• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the Eyes of Non-Muslims

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
But I don't accept it.

You see, the comparison with the literature between the Judaeo-Christian and Muslim scriptures differed widely, and because the Islamic scripture was written centuries after the others, Islam was bound to do make change to suit Muhammad and his Arabic followers, that won't include Jews and Christians.

The beauty of it, is that Muhammad can fabricate whatever he want, even make up foolish and nonsensical story of Solomon speaking to ants and controlling army of djinns, that only a child would believe.

so you are calling me a child now.
and you are also calling all the muslims children because of that.

ok let me tell you something.
religion is based on belief and so if you think that other religions are better from islam then think again. go ask questions in what they believe, thats childish,

so you see i too think their beliefs are childish, but i do not go saying it. ( i underastand why you said it, thats ok). i mean everyone has different beliefs. you believe that the sun is made from helium and i think it is made from fire. we are allowed to think that untill one of us is proven wrong. now thats not hard to understand is it.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
eselam said:
so you are calling me a child now.
and you are also calling all the muslims children because of that.

I don't know about you, but when I was young, the only animals that can communicate with people were children's storybooks, comics, cartoons and TV shows.

There is a Greek author by the name of Aesop (fl. early 6th century BCE) wrote a bunch of fables, which the title was suitably called Fables. And they were used to entertain Greek children, in his time. No doubt this work would later influence Hebrew during the Hellenistic period (323-30 BC), and later still among Arabic and Persian storytellers, enriching your folklore.

So yes, fables are for children.

Some of your folklores that are now found in One Thousand and One Nights, actually predate Muhammad, so you have to wonder if these folklores had influenced the writing about Solomon and djinns in the Qur'an.
 
Last edited:

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
I don't know about you, but when I was young, the only animals that can communicate with people were children's storybooks, comics, cartoons and TV shows.

There is a Greek author by the name of Aesop (fl. early 6th century BCE) wrote a bunch of fables, which the title was suitably called Fables. And they were used to entertain Greek children, in his time. No doubt this work would later influence Hebrew during the Hellenistic period (323-30 BC), and later still among Arabic and Persian storytellers, enriching your folklore.

So yes, fables are for children.

Some of your folklores that are now found in One Thousand and One Nights, actually predate Muhammad, so you have to wonder if these folklores had influenced the writing about Solomon and djinns in the Qur'an.
We can say fables are stories written so that even children can grasp the wisdom of life. One of my favourite fables is about a King who ordered the most gorgeous dress in the world and was cheated into believing he was wearing a dress of gold. It took an innocent child to point out that the King was naked!

Myths also are full of wisdom but written so that it not just stays with us as stories but also ignites our poetic imagination.

The problem really is not with any writing, be it the Quran, Bible or Vedas or fables, epics or myths. The problem is the mind of the reader. Unless the reader is sufficiently educated to have a universal bent of mind, any beautiful verse or prose can be trivialized or even perverted. We ought to first have what the West calls a liberal mind. Otherwise we would tend to poison even nectar.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Don't get me wrong, K. Venugopal. I loved myths, legends, folklores, fairytales, fables, as well as arts, geography and history.

Sure I know that are purpose for these stories, that may (or may not) contain certain wisdom and symbolism. However, wisdom or not, these are work of fiction, or only based loosely on certain facts.

But something like talking animals are not based on reality.

There is a big difference between finding wisdom in the text, and believing something to be real when it is not. And you should be able to distinguish those different.

I am fascinated by the subject of the event in Eden and it has some layers of messages that can teach you something, but at the same time, the end result are the same, which is I know it is not real. I treat all of these narratives, including the scriptures, as stories, not history.

Eselam, on the other hand, believe it for real, like the talking serpent or communication with birds and ants. He doesn't distinguish between reality and fantasy, and that's where I differ from him.

If I didn't like myths, do you think I would even bother create a website, like Timeless Myths?
 
Last edited:

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
Don't get me wrong, K. Venugopal. I loved myths, legends, folklores, fairytales, fables, as well as arts, geography and history.

Sure I know that are purpose for these stories, that may (or may not) contain certain wisdom and symbolism. However, wisdom or not, these are work of fiction, or only based loosely on certain facts.

But something like talking animals are not based on reality.

There is a big difference between finding wisdom in the text, and believing something to be real when it is not. And you should be able to distinguish those different.

I am fascinated by the subject of the event in Eden and it has some layers of messages that can teach you something, but at the same time, the end result are the same, which is I know it is not real. I treat all of these narratives, including the scriptures, as stories, not history.

Eselam, on the other hand, believe it for real, like the talking serpent or communication with birds and ants. He doesn't distinguish between reality and fantasy, and that's where I differ from him.

If I didn't like myths, do you think I would even bother create a website, like Timeless Myths?
I understand what you say and agree with you. We do have to draw a line between myth and reality. (I have just clicked and had a peep into your website of mythologies and I think it is fabulous. I hope to spend quality time at your site. I must congratulate you for setting up this awesome site.)

As you know, Muslims consider such things as a white stone which turned black absorbing man's sins, a post which weeped when Mohammad stopped leaning against it, splitting of the moon, a throne on which Allah sits etc. as literal truths while at the same time rejecting, say, the cutting off of a boy's head and replacing it with an elephant's head, which many Hindus believe as literal truth, as nonsense only because they are not written about in any Muslim texts. All these stories, whether true or not, would have served one noble purpose or other. If we notice, none of these stories cause harm to anyone. Christians believe Jesus walked on water. Many now would not believe that. But still, if the believers wish to believe it, it would not hurt anyone, would it? Of course, there might be a charge that such stories, presented as literal truths, might have the power to impinge our sense of reality and cause us psychological harm. Yes, this danger exists. Which is why I think everyone must be liberally educated before approaching the great scriptures so that we don't loose our sense of proportion. We also must not take the position that our fables are true while others’ fables are fib.

I again congratulate you on your site. It is indeed an honour to have someone of your calibre at RF.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
K. Venugopal said:
I understand what you say and agree with you. We do have to draw a line between myth and reality. (I have just clicked and had a peep into your website of mythologies and I think it is fabulous. I hope to spend quality time at your site. I must congratulate you for setting up this awesome site.)

Thank you, K. Venugopal.

Although, I had started Timeless Myths in 1999, it has been on-going project. I had incrementally added new myth or legend, whenever I have money to buy new book and free time to do the research and added it in.

K. Venugopal said:
If we notice, none of these stories cause harm to anyone. Christians believe Jesus walked on water. Many now would not believe that. But still, if the believers wish to believe it, it would not hurt anyone, would it?

You're right. However, when debating with a religious person on one issue or another, it's good to know that I can use their scripture to refute a point, based on logic and reality, and the other's side uses faith of the divine will.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
I am non-Muslim and I do not have a positive image of Mohammed at all. I have a positive image of every other prophet and religious saint, but not of Muhammed I'm afraid. Why that is so would probably be clear on my other posts on Mohammed, so there is no need to repeat that here.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
The following description of his person and character is taken from Sir William Muir (Life of Muhammad, pp. 510-13):

His form, though little above mean height, was stately and commanding. The depth of feeling in his dark black eyes, and the winning expression of a face otherwise attractive, gained the confidence and love of strangers, even at first sight. His features often unbended into a smile full of grace and condescension. He was, says an admiring follower, the handsomest and bravest, the brightest faced and most generous of men. It was as though the sunlight beamed in his countenance. His gait has been likened to that of one descending a hill rapidly. When he made haste, it was with difficulty that one kept pace with him. He never turned, even if his mantle caught in a thorny bush; so that his attendants talked and laughed freely behind him secure of being unobserved.

Thorough and complete in all his actions, he took in hand no work without bringing it to a close. The same habit pervaded his manner in social intercourse. If he turned in a conversation towards a friend, he turned not partially, but with his full face and his whole body. In shaking hands, he was not the first to withdraw his own; nor was he the first to break off in converse with a stranger, nor to turn away his ear. A patriarchal simplicity pervaded his life. His custom was to do everything for himself. If he gave an alms he would place it with his own hands in that of the petitioner. He aided his wives in their household duties, mended his clothes, tied up the goats, and even cobbled his sandals. His ordinary dress was of plain white cotton stuff, made like his neighbours'. He never reclined at meals. Muhammad, with his wives, lived, as we have seen, in a row of low and homely cottages built of unbaked bricks, the apartments separated by walls of palm branches rudely daubed with mud, while curtains of leather, or of black haircloth, supplied the place of doors and windows. He was to all of easy access even as the river's bank to him that draweth water from it. Embassies and deputations were received with the utmost courtesy and consideration. In the issue of rescripts bearing on their representations, or in other matters of state, Muhammad displayed all the qualifications of an able and experienced ruler. What renders this the more strange is that he was never known himself to write.

A remarkable feature was the urbanity and consideration with which Muhammad treated even the most insignificant of his followers. Modesty and kindliness, patience, self denial, and generosity, pervaded his conduct, and riveted the affections of all around him. He disliked to say No. If unable to answer a petitioner in the affirmative, he preferred silence. He was not known ever to refuse an invitation to the house even of the meanest, nor to decline a proffered present however small. He possessed the rare faculty of making each individual in a company think that he was the favoured guest. If he met anyone rejoicing at success he would seize him eagerly and cordially by the hand. With the bereaved and afflicted he sympathised tenderly. Gentle and unbending towards little children, he would not disdain to accost a group of them at play with the salutation of peace. He shared his food, even in times of scarcity, with others, and was sedulously solicitous for the personal comfort of everyone about him. A kindly and benevolent disposition pervaded all those illustrations of his character. Muhammad was a faithful friend. He loved Abu Bakr with the close affection of a brother; Ali, with the fond partiality of a father. Zaid, the freedman, was so strongly attached by the kindness of the Prophet, that he preferred to remain at Makkah rather than return home with his own father. 'I will not leave thee,' he said, clinging to his patron, 'for thou hast been a father and mother to me.' The friendship of Muhammad survived the death of Zaid, and his son Usama was treated by him with distinguished favour for the father's sake. Uthman and Umar were also the objects of a special attachment; and the enthusiasm with which, at Hudaibiyya, the Prophet entered into the Pledge of the Tree and swore that he would defend his beleaguered son in law even to the death, was a signal proof of faithful friendship. Numerous other instances of Muhammad's ardent and unwavering regard might be adduced. His affections were in no instance misplaced; they were ever reciprocated by a warm and self sacrificing love.

In the exercise of a power absolutely dictatorial, Muhammad was just and temperate. Nor was he wanting in moderation towards his enemies, when once they had cheerfully submitted to his claims. The long and obstinate struggle against his pretentions maintained by the inhabitants of Makkah might have induced its conqueror to mark his indignation in indelible traces of fire and blood. But Muhammad, excepting a few criminals, granted a universal pardon; and, nobly casting into oblivion the memory of the past, with all its mockery, its affronts and persecution, he treated even the foremost of his opponents with a gracious and even friendly consideration. Not less marked was the forbearance shown to Abdullah and the disaffected citizens of Madinah, who for so many years persistently thwarted his designs and resisted his authority, nor the clemency with which he received submiss ive advances of tribes that before had been the most hostile, even in the hour of victory.

Did you know this guy has been credited by some of inventing the phrase Satanic verses ,anyway back to the thread,this is how i view him.Muhammed was a great leader who united the Arabs and using well known stories from the books of the Bible and such made a new religion that bowed to the will of God and him giving him great power.
In the part of Sir William Muir it does look to be heavily embellished so it tells us little of the Man himself and the motivation to write it may well have been financial.
This is just another way for Islam to give itself credence and there seems to be many posts like this one.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
Did you know this guy has been credited by some of inventing the phrase Satanic verses ,anyway back to the thread,this is how i view him.Muhammed was a great leader who united the Arabs and using well known stories from the books of the Bible and such made a new religion that bowed to the will of God and him giving him great power.
In the part of Sir William Muir it does look to be heavily embellished so it tells us little of the Man himself and the motivation to write it may well have been financial.
This is just another way for Islam to give itself credence and there seems to be many posts like this one.

well if Muhammed (saws) made a false religion then why would he tell his people to worship Allah. the hindu religion also has strange beliefs (from my perspective) but who ever created it said worship god or something. so if Muhammed (saws) wanted to be famous or something he could have acheived it by saying to worship him instead of Allah, people converted to islam just by looking at his face, so don't you think they would have converted to his new religion if he was called a god?
come on whatch what you are saying it doesn't really make sense. if you wish to write something like this then you must explore all the possibilities, so if you have that as your reasosning then why didn't he have the other one which i have mentioned?
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
well if Muhammed (saws) made a false religion then why would he tell his people to worship Allah. the hindu religion also has strange beliefs (from my perspective) but who ever created it said worship god or something. so if Muhammed (saws) wanted to be famous or something he could have acheived it by saying to worship him instead of Allah, people converted to islam just by looking at his face, so don't you think they would have converted to his new religion if he was called a god?
come on whatch what you are saying it doesn't really make sense. if you wish to write something like this then you must explore all the possibilities, so if you have that as your reasosning then why didn't he have the other one which i have mentioned?

I'm sorry you lost me on the last part
 

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
... people converted to islam just by looking at his face, so don't you think they would have converted to his new religion if he was called a god?
From where did you get that - that people converted just by looking at the face of Mohammad? I've heard this said of some modern mystics, so I do not discount it in the case of Mohammad. Imagine the countless more people who might have converted down the centuries if we had a picture of Mohammad!
 

K.Venugopal

Immobile Wanderer
I am non-Muslim and I do not have a positive image of Mohammed at all. I have a positive image of every other prophet and religious saint, but not of Muhammed I'm afraid. Why that is so would probably be clear on my other posts on Mohammed, so there is no need to repeat that here.
In my case, my only problem with Islam or rather with Muslims at large vis-à-vis Islam is their stand that Islam alone is the true religion and all other religions are bunkum. Since I do not subscribe to some of the moral values that society today, at least publicly, upholds, I have no problems with Mohammad having married too young a girl and all that. But Mohammad's intolerance (whether ordered by Allah or not) of other religions brings him down very much in my estimation. Apart from that, I think Mohammad was one helluva person, a swashbuckling hero who won the hearts a large number of people and not least of all, a self-realised person, though he appears to have relapsed from his higher consciousness on many occasions – as evidenced in contradictions in Quran and Hadiths.
 

Gharib

I want Khilafah back
From where did you get that - that people converted just by looking at the face of Mohammad? I've heard this said of some modern mystics, so I do not discount it in the case of Mohammad. Imagine the countless more people who might have converted down the centuries if we had a picture of Mohammad!

there are hadiths about this i think, there is abook written about prophet Muhammed (saws) titled something like this "after the footsteps of our beloved prophet"
i do not have an english copy of it, but if you wish i can give you the name of the author hes arabic by the way.
if you wish for the paragraph of the book which says this then you may have to wait quite a while untill i find it (i'll have to start reading from the start).
and yes many people would have converted irf we had a picture of him but we don't
and that what Muhammed (saws) was wandering once, he said this to Omar (ra) or Ebu Bakr (ra) i can't remmember what exactly but this may be close "i am really surprised that my bothers will join islam even without seeing my face" and the companion who was with him said "aren't we your brothers?" he said "no you are my friends but the muslims who will accept islam after my death are my brothers"
it may not be accuare as i said but something like that.
 
Top