The Reality of the Looking Glass: Seeing Muhammad

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: # 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.

#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: 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

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: 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: # 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``

:)

#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.

#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.

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

#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.

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?

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: 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: 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.

#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.