Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Muhammad - Prophet or Profiteer of God?

page: 1/
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   
On multiple threads regarding Muslim extremism they are decending into a tit for tat argument about the life and morals of the Prophet Muhammad.


I would like to use this thread to collaborate and discuss the pros and cons of Islam.

Was Muhammad a real Prophet of God or using the name of God to forward his political and military ambitions?
Are all Muslims potential extremists?
Does the Qur'an promote peace or war in the name of God?
Was the Prophet Muhammad a noble and honourable man or a war mongering dictator with a fetish for children?
Is it a lack of education and economic growth in some Islamic states which leads to constant protests and riots or simply a flaw within the teachings of Muhammad?
Are Muslims justified by taking a defensive stance over every little insult to their Prophet?
Should Islam be modernised and adapt to Western Culture if Muslims themselves wish to integrate into our Countries?

These are some of the main points being discussed in the following threads which have hijacked the initial topics.

British Teacher Faces 40 Lashes for Naming Class Teddy Bear 'Muhammad'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have provided some sources of information which i recommend you read before entering into this discussion.

Firsly the BBC has a wealth of information :
BBC Guide to Islam

Summary of Islam from Wikipedia :
Wikipedia Guide to Islam

An English translation of the Qur'an i am currently reading :
Qur'an in English
I would like a Muslim to verify this is a reasonably accurate translation.

I would like to start the debate by voicing my opinion that Muhammad's marraige to a 6 year old girl at the age of 50+ is incredibly ignorant for a man who seemingly has heard the word of God. My basis for this is that surely an almighty God could see past 6th century customs and traditions and advise Muhammad that taking children into his bed at his age is not a noble practice. I have elaborated on this point on previous threads and would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.



The status of several of Muhammad's wives is disputed by scholars. Maria al-Qibtiyya may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife. Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated.


I look forward to your responses.

Regards,

Grenade




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
From what i remember the marriage with the 9 year old was more similair to an adoption than anything else at least in the beginning.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tomcat ha
 


"At least in the beginning"?

Surely if it was more akin to adoption then turned into a sexual relationship then it becomes more like incest? Either way i dont approve, i have checked several sources and all say the marriage was consumated at the age of 9. The girl also "lived in her parents home until the age of 9". If she already had parents where is the need for adoption?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Reply to tomcat ha

From what i remember the marriage with the 9 year old was more similair to an adoption than anything else at least in the beginning.

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did get marry to Aisha (radiallahanha) when she was at the age of 9 without anything to do with adoption.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Reply to Grenade

You made a new thread called Muhammad - Prophet or Profiteer of God?

Than you ask questions like:

Are all Muslims potential extremists?

Dont you think we were better of on the previous thread? I mean it didnt make sense of creating a new one?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by kangjia57
 


Well the old thread was about a teddy bear while this is a place to discuss a more wide ranging set of topics regarding Islam. I wasnt stating that all Muslims are potential extremists, i was referring to the opinions voiced by certain people on the old thread.

I find your input as a practicing Muslim relevant and i appreciate your contribution to this thread. The statement about extremists was not intended to offend, only allow for debate on that point of view.

Can you also briefly look over the English translation of the Qur'an i provided and state wether you think it is accurate?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by kangjia57
Dont you think we were better of on the previous thread? I mean it didnt make sense of creating a new one?


I think it's all good there is a new thread. The other thread has become, in the words of another poster there, a bitch-fest. This thread will be fine so long as the OP keeps to what he said here:

"I would like to use this thread to collaborate and discuss the pros and cons of Islam."

Emphasis mine because the bulk of the questions that followed that sentence are loaded questions.

I'd be glad to participate in this thread so long as it follows the spirit of what the OP posted in the other thread and I quote:

"Hopefully we can use this thread to better understand both sides of the argument and learn a little about each others cultures."

Underscoring mine, again. I see no point in a discussion whose aim is to belittle the other side. Counter-productive. So long as we understand where the other is coming from, it's all good.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Hi Beachcoma,

I am not trying to present a biased view of Islam, i have asked repeatedly that people provide a positive effect Islam has on society as a whole. As of yet no-one has provided this information however i will edit the opening post if you have any suggestions?

I have also deliberately set these points as questions.

E.g.
Was Muhammad a real Prophet of God or using the name of God to forward his political and military ambitions?
Does the Qur'an promote peace or war in the name of God?
Was the Prophet Muhammad a noble and honourable man or a war mongering dictator with a fetish for children?
Is it a lack of education and economic growth in some Islamic states which leads to constant protests and riots or simply a flaw within the teachings of Muhammad?

(I think this covers both sides of the argument.)

It is my intention to learn about Islamic culture and hopefully i am enlightened to the benefits of Islam.

EDIT for spelling


[edit on 6/12/07 by Grenade]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Reply to Grenade

Can you also briefly look over the English translation of the Qur'an i provided and state wether you think it is accurate?

Well after looking at it and researching on who wrote it.

The reader is urged strongly to read the English translation of Dr. Rashad Khalifa. It is by far the best English translation of the Quran.

Rashad Khalifa (November 19, 1935–January 31, 1990) was an Egyptian-American biochemist who founded United Submitters International. He was assassinated in 1990.

He founded the religious group called United Submitters International (USI), a group which considers itself to be the true Islam, but prefers not to use the terms "Muslim" or "Islam," instead using the English equivalents of the Arabic: "Submitter" or "Submission." Submitters believe Khalifa was a messenger of God.

He claimed:

Hadith (oral) and sunna (actions) were invented and attributed to Muhammad, they are innovations. Hadith are condemned Khalifa claimed, in the Qur'an, by name (in passages which others interpret using the ordinary meanings of the words.

I am a Sunni Muslim, follower of the Quran and sunnah (teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).I believe Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the messenger of Allah and the last one before the Day of judgement.The Quran i read with english translation is called the Kanz-ul-imaan.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Could someone please tell me how many wars Bush has led and how many battles Muhammad led?

Then could someone tell me how people define a bringer of "peace" and a "warmonger"/"war criminal"


[edit on 6-12-2007 by blueorder]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Grenade
 


All the past Abramic religions have one fundamental thing in common which is the spread of doomsday message.
It is so convenient that all of them push you to believe that God is upset with humanity.
It is also convenient that many aspect and time line of all prophets are missing.
In the case of Mohammed there are holes in the life history, especially regarding he’s childhood and early adulthood.
If you apply logic, you will come to understand that like Jesus, Mohammed teaching was corrupted for the same purpose of division.
This division has worked very well for the dark side (for me it is the Gods), it has divide Christianity in to two branches first and then more after. As for Islam it has gone threw the same process to end up now with Shiite and Sunnite.
You see man has got very poor choices when flanked with the same crap different colour.

kacou



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Grenade
 


I will answer your questions to the best of my knowledge. Thank you for taking the time to 'balance' the questions a bit.


Was Muhammad a real Prophet of God or using the name of God to forward his political and military ambitions?
The way I see it, it's a matter of perspective. To Muslims, he was obviously a Prophet of God who saw the injustices happening in his time and received the word of God to correct it. To the Christians as well as Atheists he was the latter (then as it is now). Ditto the Jews.

Doubtful that there was any political ambition on the Prophet's part, so too the military aspect (since it's an extension of politics). If it were the case, the Prophet wouldn't have rejected completely the Quraisy tribes' animistic religion and believes. That was political suicide.


Does the Qur'an promote peace or war in the name of God?
Peace, obviously. But there the Qur'an does not forbid its followers from taking up arms in defence. If the attacker asks for peace, then it must be given.


Was the Prophet Muhammad a noble and honourable man or a war mongering dictator with a fetish for children?
Kind of a loaded question here...
Anyway, the Prophet was a noble and honourable man. War was only the last resort. And no, he does not have a fetish for children. If this is in reference to the marriage with Aisha, then I have already pointed out three times in the previous thread this link. Make your own judgement after you have read that.


Is it a lack of education and economic growth in some Islamic states which leads to constant protests and riots or simply a flaw within the teachings of Muhammad?
Definitely a socio-economic thing. I have an entire thread that analyses this aspect, if you so wish to read it:
The muslim riots and other acts of violence: why are they happening?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


It seems Muhammad was in a state of constant war for over 10 years. Through raids, seiges, battles and diplomacy.

I think the following page gives a good overview of the conquest undertaken by Muhammad and his followers.

Muhammad as a General

With a list of his battles :
The early chronicler Ibn Ishaq gave a list of all the raids or battles in which Muhammad joined or fought. The list is:

Waddan, the raid of al-Abwa
Buwat in the direction of Radwa
Ushayra in the valley of Yanbu
The first fight at Badr in pursuit of Kurz b. Jabir
Battle of Badr
Banu Sulaym until he reached al-Kudr
Al-Sawiq in pursuit of Abu Sufyan b. Harb
Ghatafan
Bahran, a mine in the Hijaz
Battle of Uhud
Hamra'u'l-Asad
Banu Nadir
Hatu'l-Riqa of Nakhl
Last battle of Badr
Dumatu'l-Jandal
Al-Khandaq
Banu Qurayza
Banu Lhyan of Hudhayl
Dhu Qarad
Banu'l Mustaliq of Khuza'a
Treaty of Hudaybiyyah]
Battle of Khaybar
Last pilgrimage
Conquest of Mecca
Battle of Hunayn
Siege of Ta'if
Battle of Tabuk

On the other hand people who think George Bush directly makes the decision to go to war are mis-informed. I dont think there is any point in listing americas wars.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Heyho, Grenade. Thought I'd have a go at the questions:


Originally posted by Grenade
Was Muhammad a real Prophet of God or using the name of God to forward his political and military ambitions?

Not sure how answerable this would be in this day and age. Most of the Islamic expansion occurred after the death of Muhammad. I think the only city that Muhammad ever 'conquered' was Mecca, and that was without any fighting.



Originally posted by Grenade
Are all Muslims potential extremists?

I'd like to think this is an obvious and self-evident 'no'. At least insofar as you don't consider all human beings as potential extremists.



Originally posted by Grenade
Does the Qur'an promote peace or war in the name of God?

A somewhat confusingly set question. The Quran allows fighting in self-defence, or against tyranny or oppression. This sort of fighting is permitted by God. The rules for what is 'tyranny' and 'oppression' are pretty clearly set out in the Quran.



Originally posted by Grenade
Was the Prophet Muhammad a noble and honourable man or a war mongering dictator with a fetish for children?

As far as the second question goes, I don't think so. Muhammad's first wife was almost 15 years his senior. He also married widows who had lost their husbands, or were 'outcasted' in society.



Originally posted by Grenade
Is it a lack of education and economic growth in some Islamic states which leads to constant protests and riots or simply a flaw within the teachings of Muhammad?

I wouldn't call most riots or protests that occur to be 'constant'.



Originally posted by Grenade
Are Muslims justified by taking a defensive stance over every little insult to their Prophet?

No. There are many Hadith and examples from Muhammad's life where he was insulted by being called a name, but ignored it. When asked why, he said that " They were insulting someone else with that name. They were not calling my name. My name is Muhammad"



Originally posted by Grenade
Should Islam be modernised and adapt to Western Culture if Muslims themselves wish to integrate into our Countries?

More of a "Will it adapt" than "Should it adapt". Either way, the only way to find out is wait and see.



Originally posted by Grenade
I would like to start the debate by voicing my opinion that Muhammad's marraige to a 6 year old girl at the age of 50+ is incredibly ignorant for a man who seemingly has heard the word of God. My basis for this is that surely an almighty God could see past 6th century customs and traditions and advise Muhammad that taking children into his bed at his age is not a noble practice.

There is much debate about the actual age of A'ishah when she got married to Muhammad. Originally she was meant to marry another person, but he broke it off due to religious differences. While there is 1 Hadith from Sahih Bukhari that says directly that A'ishah was 9 at this time, it contradicts numerous other Hadith, and one of the people in the chain of narration (Hisham ibn `urwah) was very old, and suffered memory loss at the time that he related this and other Hadith (many of which are considered suspect).

Here is a (disorganised
) list:
* A'ishah got married in 1AH (1 year after the muslims migrated to Medinah from Mecca)
* According to Tabiri, all of Abu Bakr's (A'ishah's father) children were born during the Pre-Islamic period, which would put A'ishah at being AT LEAST 14 when she got married.
* When the 1st migration (to Abyssinia) occurred, Abu Bakr took Ayesha to the house of her betrothed (the guy before Muhammad), and asked him to take her into his house, which he refused for religious reasons. The Migration to Abyssinia took place 8 years before AH, so if Ayesha was 6 when she married Muhammad, she couldn't have even been alive at this time!
* According to the Kitab-ul-Tasfir, A'ishah was a "young girl" (as opposed to an infant) when the 54th Surah of the Quran was revealed. Surah Al-Qamar (the 54th surah) was revealed 9 years before AH.


Hope all of this helped! Or at least furthered the discussion.

PS: Grenade, that is a very odd list to be on wikipedia. I'm surprised. Some of those aren't even battles (The Last Pilgrimate? The Treaty of Hudaiybah?
), and some of those didn't even involve Muhammad.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I dont buy into the economic argument, Bin Laden himself being part of an exceedingly rich family- or even the recent attempts at bombings in Scotland and the rest of the UK- all well educated fellows

Something pernicious within the religion itself- and as for it being a book which promotes peace, that is one interpretation, others, who have studied the Quran and religious edicts laid down (and indeed Muhammads life) do not see it as promoting peace



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Well one account which does backup your theory was provided by Sparky in the previous thread.





SARIYYAH OF ?UMAYR IBN ?ADI

Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn ?Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against ?Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. ?Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the Prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. ?Umayr Ibn ?Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced upto her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the Prophet, may Allah bless him, at al-Madinah. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said to him: Have you slain the daughter of Marwan? He said: Yes. Is there something more for me to do? He said: No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, called ?Umayr, basir (the seeing).



To me this account shows that Muhammad ordered murder in defence of his reputation. Not self defence as has been stated. Does this event not contradict his own teachings as to the use of violence?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Grenade
 


Was Muhammad a real Prophet of God or using the name of God to forward his political and military ambitions?

Impossible to know in this day and age, because you can’t prove something like this either way however the exact same question can be said about Judaism while they were in Egypt. The same can be said when they killed the tribes around where Israeli exists today because they wouldn’t convert.

Are all Muslims potential extremists?

Yes. However, all people are potential extremists. It’s a loaded question and the answer is straight forward if you think about it. Anyone can load a gun, anyone can make a bomb, and anyone can kill another person for his or her belief system.

Does the Qur'an promote peace or war in the name of God?

Peace. Reference the interview I did a few years ago here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Was the Prophet Muhammad a noble and honourable man or a war mongering dictator with a fetish for children?

That is a loaded question.

I have already displayed that the Hadiths give different views on all of these situations. It is you who decide to pick the version that states he had sex with the child, that’s your decision. Not every version says this and many of them do not mention sexual intercourse. So why is it you decide to choose to believe those versions over the others?

Is it a lack of education and economic growth in some Islamic states which leads to constant protests and riots or simply a flaw within the teachings of Muhammad?

These protests and riots are akin to the ones that happened during things like the Women’s Liberation Movement, the Civil Rights Movements and so on and so fourth. More often then not when poor people are pushed to the extreme they bite back, it’s like a cat pushed into a corner – the only thing they can do now is come out fighting. Islam has spent years being under attack in the United Nations, Western Media and so on and so fourth.

Lest not forget that when women tried to vote and get the rights to vote in the U.K. they firebombed places like butchers and other places for their cause.

Are Muslims justified by taking a defensive stance over every little insult to their Prophet?

Of course they are. There have been riots by Christians as well, several happened in Nigeria last year. That was in fact a violent protest. Christians also shot to death 32 children in Indonesia several years ago as well. Thus the common link isn’t Islam nor is it Religion.

The common link is poverty and desperation.

Should Islam be modernised and adapt to Western Culture if Muslims themselves wish to integrate into our Countries?

They do not need to. Many Muslims fit perfectly into Western society. When you read what they can and can’t do, there aren’t any real problems as long as Western cultures bother to respect them and treat them as Muslims.

Such as say a meeting, you don’t hold it in a pub if you know someone who is Islamic is going to be there. The same as you don’t hold it there if you knew one of your employees is a recovering alcoholic.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grenade
To me this account shows that Muhammad ordered murder in defence of his reputation. Not self defence as has been stated. Does this event not contradict his own teachings as to the use of violence?


There is one major problem with this story:
The man is blind. Do you honestly think, someone who is blind could sneak into a house without causing any noise and waking multipul people up, then move a child without distrubing it and stab a woman?

Logically the answer to that is no. Thus you then have to think aobut what the blind man could be a metaphor of. Death for example?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
reply to post by Grenade


They do not need to. Many Muslims fit perfectly into Western society. When you read what they can and can’t do, there aren’t any real problems as long as Western cultures bother to respect them and treat them as Muslims.

Such as say a meeting, you don’t hold it in a pub if you know someone who is Islamic is going to be there. The same as you don’t hold it there if you knew one of your employees is a recovering alcoholic.

 


So Western cultures have to adapt to cater for the Muslim faith yet Muslim's have no duty to adapt or cater for Western culture? You realise the hypocricy in that statement?


[edit on 6/12/07 by Grenade]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Reply to Grenade

Should Islam be modernised and adapt to Western Culture if Muslims themselves wish to integrate into our Countries?

Muslims cannot change the teachings or rulings of Islam itself. But Muslims can adapt to the Western culture according to their own personal preferences.
Muslims have adopted to the Western culture that’s why we have Muslims in West, like I said a million times before(if you red my posts previously) in Islam you follow the rules and laws of the country you live in.






top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join