside of Acre in full view of Saladin's camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Crusade

I believe both. Those jews broke the treaty and Mohammad cleansed them for it.

That's no reason for any modern Muslim to have a bone against the Jews. That was a specific event.

you always insisted that jesus would have done the same thing had he led a nation. well how about his apostles? they have led a nation of new believers but they never resorted to violence even though they suffered much more compared what mohammad & followers would suffer centuries later.

Based upon histories written by whom? Recent discoveries point to Christian led riots as early as the first century.

[Agnosthiest]

I'd be perfectly at home believing that was a mistake. Muhammad (SAW) did make mistakes. However, his intention was good. The decision to kill the POWs was not entered into lightly

Seeing it as a mistake is a good start.


However, wouldnt you also agree that no matter how noble your intentions were, if you committed a massacre, that it would surely be a matter that is much more than a simple "oops, that was a mistake"? Wouldnt that also amount to a "grave offense"?

When it became apparent that Saladin was not willing to pay the terms of the treaty at Acre, Richard had more than 3,000 Muslim prisoners executed on August 20 outside of Acre in full view of Saladin's camp.

Sure, but whats the point? Both Christians and Muslims committed acts of atrocities throughout history....all in the name of their religion.

Like what Womble said, if its by a "prophet" its different. Review what he said above.

That's no reason for any modern Muslim to have a bone against the Jews. That was a specific event.

Realistically it does serve as one. The many things that Mohammad committed specifically against the jews, whether in actions or writings, do serve as the much needed excuse to bash jews in times of conflicts between muslims and jews.

Based upon histories written by whom?

Histories written down by pagan Romans were well preserved and made no mentions of any apostles leading their flocks into violence.

Recent discoveries point to Christian led riots as early as the first century.

really? i did not know that. care to prove it?