Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[North Washington Republic]

That’s what I was thinking. Biden is a Catholic and while he is not an native Arabic speaker, native Arabic speakers who are Catholic also say “Inshallah”. In Biden’s case, the English equivalent would have been “God only knows when you’re going to release your taxes”, or something like that.

It is a command from the Qur'an to use. The most notable context is when Muhammad ﷺ said he would receive revelation soon and it didn't come for a long time and when it finally did Allah rebuked him and said, to paraphrase, don't have the presumption to take that for granted, don't presume you can do it have anything of your own power, say if Allah wills. So any time we speak of something to be done we say in sha' Allah. But lax Muslims basically use the term ironically,so for example if someone asks them to do something or give something they won't they say in sha' Allah, as in not happening, like, if God wills. Basically saying no. This is actually a very sinful use though. You are supposed to just say no. In sha' Allah is when you actually have a desire. Biden was using it in an ironic sense like rolling your eyes, as in yeah right when someone isn't going to do it but keeps a pretense

I’ve also heard Muslims say when they are requested to do something and they intent to fulfill that request to the best of their ability.

But do you acknowledge that non-Muslim Arabic speakers also use the phrase?

[Chess Reloaded]

It is a command from the Qur'an to use. The most notable context is when Muhammad ﷺ said he would receive revelation soon and it didn't come for a long time and when it finally did Allah rebuked him and said, to paraphrase, don't have the presumption to take that for granted, don't presume you can do it have anything of your own power, say if Allah wills. So any time we speak of something to be done we say in sha' Allah. But lax Muslims basically use the term ironically,so for example if someone asks them to do something or give something they won't they say in sha' Allah, as in not happening, like, if God wills. Basically saying no. This is actually a very sinful use though. You are supposed to just say no. In sha' Allah is when you actually have a desire. Biden was using it in an ironic sense like rolling your eyes, as in yeah right when someone isn't going to do it but keeps a pretense

I’ve also heard Muslims say when they are requested to do something and they intent to fulfill that request to the best of their ability.

But do you acknowledge that non-Muslim Arabic speakers also use the phrase?

Yes if you intend to do something you say that, be it a request or anything else

. Occasionally because it means “God willing”. Not as frequently as Muslims because it's not a religious obligation to use frequently except among Muslims

[Jolthig]

Out of curiosity, is it offensive for non-Muslim to use the term “Inshallah”? I’ve seen some Muslim take issue when Biden said it to Trump regarding if he is ever going to release his taxes.

I mean, Arab Christians use it. Plus, the Book of James mentions that Christians should say "God willing".

I personally don't see an issue with it as for me, it just further points to the common origin in all faiths which happens to be Allah.

[North Washington Republic]

I’ve also heard Muslims say when they are requested to do something and they intent to fulfill that request to the best of their ability.

But do you acknowledge that non-Muslim Arabic speakers also use the phrase?

Yes if you intend to do something you say that, be it a request or anything else

. Occasionally because it means “God willing”. Not as frequently as Muslims because it's not a religious obligation to use frequently except among Muslims

Would you consider the phrase الله أعلم/aallah 'aelam to be more appropriate for the context that Biden was using?

[Ansarullah]

[Deleted

Too much info bruh lmao

[Chess Reloaded]

Yes if you intend to do something you say that, be it a request or anything else

. Occasionally because it means “God willing”. Not as frequently as Muslims because it's not a religious obligation to use frequently except among Muslims

Would you consider the phrase الله أعلم/aallah 'aelam to be more appropriate for the context that Biden was using?

Not really. That's for knowledge.

[Deleted

Too much info bruh lmao

Tmi doesn't apply to discussion of practice, this is actually an established ruling from the Prophet ﷺ

https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/12370

[Galimencia]

The most interesting thing about Muslims is that, the man whom they consider to be the most 'perfect' individual to ever exist, was in fact a military commander who killed people and a man who married a total of 12 wives. I am not going into whether these acts were justified or not, but what I am saying is that we do not usually include 'violence' when we talk about good virtues in a man. I think, this pretty much explains the inherent violent nature of some of the more extremist Muslims like the Talibans.

[North Washington Republic]

Would you consider the phrase الله أعلم/aallah 'aelam to be more appropriate for the context that Biden was using?

Not really. That's for knowledge.

Too much info bruh lmao

Tmi doesn't apply to discussion of practice, this is actually an established ruling from the Prophet ﷺ

https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/12370

What Arabic term be appropriate in the context Biden was using? How do we state that some knowledge is only knowable to God?

And this leads me to thinking to dive deeper into this topic. Is it a sin to use God's name in vain in Islam? Like, telling someone "God Damn you!"

[Jolthig]

The most interesting thing about Muslims is that, the man whom they consider to be the most 'perfect' individual to ever exist, was in fact a military commander who killed people and a man who married a total of 12 wives. I am not going into whether these acts were justified or not, but what I am saying is that we do not usually include 'violence' when we talk about good virtues in a man. I think, this pretty much explains the inherent violent nature of some of the more extremist Muslims like the Talibans.

Interestingly, if one studies Muhammad's life detail for detail, he was an individual that never fought until last resort.

For 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina, never once did he raise the sword. One could say it was simply due to a lack of power in his hands, but if one compares the violent nature of some of the Muslims in the middle east with Muhamamd's life, it is clear Muhammad was a peacemaker.

Even during the first year of him being king of Medina, he never fought any wars, and by the time he did get the first verse on jihad by the sword, the verse was absolutely clear that jihad was defensive.

The point being made here is that Islam is about balance and when one thinks of doing any act, it should take place at the proper time and occasion.

In their arrogance, the Meccans, fearful of the new faith of Islam, send armies to force Muhammad and his followers to renounce their beliefs which is why, the Muslims responded with the sword to put an end to injustice.

Now, in regards to his marriages, even that isn't objectionable. His marriages are an example for the Muslims. Not in the sense of advocacy of polygamy but rather, how marriages should be conducted for instance, one of his wives was a Virgin, others were divorced or widowed, and one was even sent to him as a gift by the King of Egypt, which he set her free and married her (which i bet this part might also be disagreeable to some of the other Muslims in here, which I'll make a "controversial " claim: She was not a concubine. She was a wife as the others.). Also the building of alliances between tribes to strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

On top of it, his wives were teachers and they got to see Muhammad in his private life detail for detail and especially in the case of Aisha, they were the ones that were to teach the Ummah.

[Chess Reloaded]

The most interesting thing about Muslims is that, the man whom they consider to be the most 'perfect' individual to ever exist, was in fact a military commander who killed people and a man who married a total of 12 wives. I am not going into whether these acts were justified or not, but what I am saying is that we do not usually include 'violence' when we talk about good virtues in a man. I think, this pretty much explains the inherent violent nature of some of the more extremist Muslims like the Talibans.

Every president featured on American currency except the $2 bill gained distinction by his military leadership. And even Hamilton on the $10 was given prestige by his military service which he converted into political capital

[Chess Reloaded]

The most interesting thing about Muslims is that, the man whom they consider to be the most 'perfect' individual to ever exist, was in fact a military commander who killed people and a man who married a total of 12 wives. I am not going into whether these acts were justified or not, but what I am saying is that we do not usually include 'violence' when we talk about good virtues in a man. I think, this pretty much explains the inherent violent nature of some of the more extremist Muslims like the Talibans.

Interestingly, if one studies Muhammad's life detail for detail, he was an individual that never fought until last resort.

For 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina, never once did he raise the sword. One could say it was simply due to a lack of power in his hands, but if one compares the violent nature of some of the Muslims in the middle east with Muhamamd's life, it is clear Muhammad was a peacemaker.

Even during the first year of him being king of Medina, he never fought any wars, and by the time he did get the first verse on jihad by the sword, the verse was absolutely clear that jihad was defensive.

The point being made here is that Islam is about balance and when one thinks of doing any act, it should take place at the proper time and occasion.

In their arrogance, the Meccans, fearful of the new faith of Islam, send armies to force Muhammad and his followers to renounce their beliefs which is why, the Muslims responded with the sword to put an end to injustice.

Now, in regards to his marriages, even that isn't objectionable. His marriages are an example for the Muslims. Not in the sense of advocacy of polygamy but rather, how marriages should be conducted for instance, one of his wives was a Virgin, others were divorced or widowed, and one was even sent to him as a gift by the King of Egypt, which he set her free and married her (which i bet this part might also be disagreeable to some of the other Muslims in here, which I'll make a "controversial " claim: She was not a concubine. She was a wife as the others.). Also the building of alliances between tribes to strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

On top of it, his wives were teachers and they got to see Muhammad in his private life detail for detail and especially in the case of Aisha, they were the ones that were to teach the Ummah.

He never referred to himself as a king and it is incorrect to refer to him that way.

The greatest injustice is shirk. You're mixing orders from Allah regarding the development of jihad with prophet strategy. He didn't fight for a long time because he was ordered not to, and when he did it was because he was ordered to

I'm not even sure why your sect feels the need to say she wasn't a concubine but a wife as if suddenly westerners will be appeased by that.

[Lady Victory]

Plus, the Book of James mentions that Christians should say "God willing".

Which translates into Latin as "Deus Vult".

[Chess Reloaded]

Plus, the Book of James mentions that Christians should say "God willing".

Which translates into Latin as "Deus Vult".

I think that's God wills it. Which is the opposite. One is saying if God wills this it will happen, the other is saying He wills it so it will happen

[Samudera Darussalam]

Interestingly, if one studies Muhammad's life detail for detail, he was an individual that never fought until last resort.

For 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina, never once did he raise the sword. One could say it was simply due to a lack of power in his hands, but if one compares the violent nature of some of the Muslims in the middle east with Muhamamd's life, it is clear Muhammad was a peacemaker.

Even during the first year of him being king of Medina, he never fought any wars, and by the time he did get the first verse on jihad by the sword, the verse was absolutely clear that jihad was defensive.

The point being made here is that Islam is about balance and when one thinks of doing any act, it should take place at the proper time and occasion.

In their arrogance, the Meccans, fearful of the new faith of Islam, send armies to force Muhammad and his followers to renounce their beliefs which is why, the Muslims responded with the sword to put an end to injustice.

Now, in regards to his marriages, even that isn't objectionable. His marriages are an example for the Muslims. Not in the sense of advocacy of polygamy but rather, how marriages should be conducted for instance, one of his wives was a Virgin, others were divorced or widowed, and one was even sent to him as a gift by the King of Egypt, which he set her free and married her (which i bet this part might also be disagreeable to some of the other Muslims in here, which I'll make a "controversial " claim: She was not a concubine. She was a wife as the others.). Also the building of alliances between tribes to strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

On top of it, his wives were teachers and they got to see Muhammad in his private life detail for detail and especially in the case of Aisha, they were the ones that were to teach the Ummah.

He never referred to himself as a king and it is incorrect to refer to him that way.

The greatest injustice is shirk. You're mixing orders from Allah regarding the development of jihad with prophet strategy. He didn't fight for a long time because he was ordered not to, and when he did it was because he was ordered to

I'm not even sure why your sect feels the need to say she wasn't a concubine but a wife as if suddenly westerners will be appeased by that.

I-what?

Also I don't think it has to do with "Westerners". If it's their own interpretation of the event then let it be. Personally, I don't know much about the wife in question so I can't comment.

[Jolthig]

Interestingly, if one studies Muhammad's life detail for detail, he was an individual that never fought until last resort.

For 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina, never once did he raise the sword. One could say it was simply due to a lack of power in his hands, but if one compares the violent nature of some of the Muslims in the middle east with Muhamamd's life, it is clear Muhammad was a peacemaker.

Even during the first year of him being king of Medina, he never fought any wars, and by the time he did get the first verse on jihad by the sword, the verse was absolutely clear that jihad was defensive.

The point being made here is that Islam is about balance and when one thinks of doing any act, it should take place at the proper time and occasion.

In their arrogance, the Meccans, fearful of the new faith of Islam, send armies to force Muhammad and his followers to renounce their beliefs which is why, the Muslims responded with the sword to put an end to injustice.

Now, in regards to his marriages, even that isn't objectionable. His marriages are an example for the Muslims. Not in the sense of advocacy of polygamy but rather, how marriages should be conducted for instance, one of his wives was a Virgin, others were divorced or widowed, and one was even sent to him as a gift by the King of Egypt, which he set her free and married her (which i bet this part might also be disagreeable to some of the other Muslims in here, which I'll make a "controversial " claim: She was not a concubine. She was a wife as the others.). Also the building of alliances between tribes to strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

On top of it, his wives were teachers and they got to see Muhammad in his private life detail for detail and especially in the case of Aisha, they were the ones that were to teach the Ummah.

He never referred to himself as a king and it is incorrect to refer to him that way.

The greatest injustice is shirk. You're mixing orders from Allah regarding the development of jihad with prophet strategy. He didn't fight for a long time because he was ordered not to, and when he did it was because he was ordered to

I'm not even sure why your sect feels the need to say she wasn't a concubine but a wife as if suddenly westerners will be appeased by that.

Man, we really can't see eye to eye on anything, can we?

It's not about appeal to westerners for crying out loud. It's Sunnah.

You don't have any authority whatsoever to determine what is and isn't shirk. And no, your scholars whom you repeatedly commit appeal to authority fallacies won't help you here.

As a matter of fact, it could be argued that you yourself are committing shirk by taking the judgement of Allah and attempting to irrationally determine the faith of others.

Now before you accuse me of hypocrisy from the above, im just saying for argument's sake that I imply the above. Not even I can determine your faith.

If there's any pet peeve of mine, its these so called fatwas that Muslims supposedly should unquestionably follow despite the fact the ulama can't even agree with one another on many petty things just as it is reflected in here.

If I am disbeliever to you, so be it. I don't need you to determine my faith, with all due respect brother.

Remember, when you accuse others of lying or committing shirk, keep in mind, with these baseless accusations, you are what you yourself are accusing others of. I suggest you refrain from such, and if not, I may have to add you to my ignore list to prevent a flame war from breaking out between us.

I really doubt any sort of debate between us will really change each other's minds.

I mean, you've presented numerous historical inaccuracies in your attempted rebuttal to my arguments the other day and accused me of lying which is honestly pot meets the kettle black.

Perhaps I should consider not even replying at all if this is what its going to be, an argument about ones faith.

I say, let us both wait and see until Yaum Qiyammah. Then, we will both find out, just as I told Ansarullah.

[Chess Reloaded]

He never referred to himself as a king and it is incorrect to refer to him that way.

The greatest injustice is shirk. You're mixing orders from Allah regarding the development of jihad with prophet strategy. He didn't fight for a long time because he was ordered not to, and when he did it was because he was ordered to

I'm not even sure why your sect feels the need to say she wasn't a concubine but a wife as if suddenly westerners will be appeased by that.

I-what?

Also I don't think it has to do with "Westerners". If it's their own interpretation of the event then let it be. Personally, I don't know much about the wife in question so I can't comment.

Their sect's ideology and therefore exegesis is inextricable from support for the British Empire

[Chess Reloaded]

He never referred to himself as a king and it is incorrect to refer to him that way.

The greatest injustice is shirk. You're mixing orders from Allah regarding the development of jihad with prophet strategy. He didn't fight for a long time because he was ordered not to, and when he did it was because he was ordered to

I'm not even sure why your sect feels the need to say she wasn't a concubine but a wife as if suddenly westerners will be appeased by that.

Man, we really can't see eye to eye on anything, can we?

It's not about appeal to westerners for crying out loud. It's Sunnah.

You don't have any authority whatsoever to determine what is and isn't shirk. And no, your scholars whom you repeatedly commit appeal to authority fallacies won't help you here.

As a matter of fact, it could be argued that you yourself are committing shirk by taking the judgement of Allah and attempting to irrationally determine the faith of others.

Now before you accuse me of hypocrisy from the above, im just saying for argument's sake that I imply the above. Not even I can determine your faith.

If there's any pet peeve of mine, its these so called fatwas that Muslims supposedly should unquestionably follow despite the fact the ulama can't even agree with one another on many petty things just as it is reflected in here.

If I am disbeliever to you, so be it. I don't need you to determine my faith, with all due respect brother.

Remember, when you accuse others of lying or committing shirk, keep in mind, with these baseless accusations, you are what you yourself are accusing others of. I suggest you refrain from such, and if not, I may have to add you to my ignore list to prevent a flame war from breaking out between us.

I really doubt any sort of debate between us will really change each other's minds.

I mean, you've presented numerous historical inaccuracies in your attempted rebuttal to my arguments the other day and accused me of lying which is honestly pot meets the kettle black.

Perhaps I should consider not even replying at all if this is what its going to be, an argument about ones faith.

I say, let us both wait and see until Yaum Qiyammah. Then, we will both find out, just as I told Ansarullah.

If you don't think the Quran defines shirk then honestly nothing means anything to you in this religion

[Diarcesia]

Out of curiosity, is it offensive for non-Muslim to use the term “Inshallah”? I’ve seen some Muslim take issue when Biden said it to Trump regarding if he is ever going to release his taxes.

Uh Arab Christians also use it?

[Jolthig]

Man, we really can't see eye to eye on anything, can we?

It's not about appeal to westerners for crying out loud. It's Sunnah.

You don't have any authority whatsoever to determine what is and isn't shirk. And no, your scholars whom you repeatedly commit appeal to authority fallacies won't help you here.

As a matter of fact, it could be argued that you yourself are committing shirk by taking the judgement of Allah and attempting to irrationally determine the faith of others.

Now before you accuse me of hypocrisy from the above, im just saying for argument's sake that I imply the above. Not even I can determine your faith.

If there's any pet peeve of mine, its these so called fatwas that Muslims supposedly should unquestionably follow despite the fact the ulama can't even agree with one another on many petty things just as it is reflected in here.

If I am disbeliever to you, so be it. I don't need you to determine my faith, with all due respect brother.

Remember, when you accuse others of lying or committing shirk, keep in mind, with these baseless accusations, you are what you yourself are accusing others of. I suggest you refrain from such, and if not, I may have to add you to my ignore list to prevent a flame war from breaking out between us.

I really doubt any sort of debate between us will really change each other's minds.

I mean, you've presented numerous historical inaccuracies in your attempted rebuttal to my arguments the other day and accused me of lying which is honestly pot meets the kettle black.

Perhaps I should consider not even replying at all if this is what its going to be, an argument about ones faith.

I say, let us both wait and see until Yaum Qiyammah. Then, we will both find out, just as I told Ansarullah.

If you don't think the Quran defines shirk then honestly nothing means anything to you in this religion

Wow. What a strawman. I won't even explain myself to you. I've decided after this to refrain from debating you as you will not change your mind in any of your absurd and extreme views.

Islam is not supposed to be a burden on people but your scholars make it so. My last advice to you is don't blindly follow these scholars. They are misguiding you and stopping you from investigating on your own to increase your own faith.

With that said I will only respond to Lower Nubia when he comes back on here on slavery. Ive decided not to give your post a time.

Peace to you, brother. You are now on my ignore list as I humbly feel I cannot reason with you on anything.

[Chess Reloaded]

I don't find Islam a burden and neither does any Muslim I know. It's a joy

[Galimencia]

The most interesting thing about Muslims is that, the man whom they consider to be the most 'perfect' individual to ever exist, was in fact a military commander who killed people and a man who married a total of 12 wives. I am not going into whether these acts were justified or not, but what I am saying is that we do not usually include 'violence' when we talk about good virtues in a man. I think, this pretty much explains the inherent violent nature of some of the more extremist Muslims like the Talibans.

Interestingly, if one studies Muhammad's life detail for detail, he was an individual that never fought until last resort.

For 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina, never once did he raise the sword. One could say it was simply due to a lack of power in his hands, but if one compares the violent nature of some of the Muslims in the middle east with Muhamamd's life, it is clear Muhammad was a peacemaker.

Even during the first year of him being king of Medina, he never fought any wars, and by the time he did get the first verse on jihad by the sword, the verse was absolutely clear that jihad was defensive.

The point being made here is that Islam is about balance and when one thinks of doing any act, it should take place at the proper time and occasion.

In their arrogance, the Meccans, fearful of the new faith of Islam, send armies to force Muhammad and his followers to renounce their beliefs which is why, the Muslims responded with the sword to put an end to injustice.

Now, in regards to his marriages, even that isn't objectionable. His marriages are an example for the Muslims. Not in the sense of advocacy of polygamy but rather, how marriages should be conducted for instance, one of his wives was a Virgin, others were divorced or widowed, and one was even sent to him as a gift by the King of Egypt, which he set her free and married her (which i bet this part might also be disagreeable to some of the other Muslims in here, which I'll make a "controversial " claim: She was not a concubine. She was a wife as the others.). Also the building of alliances between tribes to strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

On top of it, his wives were teachers and they got to see Muhammad in his private life detail for detail and especially in the case of Aisha, they were the ones that were to teach the Ummah.

You are not getting my point. Violence, even when used as a defensive measure does not means that it isn't harmful. I haven't read Quran( and I won't care about reading one either), so I don't know exactly what Muhammad's motives were when he used violence, may be it was as a defensive resort as you've pointed out, but the fact can not be denied that he killed people. People who had wives, children, brothers, sisters and parents. Even though it was for defensive measure. You know, for me this is where he loses his 'sacred' nature. I feel, that the very moment he decided it was time to fight back, he made it pretty evident that he too was after all a common man, who has no other option but to retaliate when he has been pushed to the very limit. This is where he loses his legitimacy in my eyes as a God-mandated prophet, but instead becomes an everyday individual like you and me. This is where I can differ between him and Jesus. In spite of being killed in one of the most brutal fashion one can imagine, Jesus and his followers didn't took the sword. Instead Jesus decided to forgive even those who killed him and renounced violence till the very end of His life. This, I feel, is the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. One is truly divine, and proved it till by forgiving His killers, while the other one decided to fight back and initiate 'Jihad' when he felt no other option was feasible.

PS: These are my personal opinions, and are not meant to hurt anyone. I whole heartedly apologise if anyone feels offended by any of my remark.

[Czervenika]

You are not getting my point. Violence, even when used as a defensive measure does not means that it isn't harmful. I haven't read Quran( and I won't care about reading one either), so I don't know exactly what Muhammad's motives were when he used violence, may be it was as a defensive resort as you've pointed out, but the fact can not be denied that he killed people. People who had wives, children, brothers, sisters and parents. Even though it was for defensive measure. You know, for me this is where he loses his 'sacred' nature. I feel, that the very moment he decided it was time to fight back, he made it pretty evident that he too was after all a common man, who has no other option but to retaliate when he has been pushed to the very limit. This is where he loses his legitimacy in my eyes as a God-mandated prophet, but instead becomes an everyday individual like you and me. This is where I can differ between him and Jesus. In spite of being killed in one of the most brutal fashion one can imagine, Jesus and his followers didn't took the sword. Instead Jesus decided to forgive even those who killed him and renounced violence till the very end of His life. This, I feel, is the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. One is truly divine, and proved it till by forgiving His killers, while the other one decided to fight back and initiate 'Jihad' when he felt no other option was feasible.

PS: These are my personal opinions, and are not meant to hurt anyone. I whole heartedly apologise if anyone feels offended by any of my remark.

Not a Christian or Muslim myself, but I actually don't see Muhammad going to war in self-defense as some kind of dealbreaker. God himself carried out some incredibly violent and sadistic acts if one takes the Biblical events as actual truth. God is clearly capable of violence so evidently his prophets would be as well.

[Chess Reloaded]

Interestingly, if one studies Muhammad's life detail for detail, he was an individual that never fought until last resort.

For 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina, never once did he raise the sword. One could say it was simply due to a lack of power in his hands, but if one compares the violent nature of some of the Muslims in the middle east with Muhamamd's life, it is clear Muhammad was a peacemaker.

Even during the first year of him being king of Medina, he never fought any wars, and by the time he did get the first verse on jihad by the sword, the verse was absolutely clear that jihad was defensive.

The point being made here is that Islam is about balance and when one thinks of doing any act, it should take place at the proper time and occasion.

In their arrogance, the Meccans, fearful of the new faith of Islam, send armies to force Muhammad and his followers to renounce their beliefs which is why, the Muslims responded with the sword to put an end to injustice.

Now, in regards to his marriages, even that isn't objectionable. His marriages are an example for the Muslims. Not in the sense of advocacy of polygamy but rather, how marriages should be conducted for instance, one of his wives was a Virgin, others were divorced or widowed, and one was even sent to him as a gift by the King of Egypt, which he set her free and married her (which i bet this part might also be disagreeable to some of the other Muslims in here, which I'll make a "controversial " claim: She was not a concubine. She was a wife as the others.). Also the building of alliances between tribes to strengthen the Islamic Ummah.

On top of it, his wives were teachers and they got to see Muhammad in his private life detail for detail and especially in the case of Aisha, they were the ones that were to teach the Ummah.

You are not getting my point. Violence, even when used as a defensive measure does not means that it isn't harmful. I haven't read Quran( and I won't care about reading one either), so I don't know exactly what Muhammad's motives were when he used violence, may be it was as a defensive resort as you've pointed out, but the fact can not be denied that he killed people. People who had wives, children, brothers, sisters and parents. Even though it was for defensive measure. You know, for me this is where he loses his 'sacred' nature. I feel, that the very moment he decided it was time to fight back, he made it pretty evident that he too was after all a common man, who has no other option but to retaliate when he has been pushed to the very limit. This is where he loses his legitimacy in my eyes as a God-mandated prophet, but instead becomes an everyday individual like you and me. This is where I can differ between him and Jesus. In spite of being killed in one of the most brutal fashion one can imagine, Jesus and his followers didn't took the sword. Instead Jesus decided to forgive even those who killed him and renounced violence till the very end of His life. This, I feel, is the difference between Jesus and Muhammad. One is truly divine, and proved it till by forgiving His killers, while the other one decided to fight back and initiate 'Jihad' when he felt no other option was feasible.

PS: These are my personal opinions, and are not meant to hurt anyone. I whole heartedly apologise if anyone feels offended by any of my remark.

Prophets kill people all the time in the Bible

[Vistulange]

The most interesting thing about Muslims is that, the man whom they consider to be the most 'perfect' individual to ever exist, was in fact a military commander who killed people and a man who married a total of 12 wives. I am not going into whether these acts were justified or not, but what I am saying is that we do not usually include 'violence' when we talk about good virtues in a man. I think, this pretty much explains the inherent violent nature of some of the more extremist Muslims like the Talibans.

Every president featured on American currency except the $2 bill gained distinction by his military leadership. And even Hamilton on the $10 was given prestige by his military service which he converted into political capital

Yes, but most people don't regard American presidents as an example to be followed, ordained thus by an omniscient and omnipotent creator.

Practically all the "but your culture has this!" whataboutisms fall flat precisely due to the very nature of the deity that is in question. American presidents are mortal and flawed (sometimes heavily so, sometimes less so) and nobody in their right mind claims they were perfect in any way.

Prophets kill people all the time in the Bible

This low-key pissing contest with Christianity notwithstanding, it's my understanding that the Christians (at least on this thread) take the Bible far less literally than Muslims take the Quran literally. And that's a key difference. Again, I could be wrong, so they ought to feel free to rip this post apart, but from what I've seen, they take the Bible more or less as a sort of moral compass and not a definitive book which lists what you must do, what you mustn't do, and so on.

Whereas the Quran is very clear on such points, partially just by itself and partially due to its very nature, i.e., being the direct words of God himself, spoken to his Prophet and transcribed exactly as the Prophet communicated them to his listeners. Christians, while acknowledging the "correctness" of the Bible, don't ingrain such direct divinity to the text.

[Diarcesia]

Every president featured on American currency except the $2 bill gained distinction by his military leadership. And even Hamilton on the $10 was given prestige by his military service which he converted into political capital

Yes, but most people don't regard American presidents as an example to be followed, ordained thus by an omniscient and omnipotent creator.

Practically all the "but your culture has this!" whataboutisms fall flat precisely due to the very nature of the deity that is in question. American presidents are mortal and flawed (sometimes heavily so, sometimes less so) and nobody in their right mind claims they were perfect in any way.

Prophets kill people all the time in the Bible

This low-key pissing contest with Christianity notwithstanding, it's my understanding that the Christians (at least on this thread) take the Bible far less literally than Muslims take the Quran literally. And that's a key difference. Again, I could be wrong, so they ought to feel free to rip this post apart, but from what I've seen, they take the Bible more or less as a sort of moral compass and not a definitive book which lists what you must do, what you mustn't do, and so on.

Whereas the Quran is very clear on such points, partially just by itself and partially due to its very nature, i.e., being the direct words of God himself, spoken to his Prophet and transcribed exactly as the Prophet communicated them to his listeners. Christians, while acknowledging the "correctness" of the Bible, don't ingrain such direct divinity to the text.

Afaik, this is false. It's not the literal word of God, but they see the Bible as divinely inspired and free of error.