Mohammed's morality was fairly decent until he became a military ruler. That started a blood bath that included Mohammed killing 600 men after there capture. I know I know,it was war time, still killing in the manner he did does not make him a moral ruler, just a butcher. As for his treatment of women, early on his abolishing the killing of female infanticide is a great good. Again this happened fairly early in his career. But, after he has an army behind him he also beat his own wife Aisha. He states the intelligence of a woman is half that of a man. He ruled in favor of an abusive husband even when the wife is bruised so badly Aisha herself comes to plead with Mohammed saying the believing woman's skin is green with bruises. And none of the women suffer as much as the believing women. This to me disqualifies Mohammed as a great moral example. Worse he makes it impossible for anyone to leave his religion. Doubt me, read the Islamic sources. Read Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bucari.
-
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!
What is wrong with Prophet Muhammad’s morality?
- Thread starter sovietchild
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
I find Muhammad and Muslims to be hypocritical, when they say it I say wrong for anyone to assassinate him...and yet, what does he do, Muhammad condoned and praised assassins to kill for him.
That's double standards.
More double standard occurred like when their properties were lost when Muhammad and his followers fled from Mecca, their lands and wealth were forfeited. But what did Muhammad do to the Banu Qaynupa? He exile them and took all the lands and properties that the Qaynupa could carry with them.
Then there is the matter of Ta'if. According to the Qur'an, there is "no compulsion" in Islam. Ta'if is a pagan town. Muhammad wouldn't accept Ta'if's surrender, unless they all convert. With an army at his beck and call, and Ta'if either facing annihilation or slavery, if they refuse to convert, that's compulsion.
So, Muhammad has made the Qur'an (the "no compulsion" policy or rule) as a lie. If Muhammad will only the follow the "no compulsion" rule, only when it suit him, then he is a hypocrite and a liar.
I find Islam to be nothing more than hypocrisy, and that Muhammad is the biggest hypocrite of them all.
Is Muhammad a moral person? That's questionable. He is only moral when it "suits him". I find a lot of his decisions to be highly unethical, especially when it concern non-Muslims.
That's double standards.
More double standard occurred like when their properties were lost when Muhammad and his followers fled from Mecca, their lands and wealth were forfeited. But what did Muhammad do to the Banu Qaynupa? He exile them and took all the lands and properties that the Qaynupa could carry with them.
Then there is the matter of Ta'if. According to the Qur'an, there is "no compulsion" in Islam. Ta'if is a pagan town. Muhammad wouldn't accept Ta'if's surrender, unless they all convert. With an army at his beck and call, and Ta'if either facing annihilation or slavery, if they refuse to convert, that's compulsion.
So, Muhammad has made the Qur'an (the "no compulsion" policy or rule) as a lie. If Muhammad will only the follow the "no compulsion" rule, only when it suit him, then he is a hypocrite and a liar.
I find Islam to be nothing more than hypocrisy, and that Muhammad is the biggest hypocrite of them all.
Is Muhammad a moral person? That's questionable. He is only moral when it "suits him". I find a lot of his decisions to be highly unethical, especially when it concern non-Muslims.
What are the principles that you accept, based on which should we compare moralities?
gnostic
The Lost One
The Muslims treatments of raped victims are appalling. They are not only victims of the rapes, they also victims of the Islamic justice system, where they are accused of adultery, flogged and even stoned.
Islam and the sharia law doesn't stop rapes. Rapes are skyrocketing in countries that does have sharia law, and they don't rapes, they simply oppress the victims.
Just as appalling is when ex-husbands disfigured women when they go through divorces.
And even when the divorced women don't suffer from disfigurement, in a Muslim communities, they become social outcasts, with little hope of being remarried.
Stopping female infanticide is one thing, but Islam doesn't stop the oppression of women...they will just new ways to suppress and oppress them.
gnostic
The Lost One
What is wrong with a woman having 4 husbands?
Unless the woman have the rights as men, this polygamy is only for misogynistic patriarchal societies, which has nothing to do with equal rights.
In the Qur'an, the husbands have the green-light to beat his wife if she was "disobedient". But disobedient could be more than Muslim's excuse that this relate to wife being "adulterous". That just an excuse. The disobedience could mean a lot of things, because disobedience is rather vague.
What if the wife is wiser than her husband. Must she be obedient even if her husband is dumber than her and he was doing something wrong? Being a man, husband or head of the house doesn't make a man smarter or wiser or moral than his wife.
The Qur'an 4 would only work if the husbands or men ARE ALWAYS RIGHT and women ARE ALWAYS WRONG OR STUPID.
The verse doesn't take into account if the wives are more intelligent, more wiser or more moral than the husbands. The verse make wife no better than being a "slave", where she must be obedient at all cost.
That's how backward the Qur'an regarding to women. The Qur'an is outdated guide to morality, and mainly favored the men over the women. Where Qur'an does treat women with better respect, is on usually very trivial matters.
gnostic
The Lost One
Muhammad never had political power, while he was living in Mecca.
I think when he left Mecca, in exile, he became bitter, resentful and angry. Those feelings are normal if you lose everything.
The problem is that once he came to Medina, and gain political power for the first time, it had corrupted him. He used those resentments and anger to lash out anyone who oppose him. He had become vindictive, and with those political and military powers, he used them as weapon to bullying people around.
When a person who has being bullied and tormented, turn it around, and start bullying back, then it make him no different than the bullies who has tormented him. Essentially, he has become the bully.
I believed that his moral compass was broken when he left Mecca in exile.
Ocellatus
New Member
Interesting how power does not corrupt. It reveals.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
I thought he sold some of those captives to their family members and let others go free in exchange for literacy lessons.
Did he really beat Aisha?
Last edited:
These Sahih were written after the Umayyads rose to power and muzzled dissent by ruthless means. So the question becomes who had the guts to record or write anything that disagreed with the Umayyad version of events in the Islamic age? For example if the Umayyads wanted to rape and plunder loot and conquer, who had the guts to say MP didn't allow it in their courts? Who had the guts to say MP didn't change, but the Ummayds changed what MP said to reflect what they wanted?
How about spending a little time reading who were the Umayyads? How well did they know MP? How much did they love Islam when they had a choice to willingly accept it? How did they behave towards Muslims and MP when they had the freedom of choice to convert?
Also, how about spending a little time on reading how they treated the children of Abu Bakr and the Rashidun? How did they treat the companions of MP in Mecca and Medina after taking control of the empire?
All these things are weighed and considered by Muslims when they read these texts that you are quoting.
In case you didn't realize MPs entire ministry was spent fighting with the Ummayds and their father. Then MP forgave them 2 years before he died after defeating them during the conquest of Mecca. Then the Umayyads came into power soon after MP died and exacted revenge on those who had fought them as Muslims. So are you seriously suggesting that people ignore these realities and read the texts and laws written in their courts about what MP was teaching?
We would have to be imbeciles to read about English and American leaders of WWII in texts authored by the children of the 3rd Reich if they had all been pardoned and if we expected them to be impartial. Especially if after they were pardoned they took power over the world and executed the children of the leaders of the Allied forces as revenge. Yet I believe you are waving these books in people's faces and think they mean something that they clearly don't to reasonable rational and logical students of Islamic history. Muslims read those texts to understand how to perform rituals not to gain a political understanding of what happened in that age
Last edited:
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
Social withdrawal, sloppiness of dress and hygiene, and loss of motivation and judgment are all common in schizophrenia.
Do you think Prophet Muhammad (messenger of Allah) had any of this?
He taught his people to socialize, to dress nice, to clean themselves, and to smell pleasant.
Here is Anas ibn Maalik
The Prophet
The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) liked aromatic things and perfume, he used them himself and recommended their use to others. On waking up he would relieve himself, perform Wudhu, and apply fragrance on his clothing. If fragrance was presented to him, he would never refuse it. He would use perfume at night too, especially on Fridays for Jumu'ah prayers.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes Muhammad was very hygienic, just read this, no wonder he used a lot of perfume lol.Social withdrawal, sloppiness of dress and hygiene, and loss of motivation and judgment are all common in schizophrenia.
Do you think Prophet Muhammad (messenger of Allah) had any of this?
He taught his people to socialize, to dress nice, to clean themselves, and to smell pleasant.
Here is Anas ibn Maaliksaying, "I have never smelled any ambergris, musk nor anything [that is] more pleasant than the smell of the Messenger of Allah."
The Prophetwould perfume himself with the best perfume he could find.
The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) liked aromatic things and perfume, he used them himself and recommended their use to others. On waking up he would relieve himself, perform Wudhu, and apply fragrance on his clothing. If fragrance was presented to him, he would never refuse it. He would use perfume at night too, especially on Fridays for Jumu'ah prayers.
Sunan Abu Dawud 67--I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual cloths and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, it reveal that Muhammad is vindictive hypocrite, and when he had power to do something about it, he and warband rob, kill, sell people as slaves or take money for ransoms, and he prevent people to keep their religion.
And you and I have different takes on what "corrupt" is.
Ocellatus
New Member
My observation was that once in a position of power, a person's true nature is often revealed rather than "corrupted" i.e. warped into something it was not. If this account is accurate (not challenging, just not familiar) then it sounds like power allowed his true intentions to be expressed.
If we disagree in this, could you expand?
O
Yes that is what I thought you meant, but some people lack the critical reading comprehension skills to understand what you said, because apparently English isn't their first language and possibly due to some other factors.
gnostic
The Lost One
Are you kidding me?!
I have already given several long explanations, plus examples of Muhammad's actions that I find highly unethical, but you want more?
Read my earlier replies, Ocellatus...and you would see that I explain already.
Muhammad is not a moral man, and I have given examples as to why I find his actions immoral. I don't think I need to explain further, unless you give me more specifics. Otherwise, I am not going to waste more of my time, and write another long reply to explain something that I have already said.
Ocellatus
New Member
Are you kidding me?!
I have already given several long explanations, plus examples of Muhammad's actions that I find highly unethical, but you want more?
Read my earlier replies, Ocellatus...and you would see that I explain already.
Muhammad is not a moral man, and I have given examples as to why I find his actions immoral. I don't think I need to explain further, unless you give me more specifics. Otherwise, I am not going to waste more of my time, and write another long reply to explain something that I have already said.
Nope, not asking for more. I think you've been very clear on the issue of his morality, and my post regarding the effects of power on human nature was not a disagreement, but an observation.
IME this happens across all spectrums - faith, political or what have you. Once a person comes to power, especially if unchecked, their true selves often emerge.
You stated that we have " different takes on what "corrupt" is. My followup was to clarify what you think that difference is.
O
Yep third time is usually a charm. I'm praying for you, hopefully, he understands this time around
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
So you are saying that powers didn't corrupt him, as in powers "didn't change him", that his moral compass was already broken long before he came to Medina?
Is that what you are saying?
That is his "true self", Muhammad was always ambitious, vain-glory, petty, vindictive and tyrannical. That's all these attributes were hidden away, until he has real powers.
What I think you are saying is that Muhammad was like all this, before he even he left Mecca or even younger still, like before he became a prophet. Is that what you are saying?
I'd suppose that it is possible, that you are looking at him that powers didn't corrupt him, he was always or already corrupted.
I would suppose that a possibility if that's what you are saying. That we are looking at Muhammad from two different perspectives.
Did you know I haven't taken a single subject on psychology?
I'd suppose I misread your earlier post. If that's the case then I am sorry for misunderstanding your point.
Okay, expanding my view to answer your earlier question:
I am of the view that a person, not just Muhammad...so I do mean "anyone", is "not necessarily" born like this, as in born with your "true self".
I wrote "not necessarily", because there are many possible views to view this, with no real wrong answers.
I would suppose that it is possible to be "born with it", literally, like a person inheriting his (or hers) traits or characters from one or even both of his (or her) parents, thus inheriting his behaviour like inheriting physical attributes, sort of like if his father is tall than he might become as tall as his father.
So inheriting personality, as in genetic imprinting.
That could be a possibility, where behavioural attributes can be inborn.
The problem with any of this, is that we don't have any accurate account about Muhammad and his parents, because a lot of their lives are shrouded in legends and propaganda, especially anything regarding to what Muhammad's life before becoming a prophet.
Like I said, it is a possibility, but I am of view that "true self" could more likely to be "nurtured" then it be "inborn".
That "life" is not just what you inherit from your parents that personality, behaviour, character or traits come from personal experiences.
"Life" is like a "journey", made from what you are personally experiencing at that time, who you met, and the decision you make. That character can be nurtured and build on top of each experience, so your character was built from the sum of a person's experiences and choices made.
What I am saying that your character or personality can come experiences, from the "road taken" or the "road not taken".
For instance, in the beginning of Muhammad's preaching to the public, Muhammad tried to gain supporters and believers including Jews. When the majority of Jews rejected his claims of being the new prophet, that rejections caused resentment towards Jews.
I don't think he was born resenting Jews. Those (resentments) and his hostility towards Jews came from experiences.
So to sum it all up, some true self can be "born from", le genetic imprinting, but most true self come from personal experiences and choices made in those moments.
Do you now understand my perspective?
Ocellatus
New Member
Thanks for the explanation gnostic, that greatly clarifies your position.
I truly don't know enough about Muhammad's life history or rise to power to properly comment on when he acquired the traits you mention.
I too doubt that he, or anyone, was born hating certain people, and that he was likely a of product of nature and the circumstances / decisions that shaped him through life.
My observation was only that it's rare for people to make a 180 degree turn from who they truly are when they assume the mantle of power. More often, the exercise of power reveals their true intentions / nature, however they acquired them.
It doesn't seem we disagree on this point after all.
O
gnostic
The Lost One
I have merely misunderstood what Ocellatus meant by WHEN the corruption occurred, J2hapydna.
Once he has clarified to me with more explanation plus example, we are able to move forward.
I have tried to clarify to you my position a number of times that you have misrepresented my views with your straw man attacks.
You have no rights in bringing our fight here. This is a new and different thread.
Sorry, Ocellatus.
We (J2hapydna and I) have been having argument where he repeatedly used straw man tactics to askew my points, in a different topic. J2hapydna should have not brought up our old argument here.
J2hapydna:
Can you not leave that argument behind? This is a different topic, different thread. Try to move forward here, instead of attacking me here about different argument.