The Book is also Just a Book

Romair#280

For anyone who has been ``jhukk-marrowing`` on chowk for someitme, there is nothing new or suprising in your post. You and I are both aware that there are verses in the Qur`an where Allah instructs the believers to kill those who join Allah with other gods (i.e, practice shirk) for whom the worst torments are awaiting in hell anyway. Now, please tell me how anyone who believes this to be an instruction from Allah can respect a religion whose adherents do precisely that, without some spin-doctoring that they are really not idolators? Now, switch to the other side - how can any adherent of those religions respect a religon whose God says such awful things about their beliefs, regardless of what their religion says regarding all paths to God being true paths? On the other hand, it is easier to respect people because most adherents are innocent ineheritors of those faiths or beliefs.

Regarding the ``worship`` of the Prophet, I am quite aware of the technical position. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, at least some people are going to call it a duck. To a Non-Muslim, the Muslim dearer-than-life-love-and-devotion of their Prophet is nothing but a more extreme worship than the most extreme worship of their icons by other religions. Say anything negative about Ram, Krishna, Jesus or even Allah before a Hindu, Christian or Muslim and you would hardly cause a ripple. But say anything critical about the Prophet before Muslims and you wont have to wait for the afterlife to get a taste of hell.

#276 by HP on May 28, 2005 4:11pm PT


(Luckily, Fox is not appreciated in my club.)


What club is that? cab drivers watching TV at a newspaper stand club?

romair: you are wrong. your post itself contains statements disparaging the Beloved Messenger whixch might well be blasphemous. To criticise the Prophet IS blasphemy and it makes one a kaafir and an apostate. This is accepted by ALL schools of Islamic Law, Sunni and Shia. To attribute even a single error (nauzubillah) to Allah`s Messenger is blasphemy and kufr. The MUslim belief about the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam is that he IS perfect and infallible [ma`sum] and everything he says is true and from Allah. To attribute ANY imperfection to him is indeed kufr.

This, below, is the Islamic position:


[quote]...and there is consensus that the slanderer of the Prophet Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam is a Murtadd. ``The ibarat of Shifa is as follows: Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir held that the consensus of the scholars on the matter that the slanderer of the Prophet Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam should be executed (killed). And others who said so are Malik ibn Anas, Layth, Ahmed ibn Is-Haaq and so is the Madh-hab of Shafiyi and it is also the ruling of Hazrat Abu Bakr RaDiyallahu `Anhu, and neither is his Tawba (repentance) accepted. Others who said so are Abu Hanifa and his followers (AS-Haab) and Thawri and the Scholars of Kufa and Awzayee.....`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.294)

``And the summary of all this is that there is Ijma`a (consensus) that he who insults the Prophet Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam is a Kafir.`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.294)

Elsewhere he (Ibn Aabideen) says: ``I say, and I have seen it in Kitaabul Kharaaj by Imam Yousuf that if a Muslim slanders the Messenger Sallallahu `Alayhi wa Sallam or belies him (kadhdhaba) or finds fault (`aaba) or degrades (tanaqqasahu) be it known that he has disbelieved in Allah Ta`aalah and his wife goes out of his Nikah.. (Baanat minhu imra-atahu)`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.291)

``It is clear from this that those who slander the Angels or any of the Prophets (Alayhimus Salaam), he is declared a Kafir. And this is that type of Kufr where he is left off if he does Tawba, else he is executed (killed).`` (Radd al-Muhtar vol.3/p.292)

And this is real Muslim belief about Our Beloved Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam:


How Are The Prophets Protected From Error And Sin?

I come from a Christian background and so I was raised to think of the prophets (except for Jesus) as capable of sin. And I actually don`t think that it would be so terrible if occasionally some of the prophets said ``Do as I say, not as I do``. But I think my real difficulty with the issue is that it seems like I`ve often heard the claim that there is agreement (ijma) that all the prophets are protected from sin to some degree but 1) I`m not sure of what the limits are of that protection. And I`m not sure where this principle is found in the Quran and sunnah. Can you please clarify?

Wa `alaykum as-Salam,

Ibn al-Juwayni (Imam al-Haramayn) said in al-Irshad (p. 298-299):

``As for sins that are considered small, according to specificity as we shall explain, the minds do not deny them [as possible for Prophets]. I did not come upon a categorically explicit transmitted proof either negating them or asserting them [as possible]. For explicitly categorical proofs come either from explicit texts (nusus) or from consensus (ijma`) and there is no consensus [either], since the ulema differ over the possibility of small sins for Prophets. The explicit, unambiguous or un-interpretable texts that would categorically establish the principles pertaining to this issue are simply not found. So if it is said that since the matter is conjectural, what is the strongest conjecture in the matter in your opinion? We say: Our strongest conjecture is that they are possible. The stories of the Prophets in many a verse of the Book of Allah Most High bear witness to that [conjecture]. But Allah knows best what is right.``

Imam al-Ghazzali said the same in substance in al-Mankhul (p. 223), a youthful work consisting of his class-notes from Imam al-Haramayn.

But Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki said in his Qasida Nuniyya:
``They said Allah precludes small sins from Prophets and in our [Ash`ari] School are two positions.
``Preclusion is narrated from the Master(*) and al-Qadi `Iyad, and it is the strongest position.
``It is the position I take and was that of my father [cf. Taqi al-Din al-Subki, al-Ibhaj 2:263], exempting their rank from any defect.
``Al-Ash`ari is our Imam but in this we differ with him one and all.
``And we say that we are on his path but his companions are split in two parties over the matter.
``Some Ash`aris even said Prophets are completely free of forgetfulness.
``Yet all are considered al-Ash`ari`s followers. This dissent does not expel them from that status.`` (*) The Master = Abu Mansur `Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, author of Usul al-Din, al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq, and other important works of doctrine.

Source: Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (3:387-388).

So the conjecture of Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478) and his student Hujjat al-Islam (d. 505) was NOT retained by later Ash`aris nor earlier ones other than al-Ash`ari himself. Instead, the majority of the ulema including the Imams of the Four Schools of Law followed what they considered to be the stronger position, namely that Prophets are protected even from small sins.

Thus al-Amidi said in al-Ihkam (1:171) that all but the Khawarij concur Prophets are protected from the minor sins if the latter bear on their character. If, however, it comes to a rare word spoken out of anger, then the majority of the Ash`aris and Mu`tazilis allow it.

Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa` said that the Jumhur of the Jurists from the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from all minor sins because one is required to follow them in the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that this is obligatory to believe.

Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini`s (d. 418) position was that no sin great or small issues from Prophets whether deliberately or by mistake and this is also our position.`` (Taj al-Din al-Subki Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Wusta as cited in the Kubra (4:260)).

Imam al-Zarqani said in his monumental commentary on al-Qastallani’s al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya (5:361) [Al-Qastallani’s original text is in parentheses):

<<(And among his Mu`jizaat [stunning miracles] is that he is immune from sins) before Prophethood and after it (both great and small, both by deliberate commission and by mistake) according to the soundest view, outwardly and inwardly, in secret and in public, in earnest and in jest, in contentment and in anger. And how not, when the Companions were unanimous in following him and faithfully imitating him in all his acts? (As were the Prophets) Al-Subki said: ``The Umma concurs on the true immunity (`isma) of Prophets, in what pertains to conveyance and other, from grave and small, contemptible sins as well as persistence in small sins but there is disagreement over small sins that do not detract from their rank. The Mu`tazila and many others allow them. The preferred view is that they are precluded because we have been ordered to follow them in what issues from them; how then could something inappropriate occur on their part? As for those that deemed it possible, they did not do so on the basis of any textual stipulation or proof.`` That is, they only clang to externalities which, if they followed their logical conclusions, would lead them to violate consensus and take positions no Muslim takes, as expounded by `Iyad [in al-Shifa`].>>

They concurred that a necessary attribute of Prophets is absolute trustworthiness (amana):

``And essential for them [Prophets] is absolute trustworthiness``

(Jawharat al-Tawhid, verse 59)

which necessitates true immunity (`isma) or from haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts (khilaf al-awla) (and even some of the mubah or indifferently permitted) except for a necessity of legislating a law, because Allah Most High made them our qidwa - obligatory paradigmatic model to follow without exception - and He does not want us to follow any haram, makruh, and inappropriate acts, speech, or thoughts.

{Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the last Day, and remembereth Allah much} (33:21).

Further, Allah Most High praised and literally exalted the Prophet’s character in no uncertain terms:

{And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature} (68:4).

The apparent counter-examples found in the Qur’an all without exception have interpretations that confirm the over-riding principles derived from the above verses and the conclusions of the majority of scholars (jumhur) I have just documented. For example, our liege-lord Adam’s “disobedience” (upon him peace) meant forgetfulness, or he was given Prophethood after he was forgiven. The consensus is that Prophets were sinless but were not necessarily created so nor made so from the very beginning of their Prophetic mission.

Yet such verses are a mercy from Allah Most High and His confirmation of other verses to the effect that the Holy Prophet is one of mankind, not an angel, and so were previous Prophets, so that mankind will have no excuse such as the claim that he and they were impossible to imitate or understand etc. - and Allah Most High knows best.

As for the question whether protection (`isma) from sin is the absence of volition, i.e. that the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, ``could not`` rather than ``would not`` sin and that he was devoid of free will in this regard, this is incorrect. We may describe isma in terms of Wilaya, Nubuwwa, Wahi, Tawfiq, Hifz, and others but not as absence of free will. And Allah knows best.

The closest text to this issue is probably the following explanation of the hadith of the removal of the black clot from the heart of the Prophet, upon him peace. I came across this beautiful passage in Ibn al-Subki`s Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al- Kubra (10:266-267):

``I heard my father - Allah have mercy on him - say, when he was asked about the black clot that was removed / from the heart of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him – in his childhood, at the time of the splitting of his breast, and the statement of the angel to him, `This is Satan`s lot from you (hâdhâ hazhzh al-shaytâni minka)`:

<>

``I saw in the hand-writing of my brother, our Shaykh the Imam Abu Hâmid Ahmad, Allah save him, that he saw my father in dream on top of a high mountain lush with magnificent gardens. In my brother`s hand was a lantern by the light of which he was reading to my father the text of the above discussion. He then thought that the lantern had gone out and began to repeat to my father, `The lantern is out`, several times. My father raised his head and told him, `No`. My brother looked and saw that it was as my father said; `But,` he said, `there were lights on my father many times stronger than the light of the lantern and this is why I had thought it went out. In my sleep it came to my heart that those lights were because of the blessings of this research.``` End of the text from Ibn al-Subki.

The writer of these lines heard another moving explanation of the “black clot removal” related from the great Imam Ahmad Rida Khan, namely, that the clot consisted in the portion of the disbelievers at whose eternal doom, had it not been removed, the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) would have felt unbearable mercy on the Day of Judgment because he was created and sent as a mercy for the universes. Even so, the Prophet shall include them in his intercession at the time all creatures stand in wait under the sun for the Judgment to begin! So Blessings and peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions until the end of time and for all eternity.

The purification of the heart of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, as a young boy is also a proof that he received `Isma even before his Nubuwwa, and Allah knows best.

See on this topic, in addition to the above sources:

- Al-Razi, `Ismat al-Anbiya` (`Ilmiyya p. 28, top)

- Al-Laqani, Jawharat al-Tawhid verse 59.

- Al-Laqani, Ithaf al-Murid (p. 179-180).

- Al-Bajuri, Sharh al-Jawhara.

- Al-Sawi, Sharh al-Jawhara (p. 280).

- Al-Rifa`i, al-Ma`rifa (p. 77-78).

- Al-Hashimi, Miftah al-Janna (p. 204)

- Nuh `Ali Salman, Sharh al-Jawhara (p. 124-125).

- Al-Maliki, Muhammad (sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) al-Insanu al-Kamil

- Siraj al-Din, Sayyiduna Muhammad (sallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam), etc.

See also al-Shatibi`s Muwafaqat (3:265).

And Allah knows best.

As a general note unrelated to this particular question, it is advisable not to approach the status of Prophethood with enquiries except with the highest good manners. Prophets are the elect of the Creator and like or above the angels in rank. We should take care, also, to focus on what is vital to our salvation and relinquish pursuits that are not only irrelevant but actually damaging to faith and works.

[Shaykh] Dr. Hajj Gibril


So next time romair, please don`t speak about something--especially if it concerns Allah`s Messenger (upon him be blessings and peace)--if you don`t know.

from www.livingislam.com

Re #280 by Romair

Your need to believe is stronger than your urge to see the truth. You are not mentally strong. For this, I do not blame you, because most people (including my parents and most people I close to me) are like that. They need a mental crutch to get by. Otherwise the universe seems too dark and inhospitable.

Most people join religions like country clubs that assure them a secure, cozy and well-defined hereafter. Where if you abide by the house rules, your membership card would be intact, and this would assure them passage to a happy future in the afterlife, and peace of mind in the current one. This is what give the religions their high memberships.

This is also the great utility of religion. Because, the important thing is mental comfort for humans, and, if religion can provide that, then more power to it.

The only trouble, of course, starts when religions turn narcissistic and predatory. But anyways….

Have a happy life. I mean it.

:-)

dost-mittar #273: ``I used to think so but dont any more. Religions are just ideologies, one does not have to respect them.``

There is a difference in respecting a religion and believing in it. I think all religions should be respected. There may be many parts of Hinduism that I disagree with. Which may be why I don`t believe in it. If someone were to debate them with me, I may point them out. However, I should still not ridicule it, and should respect it.

``In doing so, you are showing respect for the worshippers and not necessarily WHAT they worship.``

If I walk into a Gurdwara (I am going to another Sikh wedding next week, so it seems to be turning into a regular affair), I should not respect the surroundings there, just because I respect the people there. I should respect the surroundings because I should respect other religions. Even if I hate every single Sikh there, I should still show respect.....Otherwise, according to your suggestion, if I don`t respect the Sikhs there for some reason, then it should be alright for me to start making fun of their religion, since it is just an ideology, according to you, and hence should not be respected............

``Regarding Prophet Mohammad, I don`t think that one can say that he is not that important to Islam.``

You are misquoting me. Where did I say that Mohammad is, ``not that important to Islam?`` Obviously, he is important. What I was disagreeing with was those stating that the If there is not Mohammad, there is no Islam, since he is the one who gave the Quran.

This, at least according to Islam, is incorrect. The basis of Islam is the Quran. Mohammad`s importance is solely because, according to Islam, he is the Messenger of Islam. Not because of him, personally. Had he not been the Messenger of Islam, he would not be important. Someone else would have been the Messenger, and would be important. The basis of Islam is not Mohammad, it is the Quran.

If one looks at it from an athiestic point of view, then Mohammad does become the most important entity. Because, athiesm does not recognize a God, hence according to that point of view, Mohammad wrote the Quran himself. Hence, no Mohammad, no Quran and no Islam.....

``If not, why is it a blasphemy to critcise the Prophet? The Kalima does not only ask you to show belief in one God but it also mandates that you accept Mohammad as the last Rasool. If you don`t, you are not a Muslim.``

It is blasphemy in Islam to disrespect any of the prophets. Not just Mohammad. It is blasphemous to disrespect Jesus, Moses, Noah etc. I think it would blasphemous to disrespect any of the religions also. What should someone be disrespectful to anyone else`s religion, to begin with? Only an insecure or sick individual would do that.

It is not blasphemous to critique Mohammad. Nor is it blasphemous to critique anyone else. Nor is it blasphemous to debate his life. Or try to figure out what he did and why he did. Mohammad, according to Islam itself, was a normal human being. It is, infact, according to Islam, sacreligious to worship him, in any form or manner. To the point that there are no pictures of him, nor are there any monuments built to him. His own grave is a pretty simple structure, and no one is allowed to pray to him or towards him.........

His mention in the Kalima is as a Messenger of God, i.e. Rasool-Allah - Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah. That is what defines his status in Islam. The fact that he brought a message.

``The credibility and flawlessness of Prophet Mohammad is critical to Islam, that is why any but the most flattering reference to him is considered blasphemy and to be severely punished.``

I am not quite sure where you got this from. As mentioned earlier, Mohammad himself, highlighted himself as a normal human being, with the faults of normal human beings. He is not considered flawless. There are incidence(s) described in the Quran, itself, that show him to have flaws. He is, according to Islam, considered the best role model. But not a flawless one. Muslims lost the Battle of Uhud under his command. This, itslef, indicates flawed human decisions he must have made as a General.........

Even if you forget about Islam, and look at him as a statesman, I am pretty sure he formed his policies based on discussions with his peers. He had advisors and colleagues. I am sure they disagreed and debated with him on many issues.

You are confusing disrepect with debate. Disrespect of any religious figure is considered blasphemy. Though, I don`t know of anything stating that it should be punished. Do point me to any place in Quran where it states that it should be punished? There are countries that have put in laws, that suggest punishment for blasphemy of religious figures, including Jesus, Mohammad etc. But these laws change off and on.

In fact, if you believe traditions of Mohammad, there was a woman who used to throw garbage on him everyday, and he made it a point to never say anything to to her, or do anything to her............According to your definition, he should have killed her.......

You need to study Islam far more, before forming such concrete opinions about it. Your knowledge of it is somewhat limited, and based more on present-day political affairs and trends. I have very few final opinions about Hinduism or even Christianity, for the simple reason that I don`t think I have studied them enough............

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dost-mittar,

``Regarding Prophet Mohammad, I don`t think that one can say that he is not that important to Islam.``

From my point of view, this is a straw man. It`s not that he is NOT important to Islam, but that treating him as a prototypical ``believer`` is not the same as worshiping him.

In any case, Dullabhatti`s post was on Muslims` relation to the prophet, which was a bit out of whack.

dullabhatti,

``that is logical fallacy. No Mohammad no Quran. but I understand if you are beleiver in it, it is hard to realize that. Once you realize that you are not believer anymore.``

LOL, so in order to truely understand the motivations and rationale behind Muslim practice, you have to not practice and dissociate yourself from the faith. Unhh...sure...nice way of excusing ignorance.

The rest of my post holds true and strong...regardless of the sources of the practices.

Well! this discussion has veered off to different topics. I was watching CNN while working out and for one hour all I saw was images of Osama, terrorist in Iraq and elsewhere. In my post #9, I had pointed out that the whole war now has come down to images. The US gave Mullah a desecrated Quran and now Mullah’s providing the US excessively obscene images of a few thousand untrimmed beards and funky hats/turbans shouting undecipherable expletives incessantly and running around with Osama’s pictures in their hands. The terrorists are back on CNN and the Fox channel must be running some great terrorists stories too. (Luckily, Fox is not appreciated in my club.) TV is scaring the pants of the Americans and the Mullah is scaring the lives out of poor folks. What next? Some homicide bomber is going to blow up some civilians somewhere and the feeding frenzy would continue. That’s what now this war is all about.

Charley Reese recently said, “If you look at the past 100 years or so, you will see plainly that there has always been an ``ism`` at the gates…The first isms at the gate were socialism, pacifism and anarchism; then came fascism; next was communism; and now it`s terrorism. The advantage of all the isms is that they appeal directly to another ism – nationalism, which is about the only one of the isms the great mass of people can comprehend.”

re: ShoreSahib # 263

That will be great. Please let me know the gentleman`s email address. You may send the information to kaalchakra@sbcglobal.net

Thanks.

Kaal

Re: #271 by Romair

[You are confusing two things.........

The Islamic point of view assumes the existence of a God. That is a pre-requisite for believing in a religion. In any religion. That is why it is called faith. This is what differentiates a person who believes in a religion, say Islam, Christianity etc. and one who is an athiest............ ]


I don’t have a problem with you believing in God.


[When a person believes in a relgion, they assume certain things to God. This includes Holy Books.]

That’s nonsense. You can believe in God and not assume anything about holy books. Or holy floppy discs, or Holy DVDs.


[I am not an expert on Christianity of Judaism etc. But I assume the Bible and Torah etc. are considered by Christians and Jews to be commands from God. Not commands from Jesus and Moses, i.e. they are doing what God has asked them to. Not what Jesus and Moses asked them to do......... ]

Yes, but they have to believe that God came and revealed the contents of the book to Jesus or Moses. For that, you have to take Jesus’s or Moses’s words for it. And that would depend on the credibility of Jesus and Moses.


[If we assume that people are simply listening to what Jesus and Moses said then they whole concept of God goes away as does the whole concept of religion.]

Yes, they ARE listening to what Jesus and Moses CLAIMED that God told THEM.


[Then Jesus, Moses, Muhammad etc. simply become leaders or philosophers etc. who are just passing on their own ideas to others. In which case your comment about everything being a fallacy becomes valid, i.e. Jesus is saying there is a God, people are following Jesus and hence believing there is a God, when in fact, it is Jesus that they are putting their faith in.... ]

Exactly!


[However, in religion, people are not believing their is a God because Jesus and Muhammad and Moses say so. They believe there is a God, in the first place, and then they move on to His messengers.......... ]

We are not discussing belief in God or Creator.


[This concept will not appeal to anyone who does not believe in God, as a Creator, to begin with. To such an individual, I can see why it would always seem like a fallacy. There is no way to convince someone otherwise............ ]

We are not discussing belief in God or Creator.


[At the same time, I think one has to have some sort of logic behind replacing this concept of a Creator, with some other concept. I have researched this subject quite a bit, and have yet to find any credible scientific theory that can answer this. Even evolution has not been able to justify the methods behind the spontaneous creation of a single cell (Sattar2 wrote an interesting piece on this. You can ask him for the details)........ ]

We are not discussing belief in God or Creator.


[In fact, there are so many things in the Quran, itself, which would have been impossible for an illiterate man (even for a prominent scientist of his time, much less an illiterate man) in 7th century Arabia to have come up with. Many of which would only be proven hundreds of years, later.......... ]

Name ONE.


[In the end, one should make a personal decision about religion. Study all of them, and follow one. Or not follow any. But one should be respectful to all of them. A quality I find heavily lacking on this site (specifically lacking towards Islam)............]

You want me to quote what the Quran says about believers of other religions?

Romair:

``Having said that, it is a right of everyone to insist that their religion be respected and not ridiculed.............``

I used to think so but dont any more. Religions are just ideologies, one does not have to respect them. In fact, you cannot believe in the Quran and respect other people`s religions ...the much quoted ``no compulsion in religion`` clause notwithstanding. And I don`t think that it is reasonable for any Hindu or a pagan or an atheist to expect a Muslim to respect his/her religious beliefs or lack thereof. The same is true of the opposite.

But what is important is for people to show respect other people`s respect for their faiths. In other words, the respect is for a person and not the religious ideology that the persons believes in. The distinction is important. Thus, when you enter a gurudwara or a dargah, you should observe the etiquettes of the place or not enter at all. In doing so, you are showing respect for the worshippers and not necessarily WHAT they worship.

Regarding Prophet Mohammad, I don`t think that one can say that he is not that important to Islam. If not, why is it a blasphemy to critcise the Prophet? The Kalima does not only ask you to show belief in one God but it also mandates that you accept Mohammad as the last Rasool. If you don`t, you are not a Muslim.

Dullabhatti is right, in my opinion. ``Mohammad na hote, tau islam bhi naa hota``. The whole concept of the quran being the word of God depends upon the credibility of Prophet Mohammad. Indeed, the Quran asks the readers to obey the Prophet and has harsh words for those who did not follow the Prophet in carrying out his jihad. The credibility and flawlessness of Prophet Mohammad is critical to Islam, that is why any but the most flattering reference to him is considered blasphemy and to be severely punished.

However, Mohammad did say that he did not bring any new religion or message, and that he was merely sent to correct the message brought by the earlier prophets to all nations and which had been corrupted by their followers. So in that sense, one can say that Mohammad did not bring any new religion.

Re: #270 by Romair

[Ajeya #267: ``Well, judge him by his life and see if you want to believe him......I think everyone should be able to make that judgement......Judge him like you would judge any other man.......For example, if any guy walked up to you and said god had revealed such and such to him, you are first going to decide on his credibility``

Actually this is partially correct, and partially incorrect.

[I don`t think anyone is forcing anyone to become a Muslim. If people don`t want to be one, it is there choice. They can make a judgement on any basis they want. Most people follow a religion, because they were born into it. I assume that is true for Hindus, Sikhs etc. as much as it is for Muslims........... ]

This has nothing to do with the current argument on the validity of Islam.

[There are others, like me, who actually make a conscious decision of following a religion, midstream in their lives. And they do so because a religion appeals to them. However, that appeal should not be based on the personification of Muhammad, himself. For the simple reason that much of what is written about him is taken through historical facts, many of which were authored hundreds of years after his death. ]

If you believe that the Quran was revealed to Mohammed alone, then you HAVE to find him believable BEFORE you even open the Quran.

Now, DOES BUKHARI SAY that the Quran was revealed to Mohammed, and Mohammed alone?

If he does, then you have to look at the story of his life to either find him credible or not.

Now you can say that all the Hadiths are wrong.

But THAT is the principal source of information about his life, is it not? And it has been corroborated by historians based on other events of that time.

And, just tell me, WHAT IF THE HADITHS ARE TRUE?

Then would you become a non-believer?

Let me know.



[At the same time, I don`t think anyone is forcing you or others to follow Islam.]

Ever heard of the concept of Dar-ul-Harab (or some such thing) and Dar-us-Salam?
And how the entire world is to be converted to Dar-us-Salam?


[Having said that, it is a right of everyone to insist that their religion be respected and not ridiculed.............Any person, group, country etc. ridiculing another religion, its books, etc. is a sick and insecure entity in my opinion...........]

Do you want me to quote you the Quran about what it says about other religions and believers of other religions?

Ajeya #269: ``The fallacy is that, the ``Islamic point of view`` exists IF you choose to listen to what Mohammed has to say in the first place.....It`s very simple, really, if you WANT to think about it.``

You are confusing two things.........

The Islamic point of view assumes the existence of a God. That is a pre-requisite for believing in a religion. In any religion. That is why it is called faith. This is what differentiates a person who believes in a religion, say Islam, Christianity etc. and one who is an athiest............

When a person believes in a relgion, they assume certain things to God. This includes Holy Books. I am not an expert on Christianity of Judaism etc. But I assume the Bible and Torah etc. are considered by Christians and Jews to be commands from God. Not commands from Jesus and Moses, i.e. they are doing what God has asked them to. Not what Jesus and Moses asked them to do.........

That is what faith and religion is...........

If we assume that people are simply listening to what Jesus and Moses said then they whole concept of God goes away as does the whole concept of religion. Then Jesus, Moses, Muhammad etc. simply become leaders or philosophers etc. who are just passing on their own ideas to others. In which case your comment about everything being a fallacy becomes valid, i.e. Jesus is saying there is a God, people are following Jesus and hence believing there is a God, when in fact, it is Jesus that they are putting their faith in....

However, in religion, people are not believing their is a God because Jesus and Muhammad and Moses say so. They believe there is a God, in the first place, and then they move on to His messengers..........

This concept will not appeal to anyone who does not believe in God, as a Creator, to begin with. To such an individual, I can see why it would always seem like a fallacy. There is no way to convince someone otherwise............

At the same time, I think one has to have some sort of logic behind replacing this concept of a Creator, with some other concept. I have researched this subject quite a bit, and have yet to find any credible scientific theory that can answer this. Even evolution has not been able to justify the methods behind the spontaneous creation of a single cell (Sattar2 wrote an interesting piece on this. You can ask him for the details)........

In fact, there are so many things in the Quran, itself, which would have been impossible for an illiterate man (even for a prominent scientist of his time, much less an illiterate man) in 7th century Arabia to have come up with. Many of which would only be proven hundreds of years, later..........

In the end, one should make a personal decision about religion. Study all of them, and follow one. Or not follow any. But one should be respectful to all of them. A quality I find heavily lacking on this site (specifically lacking towards Islam)............

Ajeya #267: ``Well, judge him by his life and see if you want to believe him......I think everyone should be able to make that judgement......Judge him like you would judge any other man.......For example, if any guy walked up to you and said god had revealed such and such to him, you are first going to decide on his credibility``

Actually this is partially correct, and partially incorrect.

I don`t think anyone is forcing anyone to become a Muslim. If people don`t want to be one, it is there choice. They can make a judgement on any basis they want. Most people follow a religion, because they were born into it. I assume that is true for Hindus, Sikhs etc. as much as it is for Muslims...........

There are others, like me, who actually make a conscious decision of following a religion, midstream in their lives. And they do so because a religion appeals to them. However, that appeal should not be based on the personification of Muhammad, himself. For the simple reason that much of what is written about him is taken through historical facts, many of which were authored hundreds of years after his death.

One can make a pretty good argument that the most influential human being in Islamic history is actually not Muhammad. It is a man named Bukhari. Since much of what is quoted about the life of Muhammad is based on the picture of Muhammad that was painted by Bukhari, 250 years later, i.e. we are seeing Muhammad as pictured by Bukhari. The reason that many Muslims have beards and dress a certain way (with their shalwars above their ankles) etc. is because that is how Bukhari has described Muhammad.

In fact, Bukhari, himself, attributes most of the hadith, not to Muhammad`s closest colleagues, like Abu-Bark and Ayesha, but to more distant ones.

So the picture of Muhammad given to us is one attributed by his colleagues, which were not the closest to him, as described by a man named Bukhari. All, or nearly all of these are oral traditions, passed on from generation to generation, hence it is difficult to authenticate their accuracy to begin with...........

Hence, your comment on judging Muhammad first and then judging the Quran becomes somewhat invalid. The correct and easier way to judge Islam is to judge the Quran, itself. Which is available in an unchanged form, over centuries. And it is the Quran, which forms the essence of Islam, not Muhammad. In fact, Islam itself considers Muhammad, nothing more than a human being...........

This whole debate eventually traces back to the concept of God to begin with. It doesn`t matter which religion one follows. If one believes in God, then one moves onto the next step of religions, and religious books. If one does not believe in God, then the whole debate becomes a moot point............

At the same time, I don`t think anyone is forcing you or others to follow Islam. Having said that, it is a right of everyone to insist that their religion be respected and not ridiculed.............Any person, group, country etc. ridiculing another religion, its books, etc. is a sick and insecure entity in my opinion...........

Re: #268 by Romair

[However, from an Islamic point of view, which is what I believe you were discusssing, the Quran is the message, and the law and the way of life. Muhammad is just a person who happened to have been assigned to deliver it. Based on that point of view, had their been no Muhammad, the message would have come through someone else. ]



The fallacy is that, the ``Islamic point of view`` exists IF you choose to listen to what Mohammed has to say in the first place.

It`s very simple, really, if you WANT to think about it.