The Reality of the Looking Glass: Seeing Muhammad

shehryar

All praise be to Allah! But they say :

``Ba khuda deewana baashad ba Mohammad hoshiyaar`` (You can be wild while talking about God, but be careful when talking about Mohammad) as there is law of blasphemy in Pakistan based on some Hadees which can be interpreted to allow any body to lynch any body who dares to say anything against the prophet and none to protect Allah from any criticism. There are heaps of literature spread over the centuries. You can choose whatever you like if you want to lynch somebody for blasphemy without even having a resort to the dreaded Law of Blasphemy.

5 stars Mr. Shahriar!

I was just waiting for someone to chalk up an article like this on chowk!

However, I would have liked it better if you had provided some more examples of gentleness from the Prophet`s (PBUH) life ... after all, its littered with them.

#28 bharath

Well, I was aware that any attempt to ask questions would probably be met with threats and contempt. This is an unfortunate aspect of islam that we must live with and sometimes confront forcefully.

But I enjoyed your answer. Many aspects of hindu (and indic) traditions also involve this type of unconditional love for ram or krishna. So in this way, a hindu can come to understand the feeling expressed in the essay above.

#21 Urstruly

I have never suggested that mohammed is pure evil or any such nonsense. I have just asked for ONE example of something that an individual might find less than perfect about his behavior. No one seems to be able to answer, so I will move on. I think the bharath has actually given the right answer: this is bhakti-marg type of thinking which does not allow for imperfection in the divine form.

Re: # 32

There were only two human beings in this world, who were perfect, without making any
mistake, one of them was prophet Mohammed (pbuh).

Re: # 32
You r welcome. I was trying to have a dignified conversation until I was dampened by
post#27. Wiseguyin`s #31 is funny and appropriate response.

There are Muslims who are good people, who have luv and respect for Mohamed at
the same time show dignity to non-muslims. I am sure you and me have encountered
such muslims in India. But collectively as societies... my goodness...

Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, animists mind their own business.
While they have their weird stories about earth is 6000 yrs old, throwing stones, kissing stones, etc. Only Christians and Muslims have this urge that theirs is the rational religion, superior religion, etc; at best they can tolerate others.

Going back to Bakthi Yoga...there are other problems with Bakhthi towards Mohamed...
for example historical Jesus and Buddha were gentlemen, genuinely peaceful people. This is not something cooked up by Buddhists and Christians, evidence exists that both were genuine reformers, and preached people to be rational and search for truths themselves.

The historical Muhamed is a warrior who conducted wars on horse backs, slaughtered Jews, and did some other things that wiseguyin points out!!!The many stories of benevolence on the part of Muhamed apply only to the faithfuls i.e the coverted, not to the infidels/ kafirs.

#21

There is no personality in the history of mankind who has been so closely scrutinized by friends and foes alike. But still extremes exist on both sides. Among his friends and followers there are extremes, so that they think of him as nothing but an angel and on the other hand among his foes there are extremes who see him as nothing but an embodiment of pure evil. We see these two attitudes everyday here at this website.

THe correct Isalmic position is as always the middle of the raod since Islam is a religion of middle path. He was a man but exalted of all men because he was chosen to make a connection between this world and the hereonafter or the dimension that is outside our realm. He was chosen to deliver a message and show us with his efforts that the message was practical in this world. He had as much divine help as any man who is on righteous path would have. According to Islamic belief Prophets do commit mistakes; the purpose of those mistakes is to show the followers the difference between right and wrong. Those mistakes are not their choice. Their mistakes are innocent because divinity plays a role in it to demonstrate the difference between right and wrong.

Re: # 29

> According to Islamic belief Prophets do commit mistakes; the purpose of those mistakes
> is to show the followers the difference between right and wrong. Those mistakes are
> not their choice. Their mistakes are innocent because divinity plays a role in it to
> demonstrate the difference between right and wrong.

wait a sec ... so it goes something like this ...
prophet f*ks a child ... comes out of the room and tells to his followers - ``There, guys THAT
was a mistake. You don`t do that !``

the purpose of those mistakes is to show the followers the difference between right and wrong

ROTFL .... Dude, going by this definiton, your prophet seems to have taught the followers
too much i guess.

Re: #31 & #32

There is a difference between a mistake and moral bankruptcy. Please appreciate the difference. Let me explain it through a hadith, which is often quoted by enemies of Islam as a proof that prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was a cruel man. The hadith goes something like this:

``Some men (3 or 4) came to Holy Prophet and complained that they were sick with jaundice and saught his help. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) told them to go out of the city and live in a collective farm that was owned by the Muslims of Medina. He advised them to take rest and good weather would take care of their health. THese men went to the farm and in few days they killed the camel sheppereds and stole the camels. Holy Prophet sent a posse who captured them and brought them to Holy prophet (pbuh). He gave his verdict that the eyes of those men should be gouged, their hands tied and they be thrown in the desert where they would die due to heat etc.``

Many people from the above category who quote this hadith to prove that he was a cruel and heartless man, conveniently overlook the chain of other hadiths that describe the background of this hadith. The background goes like this:

When Holy Prophet (pbuh) came to Medina at the request of Medinites, as an arbiter and their unbiased leader he enetered into a constitutional agreement with the people of Medina who were, Muslims, Jews, Christians, pagans, sabians, animists etc. One of the clause of the constitution was that each kind of people will be accorded the autonomy to be dealt with law of their own books. For example, for cognizable offenses a Jew will be dealt with according to the law in Torah.

The four people who stole camels belonged to a jewish tribe and when they had stolen the camels they gouged the eyes of sheppereds and tied them with ropes and left them in the desert to die. Torah prescribes the law of an eye for an eye, hence, Holy Prophet based his verdict on the rulings of Torah when he prescribed the same punishment.

But soon after those thieves were punished, a revelation came to Holy prophet raprimending him that his decision was a mistake, and he should have waited for divine guidance. After that a series of revelations revealed to him through which Allah annuled the law of an eye for eye and replaced it with the laws of Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (compensation). According to these laws the next of kin of the victim has right to forgive a murderer in exchange for compensation or for nothing if he choses to do so. The diyat is the same as the modern law of monetry compensation for a bodily injury.

So when a Prophet committs ``mistake``, it is because of his innocence.

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.``

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: # 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

bharath and mishraji, you hindus have taken this to the extreme..you worship animals, stones, nothing, nature, water, the sun, fire, money, books, bharatmata.....whats so confusing about finding solace in mohammed..faults have little to do with faith.

#24 by number

he may be for all of humanity, but all of humanity may not necessarily accept this. so that is why its incumbent upon the followers to heed the message (of gentleness).

Re: # 27
> you hindus have taken this to the extreme..you worship animals, stones, nothing, nature, water, the sun, fire, money, books, bharatmata...

Sir ji kya karen - our lord appears in so many forms - even coming out of a pillar !
na jaane kis roop mey narayan mil jaye

#25 bharath

That is a good critique of my position from a hindu perspective. I think Mohammed seems an interesting person but it is hard to appreciate someone who is so-so-so wonderful. I agree that bhakti marg has this same aspect and for this same reason I cannot accept it.

Re: # 26
#26 by pmishra2 on April 11, 2006 3:54pm PT

Mishra,
Just in case (for a second) if u had forgotten for a moment how fanatic
pedophiles could be post#27 calrifies that.

Eid-ul-Mawlood-i-Nabi (saw) Mubarak to all.

Always babarkat & inspirational to sing his ( pbuh) praises.
Bhar doa jholi