Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Jochistan]

1. By Hadiths. These are dubious and absolutely not solid factual evidence. They paint a blurry picture. But they arent entirely a good historical source, know what I'm sayin?
2. But he didn't slaughter and enslave an entire tribe. The Warriors of Banu Qurayza were executed for treason and the Noncombatants were banished. The ruling was actually by Jewish jurists in accordance with the laws of the Torah. Muhammad just confirmed the ruling. Which was still explicitly against combatants.

1- To deny the legitimacy of the Hadiths is not very popular amongst the mainstream branches of Islam now, is it?
2- From what I know, women and children were taken as slaves, not banished. Regardless, the fact that their treatment is consistent with millenia old Jewish custom does not mean one must look at it benignly in 2015, no?

1. Yeah but Most Muslims overlook that hadith. Or offer apologies for it, instead of recognizing that basing a "history" on "I knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy..." is flawed as shit.
2. I was taught that they were banished. And the Hadith i've read says they were banished. We should look at the ruling as a reflection of the times and a manner of moral conflict for the Prophet. Which is what it probably was.

[Mahdistan]

Do the Muslims here believe Muhammad was morally pure,with no flaws?

No. I don't. And I really cannot understand why so many Muslims would think that.

I chose to devote myself because he was so human. He was ultimately righteous and a good example, and his good deeds and intents outshone his bad.

But he struggled, he made mistakes, he sinned. Even though, yes he was ultimately righteous and pure (in intent) you want a morally pure god-man, follow Christianity.

I believe he was perfect and without error or sin because I believe God requires a perfect, sinless vessel to deliver his own word and ensure that it wouldn't become corrupted. I believe all prophets of God were perfect, as perfection is necessary to prevent corruption and perversion of God's word.

[Jochistan]

No. I don't. And I really cannot understand why so many Muslims would think that.

I chose to devote myself because he was so human. He was ultimately righteous and a good example, and his good deeds and intents outshone his bad.

But he struggled, he made mistakes, he sinned. Even though, yes he was ultimately righteous and pure (in intent) you want a morally pure god-man, follow Christianity.

I believe he was perfect and without error or sin because I believe God requires a perfect, sinless vessel to deliver his own word and ensure that it wouldn't become corrupted. I believe all prophets of God were perfect, as perfection is necessary to prevent corruption and perversion of God's word.

Yeah but you can't exactly reconcile that with some things Muhammad had to do.

He was without error in intentions, probably. But I dont deny he transgressed. Thats what made him all the more human. All the more connect-able (for me)

[Mahdistan]

I believe he was perfect and without error or sin because I believe God requires a perfect, sinless vessel to deliver his own word and ensure that it wouldn't become corrupted. I believe all prophets of God were perfect, as perfection is necessary to prevent corruption and perversion of God's word.

Yeah but you can't exactly reconcile that with some things Muhammad had to do.

He was without error in intentions, probably. But I dont deny he transgressed. Thats what made him all the more human. All the more connect-able (for me)

I think all of his actions were for the good of Islam, and that all he did was for the faith, which could constitute him as perfect. The Quran also says that one must always follow what the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says, and while this may not always be possible for us, it was possible for his companions. I don't think God would have order the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) if he wasn't perfect in action as well.

[Jochistan]

Yeah but you can't exactly reconcile that with some things Muhammad had to do.

He was without error in intentions, probably. But I dont deny he transgressed. Thats what made him all the more human. All the more connect-able (for me)

I think all of his actions were for the good of Islam, and that all he did was for the faith, which could constitute him as perfect. The Quran also says that one must always follow what the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says, and while this may not always be possible for us, it was possible for his companions. I don't think God would have order the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) if he wasn't perfect in action as well.

But what about the Banu Qurayza or the fact that he executed people like the poet/propagandists?

Also. What about the Satanic Verses?

Those sort of show that he's capable of messing up God's word

[Mahdistan]

I think all of his actions were for the good of Islam, and that all he did was for the faith, which could constitute him as perfect. The Quran also says that one must always follow what the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says, and while this may not always be possible for us, it was possible for his companions. I don't think God would have order the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) if he wasn't perfect in action as well.

But what about the Banu Qurayza or the fact that he executed people like the poet/propagandists?

Also. What about the Satanic Verses?

Those sort of show that he's capable of messing up God's word

I don't believe any Hadith which claims he executed poets, and the Benu Qurayza deserved what they got.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Jochistan]

But what about the Banu Qurayza or the fact that he executed people like the poet/propagandists?

Also. What about the Satanic Verses?

Those sort of show that he's capable of messing up God's word

I don't believe any Hadith which claims he executed poets, and the Benu Qurayza deserved what they got.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

But as for the poets: abu Afak, al Harith, Ka'b ibn al Ashraf, Abu Rafi ibn Abi al Huqaiq were all poets who insulted Muhammad in their verses and were ordered executed because of it. My guess is it was probably his men falsely attributing the order to him to gain credibility. These come from records from Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham.

As for the Satanic Verses, I mean the verse in the Qur'an where Muhammad tries to compromise with the Kafr by including the verse in Sura an Najm after ayat 20. Promoting the 3 goddesses of the Meccan Quraish

"And have you not considered Al lat, al Uzzah and Man at, the third. The exalted daughters of Allah whose intercession is hoped for?" Sura an Najm

He is later rebuked by Allah for "falling to Satan", and he repents. But still...That clearly shows Muhammad is capable of sinning.

I think some of his "greyer" aspects make him all the more human. All the more colorful and, yes, righteous.
I did not revert to follow a man-god.

[Mahdistan]

I don't believe any Hadith which claims he executed poets, and the Benu Qurayza deserved what they got.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

But as for the poets: abu Afak, al Harith, Ka'b ibn al Ashraf, Abu Rafi ibn Abi al Huqaiq were all poets who insulted Muhammad in their verses and were ordered executed because of it. My guess is it was probably his men falsely attributing the order to him to gain credibility. These come from records from Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham.

As for the Satanic Verses, I mean the verse in the Qur'an where Muhammad tries to compromise with the Kafr by including the verse in Sura an Najm after ayat 20. Promoting the 3 goddesses of the Meccan Quraish

"And have you not considered Al lat, al Uzzah and Man at, the third. The exalted daughters of Allah whose intercession is hoped for?" Sura an Najm

He is later rebuked by Allah for "falling to Satan", and he repents. But still...That clearly shows Muhammad is capable of sinning.

I think some of his "greyer" aspects make him all the more human. All the more colorful and, yes, righteous.
I did not revert to follow a man-god.

As I said, I question some of the validity of these Hadith. Perhaps something similar happened, but the actual records of what happened are lost. I refuse to believe that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would needlessly kill these men, especially when the very Quran he spoke condemns it.

I do not know enough about this to give an answer. I'll have to look more into it myself.

[Jochistan]

I do not know enough about this to give an answer. I'll have to look more into it myself.

The Satanic verses?

[Mahdistan]

I do not know enough about this to give an answer. I'll have to look more into it myself.

The Satanic verses?

Yes.

[Jochistan]

1- To deny the legitimacy of the Hadiths is not very popular amongst the mainstream branches of Sunni Islam now, is it?

Well, as you probably guessed, I don't fit that bill.

[Salus Maior]

That's not to say that everyone in the New Testament was perfect. Jesus probably has flaws somewhere in there, too, that I personally have not heard of.

The Apostles certainly were flawed, but Christ is sinless because He was God Incarnate (as it goes in Christianity), as opposed to a messenger as Muhammed was.

[Jochistan]

That's not to say that everyone in the New Testament was perfect. Jesus probably has flaws somewhere in there, too, that I personally have not heard of.

The Apostles certainly were flawed, but Christ is sinless because He was God Incarnate (as it goes in Christianity), as opposed to a messenger as Muhammed was.

He's really closer to the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of Moses and David in terms of sinlessness, in my opinion. He was/is righteous and utterly holy to be sure. With pure intentions. but he was not above his humanity and transgressing.

[Salus Maior]

The Apostles certainly were flawed, but Christ is sinless because He was God Incarnate (as it goes in Christianity), as opposed to a messenger as Muhammed was.

He's really closer to the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of Moses and David in terms of sinlessness, in my opinion. He was/is righteous and utterly holy to be sure. With pure intentions. but he was not above his humanity and transgressing.

Muhammed you mean? Yes, from what I can tell about him that is the case. But then again I'm no Muslim and have only within the past year thought well of the religion.

Although, I might say that David had a lot more self-centeredness and gray areas than most of, shall we say, God's "Chosen people".

Oh, btw, is there any truth to this or is it a bad article? https://www.rt.com/news/317831-saudi-cl ... ia-russia/ Either way, not surprised.

[Jochistan]

He's really closer to the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of Moses and David in terms of sinlessness, in my opinion. He was/is righteous and utterly holy to be sure. With pure intentions. but he was not above his humanity and transgressing.

Muhammed you mean? Yes, from what I can tell about him that is the case. But then again I'm no Muslim and have only within the past year thought well of the religion.

Although, I might say that David had a lot more self-centeredness and gray areas than most of, shall we say, God's "Chosen people".

Oh, btw, is there any truth to this or is it a bad article? https://www.rt.com/news/317831-saudi-cl ... ia-russia/ Either way, not surprised.

Yes, I mean Muhammad. Although that's just my opinion.

As for the Article, I haven't heard of that. but it sounds like something the Saudis would do. Even though they stand no chance and are not in any position to do so since the Houthis are slowly making their way northward.

[Mahdistan]

He's really closer to the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of Moses and David in terms of sinlessness, in my opinion. He was/is righteous and utterly holy to be sure. With pure intentions. but he was not above his humanity and transgressing.

Muhammed you mean? Yes, from what I can tell about him that is the case. But then again I'm no Muslim and have only within the past year thought well of the religion.

Although, I might say that David had a lot more self-centeredness and gray areas than most of, shall we say, God's "Chosen people".

Oh, btw, is there any truth to this or is it a bad article? https://www.rt.com/news/317831-saudi-cl ... ia-russia/ Either way, not surprised.

The article is very likely not true. I read RT more than any other news site, but I will admit Russia is extremely biased towards Syria and against Saudi Arabia. They're not above making up lies to make the other side look bad, and they've done that a lot of times before.

[Tafhan]

Speaking of The Satanic Verses (yes I know you weren't talking about the book)

I don't know if any of you here have perused the book at all. But I gotta say, for all the bad press it's gotten It's portrayal of Muhammad is honestly the most respectful, dignified and even heartbreaking portrayal of him I've ever seen.

I mean it does detail some stuff that's controversial, like him receiving visions from Multiple deities and him fighting against that vision to keep true towards the Monotheism he knows isn't true (in the book). But overall, he's actually portrayed as a really dignified and moral character.

I dunno, I just thought it was weird.

[The Alma Mater]

That's not to say that everyone in the New Testament was perfect. Jesus probably has flaws somewhere in there, too, that I personally have not heard of.

The Apostles certainly were flawed, but Christ is sinless because He was God Incarnate (as it goes in Christianity), as opposed to a messenger as Muhammed was.

His tempertantrum when a poor little bush would not give him fruit out of season however...

[Tafhan]

The Apostles certainly were flawed, but Christ is sinless because He was God Incarnate (as it goes in Christianity), as opposed to a messenger as Muhammed was.

His tempertantrum when a poor little bush would not give him fruit out of season however...

That was a fucking bush.

Just because your parents make you go to church every Sunday doesn't mean it gives you any justification to take it out on Jesus.

It's honestly pretty hard to find any fault with Jesus's morality.

[The Alma Mater]

His tempertantrum when a poor little bush would not give him fruit out of season however...

That was a fucking bush.

Just because your parents make you go to church every Sunday doesn't mean it gives you any justification to take it out on Jesus.

It's honestly pretty hard to find any fault with Jesus's morality.

Ohno, it is very easy. Jesus promotes mediocrity. He himself was merely average - just like Muhammed. Their followers are stunted by considering them the "ultimate example" - they could do so much better.

[Jochistan]

That was a fucking bush.

Just because your parents make you go to church every Sunday doesn't mean it gives you any justification to take it out on Jesus.

It's honestly pretty hard to find any fault with Jesus's morality.

Ohno, it is very easy. Jesus promotes mediocrity. He himself was merely average - just like Muhammed. Their followers are stunted by considering them the "ultimate example" - they could do so much better.

Oy vey.

[Jochistan]

Speaking of The Satanic Verses (yes I know you weren't talking about the book)

I don't know if any of you here have perused the book at all. But I gotta say, for all the bad press it's gotten It's portrayal of Muhammad is honestly the most respectful, dignified and even heartbreaking portrayal of him I've ever seen.

I mean it does detail some stuff that's controversial, like him receiving visions from Multiple deities and him fighting against that vision to keep true towards the Monotheism he knows isn't true (in the book). But overall, he's actually portrayed as a really dignified and moral character.

I dunno, I just thought it was weird.

I haven't read it all. I just skimmed through it a few times in a Bookstore.

I did notice that Muhammad (or Mahound, as he's called in it) seemed pretty sympathetic in the passages I read.

I think that fatwa against Rushdie was pretty fucking awful, though.

[Czechanada]

No. I don't. And I really cannot understand why so many Muslims would think that.

I chose to devote myself because he was so human. He was ultimately righteous and a good example, and his good deeds and intents outshone his bad.

But he struggled, he made mistakes, he sinned. Even though, yes he was ultimately righteous and pure (in intent) you want a morally pure god-man, follow Christianity.

I believe he was perfect and without error or sin because I believe God requires a perfect, sinless vessel to deliver his own word and ensure that it wouldn't become corrupted. I believe all prophets of God were perfect, as perfection is necessary to prevent corruption and perversion of God's word.

And here I thought that only Abraham was the perfect Muslim.

[Jochistan]

I believe he was perfect and without error or sin because I believe God requires a perfect, sinless vessel to deliver his own word and ensure that it wouldn't become corrupted. I believe all prophets of God were perfect, as perfection is necessary to prevent corruption and perversion of God's word.

And here I thought that only Abraham was the perfect Muslim.

Where does it say that?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I believe he was perfect and without error or sin because I believe God requires a perfect, sinless vessel to deliver his own word and ensure that it wouldn't become corrupted. I believe all prophets of God were perfect, as perfection is necessary to prevent corruption and perversion of God's word.

And here I thought that only Abraham was the perfect Muslim.

Perfection sounds boring.