Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

[Agnostic Religiophile]

As a quick answer, no.

But from a secluar point of view I would presume these sources are quite weak. The biogprahy of Muhammad is too weak for most Muslims to be used as evidence in fiqh but authentic hadith are considered vastly more authentic than Muhammad's biography. Hadith is considered a lot less reliable by secular scholars so I would assume the biography of Muhammad is not that reliable at all for secular sholars, I hope that makes sense

Regarding Muhammad sentencing people to death for mocking him alone, that hadith is considered unreliable by Hanafis (so I again assume it is considered unreliable by secular scholars)

So the four that are considered authentic, I believe, are:

• He had 9 wife's at one time when other Muslims were limited to 4
• He has sex with Aisha when she was 9
• He destroyed the pagan idols around the ka'ba in mekkah
• He was made victorious by terror

Regarding his wife's, was it unfair? I think so but it's not a major issue. It seems that he treated them fairly and they were all consensual (techinally speaking apart from Aisha).

Regarding his sex with Aisha, by the standards of the time it almost certainly wasn't immoral, should people do it today? If it affects the girls or boys life negatively then of course not

Regarding destroying/knocking off the idols at the Ka'ba, without a doubt in my mind it was immoral. To what extent? I'm not sure, it would be quite strange that the Muslims ruled mekkah and were the majority but still performed the pilgrimage with idols around the ka'ba

Regarding Muhammad saying he was given victory by casting terror into the heart of his enemies. This would be a lot better explained if we knew Arabic but I presume Muhammad was referring to numerous verses in the Qur'an where it says the same. Was it a strange and violent thing to say? Of course, although I hope I don't offend anybody with this, it wasn't as strange (from an non-Muslim point of view) as Muhammad believing he was a prophet in the first place. Now what did it mean? Personally I don't know how charging at somebody in the desert on a horse with a long sword while shouting then chopping their limbs and head off, isn't victory by terror. This is how it's been interpreted. But yes, it is a disturbing thing to say. Regarding Muhammad and terror I think we should judge his actions rather than sayings

Although there are a lot more things Muhammad did that I consider immoral by today's standards such as stoning people to death.

Was Muhammad the greatest moral example? If I believed so I might be a Muslim
Was he perfect? No, nobody is.
Was he a moral person overall? I think so.

 

[Augustus]

Most Muslims would disagree with your definitions of these pieces of scripture.

No doubt, doesn't mean you have to agree with them though. My initial point was about non-Muslims mistaking Islamic theology for actual history.

Don't you think it makes a very big difference if you are discussing actual history versus discussing theology?

For example, a Muslim will explain why they think Muhammed is moral, then a non-Muslim will say but what about a), b), c), they were immoral. The Muslim will then rationalise these in a way to mitigate them, the non-Muslim will then argue about this interpretation and why it shows he was still immoral.

If you are discussing history then there is an actual 'truth' (although what it is may not be clear), if you are discussing theology then there isn't an actual truth. You are basically telling people that they are wrong to interpret their own religion in their own way, and that they should instead interpret it the same way as you want them to. To me, that is a bit silly.

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

Sure, he was. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Right?
Regards

 

[matthew_/!/]

Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

Sure, he was. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Right?
Regards

Evidence? Reasoning? Something?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

Sure, he was. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Right?

You are simply wrong.

 

[icehorse]

Augustus said:

No doubt, doesn't mean you have to agree with them though. My initial point was about non-Muslims mistaking Islamic theology for actual history.

Don't you think it makes a very big difference if you are discussing actual history versus discussing theology?

Given the OP, I'm not sure I agree that history versus theology makes a difference. It strikes me that - from a practical perspective - what matters is how people in 2016 interpret the scripture.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evidence? Reasoning? Something?

G-d chose Muhammad and made him Khatamun-Nabiyyeen, the highest in ranks of all the prophets/messengers of Him, the highest of them in the image of G-d as a human could be:

[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?ch=33&verse=40​

That is his speciality.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You are simply wrong.

Please see Post #67 above.
Regards

 

[morphesium]

I'm just gonna throw this in and bail out of the thread real quick. In older times sex with younger ages was not frowned upon as it is now, ethics change over time.

So what? These acts are never suited for a prophet. If Mohammed was a prophet, he should have killed the paedophiles so as to prevent any further crimes rather than being himself a paedophile. Moreover, much of the tribes he destroyed would have far better ethics and morally advanced than the prophet himself -but they were not as violent or were war makers as Mohammed.
Thats right. Ethics change over time. In the 1500 years, how much did the islamic world change? It only resists change. Islam is a curse.

 

[icehorse]

Hi paarsurrey,

In general, when you're discussing or debating with non-Muslims, using Islamic scripture as evidence is a waste of time. We don't agree with you that the Quran is the word of God. We think some people 1300 years ago wrote this book. So, for example, if I wrote a book in which I declared that I'm the king of the world, would you believe me? This is how the claims made in the Quran sound to non-believers. So you need to show us evidence in the world! I hope that helps.

 

[Augustus]

Augustus said:

Given the OP, I'm not sure I agree that history versus theology makes a difference. It strikes me that - from a practical perspective - what matters is how people in 2016 interpret the scripture.

As I said in my first post, what matters is interpretation, not historicity.

What if a Muslim chooses to interpret Muhammed as being an egalitarian social reformer who helped the poor, improved women's rights, wanted to phase out slavery, fought only defensively, preached religious tolerance, married Aisha when she was a teenager, etc?

Some non-Muslims will go back to the sources and construct an argument about why this is 'wrong', saying that this is selective interpretation. However, this methodology also requires selective interpretation of the same sources.

Do you agree that:
a) You have a much greater freedom to interpret theology than you do to interpret history?
b) Telling people that they are interpreting theology 'wrongly' is pointless as religion is purely about a personal interpretation - it is your choice what to believe and not to believe.

 

[matthew_/!/]

So what? These acts are never suited for a prophet. If Mohammed was a prophet, he should have killed the paedophiles so as to prevent any further crimes rather than being himself a paedophile. Moreover, much of the tribes he destroyed would have far better ethics and morally advanced than the prophet himself -but they were not as violent or were war makers as Mohammed.
Thats right. Ethics change over time. In the 1500 years, how much did the islamic world change? It only resists change. Islam is a curse.

Lol i wasnt defending Islam. Calm down

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Not that I'm heartless, but for these debates / discussions, I'm typically not that interested in how an individual interprets his/her religion. I care about broader (statistical) conclusions.

 

[Agnostic Religiophile]

So what? These acts are never suited for a prophet. If Mohammed was a prophet, he should have killed the paedophiles so as to prevent any further crimes rather than being himself a paedophile. Moreover, much of the tribes he destroyed would have far better ethics and morally advanced than the prophet himself -but they were not as violent or were war makers as Mohammed.
Thats right. Ethics change over time. In the 1500 years, how much did the islamic world change? It only resists change. Islam is a curse.

Okay, so why isn't having sex with a 9 year old girl in the 7th century suited for a prophet?
Do you believe Muhammad fits the medical definition of a paedophile?
Do you really think all paedophiles should be killed?
Why were the tribes that Muhammad fought more advanced?
And what offensive wars did Muhammad start?
Also do you really think that the Islamic world hasn't changed since say 700CE?

 

[Augustus]

I care about broader (statistical) conclusions.

Broader conclusions would show that all religions adapt and change around contemporary society and issues. That's why they survive so long.

 

[icehorse]

Broader conclusions would show that all religions adapt and change around contemporary society and issues. That's why they survive so long.

I would agree that Christianity has adapted, albeit slowly and painfully. Islam seem much more disinclined to adapt.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi paarsurrey,
In general, when you're discussing or debating with non-Muslims, using Islamic scripture as evidence is a waste of time. We don't agree with you that the Quran is the word of God. We think some people 1300 years ago wrote this book. So, for example, if I wrote a book in which I declared that I'm the king of the world, would you believe me? This is how the claims made in the Quran sound to non-believers. So you need to show us evidence in the world! I hope that helps.

I don't mind if you quote your scripture if you have one.
If you don't have one, you are free to have one, I don't mind.
I present verses of Quran for the wisdom expressed in them, one could easily get it from the verses with a little or more thought, it is the same wisdom which one finds in the nature/universe.
Regards

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?

Sure, he was. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Right?
Regards

Yes and no , but then again yes ,
Jesus biggest problem was to allow them to crucify him.
A dead prophet no good to anyone (

 

[Rival]

Okay, so why isn't having sex with a 9 year old girl in the 7th century suited for a prophet?

Because he is said to be the greatest moral example of all time and to be in direct contact with God. God would not allow such and neither would the most moral man alive. Ergo, he is neither a prophet nor the most moral man alive. If we were just talking about some average 7th century Arab then no, it wouldn't be an issue, but since Muslims believe him to be the greatest guy who ever lived, then it is a massive problem. In other words, Mo should have known better.

 

[icehorse]

I don't mind if you quote your scripture if you have one.
If you don't have one, you are free to have one, I don't mind.
I present verses of Quran for the wisdom expressed in them, one could easily get it from the verses with a little or more thought, it is the same wisdom which one finds in the nature/universe.
Regards

I'd agree that sometimes scripture has wisdom to offer the reader. But wisdom is NOT evidence. You often present a bit of scripture as if it's evidence. There is a time for wisdom and a time for evidence, but it's not good to try to make wisdom replace evidence.