Could Muhammad of been a prophet?

[Reuben_J]

How many wives did Muhammad have in total? What was the age of his youngest wife?

Officially Mohammad had thirteen wives as follow:

Maymuna bint al-Harith
(m. 630 AD–632 AD)

Maria al-Qibtiyya
(m. 630 AD–632 AD)

Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya
(m. 629 AD–632 AD)

Safiyya bint Huyayy
(m. 629 AD–632 AD)

Rayhāna bint Zayd ibn ʿAmr
(m. 629 AD–631 AD)

Ramla bint Abi Sufyan
(m. 628 AD–632 AD)

Juwayriyya bint al-Harith
(m. 628 AD–632 AD)

Zaynab bint Jahsh
(m. 627 AD–632 AD)

Zaynab bint Khuzayma
(m. 625 AD–627 AD)

Hafsa bint Umar
(m. 624 AD–632 AD)

Sawda bint Zamʿa
(m. 619 AD–632 AD)

Aisha bint Abu Bakr
(m. 619 AD–632 AD)

Khadija bint Khuwaylid
(m. 595 AD–619 AD)

The youngest of that wife was Aisha who was bethroted to him at seven and had sexual relation at nine. Girls were considered reaching their puberty earlier then, so I am told. A man can only have sex with a girl upon her reaching purberty.

Zainab, his other wife, was a former wife of his adopted son. It seemed he was infatuated with her, somehow love grew, and some laws were changed to allow him to marry her, remembering that she was a daugther-in-law, and what have we? The two love birds ended up in matrimony and Zainab’s husband probably nursed his pained heart with some rewards, perhaps a higher booties of war. Officially, the narrative here is that the husband divorced Zainab to pave the way for the marriage with the prophet. Those days, prophets were like Godfathers now, and nobody in the clan would dare, I say, to deny him.

Unofficially, he might have concubines, as slaves were considered booties of war and they were kind of properties to the conquerors. Mohammad it seemed would have 20% of that (correct me if I am wrong, nmgauss, Arabic catholic, Sam or pam).

Mohammad did not have the most wives among the prophets. He would be far behind King Solomon, whom Muslims considered as a prophet, who had more than 700 wives and concubines. But then Solomon lived a couple of thousand years earlier, and perhaps was richer and more powerful than Mohammad was.

 

[Reuben_J]

How many people did Muhammad personally kill? How many did he order killed? Women and children included?

This is quite intresting:
When Rasulullah came to Madinah, he signed a treaty with the Jews to live in peace and harmony and help each other against anyone who wanted to attack Madinah. The Jews contravened (broke) the treaty and conspired with the Quraish of Makkah, the Munafiqs and other enemies of Islam to bring to an end the mission of Rasulullah .

Rasulullah ordered the Banu Qainuqah out of Madinah and they went and settled in Syria. Then the Banu Nadhir were ordered to leave Madinah. They refused to make a new agreement and they attempted to assassinate Rasulullah. Some of the Banu Nadir clan settled in Khaibar while others went and settled in Syria. All this happened in the 4th year of Hijrat. In the year 5 Hijrat the Banu Quraizah joined the kuffar against the Muslims in the Battle of Ahzab. After a siege of one month they (the Banu Quraizah) gave up and requested that Hazrat Sa’ad bin Mu’az be asked to decide what should be done with them. In passing judgment Hazrat Sa’ad bin Mu’az ordered that the able bodies and active fighters be put to death, the women and children to be treated as prisoners of war and their goods and property to be handed over as spoils of war to be distributed among the poor Muslim workers. This decision was compatible with the commands of the Taura (The Book of the Jews).

This was Mohammad’s war against the Jews. What is interesting here that after a siege, and the Jews knowing that they were quite beat, asked the Muslim commander to pass judgment on them.

Now listen to this, the Muslims commander who was Mohammad’s side kick, decided that all able bodied fighters be put to death, and the women and children became slaves (prisoners of war was not what it is like today of course) and their properties were confiscated.

So this is the judgment of Mohammad on those who put themselves at his mercy and that no mercy was given to them. Now to justify this action, this was done according to the law of the Jews.

I find this is hard to believe. There must be trickery and intrigues here for the Jews to surrender and put themselves at the Muslims’ judgment. For them to do this, they would expect a better compromise. The Jews were known to fight until the last man alive and certainly there was no point to surrender meekly only to be executed.

Anyway, this is told by a Muslim commentator.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ibn Ishaq describes the killing of the Banu Quraizah men as follows:

“ Then they surrendered, and the apostle (Mohammad) confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle (Mohammad) went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Kab b. Asad their chief.** There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.** As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. **When he saw the apostle (Mohammad) he said, ‘By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.’ Then he went to the men and said, ‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off. **

 

[jakasaki]

There was no reason for Mohammad to bother the Jews of Medina.

They were there before him and to boot, they didn’t consider him a prophet.

It was all this that got Mohammad hot under the collar.

 

[expounder]

This clip is important to watch because Christians often use this event to attack Islam and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

youtube.com/watch?v=B5ekzcEolfY

So as it says in the video description it was 'Saad ibn Muadh('s) decision, NOT that of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ ’

Judged using their own book the OT:
…thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

 

[nmgauss]

hmm let keep it with your first criteria … you said the gospels were written 40 years after Jesus and Muhammad “bioghraphies” were written 150 years - 200 years after his death … the Hadith was written between 200 to 270 years after muhammad , do you know when al sayuti lived ? that’s like writing the biography of muhammad at the time of the Renaissance ! plus its not about the Sira , its about the Quran ! you are not serious about what you are saying , aren’t you ?

I can do without your snide remarks. Just render criticism instead trying to make me seem like an idiot.

 

[arabic_catholic]

I can do without your snide remarks. Just render criticism instead trying to make me seem like an idiot.

I am not trying to make you sound like an idiot… I am telling you the facts from a historical facts … indeed I just applied your criteria of the 40 years to Muhammad

 

[FireFromHeaven]

This clip is important to watch because Christians often use this event to attack Islam and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

youtube.com/watch?v=B5ekzcEolfY

So as it says in the video description it was 'Saad ibn Muadh('s) decision, NOT that of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ ’

Judged using their own book the OT:
…thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

Read Reuben’s post. It is obvious that Muhammad did not object to the massacre of the jews. As for the judging them by their own law I would have to agree. That is indeed what happened.

 

[openmind77]

Is it possible that Muhammad was a prophet of God? Can the belief in Jesus as our savoir and Muhammad as a prophet coincide? I don’t know much about Islam, but I’m quite curious about it.

I don’t see any issue considering Muhammad a prophet of God if you compare him with some of the OT Biblical prophets. He was after all sent to reform the religious and moral beliefs of illiterate, uncultured, unsophisticated Arab nomads and he did a good job of that, Islam and the Koran is a relatively clean (ie few inconsistencies) and well structured religion with reasonable beliefs - a good accomplishment for that time and for that uncultured region. The Sharia and the Hadiths could use a lot of reform and modernization but that is not an issue for considering Muhammad to not be an authentic prophet.

Some of the issues brought up in this thread:

• Muhammad did not bring a new revelation beyond that brought to the world by Jesus. This is true, but the Christians had not succeeded in bringing the faith (and frankly civilization) to the Arab tribes, so God may have felt it best to send someone local who they may listen to (instead of foreign missionaries). But the message he brought (specifically the Koran) seems well suited and authentic for the locals.
• Muhammad did not recognize the divinity of Jesus. Maybe so, but he did say Jesus was a prophet. The OT Biblical prophets also did not know the God could have a son and would have probably killed anybody who suggested such a thing.
• Muhammad had many wives. So what? If it was legal and socially acceptable at that time, why shouldn’t he, as long as he took care of them. At least he did not dump some woman with his son in the desert like some other well known prophet.
• He conducted many wars. I don’t know all the details, but most of them appear to have been in self-defense and an attempt to consolidate his faith. OT prophets have also engaged in wars (and some Popes have led armies).
• He did not know the Trinitarian nature of God. Even some Christians today have a problem with this concept. Also maybe he knew, but decided not to teach it? (Jesus did not tell his apostles everything because they were not ready yet). Maybe three Gods in one would have been too confusing for the uneducated Arabs? One God has the simplicity that is best for an unsophisticated people.

The main point is that Muhammad taught a religion that was appropriate and acceptable to the Arabic nomadic tribes. Even if he did not produce a new revelation for Christians, he did so for the Arabs. Most important of all, he talked about a just, merciful and kind God - quite unlike a hateful, angry, bloody-thirsty, vengeful God of the Old Testament.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Is it possible that Muhammad was a prophet of God? Can the belief in Jesus as our savoir and Muhammad as a prophet coincide? I don’t know much about Islam, but I’m quite curious about it.

Prophet, yes. From God, no. Jesus Himself said that there would be false prophets.

 

[Reuben_J]

This clip is important to watch because Christians often use this event to attack Islam and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

youtube.com/watch?v=B5ekzcEolfY

So as it says in the video description it was 'Saad ibn Muadh('s) decision, NOT that of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ ’

Hi expounder. You are right of course and that was also mentioned in my post #229 that the Jews asked that Hazrat Sa’ad bin Mu’az to make the decision for their term of surrender. This information is taken from a Muslim website and told by a Muslim commentator. As a non-Muslim I would see this not so much of religious issue per se but an act of war. Thus I do not care whether the Muslims took prisoners or not. Obviously not for the Jews.

I would feel the narrative was coated with apologetic too, not that it lied. Sometimes, depending on who writes the commenting, personal bias or love towards the person would often influence one’s writing. For example Alfred Hitchcock, one of the most revered suspense thriller directors in film industry. When biography was compiled about him some of the more candid story of him was inadvertently left out and he seemed to be a sort of hero quite unblemished. But later when an honest critique of him was written, there were some dark hole in Hitchcock personal closet. For example, he abused his leading actress, Tippi, controlled her mentally and tried to forced himself sexually on her.

Other commentators would be more honest in narrating the Battle of the Trench (al-Azhab) and that Mohammad actually ordered the massacre and he himself executed the prisoners by cutting their heads with a sword and their bodies fell into a trench in a market previously dig for this purpose. Hazrat Sa’ad bin Mu’az who was supposed to arbitrate and made the decision had turn to Mohammad and asked what he should do. Mohammad without speaking, put his finger across his neck and swiped it off in a sign as if to cut it. The message was clear to Hazrat Sa’ad bin Mu’az who definitely would not do such an important decision purely on his own. Mohammad was the master-mind and the fact that he carried out the execution in a public (market) place clearly showed his intention to frighten would be enemies who dare to oppose him.

There seemed to be trickery involved in the negotiation for the surrender. The fact that the Jewish leader, Huyayy, asked for Hazrat Sa’ad bin Mu’az and not Mohammad to make a decision attested to this. He would fear Mohammad more than Sa’ad. But as it turn out, he did not get any better.

 

[Reuben_J]

From a Christian point of view, a prophet should fulfill certain criteria and there is usually a pattern that they do and don’t. Mohammad would not fulfill this and thus his qualification for a prophet would be found quite wanting.

His personal action in dealing with his enemies, his greed and his lust which were unabated did not bode well for him to be a true prophet of God. But this is of course merely a personal view who happens to be a Christian.

 

[dronald]

I think Jesus was pretty straight forward when He said to recognize false prophets by their fruits.

Jesus was beaten, whipped, spit on and crucified, and what did He have to say about all of this?

“Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34 (On the cross)

While laying in the arms of Aisha, Muhammad stated in his dying words:

“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets.” Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427

Why didn’t Muhammad pray for guidance to us misguided unbelievers? I just can’t wrap my mind around some of the things stated in the Hadith.

 

[bhead]

Is it possible that Muhammad was a prophet of God? Can the belief in Jesus as our savoir and Muhammad as a prophet coincide? I don’t know much about Islam, but I’m quite curious about it.

yes he was a prophet for Allah

but not a prophet for YAWAH

 

[nmgauss]

There was no reason for Mohammad to bother the Jews of Medina.

They were there before him and to boot, they didn’t consider him a prophet.

It was all this that got Mohammad hot under the collar.

Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the three main Jewish tribes.3] Jewish opposition “may well have been for political as well as religious reasons”.[23] On religious grounds, the Jews were skeptical of the possibility of a non-Jewish prophet,[24] and also had concerns about possible incompatibilities between the Qur’an and their own scriptures.[24][25] The Qur’an’s response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. The Qur’an also stated that it was “restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians”.[24] According to Francis Edwards Peters, “The Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad’s enemies in Mecca to overthrow him.”

 

[Reuben_J]

There was no reason for Mohammad to bother the Jews of Medina.

They were there before him and to boot, they didn’t consider him a prophet.

Mohammad initial revelation was in Mecca. For that he got some followers. The Meccan locals hated his gut and he escaped to Medina where he tried to make to a foothold. The Medinan locals hated his gut too. But he was a bit too strong this time, unfortunately, for the Medinans. Present close analogy would be something like the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon where they became a de facto nation within a nation.

The inevitable clash broke out between Mohammad’s team and the Medinans. The rest was history – killing, massacre, slavery, confiscation of properties and trickeries. Mohammad had the upper hand.

Then Mohammad went back to Mecca to settle old score and it fell. So both Medina and Mecca were won through wars, by the sword.

Could Medina and Mecca be won without the sword but instead by the Quran? People were fascinated by it and believed and became Muslims and lived side by side with non-Muslims in Mecca. In time to come, as their number increased they would be actually accepted by default since they were made up of the locals anyway.

Why has it to be by the sword? Could the Muslims live peacefully or went underground while at the same time spread the Quran instead of antagonizing the locals to fight them?

 

[MartinJordan]

Mohammad initial revelation was in Mecca. For that he got some followers. The Meccan locals hated his gut and he escaped to Medina where he tried to make to a foothold. The Medinan locals hated his gut too. But he was a bit too strong this time, unfortunately, for the Medinans. Present close analogy would be something like the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon where they became a de facto nation within a nation.

I wasn’t aware (and never knew anyway) that Mohammed’s first revelation was in Mecca.

Is it in anyway connected with the supposed building of the Kaaba there by Abraham? (clearly there is no proof of Abraham travelling that far regardless what Islam teaches). Exactly what revelation did Mohammed have?

MJ

 

[nmgauss]

Mohammad initial revelation was in Mecca. For that he got some followers. The Meccan locals hated his gut and he escaped to Medina where he tried to make to a foothold. The Medinan locals hated his gut too.

Why has it to be by the sword? Could the Muslims live peacefully or went underground while at the same time spread the Quran instead of antagonizing the locals to fight them?

In 622 AD/1 AH, Muhammad and around 70 Meccan Muhajirun believers left Mecca for sanctuary in Yathrib (Medina), an event that transformed the religious and political landscape of the city completely; the longstanding enmity between the Arab Aus and Arab Khazraj tribes was dampened as many of the two Arab tribes and some local Jews embraced Islam. Muhammad, linked to the Khazraj through his great-grandmother, was agreed on as civic leader. The Muslim converts native to Yathrib of whatever background—pagan Arab or Jewish—were called Ansar (“the Patrons” or “the Helpers”).According to Ibn Ishaq, the local pagan Arab tribes, the Muslim Muhajirun from Mecca, the local Muslims (Ansar), and the Jews of the area signed an agreement, the so-called Constitution of Medina, which committed all parties to mutual cooperation under the leadership of Muhammad. The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by Ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern Western historians, many of whom maintain that this “treaty” is possibly a collage of different agreements, oral rather than written, of different dates, and that it is not clear exactly when they were made. Other scholars, however, both Western and Muslim, argue that the text of the agreement—whether a single document originally or several—is possibly one of the oldest Islamic texts we possess.[21]

 

[Reuben_J]

In 622 AD/1 AH, Muhammad and around 70 Meccan Muhajirun believers left Mecca for sanctuary in Yathrib (Medina), an event that transformed the religious and political landscape of the city completely; the longstanding enmity between the Arab Aus and Arab Khazraj tribes was dampened as many of the two Arab tribes and some local Jews embraced Islam. Muhammad, linked to the Khazraj through his great-grandmother, was agreed on as civic leader. The Muslim converts native to Yathrib of whatever background—pagan Arab or Jewish—were called Ansar (“the Patrons” or “the Helpers”).According to Ibn Ishaq, the local pagan Arab tribes, the Muslim Muhajirun from Mecca, the local Muslims (Ansar), and the Jews of the area signed an agreement, the so-called Constitution of Medina, which committed all parties to mutual cooperation under the leadership of Muhammad. The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by Ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern Western historians, many of whom maintain that this “treaty” is possibly a collage of different agreements, oral rather than written, of different dates, and that it is not clear exactly when they were made. Other scholars, however, both Western and Muslim, argue that the text of the agreement—whether a single document originally or several—is possibly one of the oldest Islamic texts we possess.[21]

The religious and political landscape was transformed because people converted to Islam and that was good. To kill your prisoners of war was not. Not even Salahuddin did that when he conquered Jerusalem.

The real purpose of the massacre despite all the treachery which by all means was, actually a statement of power and an opening for expansion of the territory. Any modern day generals would agree that much though unfortunately now they are governed by the Geneva Conference, otherwise they would resort to the same thing. Perhaps that is also why it was very hard for the America to win war due to the limitation rather than using the full might of their force.

Perhaps for discerning historians or theologians today, the question would be why Mohammad did chose to kill? Though it was brilliant militarily but as a prophet, should he became so very ordinary?

 

[nmgauss]

To kill your prisoners of war was not. Not even Salahuddin did that when he conquered Jerusalem.

Perhaps for discerning historians or theologians today, the question would be why Mohammad did chose to kill? Though it was brilliant militarily but as a prophet, should he became so very ordinary?

When there is not enough food to support your community, and you have to resort to raids on caravans to obtain enough to eat, this makes sense, especially when the prisoners of war are a pain in the neck. The same sort of strategy was practiced by the North American native nomad tribes.

Wars between Arab tribes, and between Jewish tribes, as well as between Arabs and Jews was the order of the day in the seventh century. During the Hajj, enemy tribes would agree not to fight each other. This was encouraged by the ruling Quraysh in Mecca, because it meant more visits, hence more money.

The Quran authorizes justified killing, especially for defense. If you declare a group as your enemy and you believe that they are about to attack you, whoever attacks first has the edge.