Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

I think if you judge Muhammad according to the standards of his time and place in history, he was in some ways forward thinking and in other ways more usual for his time and place. Much the same could be said for just about any relatively progressive person living before the current age.

In the context of my post #64 in what way was Muhammad not a moral regression from 99% of humanity of any age?

 

[Monotheist 101]

Let's put aside all the wars and the bloody battles, the ones that forced my ancestors to convert to Islam. Let's put all that aside, let's picture an old man asking his best friend if he could have his permission to marry his 6 year old daughter. His friend agrees. The man then visits his best friend’s house and speaks with the 6 year old daughter. Her parents watch as the he proposes marriage to the child. He is serious; he wants to marry the little girl and is asking for her consent. The little child says nothing; she only stares at him in silence.

The Islamic source materials state that Muhammad proposed marriage to Aisha when she was 6. He assumed her silence constituted her consent. Some 2 to 3 years later, just after he had fled to Medina, he consummated his marriage with her. He was 52 and she was 9. This occurred prior to Aisha’s first menses and by Islam’s legal definition Aisha was still considered a child. Islam teaches that a child enters adulthood at the beginning of puberty. (This is scientifically inaccurate, the onset of puberty does not equal adulthood).

The bottom line is Muhammad, the creator of Islam, revered by his followers, had sex with a child! Worse, Muhammad's action and teachings on marriage established an Islamic precedent and Islamic law allows female children to be married off and engaged in sex provided they are able to handle a man’s penis (Quran 65:4). This has lead to physical, and psychological damage to many children.

Please, I ask you kindly, as intelligent people, explain to me HOW and WHY do you revere Muhammad as a good man?

You sir are extremely biased...The sources you are qouting are not Authentic..the wife that is in question..is also the narrator of that tradition..how do you think a woman wanting to stand out of 9 wives would try and make herself seem special?

If you were to read the verse you qouted from the Quran(which mind you is the only authentic source of Islam) in context, by simply reading the preceding verses you would understand what a foolish conclusion you have jumped to by thinking the Quran is talking about the age of women to get married...rather it is a verse from Surah Talaq (divorce), the verse in question is clarifying the time before a Man can legally divorce his wife...

65:1 O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are limits set by Allah: and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does verily wrong his (own) soul: thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation.

65:2 Thus when they fulfil their term appointed, either take them back on equitable terms or part with them on equitable terms; and take for witness two persons from among you, endued with justice, and establish the evidence (as) before Allah. Such is the admonition given to him who believes in Allah and the Last Day. And for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out,

65:3 And He provides for him from (sources) he never could imagine. And if any one puts his trust in Allah, sufficient is (Allah) for him. For Allah will surely accomplish his purpose: verily, for all things has Allah appointed a due proportion.

65:4 Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.

65:5 That is the Command of Allah, which He has sent down to you: and if any one fears Allah, He will remove his ills, from him, and will enlarge his reward.

65:6 Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.

Your hatred of Muhammad does not stem from fact..rather emotion..If you think he was a pedo, why are you asking if others think he was a good man? If I was certain someone is a pedophile (ehm Micheal Jackson anyone ), I wouldnt care what other people thought...but then again Im not needy and donot need constant verification of my beliefs from random strangers on the internet..

EDIT: Just as slavery was an institution which needed foundations to be laid for its eventual abolishment..Marrying young girls was a part of Arabian culture..I think the verse applies more to girls who were already married and seeking divorce..not an invitation to marry and have sex with children..The understanding of these verses depends on interpretation...Then again..this single verse is not as important IMO as the other lessons of this beautiful religion and book..which the OP has chosen to disregard..

 

[Quagmire]

Well you are the first in hundreds of Muslims I have debated to even mention it. How do you know? I have relative but absolute proof of what Christ did. Islam does not even offer it for Muhammad and the mistake will not be known until too late. BTW most Muslims deny that can even take place at all, emphatically. Muhammad had plenty of his own sins to pay for. How can a mere man that was apparently just as or even vastly more sinful than most die for anyone else’s sins, or even his own? I do not think you must be familiar with the complexity and sophistication of substitutionary atonement. Muhammad is ineligible to even think of doing what Christ did.

Good thing God has you to pass judgement on all this. I'm sure He's grateful for the day off. :yes:

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

First let’s make sure we understand that the claims "There are many Gods" and the claim "there is only one God" Is about the most mutually exclusive claims as possible. It is also irrational to think a single God interested in people coming to know the truth and him are going to reward people if they are falsely following a bunch of non existent God's. That is like rewarding your children for choosing other parents. Beyond this there is no proof even theoretically available for what you claim. We must decide which explanation makes the most sense.

It's perfectly plausible that pre-Islamic Arabian peoples, for whatever reason or another, had come to know certain truths. The only way your explanation can make sense is if you believe that, before a divine revelation, absolutely nothing can be known of the god or beliefs that said revelation represents. If this is the case, then god giving man a mind to think and reason was basically pointless.

2. Muhammad was a mere man who invented a religion to unite bands of independent Arabian tribes as the Jews were united. He did so by boring extensively from existing rituals and beliefs that have nothing to do with any actual real God or Gods.

The only way this satisfactorily explains anything is if it could be conclusively proven that Islam is not the "true religion". Since religion is largely subjective, there is no way to prove said claim.

Mithraism was virtually non-existent in the Roman world until after the Gospels were written. It shows up in the Historical record in the 2nd and 3rd century AD. The Jewish people hated the Romans, the one thing they would never have ever done is borrow their religion. It is a self defeating argument. It is far more logical that these detail at least were borrowed from Christianity not the other way around and this is true for many of these parallelism claims.

Regardless of what written records there are, Mithra was borrowed by the Romans from the Zoroastrians, whose religion predates Christianity by at least 300 years, and there is evidence it predates even Judaism. The Romans could have been worshiping Mithra in the style described in later texts long before the advent of Christianity. Another fact you're forgetting is that, at the time of the advent of Jesus, Galilee was not comprised only of Jews. There were many pagan groups living in the area as well. So the idea that at least one of them borrowed some ideas from surrounding religions is quite plausible. It's more common today, but the fact that it does happen today, is good evidence that it could have happened back then, too. And, while, as a whole, the Jews did hate the Romans, they did, during the intertestimental period, borrow from both Roman and Greek philosophy, as can be shown by works such as 3rd and 4th Maccabees.

He is said to be called the son of God just as Christ is.
False: He is the sun God not the Son of God. The actual words read: Greek: Huios(Son) and Helios(Sun). It is easy to see how ignorant people reading languages they can barely understand and with an agenda invented this claim.

Religion is largely a means of usage of symbols. So it's not always the words that are important, it's the symbolism behind them. Christians, since ancient times, have used the sun as a metaphor for the risen Son. It's that very rising of the sun, and particularly during the vernal equinox, that laid the foundation for many religious symbols.

The Bible addresses this issue specifically:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.(2 Peter 1:16-18 ESV)

This is only true if you take the Bible, and it's authors, as infallible, which I do not. I believe critical analysis is quite important when deciding on the veracity of religious claims.

That is not really important in this context. This is the context for Christianity and must be evaluated within that context. To not do so is like what many scholars do in modern times. First assume no God exists and then review scripture. Whether you agree or people debate it or not the context of Christianity is that it is a continuation of Judaism under the covenant of grace. If you could prove it wasn't then what people think about it might make a difference. I must evaluate claims within the context they are made. I examine Muhammad in the context of the claim of his being a prophet of God. I do not evaluate him as being an astronaut writing a continuation of Hinduism texts.

While you're right that in the context of Christianity, it's not really that important. But in the context of the OP, it's completely a valid point. We're not just discussing the origins of Christianity, but of Islam, so the wider context is of religion in general, not just one specific religion. What you have done, is to say that what I have said is not important to Christianity, but you have done the exact same thing to Islam.

Well look at it from my view point. Someone says that X is wrong. I disagree and so say bring forth the evidence and they refuse. IMO the original claim does not stand. I could say Muhammad was not of God and end it there but that is not productive. I must show that to be true even though the burden of proof is own Islam.

I won't disagree with any of this. I might just start a thread on the topic, and see where it goes.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Such as?

The fact he was able to civilize a land that spent more time trying to kill each other then succeed in a fruitful life. Of course war has ravaged the mid-east to this very day but unlike the pre-Islamic area they are able to unite on a far more massive scale.

In what way? He certainly wasn't particularly understanding of the pagans in the area.

Obviously he was not and he viewed it as destructive. I would have loved to see Wathaniyya survive in Arabia but sadly it has not. It lead to much strife since every small tribe had an idol or deity that of in which they bickered over.

Which, in reality, was fairly insulting to Christians of the time. But, yes he did reduce the pervasive violence, especially after he had eradicated all opposition he faced. Yup, things got pretty quiet and peaceful then.

I am sure it was insulting to Christians as are many other things but Christians need not worry about what another man believes.
No form of peace is brought about by peace, very few instances of peace being achieved by peace has ever happened. Islam had destroyed many cultures and civilizations beyond the Arab territories and has grew to become highly self destructive over time. But despite this, Muhammad did succeed in achieving a peaceful Arab land even if it was temporary and cost numerous lives.
In Makkah there were 360 idols and so far it has been believed that each of the idols was local. Meaning every tribe had a deity of sort and most of these tribes just killed each other over varying ongoing feuds. There was no nation or law for anyone in the age of Jah'iliyah as the Muslims profess it to be. It was just the Quraysh ruling Makkah and pilfering from the profit. So technically Muhammad did succeed in freeing Makkah, unifying the tribes under one banner and preventing quite a bit of the immoral injustice that occurred with the land even though Islam did not prevail for long.

Though it wouldn't even occur to me to describe Muhammad as being 'enlightened', I certainly agree that every person should read several translations of the Qur'an.

The Qur'an is a book filled with violence like any other holy text. I am an ex-Muslim and I will not protect Muslims from their own issues as I often do not get along with Muslim but I will not bash them for accepting a faith I no longer find validity in. Muhammad is not a golden apple amongst mankind nor is he the shining star of morality. Just because I left Islam does not mean I will hold bitter resentment towards it nor does it imply I will spend my life finding fault with it. I oppose all dogma of any sort as none of it has lead to any good over an extended period of time. All societies had free spirituality and liberal theism at one point until religion came into play and controlled people no differently than government rule. Humans have evolved over the years to understand the art of manipulation and have created religions to help aid in this.
Muhammad taught Tawhid and the greatness of god and these are very enlightening concepts in theism. I am not saying he is a saintly person who should be worshiped because of his perfection. Muhammad grew up in an era and he did not gain his followers by the sword always, quite the contrary as most attacked him from fear of loosing control (which also meant loosing money from trade). Muhammad was considered a genius in his era and rightfully so, now a days he would be viewed as archaic which is obvious. Not even Arabs ride camels anymore and could perform salat the old fashion way with a camel saddle as a sutrah. Just can't be done now a days

 

[Monotheist 101]

Originally Posted by 1robin
Well you are the first in hundreds of Muslims I have debated to even mention it. How do you know? I have relative but absolute proof of what Christ did. Islam does not even offer it for Muhammad and the mistake will not be known until too late. BTW most Muslims deny that can even take place at all, emphatically. Muhammad had plenty of his own sins to pay for. How can a mere man that was apparently just as or even vastly more sinful than most die for anyone else’s sins, or even his own? I do not think you must be familiar with the complexity and sophistication of substitutionary atonement. Muhammad is ineligible to even think of doing what Christ did.

I think the concept of Atonement contradicts the OT...and there is no such concept of inheriting sin in Islam either..Muhammad does not need to be eligible for Atonement..no Human being for that matter is..IMO Jesus was a human being

Ezeikel 18:20
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Please dont say that this doesnt apply to eve and her original sin...I have had christians defend this claim by saying eves sin can be passed down because she is not male (the father)..So how do we know which verses of the Bible should be interpreted literally and which of those figurativly? Christians hold that the metaphorical view applies to Genesis and creation while this verse from Eziekel should be interpreted literally and so should the instances where Jesus says he is Son of God..Im confused..how do we know which interpretation to use?

Ezekiel verse qouted above IMO means simply that Sin is not something that is passed down..a very logical interpretation in my view..

 

[McBell]

Jesus was killed. He was murdered. That isn't a case of just dying... its a case of having your life taken away unjustly.

Except that God sanctioned his suicide.
In fact, the reason for Jesus to begin with was to die.

So how exactly is that Murder?
I mean, if god sanctioned it it is not murder in the OT when he ordered the slaughter of innocent women, children, cows and trees, so how can it possibly be murder with Jesus?

 

[dynavert2012]

Well you are the first in hundreds of Muslims I have debated to even mention it. How do you know? I have relative but absolute proof of what Christ did. Islam does not even offer it for Muhammad and the mistake will not be known until too late. BTW most Muslims deny that can even take place at all, emphatically. Muhammad had plenty of his own sins to pay for. How can a mere man that was apparently just as or even vastly more sinful than most die for anyone else’s sins, or even his own? I do not think you must be familiar with the complexity and sophistication of substitutionary atonement. Muhammad is ineligible to even think of doing what Christ did.

first i don't say that because i think it's truth, i just say it to use your logic "which i see it's flawed"
second according to my belief Jesus didn't die yet, he will die one day but not for our sins as every individual will be asked about his own sins and no body will be asked about other sins
third any biblical document you will use to prove that Jesus died for our sins is considered for me a corrupted document i.e. invalid document
forth even by using this documents you can't prove the death of Jesus as he simply didn't spend three days and nights in the heart of the earth as the prophet Junan spent in the pelly of the whale

your words can't make sense

 

[F0uad]

You may not but the claim that all prophets are sinless is a very common Islamic belief at least among the ones I have talked to. This is the actual statement that my claim was in response to. So the person I was talking to believed it even if you do not.
Prove that I did not look into the context for the data I posted or retract the statement that I did not. These assumptions are getting to be an epidemic. I did track down the secular historical context to about half of them and was already familiar with about 1/4 more.

Such a lie you are unaware of the whole stories you just chopped down things from website and posted them here.
I will debate a Christian anytime in the moral teachings and values of the Hadith in comparison with the bible.
I will debate a Christian anytime about the comparison of the prophets in the OT and that of Islam to see which one is more peaceful.

 

[F0uad]

first i don't say that because i think it's truth, i just say it to use your logic "which i see it's flawed"
second according to my belief Jesus didn't die yet, he will die one day but not for our sins as every individual will be asked about his own sins and no body will be asked about other sins
third any biblical document you will use to prove that Jesus died for our sins is considered for me a corrupted document i.e. invalid document
forth even by using this documents you can't prove the death of Jesus as he simply didn't spend three days and nights in the heart of the earth as the prophet Junan spent in the pelly of the whale

your words can't make sense

I agree the problem is that many Christians cant think outside of there scripture there is no historical evidence for any claims they made. We simply have no 1st or 2nd century scripture/document or biography about Jesus(pbuh).

 

[WyattDerp]

I agree the problem is that many Christians cant think outside of there scripture

I see. How does that make you feel?

 

[WyattDerp]

I will debate a Christian anytime about the comparison of the prophets in the OT and that of Islam to see which one is more peaceful.

Are we talking actual history, or stories in books? And I mean OT history. Never heard of the Jews rampaging anywhere except in the OT. And I mean on the pages of those books ^^ Certainly not anything like "they were super harsh compared to their neighbours". Now, Christianity and Islam on the other hand... they do display a certain neediness and desire for power, historically. Peaceful stories, horrid stories, who cares? Children's stories are a million times more gruesome than the stuff in the OT.... the new Testament and Quran have a new viciousness to them though, like a rusty peace of metal hidden in grass. So what I see in history doesn't exactly surprise me. You can only drown people for so long in talk about unbelievers, until they go out and do something about it - it being the ghosts in their head.

 

[WyattDerp]

Children's stories are a million times more gruesome than the stuff in the OT....

Grimm 005: The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids

They were not even hurt, for in his greed the monster had swallowed them down whole. How happy they were! They hugged their dear mother, and jumped about like a tailor on his wedding day.

But the mother said, "Go now and look for some big stones. We will fill the godless beast's stomach with them while he is still asleep."

You may say the wolf asked for it, but that's my point.. once someone is declared evil or enemy, anything goes, any proportion is lost, and cruelty is often justified as self-defense, even when it goes faaaaar beyond it.

And projecting that cruelty on God is even worse, it evades personal responsibility for urges that ARE personal, and very petty.

 

[Monotheist 101]

I see. How does that make you feel?

Lol..What does knowing how he feels..make you feel?

 

[Monotheist 101]

Grimm 005: The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids



You may say the wolf asked for it, but that's my point.. once someone is declared evil or enemy, anything goes, any proportion is lost, and cruelty is often justified as self-defense, even when it goes faaaaar beyond it.

And projecting that cruelty on God is even worse, it evades personal responsibility for urges that ARE personal, and very petty.

Good comparison...A Childrens story book with texts believed to be divinley revealed by millions of people on earth..seems like youve learnt all your lessons from these childrens books..good on you..keep it up..FYI The Quran and the Bible are intended for mature audiences.

the new Testament and Quran have a new viciousness to them though, like a rusty peace of metal hidden in grass. So what I see in history doesn't exactly surprise me. You can only drown people for so long in talk about unbelievers, until they go out and do something about it - it being the ghosts in their head.

Are you referring to the punishment for thieves in the Quran..whatelse comes across as vicious..certainly I would expect a person inspired by childrens story books to have a low standard for "viciousness".

my thoughts.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I don't know, I've never met him and its hard for me to judge a man
off of stories that could be false.

 

[Satnaam]

For the moment, I'll focus only on your main concern, we can discuss other aspects of Mohammed later on.

Not all sources agree on the age of Aisha when she was married to and consummated with Mohammed. Some list her age as nine at marriage, and consummation at twelve. At the time, and location, this was common practice. Mary was around the same age when she was married to Joseph. While we, in today's society, find this to be reprehensible, it was the common practice back then, and, to some extent, has been retained.

I agree that it should not be done, but our perceptions today don't exactly equal that of those times. We know more now about psychology and anatomy to know that such a thing is not good for the well-being of the child. But regardless, it was common back then: this doesn't condone the practice, but it does explain it.

Replying to the first reply. Sadly this is an often used excuse.

1. Aisha's age at her marriage.

Several Islamic books mention Aisha's age being six when she was married and 9 when the marriage was consumated (i.e. when Muhammad had intercourse with her).

These are some of the books mentioning the above fact: Sahih Muslim Book 008, Sahih Bukhari Volume 7 & Sunan Abu-Dawud Book. For the exact references and quotes I invite you to read "Aisha the Child Wife of Muhammad" on Faithfreedom.org.

Now lets even assume that Aisha was twelve at her marriage. Was she even then mature enough to be married? Was she biologically prepared for sexual activity? No! According to Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151 Aisha used to play with dolls in the presence of Muhammad. According to the same book Aisha had taken her dolls with her to Muhammads house at her marriage. Playing with dolls was allowed only for pre-pubescent girls.

2. Marrying children - a common practise?
Marrying children being a common cultural thing is not a valid excuse. If Muhammad was a prophet or even a noble human being he would have defied social norms and gone against them, because they were wrong. Instead Muhammad complied with the prevalent (wrong, immoral) cultural customs and married a child when he was 54. What kind of prophet or even good human being was he? Sane people defy social norms that are not ethically not acceptable but Muhammad played along.

 

[Aquitaine]

Replying to the first reply. Sadly this is an often used excuse.

1. Aisha's age at her marriage.

Several Islamic books mention Aisha's age being six when she was married and 9 when the marriage was consumated (i.e. when Muhammad had intercourse with her).

These are some of the books mentioning the above fact: Sahih Muslim Book 008, Sahih Bukhari Volume 7 & Sunan Abu-Dawud Book. For the exact references and quotes I invite you to read "Aisha the Child Wife of Muhammad" on Faithfreedom.org.

Now lets even assume that Aisha was twelve at her marriage. Was she even then mature enough to be married? Was she biologically prepared for sexual activity? No! According to Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151 Aisha used to play with dolls in the presence of Muhammad. According to the same book Aisha had taken her dolls with her to Muhammads house at her marriage. Playing with dolls was allowed only for pre-pubescent girls.

2. Marrying children - a common practise?
Marrying children being a common cultural thing is not a valid excuse. If Muhammad was a prophet or even a noble human being he would have defied social norms and gone against them, because they were wrong. Instead Muhammad complied with the prevalent (wrong, immoral) cultural customs and married a child when he was 54. What kind of prophet or even good human being was he? Sane people defy social norms that are not ethically not acceptable but Muhammad played along.

I've often thought this with Mohammad as well: if he was a Prophet of some Mercifull God, and thus an Enlightened individual, I would have expected him not to bow to the backwards cultural norms at the time and instead uplift society.

There's simply no excuse for marrying a 6 or 9 year old. Period.

 

[quala]

I've often thought this with Mohammad as well: if he was a Prophet of some Mercifull God, and thus an Enlightened individual, I would have expected him not to bow to the backwards cultural norms at the time and instead uplift society.

There's simply no excuse for marrying a 6 or 9 year old. Period.

Same way ,sex with slaves is permitted in Islam/Quran , but its also culture of pre islam arbia , is ALLAH so impotent ,powerless to forbade follwers from it ?

 

[Aquitaine]

Same way ,sex with slaves is permitted in Islam/Quran , but its also culture of pre islam arbia , is ALLAH so impotent ,powerless to forbade follwers from it ?

Exactly.

Also why would Allah make it neccessary for his final Prophet to have to spread his influence using violence? Why not grant Mohammad with some enhanced ability to convince people to convert to Islam using words? All those dead potential Muslims....... killed by the spreading of Islam.

Makes no sense.