Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

[paarsurrey]

This is a situation where it's important for me to understand precisely what you mean here. You might be saying one of these two things:
1 - All humans are equally perfect. (I don't think you meant that.)
2 - A human can never be perfect, but Muhammad was as close to perfect as is humanly possible. (I think that's what you meant?)
If I understand you, then I have to disagree, and I suspect that ultimately we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think many humans have been far more perfect than Muhammad.

"2 - A human can never be perfect, but Muhammad was as close to perfect as is humanly possible. (I think that's what you meant?)"

It is a relative term. In relation to G-d, a human can never be perfect. In relation to all the human beings Muhammad was the most perfect human being. It was for this that G-d chose him and bestowed him the titles rahmatan lil-alamin* and Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen**:
*[21:108]And We have sent thee (Muhammad) not but as a mercy for all peoples.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse:&ch=21&verse=107

**[33:41]Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse:&ch=33&verse=40

Who does know the created more than the Creator-G-d? G-d has not bestowed these titles to anybody else.
Regards

 

[icehorse]

Hi paarsurrey,

You said:

In relation to all the human beings Muhammad was the most perfect human being.

Now you must remember that when you're discussing a topic with me, I don't believe in God and I don't believe that everything the Quran says is correct. I work from logic and evidence. So if the only evidence you have is your belief in God and/or your belief that the Quran is always correct, then we will have no means to discuss or debate this question. This is not about you paarsurrey, in general I don't put much stock into arguments grounded only in belief.

 

[Kirran]

@paarsurrey I don't know if you saw my post #140?

 

[paarsurrey]

Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When Allah's Apostle arrived in Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka'ba while there were idols in it. So he ordered that they be taken out. The pictures of the (Prophets) Abraham and Ishmael, holding arrows of divination in their hands, were carried out. The Prophet said, "May Allah ruin them (i.e. the infidels) for they knew very well that they (i.e. Abraham and Ishmael) never drew lots by these (divination arrows). Then the Prophet entered the Ka'ba and said. "Allahu Akbar" in all its directions and came out and not offer any prayer therein.
— Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari
I think what this depicts, namely breaking into the house of worship of the pagans and destroying their idols, would come under the heading of not being benevolent. Just as if you broke into the (Hindu) temple here in Cambridge and destroyed all the statues, it would not be benevolent.
There are various claims that the Kaabah was originally built to not have idols in, but this is the claim of the aniconists. Regardless, it could have been done far more peacably than reports generally claim - i.e. smashing the idols, rather than negotiating with the people using this place of worship for it to be handed over to the followers of Muhammad peacably, or arranging to share the space.

Please quote from Quran- the first and the foremost source of guidance of Muslims whatever the denomination. Hadith was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad.

I condemn the those persons "broke into the (Hindu) temple here in Cambridge and destroyed all the statues", it has got nothing to do with Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Regards

 

[firedragon]

Hi paarsurrey,

You said:

Now you must remember that when you're discussing a topic with me, I don't believe in God and I don't believe that everything the Quran says is correct. I work from logic and evidence. So if the only evidence you have is your belief in God and/or your belief that the Quran is always correct, then we will have no means to discuss or debate this question. This is not about you paarsurrey, in general I don't put much stock into arguments grounded only in belief.

According to the Quran, all prophets were equal. We are not supposed to distinguish between them.

But that is according to the Quran.

The historical figure of Muhammed according to documents written about 8 generations after his death will paint either he is the most perfect man, or he had some really bad qualities to him.

I would go with the Quranic version because of two reasons.
1. Quran is older and closer to Muhammed (As a historian).
2. Quran is supposed to be Gods word (As a theologian)

 

[Kirran]

Please quote from Quran- the first and the foremost source of guidance of Muslims whatever the denomination. Hadith was collected 250/300 years after Muhammad.

I condemn the those persons "broke into the (Hindu) temple here in Cambridge and destroyed all the statues", it has got nothing to do with Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Regards

Do you reject the hadith as valid records on the life of Muhammad?

I was not aware Ahmadis reject hadith.

What do you believe happened that turned the Kaaba from a pagan to a Muslim place of worship?

 

[firedragon]

The amount of verses in the Quran which speak of violent acts outweighs any verse which mentions having integrity, therefore I don't feel as if a quote about integrity would have any weight in this argument

Maybe you could take some time to read this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/isis-daesh-boko-haram-and-the-hypocrisy-of-it-all.184621/

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you reject the hadith as valid records on the life of Muhammad?
I was not aware Ahmadis reject hadith.
What do you believe happened that turned the Kaaba from a pagan to a Muslim place of worship?

Any issue has first to be thrashed out from Quran, as Quran existed in the time of Muhammad and since then undoubtedly, it provides the context. Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad and it also does not provide the context with that clarity.
First and issue is settled from the primary guidance from Quran, then for any details Hadith is to be referred, not as a primary source.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

Any issue has first to be thrashed out from Quran, as Quran existed in the time of Muhammad and since then undoubtedly, it provides the context. Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad and it also does not provide the context with that clarity.
First and issue is settled from the primary guidance from Quran, then for any details Hadith is to be referred, not as a primary source.
Regards

OK, fair enough!

Paarsurrey, in your understanding, what did Muhammad do to remove the idols from the Kaaba?

 

[paarsurrey]

OK, fair enough!
Paarsurrey, in your understanding, what did Muhammad do to remove the idols from the Kaaba?

One aspect is very natural and reasonable, the Meccans converted to Islam, peacefully, there was no battle at all.
The Meccans realized that their idols had betrayed them, so these had no use to be there in the Kaaba, the same people who used to worship idols removed these when they visited the Kaaba for prayer next time as Islamic prayer is not prayed when there are idols or idolatry-pictures in a place.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

OK, fair enough!
Paarsurrey, in your understanding, what did Muhammad do to remove the idols from the Kaaba?

Further to #150 I would like to add.
Another aspect is that the Meccans themselves believed in G-d (Allah) and knew what it did mean. Now they realized their mistake in putting the idols in Kaaba and through Quran they knew:

[22:31]That is God’s commandment.And whoso honours the sacred things of Allah, it will be good for him with his Lord. And cattle are made lawful to you but not that which has been announced to you. Shun therefore the abomination of idols, and shun all words of untruth,
[22:32]Remaining ever inclined to Allah, not associating anything with Him. And whoso associates anything with Allah, falls, as it were, from a height, and the birds snatch him up, or the wind blows him away to a distant place.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse:&ch=22&verse=30​

So, the Meccans repented having put the idols in the Kaaba and removed them.
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

One aspect is very natural and reasonable, the Meccans converted to Islam, peacefully, there was no battle at all.

Because Muhammed's army was in Mecca to repress dissent. All the claims can be made that Muhammed gave a general amnesty, but people still wouldn't like to risk their lives or those of their families in any case - especially if an army is nearby.

The Meccans realized that their idols had betrayed them, so these had no use to be there in the Kaaba, the same people who used to worship idols removed these when they visited the Kaaba for prayer next time as Islamic prayer is not prayed when there are idols or idolatry-pictures in a place.
Regards

The same kind of nonsensical revisionism employed by Christians who would have us believe the peoples of Europe abandoned their gods en masse in the face of Christ's message. People don't just abandon their traditions and folk-ways overnight to adopt new ones on a whim. This has never really happened. Muhammed ordered the Meccan gods to be forsaken and with his army present, he forcibly Islamised the city. The religious freedom you so bemoaned the Meccans denying him, he now denied to them, paarsurrey. That's completely hypocritical.

The only reason the Islamisation happened is that Muhammed was the strongman of the moment. In other words, he did it because 'might makes right' which is a barbarous justification.

 

[paarsurrey]

The same kind of nonsensical revisionism employed by Christians who would have us believe the peoples of Europe abandoned their gods en masse in the face of Christ's message. People don't just abandon their traditions and folk-ways overnight to adopt new ones on a whim. This has never really happened. Muhammed ordered the Meccan gods to be forsaken and with his army present, he forcibly Islamised the city. The religious freedom you so bemoaned the Meccans denying him, he now denied to them, paarsurrey. That's completely hypocritical.
The only reason the Islamisation happened is that Muhammed was the strongman of the moment. In other words, he did it because 'might makes right' which is a barbarous justification.

"Muhammed ordered the Meccan gods to be forsaken"
This never happened. Quran does not say it. Does it?
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

"Muhammed ordered the Meccan gods to be forsaken"
This never happened. Quran does not say it. Does it?
Regards

The Quran doesn't say it but the Hadith does: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Masud:

"The Prophet entered Mecca and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around the Ka'ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: "Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished.""

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/043-sbt.php#003.043.658

 

[paarsurrey]

The Quran doesn't say it but the Hadith does: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Masud:
"The Prophet entered Mecca and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around the Ka'ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: "Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished.""
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/043-sbt.php#003.043.658

Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
Hadith was born 250/300 years after Muhammad.
"The Quran doesn't say it" else please quote a source that existed in the time Muhammad was alive.
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
Hadith was born 250/300 years after Muhammad.
"The Quran doesn't say it" else please quote a source that existed in the time Muhammad was alive.
Regards

The hadith are valid sources according to Muslim doctrine. Unless you wish to discount Muslim doctrine as invalid; and I'd be fascinated to hear why. I can't find a Quran verse saying "Muhammed ordered the Meccan gods to be forsaken" but neither is there a verse saying "Muhammed migrated to Medina". So by this logic that didn't happen either.

Quran does not claim to be a book of history.

The Hadith in question clearly references Muhammed reciting Quran verse 17:81. While that in and of itself really doesn't tell us anything concrete, it does give the verse a plausible, real world context. Further, you might seriously believe or wish to believe that the Meccans unilaterally & willingly abandoned their religious traditions at the drop of a hat & without coercion. But history shows us this never actually happens. When deeply ingrained religious practices are supplanted, co-opted or removed there is always resistance always violence. Claims like yours that the Meccans cheerfully and willingly abandoned their gods to become Muslims is nothing more than arrogant & deceptive revisionism designed to make your warlord of a prophet seem like a man of peace. Acts like this make it harder & harder for non-Muslims to take your claims (regarding religion or, well, anything) or your ability to think critically seriously at all.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see as a greatest moral person.

And I don't him as the worse too.

But I do see him as the greatest hypocrite.

That the Qur'an forbid murder, but that Muhammad sanctioned assassinations, just demonstrate the double-standard Muhammad and many Muslims followed.

It make one assume that it is call an assassination or execution is not murder because the person being killed is not Muslim, therefore not murder. Instead of having assassins arrested, the biographers claimed that he praised them for their devotion to him and his religion.

And yet, he fled Mecca in 622, because of fear of assassination. For one who fear assassination, but allow assassinations to happen and done in his name or the name of his God, just demonstrate the double-standard.

That to me, sickened me.

And Muslim terrorists have the same mindset, when it come to murdering non-Muslims, because it is not murder, simply because people are not Muslims. Of course, not all victims of terrorism are non-Muslims.

To me, Muhammad only provide example of being negative role-model, because he seemed to rationalise certain crimes are not crime, as long you commit it against non-Muslims.

Similarly, Islam and Muhammad condone slavery, as long as the slaves they are selling or owning are not Muslims. Another hypocrisy.

Again, I am not saying he is the worse person, but I would never call him a moral person, because of such hypocrisies from him and his Qur'an.

 

[gnostic]

Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
Hadith was born 250/300 years after Muhammad.
"The Quran doesn't say it" else please quote a source that existed in the time Muhammad was alive.
Regards

The problem is that you are trying to whitewash him, ignoring certain part of history, like what he did in Medina and afterwards.

Since his arrival in Medina, he has acted in the same manner as a warlord, hell-bent in getting revenge on those who slighted him. He started the war with Mecca, the moment he began raiding merchant caravans, between 623 and 624. This act of robbery is not one of a peaceful and moral person.

And it truly disgust me whenever I hear or see Muslims whitewash these acts, either by ignoring it or rationalising as everyone else's fault but his.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I found this online:
http://www.gainpeace.com/index.php?...uhammed-peace-be-upon-him&catid=41&Itemid=105

Which mentions opinions of non Muslim scholars about Muhammad.

Here's an example of it:

M.K.Gandhi, YOUNG INDIA, 1924

"...I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These, and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble." YOUNG INDIA, 1924




Any idea of how authentic the article is? Feedback and input are appreciated.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad.
Hadith was born 250/300 years after Muhammad.
"The Quran doesn't say it" else please quote a source that existed in the time Muhammad was alive.
Regards

The problem is that you are trying to whitewash him, ignoring certain part of history, like what he did in Medina and afterwards.
Since his arrival in Medina, he has acted in the same manner as a warlord, hell-bent in getting revenge on those who slighted him. He started the war with Mecca, the moment he began raiding merchant caravans, between 623 and 624. This act of robbery is not one of a peaceful and moral person.
And it truly disgust me whenever I hear or see Muslims whitewash these acts, either by ignoring it or rationalising as everyone else's fault but his.

One should realize that one could not quote any-other source of Muhammad's time in support of one's assertion .
Regards