al-Nur-al-Muhammadi (The Muhammadan Light) & al-Insan-al-Kamil (The Perfect Man)

[ProdglArchitect]

Of course, if you’re already antagonistic towards Islam, then you will deliberately distort & misrepresent details of the Prophet’s life to support your pre-meditated conclusion. Forget context, forget anthropology, forget accuracy in details, forget verification of details, forget all of that.

There is no distortion of facts here. Mohammad ordered the assassination of a long-time friend. He lead violent conquest against the Arabic world and took slave wives. Neither of these is the behavior of a perfect man.

I know a decent spot about Islam, and I’ve read excuses trying to justify this type of behavior. They only hold up if you believe God gave him special and direct permission to do these things. Considering that he taught in direct contradiction to Jesus Christ, I do not believe for a second that God was speaking to him, and so all of those excuses are meaningless.

I am a big fan of context and history. Learning about the historical context of the rise of Mohammad has only lead me to a greater distrust of Islam. The more I learn about this so-called “prophet,” the less I believe him to be a holy man of God.

 

[SalamKhan]

Mohammad ordered the assassination of a long-time friend

I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

He lead violent conquest against the Arabic world

I am a big fan of context and history

Have a read of this.

took slave wives

Have a listen to this if you have the time. It may actually surprise you.

I know a decent spot about Islam

Um, no, no you don’t.

I do not believe for a second that God was speaking to him…

I know, hence why you’re not a Muslim. I honestly don’t care what you believe, but please don’t come on this thread simply to attack my religion through distortion and misrepresentation of facts. Thank you.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I really have no idea what you’re talking about.

In reviewing my research, it wasn’t the murder of a friend. It was just the plain old murder of a Jewish poet.

The event is related in Sirat Rasul Allah, written by Ibn Ishaq. It is intended as a positive portrayal of Mohammad’s life, so I would hardly consider it an effort at mudslinging. Mohammad ordered the assassination of a poet Abu 'Afak in response to a poem he wrote speaking poorly of Mohammad for his role in the death of yet another person.

Not his friend, but still direct involvement in a murder. Hardly the behavior of a perfect man.

Have a read of this.

Yup, I have read that. I was involved in the original topic, and I find it increasingly telling that even as it went on people were only ever able to find a single instance in which Islam was viewed as a positive influence rather than a destructive one.

One instance where they were the lesser of two evils does not negate the manner in which they spread across the Arabic continent.

Have a listen to this if you have the time. It may actually surprise you.

I gave it a listen, and it was the usual tripe of trying to use double meanings to hide the plain reality given in the text. It might not have made it into the Quran, but Moahammad’s biographers seemed keen to take note of his sexual activities, including those with concubines given as gifts from other rules.

“Besides these [Muhammad’s wives], he had two concubines. The first was Mariyah, the Coptic (an Egyptian Christian), a present gift from Al-Muqauqis, vicegerent of Egypt - she gave birth to his son Ibrâhim, who died in Madinah [Medina] while still a little child, on the 28th or 29th of Shawwal in the year 10 A.H., i.e. 27th January, 632 A.D. The second one was Raihanah bint Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah, a captive from Bani Quraiza. Some people say she was one of his wives. However, Ibn Al-Qaiyim gives more weight to the first version. Abu ΄Ubaidah spoke of two more concubines, Jameelah, a captive, and another one, a bondwoman granted to him by Zainab bint Jahsh. [Za’d Al-Ma’ad 1/29].”

I know, hence why you’re not a Muslim. I honestly don’t care what you believe, but please don’t come on this thread simply to attack my religion through distortion and misrepresentation of facts. Thank you.

I am not attacking it with distortion, I am attacking it with history, clearly recorded in the man’s own biographies. He was a warlord who kept slave concubines that he used for sexual gratification while he was punishing his wives for their anger at his sleeping with another of the concubines by denying them sex.

You came to a Catholic forum claiming that Mohammad was a perfect specimen of humanity. Don’t get upset when people point out that that is just literally not possible unless perfection doesn’t actually mean living according to the laws God has laid down for humanity to live by. (Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.)

All that said, I will depart your thread. Have a good one, God bless!

 

[Divine3]

Hi There is a discussion going on about modesty in the Catholic Church. I am guessing you are a Muslim and I was wondering how do you look at modesty in your religion. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Just wondering. As a Catholic I believe God want us to be modest. Yet, the ways of dress in the USA is very diverse and regarding the media—far from modest. Also many people are not modest dressers; but not all have this type of nonchalant attitude. Peace

 

[SalamKhan]

The event is related in Sirat Rasul Allah , written by Ibn Ishaq

Which contains apocryphal events, such as the genocide of Banu Qurayza, and the story of the cranes. Glad we established that.

I gave it a listen…

You didn’t, based on what you followed up with. The speaker (Shaykh Atabek) doesn’t even deny that it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with female slaves, and covers in depth, various Hadiths which deal in conduct with slaves.

I am not attacking it with distortion, I am attacking it with history

You claimed the Prophet ordered the assassination of a long time friend, multiple times, and then retracted your statement. Your research is shoddy.

Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.

This is slander. The Prophet was not a murderer, nor an adulterer.

All that said, I will depart your thread. Have a good one, God bless!

As you wish. Have a good day/evening.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Which contains apocryphal events, such as the genocide of Banu Qurayza, and the story of the cranes. Glad we established that.

Apocryphal according to whom? You can’t simply dismiss the historical account of the man’s life by claiming that these events didn’t happen. You have to have evidence that it’s a false narrative.

You didn’t, based on what you followed up with. The speaker (Shaykh Atabek) doesn’t even deny that it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with female slaves, and covers in depth, various Hadiths which deal in conduct with slaves.

Yeah, no, I really did. After getting past the circumstances that lead to the question being asked, they immediately began to deny the meaning the text and claim that it didn’t refer to sexual usage of enslaved women. They’re welcome to their interpretation, but so are those who interpret is as indicating a right to use enslaved women for sex. There is nothing in the text which precludes that understanding.

And, again, his own biographies attest to his engaging in sexual relationships with women whom he “owned.” There is literally no way to claim that as anything other than sexual slavery.

You claimed the Prophet ordered the assassination of a long time friend, multiple times, and then retracted your statement. Your research is shoddy.

I had the relationship wrong, but the act was still very much a real event. Just because he didn’t murder his friend doesn’t make the murder he actually did commission any less atrocious.

This is slander. The Prophet was not a murderer, nor an adulterer.

Once again, his own biographies would disagree with you on this fact. You can’t simply dismiss the early accounts of his life because they don’t agree with the narrative of him being some perfect human being. He ordered a poet murdered, not to mention the body count of his armed conquest, and he slept with slave concubines. That makes him both a murderer and an adulterer.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but you cannot claim he’s a perfect man unless you completely ignore the entire law of God.

I will go ahead and drop out of the discussion though, really this time.

 

[SalamKhan]

I am guessing you are a Muslim and I was wondering how do you look at modesty in your religion

We Muslims believe that God has commanded men and women to guard their gaze & their private parts, this means to refrain from lustful fantasies and acts. There are measures to help humans do this as a society, such as dressing modestly. Some things have been specified for women, such as drawing the cloak together & wrapping a scarf over one’a chest; anything else has been determined by society & the jurists of our religion.

 

[SalamKhan]

Apocryphal according to whom?

Many Muslim scholars have doubted the historicity of the genocide. Modern researchers find it highly unlikely that in the small town of Yathrib, 800 men could have been beheaded in a single afternoon. What did they do with the corpses afterwards?

Almost every Muslim scholar has denied the historicity of the story of the cranes (or ‘satanic verses’ incident).

Yeah, no, I really did

No, why are you lying to me? The speaker’s students ask him whether marriage (and this freeing) is first necessary to make sex with slaves permissible, to which the speaker replies NO. In other words, he says it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with one’s female slaves. What he demonstrates throughout the video, is that the rape or prostituting of female slaves, or any slave for that matter, is forbidden.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but you cannot claim he’s a perfect man unless you completely ignore the entire law of God

What an incredibly narrow, closed minded, black & white point of view you have of the world. Again, 21st century conservative Christians who are completely ignorant of anthroplogy, espousing 20th century moral absolutism.

 

[SalamKhan]

I will go ahead and drop out of the discussion though, really this time.

I can see that you’re replying again…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You’re right, I am. I have a great deal of trouble dropping a conversation once it’s been started. It’s a bit of a sickness really. Generally I can’t break away from a conversation until I get off the forums for the day. I’m not meaning to be disingenuous, I just have a lot of trouble leaving a debate.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

…800 mean could have been beheaded in a single afternoon. What did they do with the corpses afterwards

Why do they find that difficult to believe? In the Rwandan genocide, roughly 800,000 Christians were killed over the course of 100 days. That averages out to around 800 per day, many of which were machete-based killings, since that was the most common household weapon. That was also at least partially an unorganized effort carried out by various groups. When you consider a centralized effort undertaken in a condensed area, it doesn’t seem particularly difficult to manage. As for the bodies, they do what every other mass murdering warlord does; pile them outside the town as an example of their power, or have them buried in a mass grave. Neither of these things is particularly difficult to accomplish.

I’m not surprised Muslim apologists reject the account, since it completely destroys any possible belief that Mohammad was even a good man, let alone the perfect man. That said, incredulity is not actual evidence of falsehood.

No, why are you lying to me?

This is why I felt the need to respond again. Do not call me a liar.

I listened to the video and found it completely unconvincing. It was nothing but an effort to sidestep the issue of sexual slavery. I never once said anything about rape, I said that they kept sex slaves. That man, and you, agree with me. Slaves were kept and used for sex. Whether it was rape or not doesn’t make it any less deplorable. (Incidentally, I would argue that having sex with a women whom you claim to have absolute ownership over is rape, regardless of whether or not consent is received. This is much the same as why a superior officer cannot have sex with a soldier beneath them, and why a boss shouldn’t try to have sex with his subordinates.)

What an incredibly narrow, closed minded, black & white point of view you have of the world. Again, 21st century conservative Christians who are completely ignorant of anthroplogy, espousing 20th century moral absolutism.

Some things are black and white. Sleeping with someone other than your spouse is adultery, this includes concubines and slaves. Hence, Mohammad was an adulterer, and a rather prolific one if his biographies are to be believed. Killing someone, or having them killed, for insulting you in a poem is murder. Hence, Mohammad was also a murderer.

Paul was a murderer to, and he is now heralded as one of the greatest saints. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a murdered to become a good man. However, a murderer and adulterer is not a perfect person, which is the primary issue I take with the premise of the thread.

 

[SalamKhan]

Why do they find that difficult to believe?

Why did you cut off the first part? Yathrib (Madina) was a small town in the 7th century. You simply don’t understand historical context, or you are doing this deliberately…

I’m not surprised Muslim apologists reject the account

Medieval Muslims scholars (who had political influence) rejected it as a fabrication by the Jews. So what are you going on about? The modern researchers I was referring to are non Muslims, if I’m not mistaken.

I listened to the video and found it completely unconvincing

You’re wasting both our time with this nonsense. Really listen to the entire video, if you actually care about this topic.

Some things are black and white. Sleeping with someone other than your spouse is adultery, this includes concubines and slaves.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but the line between some or perhaps even much of what is permissible and forbidden, is very thin. It’s completely fine to have sexual intercourse, but once it’s outside of marriage? It’s wrong to take the life of another human being, but what if it’s in self defense?

Marriage is nothing but a social contract, it is neither sacred or even natural.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why did you cut off the first part? Yathrib (Madina) was a small town in the 7th century. You simply don’t understand historical context, or you are doing this deliberately…

Small is not a measurement of population. I lived in a small town that had over just 20,000 people year round. I know other people who consider a town small if it has fewer than 100,000 people. I had friends who lived in small towns of 2,000 or fewer people. My wife’s family lives in a small town of roughly 3,000.

the point is, simply saying it’s small doesn’t give any actual indication of population. Do they have historical data about the population? If so, that would be a valid basis for considering dismissal.

Medieval Muslims scholars (who had political influence) rejected it as a fabrication by the Jews. So what are you going on about? The modern researchers I was referring to are non Muslims, if I’m not mistaken.

So, Muslim scholars discount a historical biography because it reflects poorly on their founder? Quelle Suprise. Do they have any evidence that it’s a Jewish fabrication beyond the fact that they don’t like what it has to say?

Regardless of whether or not that particular event is true, it is not the only source for the instances I’m actually discussing, the murder of the poet and the sleeping with concubines.

It’s completely fine to have sexual intercourse, but once it’s outside of marriage?

Yeah… that’s what adultery is… well, technically that definition would be fornication, still a sexual sin. Are you trying to claim that sleeping with someone who isn’t your wife isn’t adultery?

It’s wrong to take the life of another human being, but what if it’s in self defense?

Self-defense is permissible, but only if your life or the life of another is in immediate danger. In that event, you are not murdering an innocent, you are killing and aggressor to protect and innocent from being murdered. Simply killing isn’t what’s wrong, murder is what’s wrong. I’m not actually sure if Islamic philosophers draw a distinction between the two, so I hope that makes sense.

Murdering a poet for writing a derogatory poem could hardly be considered self-defense.

Marriage is nothing but a social contract, it is neither sacred or even natural.

Christians would disagree with you on that one. Though it does go a long way to explain how Muslims try to justify Muhammad’s actions.

 

[SalamKhan]

Small is not a measurement of population

Who said anything about population? The reports claim that 800 Jews were slaughtered in single evening, and then subsequently buried in the marketplace of Yathrib? Even though this battle followed the battle of the trench? They had a trench to put the bodies in, yet they didn’t do this? Do I need to spell everything out to you?

So, Muslim scholars discount a historical biography

Muslim scholars such as Imam Malik (ever heard of him?) distrusted Ibn Ishaq in general, because they believed he transmitted from Jews. Keep in mind Muslim scholars investigated the chain of transmission in narrated reports.

Non Muslim researchers have pointed out how the Maghazi literature were all spawned in a heavily political climate, where the ruling class sought to justify their policies.

Islamic philosophers

Muslims philosophers believe that human moral obligations towards one another comes from societal consensus.

Christians would disagree with you on that one

I know, which is why Christians will continue struggling to explain why homosexual acts are unnatural, when even animals engage in these acts, and animals act according to their natures.

Since marriage is a social contract and not sacred, divorce is permissible for us. Likewise, in societies where slavery is commonplace (which is none today), sexual intercourse with slaves is permissible for us. Shiah Muslims believe it is permitted to engage in temporary marriage. The only reasons we have restrictions on sex to begin with, is because:

1. God tests our obedience through these restrictions.
2. These restrictions are meant to help us moderate our desires, rather than become slaves to them.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Who said anything about population?

Umm, you did. You called it a small town, and then immediately referenced the number of people slaughtered, thereby implicating that it was the size of the town which limited the number that could be slaughtered. I responded to that. If that wasn’t your intent, then I encourage you to explain what your intent was.

They had a trench to put the bodies in, yet they didn’t do this?

Who knows? Perhaps the trenches were ill-suited to burying bodies, or perhaps they provided a continued defensible position, and the slaughterers didn’t want to make them unusable by filling them with bodies? Maybe they wanted to punish the remaining townsfolk by forcing them to destroy the center of commerce and turn it into a mass graveyard, along with the psychological torture of having the dig graves for the friends and families you were just forced to watch massacred.

I don’t look for rational decision making from my genocidal warlords.

Again though, I’d like to point out that whether or not this slaughter took place isn’t really the question. I’d never heard of it beforehand, and it’s validity has no impact on the question of whether or not Mohammad was a murderer and an adulterer.

Muslim scholars such as Imam Malik (ever heard of him?)

I believe I have heard of him, actually, though I have never listened to him or heard him speak.

distrusted Ibn Ishaq in general, because they believed he transmitted from Jews.

So they don’t believe him purely because he possibly got his information from the Jews, who would have been the most likely group to remember an atrocity like that? By that same logic, we cannot trust a Jewish person who tells us about the Holocaust, or the the Jewish records of the destruction of Jewish towns by a band of Crusaders. In short, disregarding it simply because of where the information came from is absurd, and hardly rational.

Muslims philosophers believe that human moral obligations towards one another comes from societal consensus.

So then Muslims are relativists, or at least your brand of Islam is relativistic. Once again, explain a whole heck of a lot about how Muslims can justify their so-called prophet’s behavior.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

…which is why Christians will continue struggling to explain why homosexual acts are unnatural…

We don’t struggle at all. It’s not even a blip on the radar in terms of difficulty. Such acts are contrary to the natural functioning of the human species, and do not promote the flourishing or continuation of the species. Bear in mind, something happening in nature doesn’t make it natural for a rational species to engage in. By that same argument, cannibalism, infanticide, rape, incest, murder, and a myriad of other detestable behaviors would all be morally permissible, since all of those things also happen regularly among the animals.

Humans are possessing of rational intellects, and therefore are capable of making determinations about the nature of a given action. Homosexual actions violate the naturally-developed use of the male and female sexual organs, and are therefore contrary to nature. That alone is enough to indicate that we should not be behaving in such a way.

That people refuse to acknowledge this doesn’t actually mean we have trouble explaining why it’s wrong, it just means that people are unwilling to acknowledge a rational explanation.

That is a whole can of worms though, and it would be better for the conversation at hand if it could be relegated to another discussion.

Since marriage is a social contract and not sacred

Says you. Jesus Christ indicated that it was sacred, and could not be undone.

sexual intercourse with slaves is permissible for us.

Even though it clearly violates the “Thou shalt not commit adultery” commandment? The commandment given directly from God to His people? I was under the impression that most Muslims believed in the OT. Is this not the case? (Genuinely curious about that.)

It’s not surprising. The top two ways cult leaders get members is promising them either freedom from their problems, or sexual license. The Mormons were the same, embracing polygamy. The Branch Davidians and other modern cults use the same tactics. Mohammad is just one more in a long line of cult leaders to claim that the sexual ethic doesn’t apply to them because God told me so™

The only reasons we have restrictions on sex to begin with, is because:

Catholics would disagree with you. We have restrictions on sexual activity because certain sexual activities are truly detrimental to the person. Far from being mere tests of obedience, the restrictions are a sign of God’s love because they work to help us flourish as His creations. It is plain to see in our modern society how the hookup culture has decimated it, and no fault divorce has shattered families and ruined lives. The restrictions in place on sexual behavior are meant to prevent this destruction and are ultimately a deep sign of God’s love for His creation.

Your explanations go a long way in explaining why Muslim cultures look the way they do, and I have to say it’s only making my belief that Mohammad was evil stronger.

 

[SalamKhan]

Umm, you did. You called it a small town, and then immediately referenced the number of people slaughtered

It could also imply the lack of room within the town. Ever thought about that?

Maybe they wanted to punish the remaining townsfolk by forcing them to destroy the center of commerce and turn it into a mass graveyard

Whilst the Prophet himself declared it his city, and thus he and his followers would have to live there?

I don’t look for rational decision making from my genocidal warlords.

LOL, you really just want to see the worst in our Prophet, don’t you? I don’t see any difference between you doing this and atheists clinging onto the genocide accounts in the OT.

So they don’t believe him purely because he possibly got his information from the Jews, who would have been the most likely group to remember an atrocity like that?

LOL, it wouldn’t have been Jews who lived there. Because they’d have long converted to Islam 200 years later.

My point about Maghazi literature being spawned in a highly political climate still stands.

Again though, I’d like to point out that whether or not this slaughter took place isn’t really the question

Stories can be apocryphal, that was the point.

So then Muslims are relativists, or at least your brand of Islam is relativistic

Well, Muslim philosophers simply based this view on Plato & Aristotle. Only the Mu’tazilites have been moral absolutists. If you want to know more…

Even though it clearly violates the “Thou shalt not commit adultery” commandment? The commandment given directly from God to His people? I was under the impression that most Muslims believed in the OT. Is this not the case?

Umm, sexual intercourse with slaves is permissible in the OT. Is it not? Do some quick research if you aren’t sure. Again, this is another point in which the OT is attacked by atheists.

And hang on a minute, apparently restrictions on sex was different between Abraham and Moses, because according to the OT, Sarah was Abraham’s half sister.

 

[SalamKhan]

Humans are possessing of rational intellects

Don’t you dare talk to me like I’m an idiot. I know this, I’ve mentioned this countless times on these forums. Human beings don’t only possess the rational faculty, they also possess the irascible & appetitive faculties, like the rest of the animals. The latter two are part of this natural (sensible) world, whereas the former (rational) is potentially angelic. This is why the human who does not bring his irascible & appetitive desires under the control of his rational faculty, is blameworthy, because unlike the animals the human being has no excuse. This is what I meant by:

These restrictions are meant to help us moderate our desires, rather than become slaves to them.

Which you clearly ignored.

God tests our obedience through these restrictions

This simply refers to the very specific restrictions. Otherwise, how else would you explain the very specific dietary laws in the OT?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It could also imply the lack of room within the town. Ever thought about that?

Yes I have, and there no evidence to support it. You’re providing suppositions and treating them as evidence.

Whilst the Prophet himself declared it his city, and thus he and his followers would have to live there?

I only presented it as a potential, not an absolute. Frankly, I can’t speak to the mind of a warlord, so I can’t give you an answer. I can certainly think of plenty, but they are all as baseless as your efforts to dismiss.

you really just want to see the worst in our Prophet, don’t you?

I look at him and I see evil. Want has nothing to do with it.

LOL, it wouldn’t have been Jews who lived there. Because they’d have long converted to Islam 200 years later.

Yes, because we all know that news of genocide never travels far, and that the Jews weren’t known for maintaining an oral history of their people. /sarcasm

My point about Maghazi literature being spawned in a highly political climate still stands.

The era it came about it does not mean it has no historical basis.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

sexual intercourse with slaves is permissible in the OT. Is it not? Do some quick research if you aren’t sure.

Captured women could be taken as wives and given a period of mourning. They also had the right to leave, and were not slaves. They could divorce their husbands and live as integrated members of society. Sex with slaves, while certainly practiced by people in the OT, was never promoted as a right, or even as morally licit.

Don’t you dare talk to me like I’m an idiot.

Then don’t call me a liar.

This is why the human who does not bring his irascible & appetitive desires under the control of his rational faculty, is blameworthy, because unlike the animals the human being has no excuse.

On this we agree. My point was that we have no issue explaining why homosexual acts are wrong, due to our rational faculties.

Which you clearly ignored.

I clearly did not. However the manner in which we understand the origin of these limitations is vastly different. You see them as tests. We see them as guides.

This simply refers to the very specific restrictions. Otherwise, how else would you explain the very specific dietary laws in the OT?

Once again, the OT is not the culmination of God’s revelation; the NT is. Certain laws served specific purposes. The limitation on foods and dress were intended to separate the Jewish people from the surrounding cultures. Once God’s revelation was made open to the Gentiles with Jesus Christ, there was no longer a need to separate themselves, and so cultural laws passed away.

I’m sure you can see the difference between a cultural law, like much of those outlined in Deuteronomy, and Moral Laws like the Ten Commandments.