The Reality of the Looking Glass: Seeing Muhammad

Salams
A wonderful article. And first I would like to say congrats ot echoboom for contributing what the Non-Muslims have to say about our Prophet (Peace be upon him).
Other than that..all religions have their followers and everyone has a right to their opinion. If a Muslim wants to express himself than its his right..and if anyone has their comments..they have a right to express them too..but if they get out of hand..well then they show their own personality traits.


``But the point is the desire of all non-muslims to join together and dig dirt on your Prophet is provoked by the `misuse of Islam` by the muslims for political ends (among many other things) ``

Like you said Bharath- MISUSE OF ISLAM..Islam does NOT teach us all this. There hasnt been a more peaceful religion. And it is being misused..I am so glad you used the word. It means you KNOW Islam is not terrorism.
Of all the things Islam is said to be barbaric? Well what would you call someone who blows up cities with Atom Bombs? What happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was displays of affection? Or however the prisoners of Iraq and Afghanistan were treated..was that overwhelming love? It was NOT! but is anyone blaming the Christians and Jews for it? Are they saying BECAUSE they were Christians and Jews their religion taught them to act like this? No..no one is saying that.

The same with our religion..there are always good people and bad people everywhere. And please everyone try to see both sides of the story.
Thats all I got to say for now.

Jazak Allah Shariar for trying to enlighten so many others about our Prophet (Peace be upon him)

Allah Hafiz

Re: # 76

Is by converting to Islam the sin of Shirk is also forgiven? In corollary, can a Muslim be a Mushrik as Dewbandies or Wahabis claim that both Barelvis and Shias are Mushrik? What about Mushrikin Arabs who converted to Islam, some of whom might have been lynched if Blasphemy law or Sharia was in operation then?

#148 the guy you are quoting, is he british? else, shy does his view matter?

Jang
[i agree with you about many idioticities in hindu religion]

Damn, and would that include Bombay, Madras, Calcutta or only Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata........-) Silly chaps, this missionary zeal for conversions........terrible, terrible.-)

re#147

The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.-
Oliver Wendell Holmes

hisexcellency,

i agree with you about many idioticities in hindu religion. my bitch is that when islam was imposed in the sub-continent, it was not as a solution to the sillilness, but as a substitution of one set of silliness with another. in india both indus and the muslims have respect for the brit, who rarely tried to impose his religion..but the illumination of his ways was glaring (ignoring minor stuff like not using the lota)..i wish ghori or aurangzeb tries to abolish sutee or thugee, but alas..the sufi charlatans were just happy to have ignorant followers.

Re: # 144

Urstruly

Thank you dear Urstruly for the `elaboration`. Frankly speaking when I first read the Hadees in question I felt aghast as I could not believe a blind man, a sahabi, could be so cruel to kill a female slave of his, who was perhaps pregnant and was a mother of two sons of his and afterwards accuse her of blasphemy when called upon by the Prophet (PBUH) to speak up, the matter having been reported to him. It is still hard for me to believe such a Hadees which contradicts the very image of the Prophet(PBUH) as `Rehmatulaalimin`.

As for the law, the hadees does not prescribe any. If at all, it purports to condone a `lynch law` which, as a matter of course, is being practiced openly in the Pak land. It is in pursuance of this very `law` perhaps that gift money is being proclaimed for lynching `blasphemers`.

As regards the state, I believe that Islam did not establish or envision the establishment of a state. What it established in Madina was not a state but a direct social democracy, bereft of the coercive essential apparatus of the state like police, professional army, taxation, etc. In fact Quran and hadees express sympathy for the prisoner and hatred for the police and the tax-collector, the fundamental basis for the state. It may perhaps be taken as a revival of the true democracy of the historical Greek City State. But how has all this been subverted to establish despotic tyrannical state in the name of Islam that made its subjects incapable of thinking.

With regards

teshah

Re: # 143

Bharath

Why should the divorcee wives of the Mullahs should find it difficult to remarry? I think there should be much demand for a Mullah trained ex-wife. My point is why we men are so eagerly presumptuous and overly feministic when talking about or with women. My Ustad Ghalib had committed the same mistake once with dire consequences as evidenced by a couplet of his:

Mein ne chahaa kih bazme naaz chaahie gher se tahi
Sun kar sitam zareef ne mujh ko uthaa dia kih yoon

I think Arab culture is more realistic in dealing with the female gender and is diametrically opposed to the Hindu culture as it has come to be romanticized by Bollywood.

Re: # 112 teshah

The hadith that you have related is authentic and forms the basis of a very important rule in the jurisprudence of blasphemy law. Let me elaborate:


Suppose in an Islamic society the state enforces balsphemy law which stipulates the maximum punishment of death depending upon the seriousness of the crime. In that society it would be a criminal offence to kill a blasphemer. In other words if someone is accused of blasphemy, the only entity that can prosecute that person is the state. His accuser(s) would have to prove their case in the court of law. But having a law in a state does not mean that a crime will not happen e.g. every state in the world have theft as a criminal offence and yet theft happens. Similarly in a state where blasphemy law is in force, it is quite possible that a person might kill a blasphemer in fit of passion. Now according to the Islamic law, if the perpetrator is Muslim, he will be charged with murder. Also according to this law i.e. law of Qisas (Retaliation), the next of kin of a victim has right to either forgive the murderer by taking monetary compensation or without it, or he has right to ask state to execute the murderer. But in this case, when the victim is a blasphemer, his next of kin has no right to exercise his authrity as per law of Qisas (retaliation). In this case, the case would be considered as between murderer vs. state; and not as murderer vs. next of kin of victim.

re: #142 by HisExcellency on April 14, 2006 9:49am PT
>>>>>``Ergo, objective analysis of Muhammad`s personality is simply not possible.``<<<<<

Ok I understand your perspectives. You are saying most of these negative stories are cooked up and/or not-confirmable. RSridhar may come up with specific points and quotes to bullodoze all ur arguments (he does it very well). But the point is the desire of all non-muslims to join together and dig dirt on your Prophet is provoked by the misuse of Islam by the muslims for political ends (among many other things)

Our President Abdul Kalam describes in his autobiography that his mother told him events from the life of the Prophet as bedtime stories. He describes his father getting at 4 am every morning to say namaaz. If such a man like APJ (I am referring to his austerity, dedication, honesty, etc not to his bomb making capacities) could be made with good stories from the life of your Prophet we all should go for it. But the catch is she also told him stories from Ramayana and because of this I have read in Pak news papers and on this board that he is a fake muslim. You can not imagine our disillusionment.

>>>>Even if we manage to filter out the hate propaganda against Muhammad by Christiandom<<<<<

Tell us about hate propaganda! To this day we are ridiculed by both you people and Christians(and most of you converted just few hundred yrs ago). Hindus may have many faults but the the ultimate, MOST DEFINING characteristic is it is impossible for a Hindu to understand/ accept that there is only one way to interpret scriptures, only one story is true, and only one way to reach God, etc.

Barelvi vs Wahabi conflict in Karachi shows that most extreme version of this ONLY ONE WAY approach threatens everybody.


#141 by teshah on April 13, 2006 7:14pm PT
>>>>I think they would be happier to get rid of the Mullahs.
provided they can remarry easily. Can they?

re: bharath

++
Your anger was provoked by the mere suggestion to examine objectively the personality of your prophet
++

Bharath, I am contributing to this analysis, not objecting to it.
An objective analysis of Muhammad`s personality must take the following facts into consideration:

1. The Quran was written down during Muhammad`s life by his companions. But the personal quotes and events of his life were not. They were orally passed down the generations for 120 years after Muhammad`s death.

2. During early Abbasid era, Muslim scholars interviewed thousands of men to collect reports about Muhammad. None of these reports was a first-hand account. Names of places and people, dates and sequence of events were confused.

E.g. People reported that Muhammad married Ayesha some time after the death of his first wife (Khadija). But some said she was the 2nd wife. Others said she was the 3rd. Even her age at time of marriage was reported as 6 or 9 or 14 or 16 or 19 years.

3. The most authentic report (according to Sunnis) of Muhammad`s life was compiled by the Persian scholar Imam Bukhari 250 years after the Prophet`s death. Of the 600,000 reports that he analyzed, he only included 7,275 that he considered genuine in his compilation (i.e. Sahih Bukhari).

Shias consider Usool-e-Kaafi compiled by Abu Jafar al-Razi as the most authentic biography of Muhammad. This compilation was completed 320 years after Muhammad`s death and contains 16,199 reports.

4. The Umayyad caliphs (before Abbasid dynasty) employed poets to make up quotes of Muhammad that would legitimize their rule... and invalidate the Shia opposition. The Shia factions compiled their own ``Muhammad quotes`` to elevate Ali and his clan.

5. Islamic scholars agree that hadith books and Muhammad`s biographies are only inspired accounts, not firsthand exact accounts of his life. The Quran remains the only authentic and unaltered scripture in the Muslim view.

Even if we manage to filter out the hate propaganda against Muhammad by Christiandom, we are unable to discuss his personal life with any certainty because even Muslim historians can`t vouch for 100% accuracy of their accounts.

Ergo, objective analysis of Muhammad`s personality is simply not possible.
But objective analysis of Muhammad`s teachings is possible (i.e. if we make the logical assumption that his teachings were compatible with Quran).

Re: # 106

My question is why Col Jafri presumed that the wives of the Mullahs would feel penalized if divorced. I think they would be happier to get rid of the Mullahs. `Ham hein na`. What do you say Mr. Bharath?

Re: # 138

Kaal
The mirror has two faces.

Killing people in Karachi and Varanasi is also a human sacrifice in the name of religion. I see no difference in that and a stupid family employing a disgusting tantrik. Ignorance and blindness is the reason for this.

Not to be too parochial I can add that killing of Palestinian children by Israeli troops, the murder of X million Anne Franks with the collusion of the church and the Nazis , the murder of Muslims by the Crusaders are all human sacrifices.

I don`t think posts by HisExcellency are gracious. It displays the same unholy glee that all of us indulge in when one side suffers a tragic loss.

That is the sad part here. People crowing over each others tragedies.


You must call a spade a spade.

RSridhar

More recently, the Thugs that the British put down saw the looting and killing of travellers in religious light. Also, human sacrifices were made to Kali in Calcutta (this comes from the accounts of Christian Missionaries, and only Bengalis will know if any, and how much, truth is in that assertion).

Swarrier

Guilty as charged. :)

Hindus must step up to meet the challenge of murderous Tantriks, once and forever. They were the intended audience.

Muslims and Islam became partially relevant only in background, HisExcellency being gracious enough to highlight a real problem for us.

re:#129 by echoboom
Most of the testimonies (from your post) were by people who lived in 18th or 19th century (barring a few like Gandhi).
Those people would be surprised today at the way Islam has evolved. Even if Islam was intolerant in the 18th and 19th century, there was nothing like a global jehad. That concept is very recent.
Sridhar

re: HP`s post
(Human sacrifice and cannibalism were rampant in Vedic Aryan society....)
You are only partly correct.
You need to go much deeper into the lives of Vedic times to know how the society evolved. We are talking about at least 5000 years ago. Society was mostly primitive.
You may read this to know more about Vedic times.
Early Vedic times did have Purushamedha sacrifice that was done at certain auspicious occasions but that does not automatically mean it was rampant.
There were many detractors. Even in the epic Ramayana, sage Viswamitra strongly objects to a king (Ambareesha)sacrificing a young boy (Sunahsepha) in a vedic ritual and saves the boy. Apparently, the concept of sacrifice to please God was a powerful one in many religions as this article from Wikepedia would argue.
(Human sacrifice has been completely absent at all times in mainstream Hinduism, and is severely condemned and seen with utmost horror by all mainstream Hindus. But the absence of any central dogma in Hinduism has allowed some unscrupulous sideline cults to exist. A few Indian tribes like Maraya and Thugs used to also practice human sacrifice. In Hindu narratives, practising human sacrifice and eating human meat was a work of the demons).
Also, some cults (like Shakt, Tantrism) practised it and probably still do but it is outlawed. Hindus have payed some prize for their tolerance in that they had to tolerate even such ``demonic`` things amidst them.
Early Vedic religion slowly evolved to get rid of practices of ritualistic sacrifices, building altars, homa etc and internalized much of the symbolism as this article reveals.
(In the last two periods of the Vedic era, the emphasis from the outer mode of offering shifted towards the internalization of the ritual. The gods and their expressions in the outer form of yajna were found to be in the human body itself. The Upanishads particularly point out that whatever manifests as Divine expression in the external world could be found in the internal world of a practitioner of yajna. Various correspondences were made in order to show that the Divine powers or expressions of divinity were present as potentialities in the human being. This approach was very much consistent with the teachings of the Upanishads.

Yajna evolved to be less ritualistic by a total mental attitude of surrender know as atmarpana, the offering of every action to Atma, the Divine. A systematic practical approach to yajna became yoga with its many forms and a good methodological approach towards the issue of freedom, the liberation in a spiritual sense.)
It would, therefore, be wrong to draw any conclusions from the ancient practices. When we talk of today, we see hinduism as encompassing all tribal, vedic, post-vedic belief system under one umbrella. Hindus do not kill each other because of religious differences. They don`t go about killing people of other religions due to religous differences.
So, my post about your prophet was to remind everyone that the seeds of hatred were sowed early on by the founder himself. To understand it is to get rid of the hatred from your midst and finally come to term with realities.
Sridhar

Re: # 130

Kaal it would help if you would indulge in less verbiage and called a spade a spade. -)

I can interpret your last paragraph in two ways, meant for both Muslims and non-Muslims. Which would you prefer? Or would it be the sword that cuts both ways?

IMHO, there is nothing to be gained by discussing the objects of people`s faith. If the context is right, FAITH in itself, irrespective of its object, can be a useful force.

Aap Rehmat-ul-Aalmeen hain.

amid the din & cacophony of ill-wishers, here is what sounds sweet & provides solace to the heart.


aaya hai bulawa.......

Re: # 129by echoboom on April 13, 2006 9:16am PT

Many scholars pointed out good things about Mohamed, a lot more have documented very bad things about Islam/ Mohamed. What`s ur point?

The following are the reasons non-muslims want to discuss bad things about Mohamed and Islam:

Numero Uno#1
1)Use of violent Islam as a political tool to attain political goals.
i.e waging terrorism in the name of Islam.

2) Demanding and enjoying equal or special rights in countries
where they are minorities, but not giving this to non-muslims
in their own countries.

for a starter how about allowing a Church (not even a temple or Gurudwara) in a remote part of Saudi Arabian desert?

3) Propagating an ideology -supra national loyalty-that completely undermines the concepts of nationhood, concepts of security that Animists, Nativists, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Communists, Hindus and every non-muslim in the world hold dearly- this is the 1 billion Vs 5 billion struggle.

Re: # 129
Hehe we must have touched some raw nerves to bring about that kinda response.
Out here, there are so many ... errr. ...uncomfortable .... facts have been
brought about by so many interactors. But the puki comes up with the ( very puki )
arguement that

---

look so many ppl praised Mo , they must be right, na !

:)

One more thing that I noticed was that there are a lot of HS that have written good things
Mo and company - how come I never see a post showing HI writing good things about
any HS religion.
These stupid HS still don`t get what they are dealing with....

Legend:
HS= h0m0 sapien
HI= h0m0 islamus

HisExcellency

The spectacle of any Hindu killing an innocent child or man while invoking the name of his God is so contrary to the sense of humanity and Indian, that it has no defense. Nor will any educated Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, or Jain advance any justification for this crime because he or she can find none.

Even so, denial cannot be the solution of choice for a people following a broad and dynamic spiritual tradition. Verbal legerdemain and guilt-ridden emotional theatrics cannnot be their way. They must actively work to expose, acknowledge, and put an end to any element of barbarism among their own.

those here with twisted brains & tiny hearts might benefit from this: but only if so Allah wills


Thomas Carlyle in `Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,` 1840

``The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.``
``A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so.``




A. S. Tritton in `Islam,` 1951

The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur`an in the other is quite false.



De Lacy O`Leary in `Islam at the Crossroads,` London, 1923.

History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.



Gibbon in `The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire` 1823

The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.



Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870

``The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force.``
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”




Reverend Bosworth Smith in `Muhammad and Muhammadanism,` London, 1874.

``Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope`s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.``
``In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.``




Edward Montet, `La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,` Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in `The Preaching of Islam,` London 1913.)

``Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur`an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.``



Alphonse de LaMartaine in `Historie de la Turquie,` Paris, 1854.b>

``Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God`s name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.
``If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.

``On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.

``The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it`s utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen... This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.

``Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?``




Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in `Young India,`1924.

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet`s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.



Sir George Bernard Shaw in `The Genuine Islam,` Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.

``If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.``
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.``

``I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”




Michael Hart in `The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In History,` New York, 1978.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the secular and religious level. ...It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. ...It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.



Dr. William Draper in `History of Intellectual Development of Europe`

Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca, in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race... To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.



Arthur Glyn Leonard in `Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values`

It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of Muhammad`s deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true inspiration.



Philip K. Hitti in `History of the Arabs`

Within a brief span of mortal life, Muhammad called forth of unpromising material, a nation, never welded before; in a country that was hitherto but a geographical expression he established a religion which in vast areas suppressed Christianity and Judaism, and laid the basis of an empire that was soon to embrace within its far flung boundaries the fairest provinces the then civilized world.



Rodwell in the Preface to his translation of the Holy Qur`an

Mohammad`s career is a wonderful instance of the force and life that resides in him who possesses an intense faith in God and in the unseen world. He will always be regarded as one of those who have had that influence over the faith, morals and whole earthly life of their fellow men, which none but a really great man ever did, or can exercise; and whose efforts to propagate a great verity will prosper.



W. Montgomery Watt in `Muhammad at Mecca,` Oxford, 1953.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.... Thus, not merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with difficulty.



D. G. Hogarth in `Arabia`

Serious or trivial, his daily behavior has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so minutely. The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.



Washington Irving `Mahomet and His Successors`

He was sober and abstemious in his diet and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected but a result of real disregard for distinction from so trivial a source.
In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints.

His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting a regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonials of respect were shown to him. If he aimed at a universal dominion, it was the dominion of faith; as to the temporal rule which grew up in his hands, as he used it without ostentation, so he took no step to perpetuate it in his family.




James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.

``No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.``
“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word sensing his own inadequacy. But the Angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: ``There is one God``.``

“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God `s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being`.``

“At Muhammad`s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you Worshiped, He lives for ever`.”




Lawrence E. Browne in ‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944

Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.



K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in `Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,` 1989

My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known.

#127 by HisExcellency
I am going to assume (I know very well that I could be wrong here) that you are open minded and willing to learn about Hindu society,and not committed to the unfortunate stuff you read in Pak text books. Don`t retaliate and say we read bad stuff about Pak in India, we read the glory and benevolence of Akbar, and cursory vague comments about Aurangazeb.

I grew up in a town where muslims constitute 15% of population. I grew up listening to prayer calls from Mosque in the next street. My father`s muslim students will bring us Biryani during Ramzan. Since u have just about exterminated the Hindu population in Pak, you don`t have that luxury.

>>>>My references are drawn from scholarly work about Hinduism, its practices and beliefs.

You tend to look at Hinduism the same way you look at Islam. Most Hindus don`t know what are in the Vedas. To ASSUME THAT CRUEL PRACTICES, AND SUPERSITIONS ARE AROUND BECAUSE OF THERE ARE HINDU SCRIPTURES is complete ignorance. There are a million concepts, despite the many common threads each region has its own books, different versions of the same stories, the diversity is astonishing. That`s why your infighting about how to interpret Koran will sound bizaare to all Hindus ( I know this comment from a Kafir may invoke more insults).

If Hinduism is such an open religion why did the society in Indian subcontinent degrade so much? caste system, sutee, all kinds of societal evils. Vigourous propaganda that Islam and Christianity will cure these ills is negated by the fact that there are Muslim castes and
Christian castes praying in separate churches.

>>>>These honor killings happen in spite of Islam, not because of it.
I agree with you, it is possible to have your own good version of religion.

Your anger was provoked by the mere suggestion to examine objectively the personality of your prophet. No ther religionists are as sensitive as you are on this issue.

re: bharath

The maulvis of NWFP are only politicians with beards. I am not talking about Hindu politicians, Shiv Sena or their ilk. My references are drawn from scholarly work about Hinduism, its practices and beliefs.

Can you provide any Quranic verses or precedents from Muhammad`s life when he barred women from participating in public life? Can you provide any references when Muhammad ordained human sacrifice? Can you provide any quote that encourages slave-ownership in Islam?

The truth is that Muhammad`s first wife Khadija was a prominent business woman of Mecca. After her death, he married Ayesha who became acting chief of Mecca whenever Muhammad went to war against his enemies. These examples speak louder than any proclamation of a NWFP maulvi.

Slave ownership was already rampant in Arab society before Muhammad was even born. Muhammad freed a slave (Bilal) and made him the commander-in-chief of the army. Muslims were prohibited from taking more slaves and encouraged to free them or adopt them as family members. These personal examples speak louder than the practices of decadent Turk rulers.

re: bharath

++
Paki honor killings extensively reported in South Asian and international media
++

There is a difference. None of these killings are ordained by religion. Most Muslims consider the era of Prophet Muhammad followed by his comrades Abu Bakr, Usman, Umar and Ali as the finest era of Islam. Yet there is no precedent of honour killings in this era.

These honor killings happen in spite of Islam, not because of it.

re: sridhar

++
The bigger question is:was Mohammed being ignorant when he married Ayesha who was just 14 and he was more than 50 years old?
++

There are even bigger questions here than the one you posted:

1. Why is it that only one man (Hisham bin Urwah) mentioned Ayesha`s age? Hisham was a teacher yet none of his pupils confirmed this report. There were thousands of Medinites and Meccans who personally knew Muhammad, yet none of them reported Ayesha`s age.

The very fact that this narrative is not confirmed by at least 2 or 3 sources means that it is factually incorrect. Ayesha was not a minor when Muhammad married her. 50-year old men are allowed to marry younger adult women in every culture

2. Hisham was 80 year old when he reported Ayesha`s age. But Hisham learnt about it from his father. Once again the chain of authenticity is weak. Can 80-year old men remember exactly what their dads told them decades ago?

3. Why do non-Muslims rely on unauthentic and disputed narratives to attack Muhammad? Perhaps they realize that they can`t find fault with Muhammad if they relied on authentic scholarly work.

re: sridhar

++
What has ignorance got to do with religion?
++

Depends on which religion you are talking about.
You will not find any precedents or commandments about Puru-shamedha (human sacrifice) and Sattee in the Quran. The Vedas are different.

Human sacrifice and cannibalism were rampant in Vedic Aryan society. This is evident from the mass graves containing human bones found in Kaushambi. It was the Buddhists who abolished this practice. But when Hinduism revived, human sacrifice and cannibalistic rituals were restored.

Here is what the learned Professor R.C. Majumdar wrote in his book ``Ancient India`` about the Hindu ritual of human sacrifice:

``The Purushamedha (human sacrifice) was a ritual in which a human being was sacrificed instead of a horse as in the Asvamedha. The ceremonies performed were very similar in the two cases. Just as the horse was let loose for about a year, the human victim was allowed to enjoy himself for the same period, during which all his wishes were satisfied. The Hindu queen copulated with the dead human corpse in the Purushamedha, exactly as she did with the dead horse in the Asvamedha sacrifice. (See also Brihad- Aranyaka Upanishad 1.3.22; 3.9.8-9. Chandogya Upanishad 1.2.10-12 and 6.8.1).``

Enlightening, isn`t it?

#105 ahmadzai sahib jii

I apologize if, by any chance I offended your ideology. I just read your i-log and again sorry , I am posting this i-log here with out your permission as it is addressed towards me.

ahmadzai sahib

I will reply with pushto/english and urdu mixed.

Zamma point of view is same as sttaa. Remember I said if, pompous shows are harmless and benign. If, they are harmful like you stated in your i-log, then I will be the first one to oppose them. Yes, as
Khushal Khan Khattak said,``
``Za da hagha shazalmo zine zaregam

Che ranisee da asmaan stoori pa las

take care {{{Khudaa paaimaan theiy kanaa}}} and derra derra merbani for your i-log.

PS:-Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. At the end no hard feelings.

In the Michael Hart`s book Mohandas Gandhi finds honorable mention and but the list does contain Hitler. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806513500/ref=sr_11_1/104-2962536-1359106?%5Fencoding=UTF8

ISBN: 0806513500

#82 by pmishra2

If you think indians had anything to do with blowing up worshippers anywhere, you are much crazier than I thought you were.

Mishra Sahib, I always used to think Ostriches were found only in Africa until I came across Ahmadzai. Now I know a few are found in Pakistan too.

#88 by Zeena
Singhaii, pakhair raghalay. Tolla musliman tha kana, stara mushay?(Sorry for my broken roman Pushto)

Zeena. Correction. Ahmed Zai are not pushto speaking. They are Urdu speaking. Sorry.

#95 by rsridhar: That is why he married 14 year old Ayesha when she had not attained her puberty.
#113 by rsridhar:The bigger question is: was Mohammed being ignorant when he married Ayesha who was just 14 and he was more than 50 years old? He should have known that this was an abuse.

Guys. First make up your minds what puberty is. What is the age of onset of menstruation? I think it is 13. Re the age difference, it was neither then nor now a taboo at all. If Ayesha had been abused, don`t forget that it was the same abused innocent child who raised and personally led an army of forty thousand men into fierce battle against no less an opponent than Ali, and almost defeated him. As for rsiridhar`s bigger question, Muhammad was not being ignorant at all. He obviously saw something in Ayesha which was later proven in her being his closest companion and advisor.

#114 by bharath Re: # 113

Thanks for the posting on the flight transcript, it is both stunning and digusting.

Sure it is all that and more. Most disgusting feature of this transcript is that it is a complete fabrication. I have myself seen an Indian minister say on TV in a panel discussion that this flight was shot down ... of-course immediately corrected by the moderator that it was actually crashed by hijackers. The minister just nodded with a wry smile.

They were only visitors, abusing the good faith of the Kafirs.

Sure. They were only visitors partaking of the good faith of the kafirs to get piddly Cessna training, which they could have got even in Multan or Peshawar or a dozen other places in Pakistan or perhaps even Aghanistan.

The mysteries of 9/11 will perhaps never be known. So let`s not get presumptuous.

Re: # 118
> MAJ (pbuh)

that was neat ... also kindly do not use the short form of the blessing. You shud write
MAJ(peace be upon him). Reason is that there are 2 variations of pbuh. The other one that I
use is ``piss be upon him/her``

:)

Re: 102 HE Sahib

(This is the kind of ignorance and evil that polytheistic religions can spawn in society...

Horror of India`s child sacrifice )


Religion makes people do funny things… Kill children, fly planes into skyscrapers. It may interest you that many tantriks in UP are Muslims, don’t ask me whether they are Deobandi or not.

Re: 96 Doc,

(We look forward to the day when India will have common borders with Afghanistan. )

Why do you want to visit such a calamity upon us poor Hanuds. Why do you want to undo what the good lord MAJ (pbuh) did. Just imagine if India had not been divided USA would have been bombing Indian border villages and we would have been impotently watching on, like the Pakis are doing now.

Regards

Re: # 43

The following Qawali is being repeatedly voiced on the PTV these days:

``Shah e Madinah Bathaa ke waali Saare Nabi tere DAR ke sawaali``

(O King of Madinah and Lord of Batha, all the prophets are beggars at your door)

How would it look if presented in graphics? What would have happened if the believers in other prophets were serious about blasphemy against their prophets or bigotted about their religion? Any how is it not against what the Holy Quran ordains ``Do not discriminate among the various prophets``?

re: Stories of Mohammed, the all merciful
This is the story of Mohammad, the all merciful as narrated by James Arlandson.

The peaceful non-assassinations of mockers

In their replies to the uproar over satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslim spokespersons who have access to the national media have recently withheld some valuable but unpleasant information about early Islam. Killing those who ridicule Muhammad is in the Quran.

On national television, Feb 2, 2006, Ibrahim Hooper, a leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), spoke only of the forgiveness and kindness of his prophet.



HOOPER: Let me tell you how the Prophet Muhammad responded to attacks on himself.

There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn’t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness. (Source)



On February 8, 2006, Amir Taheri, a reputable journalist who often explains Islam to the West, used the absolutist word “never” in the context of chopping off the heads of satirists during Islam’s founding.



The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. (Source)



On February 9, 2006, a journalist for al-Jazeera, Abderrahim Foukara, appeared on the Charlie Rose Show saying about the same thing. After Muhammad conquered Mecca “peacefully” (in early AD 630), he forgave a satirical poet. Never mind that twenty-eight Meccans died in the “peaceful” conquest, after their city—weakened by eight years of Muslim raids on Meccan trade—was surrounded by 10,000 jihadists. [1]


In truth, however, while Muhammad forgave a poet and a singing girl right after his conquest of Mecca, he killed satirical poets more often than he forgave. Muhammad violently created a dead poets society of his own. He also killed non-poetic or ordinary mockers, and he used a poet to mock a tribe of Jews just before their conquest, slaughter, and enslavement.


These spokesmen for Islam presented only peaceful aspects. This is not full disclosure. This is wrong. The truth about all of Islam must be publicized, if we want to understand this religion fully. This article is intended to balance out the picture of Islam from the one that these spokespersons have presented.



The assassination of satirical poets


Once Muhammad reached Medina in AD 622 and gradually grew in military power, his tone and outlook changed. The following murders occur after the Hijrah.



(1) March 624: Al-Nadr bin al-Harith



Before Muhammad’s Hijrah, he used to sit in the assembly and invite the Meccans to Allah, citing the Quran and warning them of God’s punishment for mocking his prophets. A Meccan named Al-Nadr bin al-Harith would then follow him and speak about heroes and kings of Persia, saying, “By God, Muhammad cannot tell a better story than I, and his talk is only of old fables which he has copied as I have.” On other days al-Nadr would interrupt Muhammad until the prophet silenced him.



It was Nadr’s bad fortune to join Mecca’s army, riding north to protect their caravan, which Muhammad attacked at the Battle of Badr in AD 624. It pitted about 320 Muslims against about 1,000 Meccans, near the north-south trade route following the Red Sea. The story-telling polytheist was captured, and on Muhammad’s return journey back to Medina, Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, at Muhammad’s order, beheaded him, instead of getting some possible ransom money. He was one of two prisoners who were executed and not allowed to be ransomed by their clans—all because he harassed Muhammad and wrote poems and told stories critiquing him. [2]



(2) March 624: Uqbah bin Abu Muayt



A similar story as that of Nadr can be told about Uqba bin Abu Muayt. He too harassed and mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He too was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” Uqba cried with anguish. “Hell,” retorted the Prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.


After the prophet’s victory at Badr, he was not always magnanimous. This passage finds him mocking the enemy dead in the middle of the night, as their bodies lie motionless in a pit:



. . . The apostle’s companions heard him saying in the middle of the night, “O people of the pit: O Utbah, O Shayba, O Ummayya, O Abu Jahl,” enumerating all who had been thrown in the pit, “Have you found what God promises you is true? I have found that what my Lord promised me is true.” The Muslims said, “Are you calling to dead bodies?” He answered: “you cannot hear what I say better than they, but they cannot answer me. [3]

The reliable hadith collector and editor Bukhari confirms Ibn Ishaq’s account.


These were the battles of Allah’s Apostle (which he fought), and while mentioning (the Badr battle) he said, “While the corpses of the pagans were being thrown into the well, Allah’s Apostle said (to them), ‘Have you found what your Lord promised true?” ‘Abdullah said, “Some of the Prophet’s companions said, “O Allah’s Apostle! You are addressing dead people.’ Allah’s Apostle replied, ‘You do not hear what I am saying, better than they.’ (Bukhari )



In this tradition the prophet is shown taunting the dead in a well, not a pit, and he seems to have done this in broad daylight. Maybe these are two different episodes in Ibn Ishaq and Bukhari; regardless, they convey the same unpleasant message. [4]



(3) March 624: Asma bint Marwan


She was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans. She composed a poem blaming them for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. Perhaps in March 624, when the Allah-inspired Prophet heard what she had said, he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep. [5]

(4) September 624: Kab bin al-Ashraf

Kab b. al-Ashraf had a mixed ancestry. His father came from a nomadic Arab tribe, but his mother was a Jew from the powerful al-Nadir tribe in Medina. He lived as a member of his mother’s tribe. He heard about the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, and he was disgusted, for he thought Muhammad the newcomer to Medina was a trouble-maker and divisive. Kab had the gift of poetry, and after the Battle of Badr he traveled down to Mecca, apparently stopping by Badr, witnessing the aftermath. Arriving in Mecca, he wrote a widely circulated poem, a hostile lament, over the dead of Mecca.



Angered by the poems and now able to strike back after the Battle of Badr, Muhammad had had enough. He asked, “Who would rid me of [Kab]?” Five Muslims volunteered, one of whom was Kab’s foster-brother named Abu Naila. They informed him, “O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.” He answered, “Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.”



After deceitfully gaining Kab’s trust over time, a Muslim yelled to the four other murderers, “Smite the enemy of God!” Though outnumbered, Kab mounted a strong defense, so their swords were ineffective. Finally, one of the conspirators remembered his dagger, stabbed Kab in the belly, and then bore it down until it reached his genitals, killing him.



They made it back to Muhammad. They saluted the prophet as he stood praying, and he came out to them. They told him that the mission was accomplished. Early Muslim historian Tabari (d. 923) reports that the five Muslim thugs severed Kab’s head and brought it to Muhammad. [6]



(5) July-August 625: A one-eyed, unnamed Bedouin


In revenge for an ambush on some Muslim missionaries, Muhammad sent Amr bin Umayya and a companion to assassinate Abu Sufyan, a leader of the Meccans. This shows that the Prophet could get caught up in the cycle of violence that went on endlessly in seventh-century Arab culture. Umayyah failed in his attempt, and he had to flee under pursuit, hiding in a cave, murdering a man named Ibn Malik along the way. As the pursuit was dying down, a tall, one-eyed, unnamed Bedouin entered the cave, driving some sheep. Umayyah and the Bedouin introduced each other. After they settled down, the shepherd sang a simple two-line song in defiance of Muslims and Islam.



Unfortunately for this Bedouin, he was in the cave with a radical Muslim, who said: “You will soon see!” The Bedouin fell asleep, snoring. Umayyah recounts what he did: . . . “I went to him and killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever been killed. I leaned over him, stuck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out of the back of his neck.” He fled back to Muhammad, who said, “Well done!” The account ends: The prophet “prayed for me [Umayyah] to be blessed.” [7]



(6) After January 630: One singing-girl


After Muhammad conquered Mecca in early AD 630, a conquest that saw some bloodshed of twenty-eight Meccans, he showed amnesty to the newly conquered. But on the list of those excluded from amnesty was not only Abdullah b. Katal, collector of legal alms, who had killed his slave for incompetence, apostatized from Islam, and took the money back to Mecca. But his two singing-girls who sang satirical verses about Muhammad, which Abdullah had composed, were also excluded from the list. He was killed, even though he was clinging to the curtain of the Kabah shrine. And one of the girls was killed, but the other ran away until she asked for pardon from Muhammad, who forgave her. [8]



(7) After February 630: close call for Kab bin Zuhayr

Confident with the victory over Mecca, Muhammad returned to Medina a hero and firmly in charge of the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula. In this context Muhammad nearly murdered another poet who satirized Muhammad and Muslims, Kab bin Zuhayr (here called Zuhayr to distinguish him from Kab bin al-Ashraf, above, no. 4). Zuhayr’s brother wrote him that Muhammad had killed a number of satirical poets during his conquest of Mecca, but that the Prophet would forgive a poet who came to him in repentance, which really meant becoming a Muslim. His brother told him that the poets who were left had fled in all directions.



“If you have any use for your life, then come to the apostle quickly, for he does not kill anyone who comes to him in repentance,” wrote the brother, continuing: “if you do not do that, then get to a safe place.”



Finding no way out, Zuhayr wrote a letter extolling Muhammad. Soon afterwards, he traveled up to Medina to ask for security as a Muslim. Muhammad was saying his morning prayers, and a friend took Zuhayr into Muhammad’s presence. “Would you accept him as such if he came to you?” his friend asked. The Prophet said he would.



As Zuhayr came into the Prophet’s presence, one of the Ansars (helpers or native Medinans who helped Muhammad after his Hijrah) leaped upon Zuhayr and asked Muhammad if he could behead the enemy of God, for some of Zuhayr’s verses mocked the Ansars, too. The apostle said to leave him alone, for Zuhayr was breaking free from his past. The implication is clear: if Muhammad had caught Zuhayr before his repentance, Muhammad would have allowed him to be beheaded. Either he converts or he dies—for writing derogatory poetry.



What is remarkable about the anecdote is how the morning prayer provides the setting for a Muslim leaping on a poet and threatening to cut his head off, as if this is an ordinary day and act. [9]



Murder of ordinary mockers

Two examples of murder demonstrate that Muhammad did not like mockery even by non-poets. Any ole insulter is vulnerable in original Islam.



(1) A blind man murders his slave-wife



Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:



A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet . . . and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling, the man stood up.



He sat before the Prophet . . . and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.



Thereupon the Prophet . . . said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. [10]


The last line of this hadith shows Muhammad not allowing even blood-wit (compensation for bloodshed) to be paid on her behalf. Apparently, she was worth nothing, even though she bore the blind man two sons.



(2) An unnamed man strangles an unnamed Jewish woman.

Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib:



A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet . . . and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah . . . declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. (Abu Dawud)



This hadith communicates that a Jewish woman is worth nothing. In early Islamic sources, Jews too often appear as extra-bad. Who was killed? Who is a murderer? A Jew?



That’s no big deal. Of course. That’s to be expected. So what else is new?



Is it any wonder why so many Muslims who are educated in their source documents hate Jews? How can Muhammad and his sacred texts tell them to stop?



Regardless, in both murder cases, no one was arrested or executed, like-for-like. No one was even scolded. The murderers were let go on the grounds that insulting the Prophet deserves death. The translator of Abu Dawud informs us that all Jews or any non-Muslims who insult the Prophet should also be killed (vol. 3, note 3800).



Muhammad uses a satirical poet



Muhammad is fresh off a victory against a coalition of 10,000 Meccans and their allies in AD 627. After they depart, the last remaining major tribe of Jews, the Qurayza, is left alone, without allies. During Muhammad’s twenty-five-day siege of this tribe, which resulted in the slaughter of the men and pubescent boys and the wholesale enslavement of the women and children, he employed a poet to abuse them.



The Prophet said to Hassan, “Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).” (Through another group of sub-narrators) Al-Bara bin Azib said, “On the day of Quraiza’s (besiege), Allah’s Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, ‘Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).’” (Bukhari)



This shows how valued poetry was in seventh-century Arabia. In the absence of mass media, gathering around and listening to poets was an opportunity to persuade, smear, mock, praise, and otherwise influence large numbers. Now that Muhammad has the power, he employed a satirical poet without fear of reprisal. In fact, he refers to the Jews as brothers of monkeys, citing a legend that he believed, namely, that God turned some disobedient Jews into apes. (see also Ibn Ishaq pp. 461-62).



Conclusion



While it is true that Muhammad forgave a satirical poet and a singing girl (see no. 7 in “Assassination of satirical poets,” above), he murdered more than he forgave. Omitting the violent episodes in the Prophet’s life, the spokespersons for Islam act irresponsibly in their television appearances. Possibly their strategy is to make Islam and its Prophet seem only peaceful and loving, perhaps so that the uninformed may be drawn to this religion or at least not be turned off by it.



However, aggressive Islam is on the march. The riots over the cartoons are only one symptom. The stakes are high. Thus, the peaceful spokespersons’ partial presentation of Islam is misleading at best and dangerous at worse. When or if Islam gets a foothold in a region on the basis of “peace and love,” what happens when the hard line and traditional (not to mention nonviolent and violent fanatics) Muslims come to the region later and impose all sorts of violent laws and policies and practices in the Quran and hadith? Honesty demands full historical and scriptural disclosure, even if it hurts.



James M. Arlandson can be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com.



Endnotes:



[1] Go here for more information, and scroll down to no. 3, looking for a critique of Karen Armstrong. The transcript is available by purchase only. Here is a video clip of the discussion between Foukara, Rose, and others.

[2] Source: Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, (trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, 2004), pp. 136, 163, 181, 262, 308. Reputable historians today consider Ibn Ishaq to be a reliable source of early Islam, though they may disagree on his chronology and miraculous elements.

[3] Ibn Ishaq, p. 306

[4] Bukhari, Spoils of War (online source); Muslim nos. 4421, 4422, and 4424; These are parallels in Bukhari about taunting the dead: here and here. Ibn Ishaq, pp. 306-08. Muslim is also a reliable collector and editor of the hadith (records of the words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran).

[5] Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-76.

[6] Bukhari, Military Expeditions (online sources: here; see also the one below); this one and this one show Muhammad giving permission to his assassin to say anything, i.e. lie; Muslim no. 4436 ; Ibn Ishaq pp. 364-69 ; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. 7, (trans. by M.V. McDonald and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt, SUNYP, 1987), pp. 94-98. Reputable historians today consider Tabari to be a reliable source of data on early Islam, though they may not agree on his chronology or miraculous elements.

[7] Tabari, vol. 7, pp. 149-50; A later editor incorporated some of Tabari’s account into Ibn Ishaq’s biography, pp. 674-75.

[8] Bukhari, Military Expeditions, (Online source) ; Ibn Ishaq, pp. 550-51.

[9] Ibn Ishaq, pp. 597-602. Some Muslim polemicists consider him to be unreliable mostly because he preserves so many traditions that portray Muhammad as violent. But here the prophet is forgiving, so now Ibn Ishaq’s reliability cannot be doubted.

[10] Abu Dawud no. 4348 (he is another reliable hadith collector and editor)
Sridhar

#63 by Mantolives,

Thanks, so he was just one amongst the 100 most influential people, not THE most like you asserted. So, even by that one Michael Hart`s opinion he is only one of the 100 thus far.

So, why is that almost every muslim expects the same kind of respect, awe and admiration for Mohammed from non-muslims? What we hear from Muslims about Mohammed is a white-washed rendition of what must have happened in Arabia in the 7th century. Most Muslims are like teenagers coming out of a cinema so completely in awe with their favorite actor/actress in it. They strongly believe nothing can be wrong about that man, which is fine as long as you don`t deny the right of non-muslims to question that, or make fun of him.

Re: # 113

Thanks for the posting on the flight transcript, it is both stunning and digusting.

``These perpetrators, unlike the villagers indulging in child sacrifice, were educated people settled in US``
They were only visitors, abusing the good faith of the Kafirs.

re:#102 by HisExcellency
What has ignorance got to do with religion?
You can be an atheist and still be ignorant.
If the people who indulged in child sacrifice did it out of ignorance, then how does it matter whether they invoked God or not.
The bigger question is:
was Mohammed being ignorant when he married Ayesha who was just 14 and he was more than 50 years old?
He should have known that this was an abuse.
Even conceding the fact that Md lived in primitive times, what about present time.
Transcripts of what happened during the final hours of the illfated flight93 that was hijacked by muslim terrorists has been released and can be read at:
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/flight93transcript.pdf
The flight ends with cries from the terrorists interspersed with cries of victims.
A sample:
09:33:34 In the name of Allah, the most merciful, most compassionate
09:45:57 In the name of Allah. In the name of Allah. I bear witness that there is no other God but Allah
09:58:33 Let us go guys. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Oh, guys. Allah is greatest
09:58:44 Oh allah, Oh allah, the most gracious.
And, so it goes on till the end.
Hapless victims of the flight struggling against evil forces who constantly evoked allah`s name to glorify their heinous act.
These perpetrators, unlike the villagers indulging in child sacrifice, were educated people settled in US.
What kind of sick religion would glorify God while killing innocent people?
Sridhar

Re: # 42

urstruly

And what about the dreaded blasphemy law and the lynchings for blasphemy prompted perhaps by the following Hadees:

``Sunnan Abu-Dawud
Book 38, Number 4348:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother (A slave-woman bearing children but not treated as a wife) who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.``

Meanwhile in Holy Land, the celebration of birth of the HOLLY PROPET (Beace P Up Him),the peaceful, merciful continues:

FACTBOX-Militancy in Pakistan
Wed 12 Apr 2006

April 12 (Reuters) - At least 57 people were killed in a suicide attack on a Sunni Muslim prayer meeting in the southern city of Karachi on Tuesday, the latest religious violence in Pakistan.

No one claimed responsibility for the attack but Karachi, Pakistan`s commercial capital, has been a hotbed of sectarian, ethnic and political violence for decades.

Here are few facts about religious strife in Pakistan.

* The vast majority of Pakistanis are Muslim and follow the two major sects of Islam -- Sunni and Shi`ite.

* Most Pakistanis are Sunnis -- who regard Abu Bakr, one of the companions of Prophet Mohammad, as his successor. Shi`ites, who account for 15 percent of Pakistan`s 150 million people, revere Ali, a cousin and son-in-law of Mohammad, as his successor.

* Sunnis in Pakistan have two major sub-sects -- Barelvi and Deobandi. The dominant Barelvis believe in liberal interpretation of Islam, venerate sufism and mysticism and fervently celebrate religious events, such as the Prophet Mohammad`s birthday. Deobandis follow a strict interpretation of Islam and abhor sufism and mysticism.

* There is a also a small group of Sunni Muslims known as Ahl-e-Hadith who do not consider themselves bound by any school of law and is based on Wahabism, the austere brand of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia.

* Most of the militant groups in Pakistan adhere to the Deobandi school of thought and their extremist members consider Barelvis and Shi`ites as heretical. There are also small Shi`ite militant groups which have been involved in sectarian attacks with Sunni militants. Sunni militant groups have also been involved in fighting in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

* Some Sunni Muslim militant groups forged ties with al Qaeda and have been blamed for most of the attacks on religious minorities, Western targets and government officials. The groups are angry about President Pervez Musharraf`s support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

* Karachi has also seen violence between the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, an ethnic group representing Urdu-speaking migrants from India and other ethnic communities in the past. Militants fighting for more autonomy and benefits from exploration of natural resources in neighbouring Baluchistan province have also carried their fight to the streets of Karachi.







© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Re: # 109
Boss, since they have had their fill of gentleness, I think they put a stop to any more gentle
beings coming around for all times to come.
Somebody mentioned that most of Arabia turned apostate as soon as Mo died... must have
been very gentle persuasion to get them back into the fold :)

May Islam get many more like the gentle Muhammad to lead their people.

Amen.

You Lie with such conviction or shamlessness!

Why do his followers behave like a goonda`s henchmen who threaten everyone with physical harm if their boss is not shown respect?

ALL other religious heads are respected by non followers except Mohmad. WHY?

I suggest you visit FAITHFREEDOM.ORG

to find the truth....and tell there how gentle mohmad was

re: HisExcellency # 102

That`s some ghoulish shit!!

Re: # 104

HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW MUCH ENLIGHTENMENT MONOTHEISM CAN CAUSE:
(Col Jafri is not sure if this is in true Islamic spirit, the problem is it probably is in ``true
Islamic spirit``)


Why Penalize the Wives?
By Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd.)
Rawalpindi, Pakistan


A dangerously strange verdict was given by a maulvi of the NWFP assembly who observed that all those legislators who had not voted in line with the party dictates in the recently held elections for the Senators must divorce their wives! I simply fail to understand what is the fault of the poor wives if their husbands did not tow the party line and why must they (wives) be punished for the crime of their husbands?

I admit my inadequacy in such Fiqahi matters and would request the Federal Shariat Court to intervene if the verdict is not in the true Islamic spirit, before an irreparable harm is done to some innocent lady.

Zeena khoray:

khudai de mal sha, khushala awo abada ossay.

I have one big problem with Pakistanis attending such outwardly pompous shows. Where is the net result, matalab kho da dey chay where do all the teachings and narrating all those personal traits of our Holy Prophet (saww) show in us?

I hope it had showed in the women who were attending the Milad in that Masjid. When they heard cries of one poor lady, all of them should have brought in the discipline they must have learnt from the mehfil-e-milad immediately into action. Or was it that they thought that they would run out of time for catching one of those bogus Indian plays on Z-TV?

Similarly, if love of the Prophet had been an influencing factor then, the “loving Brailvi Muslims” should not have burnt the Fire Engine nor burnt the personal property.

As a student in the USA, I was once hearing a Christian priest who was telling the weak points of Muslims to his students in order to find opportunities to bring them to Christianity. I was most impressed by one of his points. He said that the Muslims don’t have any concept of character development. They are aware of sin not by the very evil in it, but because what they think the others would say about them if they indulge in it i.e. they are more people conscious than God conscious.

As an example, a Muslim would not go gambling in a Muslim country because gambling is not permitted in the religion, but because if caught what would relatives say. I don’t think Mehfil-e-Milad or Jalsas for the Nabi prepare us character wise.

Another thing – Pakistan is bursting at seams with population. It is not like you will have to make arrangements for a hundred people and every thing will work out fine. In order to have such religious gatherings you have to provide for all required facilities for many thousands of people nowadays. Pakistani infrastructure and training of the organizers just don’t support these pompous shows.

Lastly, I would like to refer to an article published in Dawn few months ago. The article had said that Pakistani newspapers, magazines, TV shows are replete with religious articles and programs that are interactive. Increasingly, Pakistanis are reverting to self proclaimed aamils, astrologers, card readers, palmists and religious healers working through Quranic verses and jinns for getting their problems solved. The article attributed this to lack of education and failure to recognize that problems are our own creations and we are the best people to solve them, of course with prayers to Allah.

In conclusion, I will only say that Pakistani Muslims need to pray a lot, perhaps in small gatherings, emphasize more on character development rather than gaudy show off, and strive to get some leadership positions in the secular world also.

As regards your culminating points regarding Islam and Musalmans, I would like to produce here a verse from a short poem that my wife read in a class last night (its easy enough to understand because it has too many urdu words):

sa dey da deeni tafreeq?

zaka chay sunni ham musalman da awo shia ham musalman da
moong asal maqsad da dunya ke da haq da para kaar da

(Translation 2nd verse: our real objective in this world is to work for the right of our people)

Khpal awo khplyano khyal awo Allah pa aman


P.S. It seems that you have lived in Pakhtun territory :)

Re: # 95

The age of Ayesha has been extensively investigated - the conclsive evidence points to the fact ( as documented by Muslim historians) that she had not attained puberty when Mohamed`s eyes fell on her. He waited until she attained menarche to have intercourse with her.

re:#102 by HisExcellency >>>>This is the kind of ignorance and evil that polytheistic religions can spawn in society... Horror of India`s child sacrifice

And your conclusion is this because of polytheism? Once they become monotheistic everything will be hunky dory?

Do any of the following prove that Islam is a bad religion or a good religion?:
Talibani beatings of women televised in international media, Paki honor killings extensively reported in South Asian and international media, female genital mutilation done in Egypt, Somalia and Saudi Arabia?

re:#103
>>>>>A cartoon lampooning a man who died 14 centuries before the terrorist attack in NYC is an expression of bigotry and prejudice.

People born into western Christian societies have taken movies depicting Christ badly, have shown ``art`` exhibitions insulting Mary. Compared to this cartoons were nothing, just jokes. After all historical Jesus was a true gentleman; did not indulge in Pedophilia, did not take sex slaves, did not butcher people with swords, etc.

re: chaltahai

++
You know the saying ``a picture says a thousand words``...well a danish newspaper illustration might be more appropriate.
++

A cartoon lampooning the terrorist who blew up innocent people in New York is an expression of freedom. A cartoon lampooning a man who died 14 centuries before the terrorist attack in NYC is an expression of bigotry and prejudice.

So yes, a cartoon does say a thousands words. But about the cartoonist, not the subject.

Shahriar,

This is the kind of ignorance and evil that polytheistic religions can spawn in society...

Horror of India`s child sacrifice

In India`s remote northern villages it feels as if little has changed. The communities remain forgotten and woefully undeveloped, with low literacy and abject poverty.

They are conditions that for decades have bred superstition and a deep-rooted belief in the occult. The village of Barha in the state of Uttar Pradesh is only a three-hour car drive from the capital Delhi. Yet here evil medieval practices have made their ugly presence known.

Lured with sweets

I was led by locals to a house that is kept under lock and key. They refuse to enter it. Peering through the window bars you can see the eerie dark room inside, with peeling posters of Hindu gods adorning the walls and bundles of discarded bed clothes.

In one corner is the evidence we had come to find: blood-splattered walls and stained bricks. It is the place where a little boy`s life was ritually sacrificed.

Those who tortured and killed Akash Singh did so in a depraved belief - that the boy`s death would offer them a better life.

``The woman who did this was crazed,`` the villagers say. ``Akash was friends with all our children... We still cannot believe what happened here.``

Akash`s distraught mother discovered her son`s mutilated body. The family was told he was lured away with sweets and begged his captors to set him free.

``First they cut out his tongue,`` his grandmother Harpyari told me. ``Then they cut off his nose, then his ears. They chopped off his fingers. They killed him slowly.``

The woman who abducted Akash lived just a few doors away. She claimed to be suffering from terrible nightmares and visions. It was then she turned for guidance to a tantric, or holy man. It was under his instruction that she brutally sacrificed the boy - offering his blood and remains to the Hindu goddess of destruction.

There are temples across India that are devoted to the goddess. Childless couples, the impoverished and sick visit to pray that she can cure them.

We were met with a hostile reception at the temple in Meerut. The high priest did not want us to see the ritual slaughter. Tantrics like him clearly have an overwhelming grip on their followers. Often they are profiting from people`s fears. In extreme cases others have instructed their followers to kill.

Raju is a journalist for the Hindustan Times and has been reporting on child sacrifice cases since 1997 in western Uttar Pradesh. He has reported on 38 similar cases.

In one incident he says a tantric told a young man that if he hanged and killed a small boy and lit a fire at his feet the smoke from the ritual could be used to lure the pretty village girl he had his eye on.

He has been campaigning for a crackdown on the practice of tantrics, alarmed at what he has seen. ``The masses need to be educated and dissuaded from following these men,`` he said. ``They play on people`s fears and superstitions - it is crazy.``

We visited the jail where those accused of murdering Akash were being held. The prison warden told us of over 200 cases of child sacrifice in these parts over the last seven years. He admitted many of the cases go unreported because the police are reluctant to tarnish the image of their state. He told us incidents of child sacrifice are often covered up.

Many of those killers are behind bars - but, chillingly, others poisoned by the same sinister beliefs remain at large.

Re: # 95

I would like to answer your two questions.

1. You say that Hazrath Ayesha (rz) was 14 years old when prophet Mohammed (pbuh)
married her. Some others have said that she was 6 years old. The fact is that she
was 18 years old.

2. You ask: Why all this love for one man, what did he do that was so worthy of enchanting so many. The simple answer will be: You have to be a muslim to feel it. I am not trying to convert you. Here is my answer: After Allah (swt), the one person who is respected and adored is prophet Mohammed (pbuh). Allah (swt) Himself says: Obeying prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is equivalent to obeying Me.

Let me repeat what I said in my other post on this board that the cause for the creation
of the Universe is Prophet Mohammed (pbuh).

Finally let me tell you a short story about prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and one of his
enemies Abu Jehal. Abu Jehal had some pebbles in one of his hands and closed his hand,
asked the prophet (pbuh) to tell him what he had in his hand. The pebbles started
saying in arabic: There is no God but Allah (swt) and Mohammed (pbuh) is His messenger.