Was Muhammad Enlightened? Part 1 [Archive]

View Full Version : Was Muhammad Enlightened? Part 1

Spiritualseeker

17 December 2009, 01:21 PM

http://journeytozen.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/was-muhammad-enlightened-part-1/

Was Muhammad Enlightened? Part 1
This is quite a controversial topic. Speaking against Muhammad can cause war and blood shed that is justified by Muhammad himself. The reason for this article is not to insult muslims though it may be an insult as a by product of the context. This article was made because muslims are constantly raising Muhammad above all mankind. They make him the example to be followed. They believe that he is the one to be followed. Muhammad according to the Quran is the best of men. His Sunnah or way of life is to be emulated. This is essential to be considered muslim. So one must have firm faith in the Quran and Sunnah (Teachings and way of muhammad). To question this is heresy. Those who leave Islam are to be executed according to Muhammad himself and supposedly Allah who is considered the Lord of all the Worlds. Why such a fear based religion? If Muslims have the truth why must they implement it with violence? How come muslims quote all the time that there is no compulsion in religion, yet if a muslim decides to leave Islam they are to be executed. There have been many executions in the day of Muhammad and after him for apostasy. Is this man from Arabia truely an enlightened human being? I beg to differ and I will provide how his teachings are different then other great spiritual teachers who transcended desires. The Buddha was praised by his followers as one who is unattached to desires and emotion. Many holy men and women of India and also of Taoist China have transcended lowly desires and emotion. They became free from anger, lust, greed, and other lowly egoist desires. However, as we shall investigate Muhammad did not accomplish this. Muhammad is supposedly the Messenger of God and the most perfect man, yet he falls short from the Buddha, Taoist masters, Hindu saints among men and women, and other great spiritual leaders. What is so odd is that Muhammad claimed to be a prophet yet could not overcome desires, yet the Buddha and others never claimed to be some messenger of a King like God and was granted some heavenly knowledge that only they could hear. So why should we trust Muhammad who makes such boastful claims yet cannot back them up by excellenct character as the muslims claims he has?

Sex is not good nor bad. It is not something that should be considered evil like the early christians. Now what is unskillfull atleast is attachment to sex. Many of us (men and women) have attachment to sex. The Buddha and others taught how to detached from these earthly attachments. However, the self proclaimed Prophet of God himself is attached to sex.

Quoting from Sahih Bukhari (the most authentic hadith collection of Sunni Islam) we see that Muhammad was a man of lust. He has sex with all of his wives in one night. Not only that but it states that he takes one bath. Muhammad was considered to have great strength to do this. Supposedly Allah gave him this strength to have sex with all these women in one night. Having 11 wives (while other muslim men can only have 4) Muhammad had sex with them all. Usually what would occur is that Muhammad would visit his wives by turns, due to the injunctions of the Quran. So one day he would be with Aisha, and another day he would be with Hafsa and so on. However, in this hadith below he decides to be “equal” to all his wives for one day by having sex with them all. We must wonder if he even had time for foreplay? Hopefully he did and not just lepted on them like animals, however that is basically what the hadith implies.

Narrated Qatada:
Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Numbers 268)

Other hadiths mention the same thing with the exception that his wives numbered 11. What is very odd is that the Prophet Muhammad was suppose to teach men how to live unattached to the dunya (worldly existence) they were suppose to have their sights on paradise, yet we see Muhammad allowing men to fulfill their sexual desires. So the Quran reveals that muslim men can have up to four wives. So if your married and start desiring another woman that is fine as long as you marry that woman. So when you get four and you continue to desire (because having four wives will not cause you to be unattached to lust) you still can have more women. You can get more women by having slave girls. This is permissible and acceptable. Not only this but during the time of muhammad, he made permissible mutah or (temporary marriage) which the shias still practice today. The excuse by sunnis is that Muhammad made it permissible when men were out on jihad and away from their wives. Instead of teaching them how to watch desires arise and fall and see their empty nature as the Buddha taught and other great spiritual teachers, Muhammad allowed them to have temporary marriage. Sunnis today argue with shias over this and accuse shias of prostitution. Yet sunnis have to admit that Muhammad allowed for it at one time. Even some companions like ibn Abbas believed that Muhammad never ABROGATED the permisibility of temporary marriage. However, the official sunni position is that it is abrogated and no longer allowed. There is a loophole though. Instead of having temporary marriage, you can get yourself a slave girl and have sex with her.

Muhammad teaches men to indulge in their lust, though he does teach them in a sort of “halal” (permissible) way. But as long as man is alive feeding his desires, he will never be free from them and taste the bliss of purity. Muslims do not need to feel ashamed because their Prophet himself indulged in these desires. Even so much so that Aisha sarcastically made this statement:
“It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.” (Sahih Muslim vol.2 Book 8 no.3453-3454 p.748-749)

Muhammad is said to usually only marry due to political issues. But the fact remains that Muhammad was quite known for his indulgents with many wives.

“One day Muhammad went out looking for Zaid (Mohammed’s adopted son). Now there was a covering of hair cloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet”. (The History of al-Tabari, vol. 8, p. 4)
It is said Muhammad saw her beautiful hair. Desire had entered his heart. As an additional note Muhammad also was the exception of the rule that a man cannot be alone with a woman who is not married or related to him. Just like he could have more than four wives, Muhammad could be alone with women. It is quite odd when this man had these desires. He later married Zaynab after his adopted son divorced her.
Another Hadith mentioning Muhammad’s desire and love for women.

“When we reached Khaybar, Muhammad said that Allah had enabled him to conquer them. It was then that the beauty of Safiyah was described to him. Her husband had been killed so Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself. He took her along with him till we reached a place where her menses were over and he took her for his wife, consummating his marriage to her.” (Sahih Bukhari)

Why did Muhammad need so many women? Why did he not be the example and teach men to not just control the desires but also to transcend them? Other people way before Muhammad was a baby, taught followers to do this. Yet Muhammad gave men rights to slave girls and up to four wives and at one time allowed temporary marriage. This same Muhammad also claimed to have many visions in which hinted at Allah’s will for him to be married to a specific woman. As we know this famous hadith:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), ‘Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87 Number 140 see also Number 139)

Aisha was only six at the time. They married and then later consumated the marriage when she was a girl of 9 years old (she had her menses), yet she was still playing with dolls at that age. Muslims argue that since she had her menses she was ready for marriage, yet we know this girl was still playing with dolls. Muhammad could atleast waited until Aisha grew up and stopped playing with dolls. Just because a girl has their menses doesn’t mean it is appropriate to penetrate her. This can cause harm to girls. This may sound familiar if one has heard many of the recent Mormon Cults being exposed in which the older men (sometimes over 50 as muhammad was) indulging in marriage with little girls.

Without getting into an argument of morality about having sex with a 9 year old girl who still played with dolls, one still could ask why Muhammad needed all these women? Muslims usually make the excuse that Aisha was one of the best narrators of hadith and teachers of the Sunnah, yet this does not really cut it. Aisha was Muhammad’s favorite and despite the Quran ordering justice to all wives, some of the wives willingly gave up their turn (for muhammad’s visits) so that he could be with Aisha. This is deep favortism of Aisha, which surely caused suffering to other wives who wished they were the favorite. Even Aisha was upset at Muhammad’s love for his first wife Khadijah. This illustrate that these women suffered due to Muhammad’s favortism even though the Quran orders equal treatment to all wives. Not only this, but when Aisha once out of jealousy insulted Khadijah Muhammad became so angry (again showing his attachment to earthly desires) and struck or pushed Aisha on the chest.

Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127:
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ”A”isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi”. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ”A”isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi” (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

Muslims try to defend the actions of Muhammad by stating that the word in the hadith for strike is lahaza which can be translated as push, or slapped. Regardless if it is a push, slap, or strike Aisha herself said that it caused her pain. Not only this but it was a use of force. Even if you push a woman you will cause fear in them. There is no such stories of Buddha and other enlightened beings becoming so angry that they pushed women or men out out of anger.
Muslims quote hadiths about controlling ones anger and Muhammad’s advice on it, yet he cannot follow his own advice in this.

Aisha herself has pointed out many times in which she believed Muhammad was having his desires fulfilled by Allah (insinuating that he always gets what he wants).

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 7.570
Narrated al-Qasim bin Muhammad:Aisha, (complaining of headache) said, “Oh, my head”! Allah’s Apostle said, “I wish that (i.e., your death) had happened while I was still living, for then I would ask Allah’s Forgiveness for you and invoke Allah for you.” Aisha said, “A likely story! By Allah, I think you want me to die; and If this should happen, you would spend the last part of the day sleeping with one of your wives!”
Aisha said “you would spend the last part of the days sleeping with one of your wives!” She said this out of anger at the prophet muhammad. Aisha gives us a hint of how she truely felt at times about Muhammad and his desires.
I quote again the hadith:

“It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.” (Sahih Muslim vol.2 Book 8 no.3453-3454 p.748-749)

Even though Muslims try to claim that Muhammad is the best character to follow and he treated women fair and just we find a striking opposite view by Muhammad’s own words:

O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense. (Sahih Muslim)

Muslim scholars as I have heard state that this is due to women lacking intelligence. They say that women rule more with emotions. So in a sense despite hadiths of the Prophet saying praises for mothers and taking care of the mother more so over the father, it does not take away from the fact of his lowly opinion of women. Not only this, but justifying men having so many wives, and sex with slave girls to fulfill their desires. Women themselves do get desires, even a married woman may have desires arise for another man. Yet she cannot go out and marry more than one or have sex with a slave boy. We see the treatment of women in the parts of the world in which Shariah are practiced are mistreated. Women for Women international has exposed some of this mistreatment in Islamic africa.
The Quran gave instructions that if a woman disobeys the husband she is to be admonished (advised) then forsake her in bed (dont share the bed with her) and if she persist you can beat her (lightly as some suggest). Regardless if it is a light hit with a stick or without a stick this is still domestic violence. It is not tolerated in many western countries. And do note that Muhammad himself did not follow the 3 fold method of (advising, forsaking in bed, then beat) instead when Aisha insulted Khadija he struck her chest as I quoted the hadith above.
So why is Muhammad always an exception of the rule? Since he is sent from Allah and given revelation and is the final messenger, why couldnt he himself overcome his desires and passions? Why couldn’t he resist his anger? Some hadiths mention him getting so angry that his face would turn black! Other hadiths say that he would get so angry his face would turn red. We have no records of Buddha, Indian sadhus, Taoist sages, and other spiritual teachers of the eastern faiths who were considered enlightened, to becoming so angry that their face turned black or red. We never hear about them fulfilling their desires by just getting more wives or taking slave girls. We see them transcending these desires and passions. This is what enlightenment is. It is our pure unadulterated state of being beyond name and form, yet Muhammad did not embody this.
This is just a short introduction to an upcoming set of articles questioning Muhammad’s enlightenment or great character.

Remember according to Islam Muhammad’s character is the best and to question it is a heresy. Be careful not to insult him because Muhammad himself approved of killing if he is insulted. Yet muslims like to quote hadiths in which Muhammad was merciful when people insulted him and polite when people insulted him, yet just because we quote instances that he forgave offenders doesn’t make it right that at other times he allowed killing people just because they insulted him as we can see from this horrific hadith below:

Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”
(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)

What was the woman’s crime? Her crime was that she insulted the Prophet Muhammad. This muslim believer told her to stop but she persisted and so he takes actions into his own hands and kills her for her verbal abuse. This is more worse than communism. Imagine that all those who insulted former president bush were to be killed! There would be mass murder! Yet a woman’s insult and persistance caused her to lose her life because Muhammad’s character shall not be questioned. It reminds me of when we were children and we would fight other kids because they would say “your moma” jokes. But this is no kidding matter this is a matter of collective insanity.
Please look foward to part 2. Any comments or suggestions are accepted.
-Juan

devotee

17 December 2009, 10:35 PM

Welcome back, SS !

This thread is quite informative as you are quoting authentic sources to prove your point.

Though, Satay may say that as there is no Muslim here to defend, this thread is out of place. But I request Satay to allow this thread so that we may have authentic understanding of such things. As Muslims are in habit of attacking us, we also should know the reality behind their unquestionable Muhammad & the book given by him. Many among us may be curious to know.

OM

Spiritualseeker

18 December 2009, 06:18 AM

Namaste,

Thank you devotee. I think it is good that we understand the truth of Muhammad so that when we do encounter muslims who are claiming Muhammad is the best of mankind and we must follow him or forever be in hell, we can understand their lack of evidence and the cynicalness of muhammad himself

Ekanta

18 December 2009, 09:38 AM

Hadith was written efter Muhammeds death. Its what people remembered him doing and saying. Already there its questionable. And do you understand the under lying purpose of his acitons? Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his own son (later stopped by an angel). Jesus used violence to drive out the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem. Krishna �kind of� participated in the Kurukshetra war (mass murder). Shirdi Sai Baba had a stick he used to both threaten and beat people with. And the list goes on� Sure we can focus on bad sources and seek out what we find wrong� (this is can be done and is done to every religion).

Here is a quote from Sathya Sai Baba. I think some might find it interesting. I wanted to post this for some time. If you read the Quran with a just a twist of spiritual light you will find it very deep.

�All founders of religions have heard this impersonal Voice of God revealing the Atma that activates the entire Creation. Just as the Vedas were 'heard' and propagated as 'heard' (Shruti), the Quran too was 'heard' by Hazrath Muhammad. The Quran has Salat and Zakat as the two eyes. Salat means prayer; Zakat means charity. Those who consider charity as a high duty and elevate their consciousness through prayers and continuous meditation on God are Muslims. Islam is a word which denotes not a particular religion but a state of mind, the state of total surrender to the Will of God. Islam means dedication, surrender, peace, tranquility.�

�Islam denotes the social community whose members have achieved supreme peace through surrender to the All-Merciful, All-Powerful God and who have vowed to live in peace with their fellowmen. Later, it came to be applied to communities that considered themselves separate and different and so hostile to the rest. Islam taught something higher. It directed attention to the One in the Many, the Unity in Diversity and led people to the Reality named God.� (sss16-14)

Now if Muhammed was chosen to receive the Quran, was that because he was a bad person?

If he was so bad (and illitterat) how could he produce the Quran and thus inspire so many muslim saints that came after? Its an impossible equation.

And I might as well ad this:

"Many talk from platforms on Hinduism and Sanatana faith but very few of them have understood the genuine core. Sanatana Dharma is the very basis of living. It deals with the total personality. It embraces all faiths and has established worldwide influence. Sanatana means Eternal. Only a Dharma which can win Universal acceptance can be named Sanatana� It is the primal essence of all faiths. It is the essence of all the messages the prophets proclaimed. It is welcomed by all mankind, for it welcomes all mankind. It is therefore to be deplored that some Indians boast selfishly, "Sanatana Dharma is our religion."
Just as atomic science developed in one country and later spread to other countries, the Sanatana faith, developed in India and spread to other countries. Even a material process like atomic science cannot be held down in one place; in the same manner, this spiritual science too has spread all over the wide world." (sss14-55)

Spiritualseeker

18 December 2009, 10:52 AM

Namaste,

Ekanta Sunni Muslims are the majority of Muslims on the planet. What I have quoted are all authentic. See in the science of Hadith there are ways of grading hadith. I chose many of those in which are indisputable by the ijma (consensus of Islamic scholars). If a modern day muslim wants to use the excuse that hadith were made after Muhammad then they have rejected the Consensus of the Scholars (Which constitutes apostacy in Sunni Islam) not only that but it would be clear rejection of the Sunnah of Muhammad which is apostacy.

See a lot of modern day muslims who do not know much about their religion say they dont follow hadith because hadith were written after Muhammad (as a side note do note that much of Islam including the Quran was passed down orally just like hadith so to doubt that we must doubt the Quran since it was compiled as an entire collection (book) after the death of Muhammad), yet these same muslims are in the Masjid (mosque) praying their prayers, placing hands either on the chest, below the naval, just beneath the chest or with their arms at their sides, and when they are in Tashahud (testification of faith during the prayer) they raise their finger a certain way, some circle their finger, others move it up and down.

Where do they get all this from? It comes directly from the Hadith in the sunni collection. Not only this but if you take the Quran without any commentary you will just get one gigantic jumbled mess. So how do you understand it? You use the Hadith. That is the only way. The scholars of Sunni Islam have agreed on using hadith. Now some clever muslims may say : (those hadith that I quoted are Mawdoo (fabricated) , daef (weak) etc.) , but the surprise is I quoted all those that were accepted by the Scholars of Hadith (muhaditheen) to be correct hadith on the level of hasan (good), sahih (authentic).

So if you Ekanta or any muslim can prove that these hadith were not accepted by the Scholars of Hadith then perhaps you have a damn good argument. Otherwise your just blowing on a gaping wound.

Sanatana Dharma may be all embracing (I do not consider myself a hindu or anything), but that doesnt mean if someone comes to me saying Muhammad is the guy to be emulated and followed, that I should keep my mouth shut and not point out the destructive reality of his nature and that of Islam. I know how Islam has corrupted many people minds and also many converts to Islam. A muslim can practice and that is fine, but I am not going to go around telling everyone that the paths are equal. Because if a person truely emulates Muhammad they will truely have a horrific life.

As far as abraham and other such things, I find Islam, christianity, and Judaism to be a bunch of fairytales so it doesnt bother me.

OM

Spiritualseeker

18 December 2009, 10:54 AM

http://journeytozen.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/was-muhammad-enlightened-part-2/

Was Muhammad Enlightened? Part 2
Continuing we see that the man who claimed to be sent by God to all of mankind is a man of many contradictions. He does not embody the spirit of a true spiritual teacher. Sure if we cite only those hadith in which the Prophet Muhammad was shown to be compassionate and giving advice to harmonious living then we could see him as a upright teacher. The problem is that we have to look at the whole picture and not just parts. So we must question many of the contradictions in his character. Sometimes he could be compassionate and charming and other times angry. Even someone like Hitler despite the crimes he has committed against humanity, surely had his moments of humanity and compassion, but if we look at the whole we realize that Hitler was insane and unfit to rule.

Muslims love to quote hadith showing Muhammad as a peaceful person only fighting against barbaric pagans who wished to kill him. Many of times muslims do not cite the hadiths in which Muhammad clearly shows barbaric force himself. Narrated below is a hadith about the tribe of Banu Qurayza a jewish tribe that had a pact with the muslims. They failed to support the muslims so Muhammad agreed to Sa’d judgement that the men are to be killed and women and children to be taken captives:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 448:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Sad was wounded on the day of Khandaq (i.e. Trench) when a man from Quraish, called Hibban bin Al-’Araqa hit him (with an arrow). The man was Hibban bin Qais from (the tribe of) Bani Mais bin ‘Amir bin Lu’ai who shot an arrow at Sad’s medial arm vein (or main artery of the arm). The Prophet pitched a tent (for Sad) in the Mosque so that he might be near to the Prophet to visit. When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, “You have laid down the arms?” By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them).” The Prophet said, “Where?” Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah’s Apostle went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). They then surrendered to the Prophet’s judgment but he directed them to Sad to give his verdict concerning them. Sa’d said, “I give my judgment that their men should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed.”

Now muslims usually defend Muhammad in this hadith in two ways. Firstly they say that Muhammad gave the judgement to Sa’d who ruled according to the “Torah” that the men should be killed and the women and children are to be taken as captives. The second defense of Muhammad is that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty with the muslims.

To response to the first response we only need to highlight that Muhammad said these words in reponse to Sa’d judgement as is demonstrated here:

Book 019, Number 4368:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri who said: The people of Banu Quraiza surrendered accepting the decision of Sa’d b. Mu’adh about them. Accordingly, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent for Sa’d who came to him riding a donkey. When he approached the mosque, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to the Ansar: Stand up to receive your chieftain. Then he said (to Sa’d): These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He (Sa’d) said: “You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children.” (Hearing this), the Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: “You have adjudged by the command of God.”(emphasis added)
Muhammad clearly claimed that Sa’d ruled and judged the same as that of Allah. So this shows he agreed with the ruling.

As far as the second defense that Banu Qurayza violated the treaty, perhaps we could accept this, but let me ask a question. How did the prophet judge who was guilty and who was not? Obviously the women and children who were taken captive were not at fault. Yet they became slaves to the muslims. Not only this but do you think all men were responsible? How did Muhammad judge who was a man and who was a child?

The answer is those boys in banu Qurayza who had pubic hair were considered men whereas those with no pubic hair were considered boys. So Muhammad allowed the slaughter of even people who had just entered puberty as they had to check their pubic hair which shows that it was difficult to tell who was an adult! Not only this but how could all the men be responsible for violating the treaty? Thats as if we blame all the muslims for 9-11. Here is the hadith to prove that the men were tested to see if they had pubic hair:

Sunan Abu-Dawud-Book 38, No. 4390 Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
“I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubic hair) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

Around 700 people died in this incident, in which Muhammad declared that Allah had judged the same. This is what in modern times we would call a mass slaughter. Just imagine if the government of the United States decided to gather up all the muslims and take the women and children as captives and slaughter the men and to check the boys to see if they have pubic hair for if they do they are considered men and shall be killed. This would be extremism. Yet Muhammad allowed this for Banu Qurayza.

How can one claim to be a Prophet of God and guided by God yet allow the verdict and express that God himself approves the slaughter of 700 people and take the women and children captive.
We see that the hadith of Muhammad as charming and peaceful do not go together with these other hadiths. Once again we must look at the picture as a whole. We cant just muhammad just by a hadith of him smiling or being polite to non believers. We have to investigate piece by piece and to see if this Prophet Muhammad was really an ideal character for mankind.

Despite there being no compulsion in religion as the Quran mentions, there is much contradiction between the view of Muhammad and his followers and that of the verse on compulsion in religion. According to Islam if a person who is a muslim decides to leave islam that person is to be executed. According to hadith it states:

Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” (Sahih al-bukhari)

In addition the Prophet Muhammad states:

“It is not permissible to shed the blood of a person who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: a life for a life, a previously-married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves Islam and forsakes the jamaa’ah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
Here is a link to a very famous Scholar of Islam-Shaykh Saalih al-Munajid
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/12406 (http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/12406)

The scholar goes on to defend the ruling of Muhammad. So there is no compulsion in religion in the sense that you cannot force a jew and christian to become Muslim, but if a Muslim decides to leave Islam and disbelievers then that person is to be executed so that people will take Islam seriously and accept the vows and faith seriously. It makes me wonder about people raised in muslim families who feel discontented with their religion yet they are forced to remain within it because the vows they were raised with are all too important to break and thus if they do break it it is their head quite literally. Again we must ask why are is the religion of Islam so afraid of losing Muslims that they have to act in violence? If you insult the prophet Muhammad, you are to be killed. If you are to leave Islam you are to be killed! This is a fear based religion which can be seen clearly. Muslims cannot just leave and let live, instead it is brute force that brings their intellectual prisons to masses of people.

We can take this even further in terms of no compulsion in religion. In offensive Jihad when the Islamic state is conquering lands of disbelievers the Jews and christians have 3 choices. They can become Muslim and thus will be treated like muslims (meaning they will have safety and security as muslims), or they can remain jews and christians but pay jizya (a tax that gives them lower class citizenship-similar to the caste system and have protection), or they can choose to simply fight the invaders.

Now what about non jews and christians? What about the Hindus, buddhist, Taoist and others? Can they pay jizya (the tax) and be protected?
The answer is no. They have two choices either convert or fight. And there is no compulsion in religion? Luckily when the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan they accepted Jizya from Hindus. They probably did that because of their hanafi affiliation (Hanafi is a school of law and in that school of law it allows non jews and christians to pay jizya). However, from Islamic point of view jizya is only taken from Jews and christians. This ofcourse is outside of the Arabian peninsula, because Muhammad the great peace prophet was quite stern when it came to presence of Jews and Christians in the arabian peninsula as we can see from this hadith:
Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, “Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them.” I forgot the third (order)” (Ya’qub bin Muhammad said, “I asked Al-Mughira bin ‘Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, ‘It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen.” Ya’qub added, “And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.”) (Sahih al-Bukhari)

The Quran itself supports offensive jihad as is clearly stated in Surah 9 verse 29:
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
Shaykh Munajid states:
Jihad talab means attacking the kuffaar in their own lands until they become Muslim or pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah. If they do that, then they have protected their blood and their wealth from me, except in cases decreed by Islamic law, and their reckoning with be with Allaah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 25; Muslim, 20.
Here is the link to the fatwa: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/26125/offensive%20jihad (http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/26125/offensive%20jihad)

Clearly we see that Muhammad was not always the charming peace loving and gentle man as many muslims try to claim. We will investigate further in part 3 of these series of articles.

This entry was posted on December 18, 2009 at 4:45 pm and

heartfully

18 December 2009, 11:46 AM

heartfully

18 December 2009, 11:54 AM

Namaste,

Any Muslim that tells you that is not practicing the true teachings of Islam. Quran states a person's religion is chosen by God so how can you be criticized for practicing the religion God chose for you? Also Quran states that all the prophets are equal, none are above the other. But just as some Christians say "What would Jesus do?"; others say "What would Muhammad do?"

I'm sorry that Muslims have tried to coerce you. I know I never would.

Many Blessings Upon You...
HF

Namaste,

Thank you devotee. I think it is good that we understand the truth of Muhammad so that when we do encounter muslims who are claiming Muhammad is the best of mankind and we must follow him or forever be in hell, we can understand their lack of evidence and the cynicalness of muhammad himself

heartfully

18 December 2009, 11:59 AM

Namaste,

Thank you so very much for sharing that quote and for your tolerance. Many people who are so sure Muslims are the most intolerant humans on earth are themselves guilty of the same type of intolerance.

When will we all put our swords down (including the sharp words we use to fight each other with) and discover peaceful brotherhood and sisterhood.

With Love,
HF

Hadith was written efter Muhammeds death. Its what people remembered him doing and saying. Already there its questionable. And do you understand the under lying purpose of his acitons? Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his own son (later stopped by an angel). Jesus used violence to drive out the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem. Krishna �kind of� participated in the Kurukshetra war (mass murder). Shirdi Sai Baba had a stick he used to both threaten and beat people with. And the list goes on� Sure we can focus on bad sources and seek out what we find wrong� (this is can be done and is done to every religion).

Here is a quote from Sathya Sai Baba. I think some might find it interesting. I wanted to post this for some time. If you read the Quran with a just a twist of spiritual light you will find it very deep.

�All founders of religions have heard this impersonal Voice of God revealing the Atma that activates the entire Creation. Just as the Vedas were 'heard' and propagated as 'heard' (Shruti), the Quran too was 'heard' by Hazrath Muhammad. The Quran has Salat and Zakat as the two eyes. Salat means prayer; Zakat means charity. Those who consider charity as a high duty and elevate their consciousness through prayers and continuous meditation on God are Muslims. Islam is a word which denotes not a particular religion but a state of mind, the state of total surrender to the Will of God. Islam means dedication, surrender, peace, tranquility.�

�Islam denotes the social community whose members have achieved supreme peace through surrender to the All-Merciful, All-Powerful God and who have vowed to live in peace with their fellowmen. Later, it came to be applied to communities that considered themselves separate and different and so hostile to the rest. Islam taught something higher. It directed attention to the One in the Many, the Unity in Diversity and led people to the Reality named God.� (sss16-14)

Now if Muhammed was chosen to receive the Quran, was that because he was a bad person?

If he was so bad (and illitterat) how could he produce the Quran and thus inspire so many muslim saints that came after? Its an impossible equation.

And I might as well ad this:

"Many talk from platforms on Hinduism and Sanatana faith but very few of them have understood the genuine core. Sanatana Dharma is the very basis of living. It deals with the total personality. It embraces all faiths and has established worldwide influence. Sanatana means Eternal. Only a Dharma which can win Universal acceptance can be named Sanatana� It is the primal essence of all faiths. It is the essence of all the messages the prophets proclaimed. It is welcomed by all mankind, for it welcomes all mankind. It is therefore to be deplored that some Indians boast selfishly, "Sanatana Dharma is our religion."
Just as atomic science developed in one country and later spread to other countries, the Sanatana faith, developed in India and spread to other countries. Even a material process like atomic science cannot be held down in one place; in the same manner, this spiritual science too has spread all over the wide world." (sss14-55)

Spiritualseeker

18 December 2009, 12:22 PM

I think it is important to remember that Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not here to teach/obtain enlightenment, but how to be in a relationship with the Divine. There is a difference. Most of us may never achieve nirvana, but we can all be in a relationship with God. 99.9% of us will never be perfect and Muhammad, peace be upon him, helps God convey the message that God may not expect perfection, but does expect a pious intention and effort.

Thank you for your response. Firstly we know that Enlightenment is our highest evolution. It is our true Nature. It is our ever oneness with the One Life. Muhammad did not have this. He according to the Quran is the best of all mankind. He is better than any prophet. He is the example to be followed. I think in my post I clearly demonstrated his fallacy, if you wish you could address the points of the article.

Not every prophet and/or messenger has the same goals Buddha had. Buddha did not seek to a relationship with God, but an end to suffering. Buddha sought to be free of suffering, his ultimate reason for obtaining enlightenment had nothing to do with a relationship with God.

What was Muhammad's mission? He was to deliver the Quran and give guidance to ALL OF MANKIND. Not just a select few. Since he is the example to be followed he should be upright and have a noble character, yet we find him not even following some of his own advice. I would love for you to address some of that which was in the article and tell us if you defend it and your views on it.

Islam teaches suffering is a tool God uses to teach us and to help us live with God's will as our desire versus our own. Buddha was not thinking of God's desires; he was trying to find a way to stop hurting. There is a story told by a guru that I can't remember word for word, but this was the gist of it: A man goes to his guru and says, "I just won a ton of gold, isn't that great?" The guru says, "We'll see." The next day the man says, "Someone stole all gold, isn't that awful?" The guru says, "We'll see." The man comes back the next day and says, "Someone found my gold, isn't that great?" The guru says, "We'll see." The man comes back the next day and says, "The hospital burned down, isn't that awful?" The guru says, "We'll see." The man comes back the next day and says, "Someone is collecting money to build a new hospital, isn't that great?". And the guru says.... by now you get the point. How much money will the man donate to rebuilding the hospital? Will a natural disaster occur and wipe out the half-built building? Will the community invent something like cement to make the next hospital sturdier or inflammable?

Muhammad is suppose to be bringing people to God, yet his teachings and way contradict eachother. I have shown how sometimes he would get so angry which shows that he truely did not have transcendence beyond his desires. A Prophet Sent from God should be upright especially if you are asking the entire world to emulate him, yet Muhammad again and again shows us some ugly characteristics. Like I mentioned in the article you cannot just take certain parts of his life, such as when he was nice and friendly and leave out the times when he gave verdict for genocide, oe became so anger, or even when he struck Aisha on the chest.

Regarding celibacy, celibacy has to do with enlightenment not a relationship with God. It helps a person lose both desire and attachment to the world. Part of a marriage's expression of love is sex. Muhammad was not teaching how to give up attachment to the world. Not even the mystics of Islam aim to disconnect from this world. It is possible to know God intimately without being celibate. Islamic teaching is about experiencing God and being spiritually disciplined. God comes before everything else to those who practice the goals of Islam.

My article was in no ways a means to say that celibacy is the way. What was intended is to show Muhammad's LUST. He had lust. He made muslim followers only have 4 wives and he himself took 11. Muslims say that is an exception for Muhammad and some other prophets. Again Muhammad was able to be alone with a woman whereas his followers could not. I mentioned clearly in the article that sex is neither bad nor good, but attachment to it is bad. How can we ever evolve if we are attached to our desires? That is what the spiritual path is suppose to guide us to. So muslim men can fulfill unquenching desires by having four wives, and also having sex with slave girls whereas the muslim women cannot? How is Muhammad the best of all mankind when people before him and after him have transcended desires and yet he is stuck with his anger, violence, and sex? One thing I did not mention in the article is that Muhammad also selected a female from the tribe of Banu Qurayza, but she declined because she was too in love with judaism. The point is, muhammad could just not quench his desires for women.

I am a married man and Imagine if i dont work with my desires I will be cheating on my wife constantly, or I can become muslim and get more wives and when I am not satisfied I can have a lot of sex with slave girls. This is not spirituality this is attachment to the body. God is beyond form.

Culturally, men owned women and patriarchy prevailed long before Muhammad arrived on the scene. Extra-marital sex was not an issue in the Old Testament. Ishmael and Isaac are one one example. Not every religion requires celibacy or monogamy in order to obtain an intimate relationship with God. Polygamy within Islam is much different than polygamy in pre-Islamic times. A man can only take a second wife if they will be treated completely equally. That is nearly impossible to do. As for slaves being concubines of Muslim men, part of Muhammad's message was about setting slaves free and treating them with dignity and respect.

Heartfully I really respect that you responded but I have to politely tell you that the last sentence you said is stretching the truth. Yes Muhammad is quoted in some hadith to advise his companions to be respectful to their slaves and dress them with their cloths and feed them with their food, yet at the same time Muhammad allowed sex slaves. Even during Muhammad's last pilgrimage some companions were insulting Ali ibn Abu Talib because he had taken a slave from an expedition (whereas the other militants were told to wait until later to have the booty of war) and Ali had sex with the slave. When word got back to Muhammad, Muhammad praised Ali for his character. The point is having girl slaves for sex is just fine. If you are telling me Muhammad encouraged freeing of slaves, you are correct in a few hadith, however did you not know that Muhammad himself had a slave?

We need to look at the whole picture.

Also, remember the role of men and women in the days of Muhammad meant many widows and orphans. The society needed some way to operate so that widows and orphans would be protected by the men who society gave that responsibility to. The caste system is another example of a society trying to figure out the roles of its citizens.

This is a common argument yet we see clearly that Muhammad himself was fond of many women not just for political reason but for desires. The Quran says treat wives equally yet in article part 1 I showed how not even Muhammad (the SEAL OF ALL PROPHETS) himself could treat his wives equally.

Regarding who the prophet had sex with, unless we witnessed it, it is all here-say. I know we all think we have evidence and details about who the prophet had sex and we think we have the unmistakable proof, but we also know hadith are not infallible. Consider for a moment that Aisha never bore his children. Perhaps at some point the marriage was consummated, but it is all speculation since we cannot name the date and time it happened. Islamic teachings forbid gossip and backstabbing and when we debate some of these things we're not defending truth necessarily, but only our interpretation of it. How much bad karma do we accumulate by gossiping and accusing without evidence?

If you refer above to my response to Ekanta you can see what hadith I used and how the hadith I used are authentic. If you want to dispute their authenticity then you need to bring evidence that the consensus of Scholars has been wrong for 1400 years. I am still waiting for muslims to do that instead of always saying "hadith are infallible". The scholars of hadith knew hadith were fallible that is why they devoloped the Science of Hadith. So when the scholars agree to the authenticity of a hadith you should agree also unless you have some new knowledge that the Consensus (which is called ijma in islam) was wrong all along. This would mean that Islam needs a reformation.

And though sahih hadith are the most reliable, does it make them infallible in every respect? I find it interesting that you support your argument with hadith you claim are infallible while trying to prove the prophet, Muhammad, and his followers are shady characters full of flaws.

Which hadith are fallible? They are the hadith that are lone narrations (though sometimes used), ghareeb (strange but sometimes accepted), mawdoo (fabricated), and daef (weak). The hadiths I based my articles on are all authentic and the Consensus of the Scholars support. Just because a few muslims today say that hadith are unreliable does not change the position of the vast majority of scholars. Imagine saying imam malik, imam bukhari, imam muslim, ibn hajar al-asqalani, imam nawawi, Imam shafii, Imam ahmad, and the vast majority were all STUPID because they accepted that which you think are questionable. It is absurd, you have no argument to base your views, it is just a modern apologetic stance. Go to medina university with your argument and see what they say, go to al-azhar, go to daru ul uloom deoband in India, Pakistan, or afghanistan. You will be rejected and shot down as a modernist.

Muhammad was not the only messenger of God to get angry. Jesus got angry. Buddha worked to be free of anger, but only because anger causes suffering. The prophet, Muhammad, like many other prophets, got very angry at unjustness. If anything, many prophets bring a message of condemnation when a society is going astray. When the oppressors start taking over and people get caught up in things like greed, oppression and prejudice, etc., messengers come so that God can make the point that people need to re-evaluate and get back on the right track. And also you can find as many hadith and ayat to support Muhammad being a messenger of compassion and mercy as you can to support your own opinions of him.

Jesus turned over tables so that makes him a man of anger? Name one man jesus ever struck? Name one man Jesus ordered to be executed let alone 700 people. You probably also believe that Jihad is defensive only. Yet do you not realize that Jihad is offensive aswell and it is sinful for an islamic state to be in existence without waging Jihad. These are all points you probably never studied because instead you just listen to local lectures at the mosque and thats the only ounce of islam you get. Look listen to the Biography of the Prophet on audio CD by Shaykh Anwar Awlaki, it is a CD set you find in many mosques. Yet if you listen you will see all sides of Muhammad and also defense of his angry actions and his slaughter.

In Islam, you can't pick a fight. You can only fight in self-defense. Quran never says lets go around starting wars. That is a complete distortion of Quranic teaching.

This is 100% incorrect! Jihad is offensive aswell. Here is straight from the Quran

�Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued�9:29

This is offensive. You conquer spain and cause them to pay jizya. This is discussed in my article did you bother to read it? Read this
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/26125/offensive%20jihad
Shaykh munajid shows proof for his stance on offensive jihad stating this:

Jihaad against the kuffaar with weapons is of two types: jihad talab (offensive jihad) and jihad daf� (defensive jihad).
Jihad talab means attacking the kuffaar in their own lands until they become Muslim or pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: �I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah. If they do that, then they have protected their blood and their wealth from me, except in cases decreed by Islamic law, and their reckoning with be with Allaah.� Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 25; Muslim, 20.

With all due respect you are just speaking out of emotion and not from knowledge.

When you truly take the time to contemplate and consider Quran in its entirety, it is a lesson on free will and karma. It teaches me that I am responsible for my karma; that means I have to constantly think before I act. Christians say Jesus frees them as their savior and he was sacrificed to atone for their sins. Muhammad's message reminds us that we are responsible for our own deeds.

Yet it teaches much more like offensive jihad which you denied. Muhammad will surely be responsible for the karma he has created.

There are too many people (both Muslim and non-Muslim) who want quick easy answers and solutions from a religion, but Islam is not about that. You can't just pick out an ayat or hadith and magically transform it into your infallible proof.

Until you can truely defend your beliefs with evidences and wipe out my evidences then you have nothing to say. You need to respond to the points. You cant just decide that you dont accept it and say I am wrong. If that is the case then kiss goodbye all the scholars for 1400 years that have thought otherwise.

I believe Quran tells people to surrender to God and to value nothing more than surrendering to God. Surrendering to God is not enlightenment or freedom from suffering. Muhammad shows us that it is best to constantly aspire to seeking God and serving God.

Muhammad shows how to be an imperfect human who always misses the mark. The Quran teaches dogma. Dogma does not help someone evolve. It can only get us so far.

One thing that has happened to Buddha and Christ, peace be upon them both, is that they are commonly thought of as God itself...as Brahma in the flesh. Islam doesn't say that about Muhammad. Muhammad's human story is an important part of how God teaches through Islam.

Well if you read my articles you will notice that he couldnt even follow his own teachings on anger and other issues.

Saying Muhammad wasn't enlightened is like saying Ganesha really has an elephant's head or Kali is no different than a blood thirsty vampire. It is also judging someone by your own interpretation of enlightenment.

If I had proof Ganesha didnt have an elephants head as is protrayed in the scriptures then I would have an argument. Now I do have arguments against Muhammad from authentic sources. You just cant fathom that because you are attached to dogma. It is an attachment you have to give up before you can obtain the bliss of liberation.

One more bit of advice. Whenever you lump all person's into one ruling, you are creating fertile ground for prejudice and discrimination. Not all Muslims are one way or another. You must take it on an individual basis. Sure its a lot easier to say all Muslims say or believe a certain thing, but it is not true. You can only know that when you treat people as people.

I am not condemning all muslims. I am condemning Muhammad. I have evidence for this, you cannot just respond that you find it fallible. Unless you can point out that the hadith are not authentic and the quran is saying something else then there is no argument. I spent day in and day out studying islam for 7 years. I went to the Masjid. I prayed and I sat with local shaykhs. I listened to lectures from scholars and read countless books. I still have an islamic library. I use this library now to point out the facts. Now if you wish to truely respond to the points I would love to discuss more with you, but you cant just dismiss my claims without investigation just because you saw the Biography of the Prophet on some film or went to the local imam and he tells you muhammad is love and peace.

Best regards
-juan

Ganeshprasad

18 December 2009, 12:26 PM

Pranam Ekanta

I can not believe the attempt to equate Hindu dharma to this pathetic new age so called religion.

Krishna �kind of� participated in the Kurukshetra war (mass murder). Sure we can focus on bad sources and seek out what we find wrong� (this is can be done and is done to every religion).

You can not be serious here trying to implicate Lord Krishna of murder!
First, all the avenues were explored for peace before the war was fought between feuding two royal family, nothing to do with religion. These were willing army fighting on a battle field away from innocent public. Have a look at defination of murder before you make this ridicules charge so that you can be happy of being political correct of equating all religion to be the same.

I was also of the opinion that all religions were the same but never could understand the violence perpetuated in the name of religious conversion. Hindus has always been against conversion let alone by violence.

�All founders of religions have heard this impersonal Voice of God revealing the Atma that activates the entire Creation. Just as the Vedas were 'heard' and propagated as 'heard' (Shruti), the Quran too was 'heard' by Hazrath Muhammad.

Rishi�s of Vedas in search of truth performed extreme austerities, non of them went on the crusade to convert and you compare this man who if you half believe what has been written by Spritualseeker cuts a very sorry figure, to have received revelation like veda give me a break. Idi Amin also had a dream in his revelation that all Asians are no good so he expelled them all from Uganda. He also claimed to have revelation from god. so tell me what tapsya Muhammad went through to receive the revelation?

Islam means dedication, surrender, peace, tranquility.�

what it means and what it practice is a far cry.

Now if Muhammed was chosen to receive the Quran, was that because he was a bad person?

After receiving the revelation compare the actions of those rishi and Muhammad, did the seers of Vedas go on a crusade?

Jai Shree Krishna

heartfully

18 December 2009, 12:42 PM

Namaste,

I felt so hurt by your words here. I may not be Sunni and I may be a Sufi Muslim, but I find quite a few hadith and ayat that support me. I do not see Quran as a mess, but more like my heart's mirror. Which path will I take? That is the theme of Quran, in my humble opinion. I believe Islam is a religion that teaches me to love God, to aspire to be compassionate and tolerant, to forgive, to be kind and charitable. It tells me to reason things out, to contemplate on the beauty of this universe, to honor God and seek God. I see many hadith that support me in all these things. I never go around and try to force my religion on anyone and I always seek to be a peacemaker. I think things out and reason things out. Islam teaches me how to do all these things.

Maybe some Muslims do the things you accuse them of. There are many ways to be Muslim just like there are many ways to be American or a woman or a friend or a Hindu. It feels like nothing I say here to you will be valued though because once you know I am Muslim you feel so much hatred toward me.

Spiritualseeker

18 December 2009, 12:48 PM

Heartfully I am sorry that you are hurt by this, but what I provided were authentic evidences. I would love to take them all back if I could just be shown that the consensus of Scholars were wrong. I will gladly do it, but you see even as a Muslim I understood all this and I accepted it. The reason I accepted it is because I was attached to Dogma. I used to think of the things that caused me doubt, but then I would say to myself that Islam is the true religion so the behavior of the Prophet Muhammad must be right.

What I meant about the Quran being a jumbled mess is that if you read just the Quran without having tafsir (commentary from ahadith and history) then you will get confused and not understand much in the Quran. Remember the Quran is not compiled in the order it came down in. Some verses are bunched together and it doesnt seem to make sense at times. That is why one needs commentary to understand what events it is reffering to. Such as the ayaat about Muhammad frowning and turning away. It does not specify what had happend. If you read the ahadith and history you realize that he turned away from a blind man who was a muslim (the blind man was asking about islam, but the Prophet was speaking with arrogant people of the Quraish) so Muhammad turned away from the blind man because Muhammad thought it better to guide the non muslims to islam instead of helping the blind man at that moment. So if we didnt understand the story or the hadith we would not understand what the quran was referring to when it mentioned that.

If Islam and in particular the Quran helps you to be tolerant and loving then I am glad and delighted. My suggestion to you is do not study in detail about islam because you may find a different picture. So stick with that which makes your life joyous and loving. You will embody compassion that way.

I wish you all the best.

-juan

heartfully

18 December 2009, 01:10 PM

Namaste,

I get upset, too, by some of the things that happen in the name of religion. I almost gave up Islam and I still struggle a lot with it, but every single time I say I've had it and I'm moving on, God pulls me back to Islam. And God does it by lighting the way to the "other Islam", the Islam that embraces the good.

Every religion has its good and bad parts, in my opinion. I am learning that the more I explore religions that it is important not to forget the historical (history is always subjective) human component. I am learning to seek God in all and not the ephemeral fallible human.

Quran tells me to contemplate the stars, the trees, the words of Quran. It forbids me to make any person or group of persons superior to God. Muslim and Islam both mean to be surrendered to God. I am learning from Islam that I must always check in with God before I check in with a person.

I think some Muslims are forgetting how God instructs Muslims to think and reason and contemplate. There are many Muslims who don't want to have to study Quran; they just want someone else to give them the answer so they don't have to find it out for themselves.

Now that I know you were once Muslim, I can say I relate to your anger towards it. I have had a lot of battles with it myself. On the other hand, I hope you will also find a way to make peace with Islam. Maybe I'm a pollyanna about Islam, but it seems that God loves me anyway. :P

Rumi knows the Islam of love; that is the Islam I try to practice.

Love to you,
HF

Heartfully I am sorry that you are hurt by this, but what I provided were authentic evidences. I would love to take them all back if I could just be shown that the consensus of Scholars were wrong. I will gladly do it, but you see even as a Muslim I understood all this and I accepted it. The reason I accepted it is because I was attached to Dogma. I used to think of the things that caused me doubt, but then I would say to myself that Islam is the true religion so the behavior of the Prophet Muhammad must be right.

If Islam and in particular the Quran helps you to be tolerant and loving then I am glad and delighted. My suggestion to you is do not study in detail about islam because you may find a different picture. So stick with that which makes your life joyous and loving. You will embody compassion that way.

I wish you all the best.

-juan

Ekanta

18 December 2009, 01:14 PM

I can not believe the attempt to equate Hindu dharma to this pathetic new age so called religion.

I didnt. I said, Sanatana dharma is the essence of other faiths.
If you call Islam a "pathetic new age so called religion", that only reflects your own understanding of sanatana dharma. Congratulations!

Ganeshprasad

18 December 2009, 02:44 PM

Pranam

If you call Islam a "pathetic new age so called religion", that only reflects your own understanding of sanatana dharma. Congratulations!

Thank you warmly accepted but the biggest applaud goes to you, sanatan dharma is safe in your hand, where Lord Krishna is implied as mass murderer!
Spiritualseeker, heartfully please carry on i do not wish to hijack this thread.
Jai Shree Krishna

satay

18 December 2009, 04:07 PM

Admin Note

namaskar,

Krishna �kind of� participated in the Kurukshetra war (mass murder).

You are quite bold in posting this on a Hindu Forum, don't you think? Your comment is completely out of context and hurts the sentiments of Hindus, so I request you to edit your post.

Thank you for your cooperation.

heartfully

18 December 2009, 05:47 PM

Namaste,

Thank you and I know at this point it is probably best to say we agree to disagree and move to where we stand on common ground.

With Love,
HF

Heartfully I am sorry that you are hurt by this, but what I provided were authentic evidences. I would love to take them all back if I could just be shown that the consensus of Scholars were wrong. I will gladly do it, but you see even as a Muslim I understood all this and I accepted it. The reason I accepted it is because I was attached to Dogma. I used to think of the things that caused me doubt, but then I would say to myself that Islam is the true religion so the behavior of the Prophet Muhammad must be right.

What I meant about the Quran being a jumbled mess is that if you read just the Quran without having tafsir (commentary from ahadith and history) then you will get confused and not understand much in the Quran. Remember the Quran is not compiled in the order it came down in. Some verses are bunched together and it doesnt seem to make sense at times. That is why one needs commentary to understand what events it is reffering to. Such as the ayaat about Muhammad frowning and turning away. It does not specify what had happend. If you read the ahadith and history you realize that he turned away from a blind man who was a muslim (the blind man was asking about islam, but the Prophet was speaking with arrogant people of the Quraish) so Muhammad turned away from the blind man because Muhammad thought it better to guide the non muslims to islam instead of helping the blind man at that moment. So if we didnt understand the story or the hadith we would not understand what the quran was referring to when it mentioned that.

If Islam and in particular the Quran helps you to be tolerant and loving then I am glad and delighted. My suggestion to you is do not study in detail about islam because you may find a different picture. So stick with that which makes your life joyous and loving. You will embody compassion that way.

I wish you all the best.

-juan

goodlife

18 December 2009, 09:34 PM

Muhammad was a mass murderer, bandit, highway robber, rapist and above all a pedophile. great qualities to be chosen as the last profit.
yeah right.

sorry for being direct but that's what he was.

for more details
www.faithfreedom.org
http://faithfreedom.org/content/ali-sinas-challenge
www.councilofexmuslims.com
www.islam-watch.org

i hope this helps.

devotee

18 December 2009, 10:22 PM

Namaste HF,

Before I read Q'uran and learnt about Muhammad, I also had high opinion of Islam. However, I was disappointed to read the scripture which in most of its part, dwells on two things :

Instil a very strong fear in people (throwing in fire of hell for eternity !) so that they dare not question Muhammad as prophet or Q'uran as word of God. You are told that you should keep praising God ... or else be ready to be fodder to the fire of hell for eternity ! On the other hand, if you are a believer, what God has to offer ? You will be granted a life in heaven with 72 maids taking care of you ... with freedom to experience enjoyment of sex 24x7 ... the gates of heaven are made of pearls & paths with gems etc. etc. .... You have trees laden with fruits & river of wine flowing across the valley ... etc. etc. ... (This depiction of heaven also shows lack of God's capacity to think of any enjoyment beyond this body ! Isn't that laughable ? God can give only "sex", "fruits" & "wine" for merry making in heaven ! How is he any better than a human being --- isn't he omnipotent & very well could have offered something better ? )

So, the whole of Islam is a "nightmarishly fearful & very hard Stick" & "highly tempting Sweetest Carrot beyond imagination" policy. If you are on the side of Allah then you get the sweetest carrot that you can ever imagine ..... & a "very hard stick" if you don't. Is such a God, really a God ? The God who decides worthiness of people for reward or punishment on the basis of who believes in Q'uran & Prophet or otherwise & not on their conduct whether they believe in God or not, can be a might King but not God. God asking for sycophants can't really be God ! God by definition must be fair to all, whether someone praises him or not. If He so desperately wanted someone to keep praising Him all day & night above everything then he would have created beings fully programmed so that would be born with only Allah's name in their lips ! If someone praises Allah or not, or believes in Q'uran or not or believes in Muhammad or not .... why should Allah worry so much ? Why should Allah hate the idol worshippers ? If he hated them so much why he created their minds like that ... why he not created man with Q'uran written within his mind ? Why were Vedas revealed more than 5000 years before Muhammad which taught a completely different version of Truth ? Why did he send so many prophets & sent widely differing messages through them ?

The unquenchable desires of Allah to be praised all the times & worshipped along with the book & his messenger makes one feel that He is unworthy of becoming God.

You have quoted Rumi. I have very high respect for Rumi, Rabia & other many Sufi Saints ... but that is no what is there in orthodox Islam. Rumi's or Rabia's version of Islam is not much different from Hindu's Advaita Vedanta. How many Muslims agree with Rumi's or Rabia's version of Islam ? All problems of this world would have not been today if even half of Muslims would have accepted that version & not Muhammad's version.

----------------------------------------------

And your assumption that Buddha thought that he was God in flesh ... is simply laughable ! You just don't know even abc of Buddhism. My dear friend, Buddhism doesn't ask you to simply believe in anything ..... not even in Buddha & his teachings ... they are just pointters to the Truth ... you must realise the Truth yourself & see what the Truth is & whether what Lord Buddha taught was right or wrong. There is a famous saying in Mahayan Buddhism ... "(in your great journey to find the Truth) if you see Buddha, Kill Buddha !". Truth is the only sacred thing ... all other things are only pointer to the Truth & if they hinder the realisation of the Truth ... just destroy all those pointers. ... and that is what is taught in Advaita Vedanta & in Jainism. You must realise the Truth yourself ! "Tatra Vedaah aveda bhavanti" ... all scriptures & all teachings become useless when you realise the Truth yourself.
What is the use of all theories we learnt in our childhood to understand "that the Earth is round" today, when man has seen from space that the earth is round !

OM

Ekanta

18 December 2009, 10:25 PM

Admin Note

namaskar,

You are quite bold in posting this on a Hindu Forum, don't you think? Your comment is completely out of context and hurts the sentiments of Hindus, so I request you to edit your post.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I knew people could not separate between nationality and universality. Since when is Dharma or Brahman a nationality?

Why did I post it? Because I meant it? No! I posted it to show how absurd it was. If people can�t understand that attacking Islam in an unjust way is "hurting the sentiment" of humanity and sanatana dharma (used in its true way), then perhaps if I used Krishna as example they would. And indeed it hit the soft spot.

Let me put it straight out. You don�t react to attacks on other religions but you react to an illogical comparison with Krishna (which was meant to be illogical and thus false).

This is my stand:
It�s perfectly in context if you consider hindu dharma as "Sanatana Dharma". This is my "eternal" stand. I will consider it below my dignity to even discuss it.
It�s not in context if you consider "hindu dharma" as a religion of hindus only. And please note that I don�t oppose healthy nationalism. It�s as healthy as caring for your own family. The family of God however is from an atmic view, it doesn�t take into account nationality (kind of obvious isnt it?).

My post about Krishna can be understood if the wish is there. If it�s not then I simply have to conclude that even this forum for which I had some hope is unable to rise itself above complete materialism.

And by the way... There are so many hypocrites on this forum. Where are all those who play good and yet never try to oppose the evil when it shows up (as in this thread and others)? Hero in words, but zero in action.

devotee

18 December 2009, 10:48 PM

Ekanta, I have tried hard in the past to see Islam in the right perspective & I shall keep on trying that. However, I have been among the Muslims for a long time & what I learnt from them that all our good interpretations are only in our mind. They just don't accept that version. If you are a Hindu, you are a Kafir ... & even if they kill you or forcibly marry your girls, it is ok as per Islamic Law. All their bonhomie is highly limited to their own community.

As regards, Hindus & India, they are among very few in the world who have accepted people from all faiths & not differentiated people on the basis of their faith.

SS, has been a knowledgeable Muslim in the past. What he is saying is based on authentic scriptures and his own experience. If anyone can prove him wrong, it is welcome ... as he himself says. Why simply gag him & not let him say what he has to say ? You are not an Islamic Scholar ... on what basis you can say that what he saying is wrong ?

OM

Ekanta

18 December 2009, 11:02 PM

What is knowledge but the experience of unity in diversity (Prajnana)? Besides that there is no genuine "knowledge". Who is the islamic scholar then?

devotee

18 December 2009, 11:20 PM

Harjas Kaur

19 December 2009, 03:03 AM

There was a man who happened, on a bitterly cold and frosty winter evening, to find a snake lying on the roadside half dead from cold and starvation. Having pity on the poor animal, he picked up the snake with his own hands and tucked it close to his heart underneath his clothes. When he arrived home, with care and tenderness he placed the poor thing by the fire to warm it and provided food and shelter.

In the morning he was horrified to find that the poisonous snake had bitten his small son when his son reached out his hand playfully to pet it. "Why have you done this to my precious son?" The man cried out to the snake. "My son is dying and we did nothing to harm you. Everything we did to protect and save you. Now my son is dying because of you. Why did you bite him?" The snake replied, "Don't be angry. I am a snake after all, and biting is what we do."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/chabad2.jpg
Damage from machine guns and grenades at Jewish Center in Mumbai after terrorist Jihadi MUSLIM attack. How can we speak delusionally of Islam as a religion of peace when there is an Army of fanatics waging war all over the world? Throwing grenades into a house to kill people which is sponsored by an entire Islamic government can be ignored in the name of sweet Sufi saints? Clearly we aren't talking about the same things or sharing the same concerns.

What fantasy is this that the snake will not bite us if we're "nice" to it? It is already biting!

Can we speak of Sufi saints in the same breath when Armies of fanatics are conducting massacres in India?

All this scandal is happening, and we DARE defend the snake? Because no Muslim is here to defend? Funny how all the pretend Hindu's and people who say they believe in Hinduism come out of the woodwork to provoke Hindu sentiments on a Hindu forum.

I have PMs telling me, from someone STILL not banned despite sending the emails to Satay, that, "you are saying my religion as SECT /CULT , AND sIKHS ARE HINDUS , it is highly objectionable / offensive for my faith , for me its comparing hindus with sikhs is same as saying " muslims are pagans , hindus are rat , monkey worshippers and christians are jews."It is an insult to him that I believe in Sanatan Sikhism so he has right to bombard my PMs with these clearly anti-Hindu and divisive sentiments on this forum? This is fair?

My beliefs are attacked on forums, attacked in PM's, and I am accused of flaming and threatened with banning for defending against lies and slanders against my Sanatan faith.

Defending the snake you will only get bitten. To avoid the bite you have to stay away from the snake. You do not welcome it into your house to harm your family and spread the dangerous venom of it's lies against you.

That is my word of warning to you all.

atanu

19 December 2009, 03:04 AM

You made me smile ... that shows the loving heart of a true Advaitin ! :)

I remember somewhat similar ... Atanu replied on this forum when I quoted, "Deuteronomy 13". He (Atanu) found it OK (!) from his perspective ... explaining in his way. I couldn't help by admire him !

OM

Namaste devotee,

Does it require advaita knowledge? Don't you agree that only an enlightened can know another enlightened? Spiritual Seeker by his own admission is a seeker yet he determines whether Muhammad was enlightened or not?

Krishna says: "kalosmi". But when Jesus says "kalosmi" in another language and in another format, we do not understand. Aditi, the mother of all, is described as Death in Veda. But we do not understand. When Bhagavatam is read with a biased mind -- say by terror minded Muslims or political minded Christians, God can be taken as a rampant womaniser. How absurd. Ekanta has correctly pointed out the equal possiblity of a biased mind selectively citing verses from Gita to demonstrate that Lord was a mass murderer.

When Bhagavatam relates how Shiva loses semen at the site of Mohini, an anti hindu will jump in glee citing how Shiva is a lecher. They do not know that Shiva's losing seed is a momentary lapse of touch with reality as Himself and thus giving rise to the world. We cannot also comprehend how the destruction of asuras (by Durga) may be the same as the destruction of unfaithful (by yaweh).

The climax is the fact that Brahman is both the Lord and Son of Aditi. And also that Usha is the daughter of Creator. I know some imbeciles use this to ridicule Hinduism.

Drawing out malicious historical and/or political messages from scripture, which only the knower of 'All pervading' comprehend, is a mistake at best.

Om

Harjas Kaur

19 December 2009, 03:46 AM

Ekanta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=1192) writes: #4 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36690&postcount=4)

Hadith was written efter Muhammeds death. Its what people remembered him doing and saying. Already there its questionable. And do you understand the under lying purpose of his acitons? Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his own son (later stopped by an angel). Jesus used violence to drive out the money changers from the temple in Jerusalem. Krishna �kind of� participated in the Kurukshetra war (mass murder). Shirdi Sai Baba had a stick he used to both threaten and beat people with. And the list goes on� He is claiming we are not understanding Mohammed prophet in proper context and it will help us to understand in context that Bhagavan was a mass murderer? Outrageous.

Ekanta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=1192) writes: #21 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36728&postcount=21)

Let me put it straight out. You don�t react to attacks on other religions but you react to an illogical comparison with Krishna (which was meant to be illogical and thus false)...

This is my stand:
It�s perfectly in context if you consider hindu dharma as "Sanatana Dharma". This is my "eternal" stand. I will consider it below my dignity to even discuss it. It�s not in context if you consider "hindu dharma" as a religion of hindus only...

And by the way... There are so many hypocrites on this forum. Where are all those who play good and yet never try to oppose the evil when it shows up (as in this thread and others)? Hero in words, but zero in action.This is a blatent attempt to manipulate the forum to tolerate attacks against Hindu religion and convert it to some kind of propagation of correct "Dharmic" spirituality of Islam and defense of prophet Mohammed.

�All founders of religions have heard this impersonal Voice of God revealing the Atma that activates the entire Creation. Just as the Vedas were 'heard' and propagated as 'heard' (Shruti), the Quran too was 'heard' by Hazrath Muhammad. Now Koran is "Sruti" for Hindus too? So we must accept Mohammed as the final prophet and accept conversion to Islam by default? Do Hindu's have a right to protest these abusive and negating analogies and manipulative political mischief by forces antithetical to Hindu religion? This ideology is directly from the fanatical Muslim Missionary propaganda sites.

Do you still believe Muslims are not here to defend themselves as they clearly are infiltrating Hindu forums to undermine authenticity of Hindu beliefs with this mischief? This is Muslim missionary propaganda Satay. You delete in an instant my responses to anti-Hindu attacks. Yet his clearly anti-Hindu posts remain undeleted, and you ask him to kindly self-edit. For what purpose? He has exposed himself. He should be banned as an anti-Hindu. You shouldn't threaten Hindu's with banning for defending against these brazen attacks against Hindu Dharma.

Ekanta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=1192) writes: #15 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36714&postcount=15)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=36707#post36707)
I can not believe the attempt to equate Hindu dharma to this pathetic new age so called religion.

I didnt. I said, Sanatana dharma is the essence of other faiths.
If you call Islam a "pathetic new age so called religion", that only reflects your own understanding of sanatana dharma. Congratulations!Must we endure the mischief of non-Hindu's hiding their hostile, anti-Hindu and pro-Islamic identities behind Hindu avatar pictures, telling all of us that Islam is a part of Sanatana Dharma and we are some kind of idiot not to know this? And Bhagavan Krishna is some kind of mass murderer? Enough is enough. This is becoming abusive to Hindus.

Satay jio, this is too much. I cannot even leave the forum in protest without the concerns I had getting bigger and worse and more insulting. Do us the favor on a Hindu forum of allowing Hindus to DEFEND against these numerous attacks on our religion and culture and nation.

You have allowed undeleted video posts of Dr. Zakir Naik mischeviously undermining Hindu teachings about the nirgun/sargun Oneness with Abrahamic monotheism, yet deleted my posts PROVING the virulent anti-Hindu conversionary mischief of the same man ON VIDEO calling for DEATH TO KAFFIRS and defending jihadi murders. This is the voice you allow on Hindu forums and then say Muslims aren't here to defend themselves? THEY ARE ATTACKING! This is getting well past the point of being "fair."

Now it has become an injustice to every Hindu to read this rubbish of personal attacks and tolerate undeleted this barrage of MISINFORMATION, HALF-TRUTHS, OUTRIGHT LIES, AND DISTORTIONS OF WHAT WE BELIEVE WHILE DELETING OUR PROTESTS AND CORRECTIVE RESPONSES AS UNFAIR TO THEM.

CAN YOU SEE THE SNAKE IN ACTION?

isavasya

19 December 2009, 03:53 AM

If you call Islam a "pathetic new age so called religion", that only reflects your own understanding of sanatana dharma. Congratulations!

Dear Ekanta,

Talking sweet and trying to portray Islam along side other religions, to prove yourself Gandhi will not make islam what it is not.Being critical of Prevalent extremism In Islam doesnt makes me or any one a demon. and please when you discuss comparative religion, do not post what saibaba or ramkrishna or pope has to say about Islam, but quote only what Islam says about Humanity.

I can not believe the attempt to equate Hindu dharma to this pathetic new age so called religion.

Namaste Ganesh prasad ji,

You are 100% right. Islam is a religion which is so interfering for the whole humanity and pokes it's nose about virtually every other faith of this world.

Consider this -For Allah loves not those who reject Faith (30:45 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/030.qmt.html#030.045))

Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.056))

And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers (3:85 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085))

Dear Ekanta

The above verses talk of a god who says, if you dont believe in him and his philosophy he will throw you to hell. Though the verse talks about Islamic god Allah and Islamic revelation, I have seen some non-muslims like you justifying that it means those who dont believe In Any god will be thrown in hell. so will LORD BUDDHA ,LORD MAHAVIRA, DALAI LAMA WILL BE THROWN IN HELL ?

Everything said, we can not doubt what islam teaches, now we will see if muslims follow the islam or not ?

Reality check Of a tolerant Muslim society-A non-Muslim must convert from his/ her religion to Islam in order for him/ her to marry a Muslim. He/ she must refer to the State Religious Department or seek help from an Imam at the nearest mosque in the area. After which, the same marriage procedures for Muslims apply.

Source -Official website of malaysian government.http://www.malaysia.gov.my/EN/Relevant%20Topics/Society%20and%20Life/Citizen/Family/Marriage/ProcedureMarriageMuslimandNonMuslim/Pages/MarriageBetweenMuslimandNonMuslim.aspx

so Dear Ekanta, is this the norm of human rights, I can only pity a religion which preaches such cheap things and doesnt even respects LOVE.

Apart from that do you actually know what Islamic country means ? How it has laws which are primarily defined by barbaric laws of Islam, women getting mercilessly beaten for no reason, Raped victim instead of Rapist getting hanged !! Do you know how much rights non-muslims have in Islamic country ? can you answer why 25% hindu and sikhs in pakistan have become 1%. You dont have answers because you are Hypocrite who is hell bent on not recognizing adharm.

Even if we take History to judge Islam we still fail miserably, countries like India ,Iran, egypt, all these countries which were no 1 civilizations dropped into obscurity with arrival of Islam. The whole of Zathusthra followers were exterminated by Islamic forces except few who got protection of India. All of Buddhism was exterminated from south Asia, just because Buddhists dont preach religion in accordance with islam.SOMNATH temple itself was desecrated 7 times by muslims. Recently Bahai's were butchered all over arab and africa. Still we have demons justifying this religion and even equating it with sanatan dharm. sanatan dharm preaches us to defend dharm, irrespective of source but not to defend Adharm.

One final quote of Love.

(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051)
Qur'an (5:51) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

The above quote really shows how learned Mohammad was and Ekanta calls the above quote as revelation of god. :)

devotee

19 December 2009, 04:05 AM

Namaste Atanu,

Does it require advaita knowledge?

Perhaps, not. However, somehow it seems to me that Advaitins can see things with "samata" (equanimity) more easily. May be I have got obsessed with Advaita !

Don't you agree that only an enlightened can know another enlightened?

You are right !

Krishna says: "kalosmi". But when Jesus says "kalosmi" in another language and in another format, we do not understand. Aditi, the mother of all, is described as Death in Veda. But we do not understand. When Bhagavatam is read with a biased mind -- say by terror minded Muslims or political minded Christians, God can be taken as a rampant womaniser. How absurd. Ekanta has correctly pointed out the equal possiblity of a biased mind selectively citing verses from Gita to demonstrate that Lord was a mass murderer.

When Bhagavatam relates how Shiva loses semen at the site of Mohini, an anti hindu will jump in glee citing how Shiva is a lecher. They do not know that Shiva's losing seed is a momentary lapse of touch with reality as Himself and thus giving rise to the world. We cannot also comprehend how the destruction of asuras (by Durga) may be the same as the destruction of unfaithful (by yaweh).

You are right. I agree.

----------------------------

I understand you & Ekanta well, Atanu & I agree. However, I think God created all of us with different views for a purpose. There is a need for checks & balances in this world. There are some Islamic extremists ... there are also moderate Muslims ... there are Hindus who are not very tolerant .... and there are Hindus who are very much tolerant to all views.

I am having a peaceful feeling ...

We have TTA here, we also have Atanu, Satay, Saidevoji, EM ... we have Harjas ji, we have Ekanta, we have SS etc. .... we all represent various forces God wants to be in play .... all these forces balance each other beautifully.

It is so blissful to be just the witness ! :)

OM

Ekanta

19 December 2009, 04:44 AM

Cry me a river. All some posters do is complain and put blaim on others. Just stop and grow up! I wont even pest my eyes by reading it.

isavasya

19 December 2009, 05:05 AM

Namaste devotee,

Does it require advaita knowledge? Don't you agree that only an enlightened can know another enlightened? Spiritual Seeker by his own admission is a seeker yet he determines whether Muhammad was enlightened or not?

The climax is the fact that Brahman is both the Lord and Son of Aditi. And also that Usha is the daughter of Creator. I know some imbeciles use this to ridicule Hinduism.

Drawing out malicious historical and/or political messages from scripture, which only the knower of 'All pervading' comprehend, is a mistake at best.

Om

Dear Atanu ji & devotee ji,

Have you both taken into your heads that you all selected people are enlightened and rest are only seekers here ???:)

This itself shows how much knowledge of advaita has entered into your brain. and let me tell you a seeker can definitely preach enlightened's, because enlightenment itself is a infinite tatva, just like a chandala can preach shankara.

Ekanata complained of ss putting Hadith, I have put hate preachings of Quran itself. and let me tell you hadith and quran are not like shruti and smriti of sanatan dharm, which is newest mind creation of secular Kafirs .Islam recognizes both hadith and quran as their book of guidance. By the way, We are definitely having problems with Islam, as a matter of fact the whole world is. Atanu ji, and devotee ji ceaselessly try to justify Islam, by questioning abstract philosophical denominations like that of Usha and brahman from Sanatan dharm's view.

Devotee ji and atanu ji,

Let me tell you, both of you have become Muslim minded, why do you see advaita as justification for all hindus ??? (All though it's clear that you have wrong understanding of advaita). The thread starter put a very straightforward question , was muhammed enlightened, I chose to answer no he was not. And I dont cite his private life to prove my point, but simply put his teachings.

Advaita preaches unity of all Good thoughts, but not all thoughts which at outset opposes advaita and all other thoughts and paths itself. What Islam does throughout kooran is divide humanity in good vs evil, Muslim vs kafir. The message is to eliminate every faith till Islam alone survives. And my friends see diversity in this Pathetic thought!!

Qur'an (3:85) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.085) - "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.

Qur'an (3:118) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.118) - "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."

This above verse not only warns Muslims not to take non-Muslims as friends, but it establishes the deep-seated paranoia that the rest of the world is out to get them.

so my clear cut point is that, first go to Islamic forums, check if really muslims have love and respect for Non-muslims, go to islamic countries make them democratic and just for all, then return to this forum and till then you dont have right to preach your idiotic fancies and relate Islam = Hinduism, because Islam preaches Hinduism as sinful, and I and people like me speak for the hindus with facts and realities and not by twisting facts to spread my own propaganda.

Cry me a river. All some posters do is complain and put blaim on others. Just stop and grow up! I wont even pest my eyes by reading it.

All some posters like you do, is evade looking at hate verses in Islam, evade looking at the unjust laws of Islamic countries behave like a tyrant and sole humanitarian, say water and poison are one. Better you stop pesting your eyes, if you have one.

Ekanta

19 December 2009, 05:29 AM

[QUOTE]"And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
Islam here denotes �state of mind� total surrender to the Will of God�, which is no other than the eternal religion.

"O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."

This means �don�t take snakes as your friends because they will come at you biting your ass�

Harjas Kaur

19 December 2009, 05:44 AM

heartfully (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=1425) writes: #7 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36703&postcount=7)

I believe Quran tells people to surrender to God and to value nothing more than surrendering to God. Surrendering to God is not enlightenment or freedom from suffering. Muhammad shows us that it is best to constantly aspire to seeking God and serving God.

Muhammad merged with God, but in a way very different than Buddha's. It seems unfair to judge Muhammad by your own version of what enlightenment is or isn't. There are many ways to merge with the Divine...

Saying Muhammad wasn't enlightened is like saying Ganesha really has an elephant's head or Kali is no different than a blood thirsty vampire. It is also judging someone by your own interpretation of enlightenment.

One more bit of advice. Whenever you lump all person's into one ruling, you are creating fertile ground for prejudice and discrimination. Not all Muslims are one way or another. You must take it on an individual basis. Sure its a lot easier to say all Muslims say or believe a certain thing, but it is not true. You can only know that when you treat people as people.

Just as all Americans are not alike and all countries are not alike and all dogs are not alike and not all Hindus are not alike...not all Muslims are alike either. There is great diversity within Islam because we are people not clones.We are attacked as vile sinners, kaffirs worthy of death, pagans, idolators, children of Shaitan worthy of torments of hell, and on very own HINDU forums accused of hatred, and prejudice and discrimination AGAINST Islam. That's a good one.

India is scarred with defiled and broken temples which masjids have been built over triumphantly, land of Hindustan is divided and spies, infiltrators, agitators, dividers, haters, bombers and terrorists of every stripe proclaiming loudly the superiority of this same Islam, and you DARE come on Hindu forums and preach Islamic religion to Hindus while accusing same of "prejudice?" Did anyone here say you have to convert when you insisted? Did anyone here go to Muslim forums to bother Muslims about what they want you to believe? Yet you are here, pretending to believe in Hindu teaching, and then make these mindless asinine attacks and use as platform to promote "wonderful" spirituality of Islamic ideology.

Maybe some Muslims do the things you accuse them of. There are many ways to be Muslim just like there are many ways to be American or a woman or a friend or a Hindu. It feels like nothing I say here to you will be valued though because once you know I am Muslim you feel so much hatred toward me.No one hates you or even knows who you are. For all we know you work for missionaries. Anyone can say anything on the internet and mischievous elements often do.

Saying you will convert to Hindu religion for one trial year and seriously believe in Hindu religion one week and insult Hinduism and preach Islam to Hindus the next is rather unconvincing. Your insane flip flopping and preaching of Islam on Hindu forums to Hindus after pretending to want to convert to be a Hindu and carrying on with same tried and true missionary propaganda of guilt and shame as elements of coercion to get your missionary foot in the door; to do inappropriate preaching of Islamic faith to people who don't want to believe in or convert to Islam, like a salesman desperate to try and sell a product, is offensive.

MESSAGE TO ALL ANTI-HINDU'S: Go to your own Muslim forums and stop playing games with Hindus. We aren't interested in playing any games with you.

Islam Religion Of PEACE ? - Exposed by Dr Zakir Naik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZJ01RfkkTQ

Dr Zakir Naik - Who is responsible for Mumbai 26/11 terror attack?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReVT0QTzTzc

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Ganeshprasad

19 December 2009, 05:54 AM

Pranam all

And by the way... There are so many hypocrites on this forum. Where are all those who play good and yet never try to oppose the evil when it shows up (as in this thread and others)? Hero in words, but zero in action.

Make your mind up who is a hypocrite here, you want All Hindus to be tolerant and yet you want us to oppose the evil. Is the evil is your defination only?

We see the evil of Islam on top of our most revered temples in Kasi, in Mathura and hundreds of our temples yet we tolerate, we still endure this fanatics bombing our parliaments and we so much as speak against it we are fanatics.

How absurd. Ekanta has correctly pointed out the equal possiblity of a biased mind selectively citing verses from Gita to demonstrate that Lord was a mass murderer.

How very philosophical, he mislead to demonstrate and justify violence of Muhammad and when questioned it becomes point of someone soft spot, sorry I don�t bye that.

No verses from Gita were cited unless off course you think it were true.
Lets us be tolerant including the views of the Hindu or else we become our worst enemy.

Thank goodness for intolerant person like Sivaji, Dhanya to his mother when he was in the womb she inspired him to protect Dharma from this so peace loving islam. I wonder what drove this mother to inspire her unborn child?

Thanks to intolerant Valabhai Patel we would have otherwise lost all of Kashmir what to speak of Haydrabad.

Those Hindus who are very much tolerant to all views� these tolerance is a curse which is slowly eating up the very fabric of Hindu existence.
It's a pity they forget to tolerate Hindu�s view.

Ai Shree Krishna
　

isavasya

19 December 2009, 05:57 AM

Islam here denotes “state of mind… total surrender to the Will of God”, which is no other than the eternal religion.

What a lie, 100% the message talks about Islam the unique religion mentioned in kooran.see other verses that follow.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029) Jizya is the money that non-Muslims pay to their Muslim overlords in a pure Islamic state.)

The Jews call Ezra a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:30 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.030))

Ekanata

Do you see, the above verse clearly distinguishes Muslims as one people who follow kooran and rest humanity as other, christians believe jesus as son of God, Mohhammed pokes his nose, jesus aint son of god. Further, if it denoted state of mind then why allah talks about putting Jaziya on non- Muslims ?? Also you say total surrender to will of god,Lord buddha and Lord mahavira never believed in GOD, so they are destined for Hell ?

This means “don’t take snakes as your friends because they will come at you biting your ass”

Qur'an (5:51) (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.051) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

so jews and christians and so called pagans (hindus) are Snakes ??

Ekanata

Dont you think instead of falsely justifying and twisting these verses, you should say, Muslims should stop believing in every word of quran, no religion is perfect, but every human should strive to be perfect. As a hindu I have great respect for all people who share this thought, I personally dont believe Hinduism as only true path and so do I expect from every human being. But what makes you, atanu ji etc different is that instead of taking to dharm, and condemning adharm, you people keep on twisting statements to prove everything written in name of religion is right. There are a lot of Non-sense stuffs in quran, just as it was in Christianity, there was a age of enlightenment in 17th century , when people chose to look at logic,then Christianity improved a lot. All muslims must do the same, they need a complete reformation, the present day religion is wrong and needs a change. I as non-Muslim will keep opposing it, and hope muslims realize it, and people like you will never let them realize.

Spiritualseeker

19 December 2009, 06:39 AM

Namaste,

I will still await for ekanta or others to prove that the hadiths I provided are not authentic. How do we know anything about muhammad? It is through the ahadith that are authentic. I have not seen one scholar in history of Islam to reject what I put. See the problem is not that Muslims are unaware of this, many Muslims are aware and accept this. I have heard tons of scholars reveal the same thing I revealed. The only difference is those scholars believe in it as a dogma and it does not affect their faith. In my articles I even posted links to Shaykh Munajid who is one of the great modern day scholars. He has his teachings on arab television, has his radio station in saudi arabia, and was a student of shaykh muhammad ibn salih al-uthaymin who is one of the most admired scholars of this era (also note al-uthaymin accepts everything I put he had even controversial fatwas of his own!).

If Ekanta and others can prove that the consensus of Islamic scholars is BS then they need to bring proof, because otherwise they are just pretending Islam is something other than it is.

-juan

Spiritualseeker

19 December 2009, 06:51 AM

Harjas those are some good links. It was good exposing Zakir Naik. He is praised much by muslim missionaries. In one interview he said he supports usama ibn laden.

Remember anwar al-awlaki is praised by many missionaries especially after his many lectures and his audio CD course on biography of the Prophet, Biography of the wives, and biography of the Companions, yet this same guy that is praised in western mosque is the one who praised the recent shootings at the military base some weeks ago.

heartfully

19 December 2009, 06:55 AM

Namaste Devotee,

I believe all sacred texts can only be understood when contemplated. I agree, a superficial and literal understanding of Quran can lead to all sorts of conclusions like the ones you have made. I am working hard at the kind of energy my interaction with the world creates so I have decided not to debate it with you about it. Honestly, I have even had many of these arguments with myself. On the other hand, a lot of people think Hindus really believe they are worshiping gods with monkey and elephant heads. A lot of them would look at Kali and think what you think about Quran. And I know I am no scholar, but as a Sufi, I contemplate the Quran. I don't read it like a novel. I study it. Thanks for acknowledging that there is a difference between Orthodox perspectives on Islam and Sufi views of it. If Rumi's and Rabia's version of Islam is possible, then my opinions are valid.

As for Allah needing and demanding constant praise, I say say Salat not because the Divine needs it, but because I need it. Salat isn't appeasing some angry god; it is a gift to the Divine. We are always told the best gift we can give each other is our love and giving our full attention is an act of love. I use salat to keep the eyes of my heart moist with tears of love. Again a superficial understanding of prayer in many religions does not give someone the truth that comes from dedication to a certain way of prayer. Many people would laugh at a Hindu washing the feet of a statue. You and I know Hindus do it with such love and devotion to the Divine that we get tears in our eyes just thinking about how deeply we can love the Divine.

I really never said Buddha thought he was God in the flesh. Buddha made sure people knew he was a human being doing what human beings are capable of doing, but some people mistakenly refer to him into a god. I'll re-read my post for typos and edit as needed. Buddha never mentioned God's existence because he was not out to prove what couldn't be proven. And his ultimate goal was freedom from suffering. He proves this way that you don't have to believe in God to live a virtuous and compassionate life. When I say Buddha is a prophet, I do not mean he was a god. He was a prophet with a message though and many Sufis revere and study his words. If God is Love and Love is God, Buddha was a messenger for God/Love. Some call it God, others Mother, others Waheguru or Wakan Tanka or Allah or Truth or the Divine or the One or the All or Life or Love or Ganesha or Shiva... how beauty-full is that?

In Love,
Heartfully

Namaste HF,

Before I read Q'uran and learnt about Muhammad, I also had high opinion of Islam. However, I was disappointed to read the scripture which in most of its part, dwells on two things :

Instil a very strong fear in people (throwing in fire of hell for eternity !) so that they dare not question Muhammad as prophet or Q'uran as word of God. You are told that you should keep praising God ... or else be ready to be fodder to the fire of hell for eternity ! On the other hand, if you are a believer, what God has to offer ? You will be granted a life in heaven with 72 maids taking care of you ... with freedom to experience enjoyment of sex 24x7 ... the gates of heaven are made of pearls & paths with gems etc. etc. .... You have trees laden with fruits & river of wine flowing across the valley ... etc. etc. ... (This depiction of heaven also shows lack of God's capacity to think of any enjoyment beyond this body ! Isn't that laughable ? God can give only "sex", "fruits" & "wine" for merry making in heaven ! How is he any better than a human being --- isn't he omnipotent & very well could have offered something better ? )

So, the whole of Islam is a "nightmarishly fearful & very hard Stick" & "highly tempting Sweetest Carrot beyond imagination" policy. If you are on the side of Allah then you get the sweetest carrot that you can ever imagine ..... & a "very hard stick" if you don't. Is such a God, really a God ? The God who decides worthiness of people for reward or punishment on the basis of who believes in Q'uran & Prophet or otherwise & not on their conduct whether they believe in God or not, can be a might King but not God. God asking for sycophants can't really be God ! God by definition must be fair to all, whether someone praises him or not. If He so desperately wanted someone to keep praising Him all day & night above everything then he would have created beings fully programmed so that would be born with only Allah's name in their lips ! If someone praises Allah or not, or believes in Q'uran or not or believes in Muhammad or not .... why should Allah worry so much ? Why should Allah hate the idol worshippers ? If he hated them so much why he created their minds like that ... why he not created man with Q'uran written within his mind ? Why were Vedas revealed more than 5000 years before Muhammad which taught a completely different version of Truth ? Why did he send so many prophets & sent widely differing messages through them ?

The unquenchable desires of Allah to be praised all the times & worshipped along with the book & his messenger makes one feel that He is unworthy of becoming God.

You have quoted Rumi. I have very high respect for Rumi, Rabia & other many Sufi Saints ... but that is no what is there in orthodox Islam. Rumi's or Rabia's version of Islam is not much different from Hindu's Advaita Vedanta. How many Muslims agree with Rumi's or Rabia's version of Islam ? All problems of this world would have not been today if even half of Muslims would have accepted that version & not Muhammad's version.

----------------------------------------------

And your assumption that Buddha thought that he was God in flesh ... is simply laughable ! You just don't know even abc of Buddhism. My dear friend, Buddhism doesn't ask you to simply believe in anything ..... not even in Buddha & his teachings ... they are just pointters to the Truth ... you must realise the Truth yourself & see what the Truth is & whether what Lord Buddha taught was right or wrong. There is a famous saying in Mahayan Buddhism ... "(in your great journey to find the Truth) if you see Buddha, Kill Buddha !". Truth is the only sacred thing ... all other things are only pointer to the Truth & if they hinder the realisation of the Truth ... just destroy all those pointers. ... and that is what is taught in Advaita Vedanta & in Jainism. You must realise the Truth yourself ! "Tatra Vedaah aveda bhavanti" ... all scriptures & all teachings become useless when you realise the Truth yourself.
What is the use of all theories we learnt in our childhood to understand "that the Earth is round" today, when man has seen from space that the earth is round !

OM

heartfully

19 December 2009, 07:10 AM

Namaste,

I accept there is more than one interpretation of Islam. And that is true of all religions. Yes, there is the one that we all hate and reject, but it is not the only one. Why should a Sufi be silenced for what a wahabi does? Shouldn't that make the Sufi speak out against the true enemy? Is Islam the enemy or is the violence of wahabis?

Isn't it the same as racial profiling to make me guilty for the crimes of another?

Some Muslims are using violence in the name of Islam. Many aren't. It is not fair to say I should stop practicing my faith because wahabis are wounding so violently.

In Love,
Heartfully

There was a man who happened, on a bitterly cold and frosty winter evening, to find a snake lying on the roadside half dead from cold and starvation. Having pity on the poor animal, he picked up the snake with his own hands and tucked it close to his heart underneath his clothes. When he arrived home, with care and tenderness he placed the poor thing by the fire to warm it and provided food and shelter.

In the morning he was horrified to find that the poisonous snake had bitten his small son when his son reached out his hand playfully to pet it. "Why have you done this to my precious son?" The man cried out to the snake. "My son is dying and we did nothing to harm you. Everything we did to protect and save you. Now my son is dying because of you. Why did you bite him?" The snake replied, "Don't be angry. I am a snake after all, and biting is what we do."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/chabad2.jpg
Damage from machine guns and grenades at Jewish Center in Mumbai after terrorist Jihadi MUSLIM attack. How can we speak delusionally of Islam as a religion of peace when there is an Army of fanatics waging war all over the world? Throwing grenades into a house to kill people which is sponsored by an entire Islamic government can be ignored in the name of sweet Sufi saints? Clearly we aren't talking about the same things or sharing the same concerns.

What fantasy is this that the snake will not bite us if we're "nice" to it? It is already biting!

Can we speak of Sufi saints in the same breath when Armies of fanatics are conducting massacres in India?

All this scandal is happening, and we DARE defend the snake? Because no Muslim is here to defend? Funny how all the pretend Hindu's and people who say they believe in Hinduism come out of the woodwork to provoke Hindu sentiments on a Hindu forum.

I have PMs telling me, from someone STILL not banned despite sending the emails to Satay, that, "you are saying my religion as SECT /CULT , AND sIKHS ARE HINDUS , it is highly objectionable / offensive for my faith , for me its comparing hindus with sikhs is same as saying " muslims are pagans , hindus are rat , monkey worshippers and christians are jews."It is an insult to him that I believe in Sanatan Sikhism so he has right to bombard my PMs with these clearly anti-Hindu and divisive sentiments on this forum? This is fair?

My beliefs are attacked on forums, attacked in PM's, and I am accused of flaming and threatened with banning for defending against lies and slanders against my Sanatan faith.

Defending the snake you will only get bitten. To avoid the bite you have to stay away from the snake. You do not welcome it into your house to harm your family and spread the dangerous venom of it's lies against you.

That is my word of warning to you all.

heartfully

19 December 2009, 07:16 AM

Namste, SS, I won't debate this any further. We have different opinions. We are both trying to convince the other of being wrong. This is an opportunity to choose peace over conflict.

So Peace...Peace...Peace...

Love to you,
Heartfully

Thank you for your response. Firstly we know that Enlightenment is our highest evolution. It is our true Nature. It is our ever oneness with the One Life. Muhammad did not have this. He according to the Quran is the best of all mankind. He is better than any prophet. He is the example to be followed. I think in my post I clearly demonstrated his fallacy, if you wish you could address the points of the article.

What was Muhammad's mission? He was to deliver the Quran and give guidance to ALL OF MANKIND. Not just a select few. Since he is the example to be followed he should be upright and have a noble character, yet we find him not even following some of his own advice. I would love for you to address some of that which was in the article and tell us if you defend it and your views on it.

Muhammad is suppose to be bringing people to God, yet his teachings and way contradict eachother. I have shown how sometimes he would get so angry which shows that he truely did not have transcendence beyond his desires. A Prophet Sent from God should be upright especially if you are asking the entire world to emulate him, yet Muhammad again and again shows us some ugly characteristics. Like I mentioned in the article you cannot just take certain parts of his life, such as when he was nice and friendly and leave out the times when he gave verdict for genocide, oe became so anger, or even when he struck Aisha on the chest.

My article was in no ways a means to say that celibacy is the way. What was intended is to show Muhammad's LUST. He had lust. He made muslim followers only have 4 wives and he himself took 11. Muslims say that is an exception for Muhammad and some other prophets. Again Muhammad was able to be alone with a woman whereas his followers could not. I mentioned clearly in the article that sex is neither bad nor good, but attachment to it is bad. How can we ever evolve if we are attached to our desires? That is what the spiritual path is suppose to guide us to. So muslim men can fulfill unquenching desires by having four wives, and also having sex with slave girls whereas the muslim women cannot? How is Muhammad the best of all mankind when people before him and after him have transcended desires and yet he is stuck with his anger, violence, and sex? One thing I did not mention in the article is that Muhammad also selected a female from the tribe of Banu Qurayza, but she declined because she was too in love with judaism. The point is, muhammad could just not quench his desires for women.

I am a married man and Imagine if i dont work with my desires I will be cheating on my wife constantly, or I can become muslim and get more wives and when I am not satisfied I can have a lot of sex with slave girls. This is not spirituality this is attachment to the body. God is beyond form.

Heartfully I really respect that you responded but I have to politely tell you that the last sentence you said is stretching the truth. Yes Muhammad is quoted in some hadith to advise his companions to be respectful to their slaves and dress them with their cloths and feed them with their food, yet at the same time Muhammad allowed sex slaves. Even during Muhammad's last pilgrimage some companions were insulting Ali ibn Abu Talib because he had taken a slave from an expedition (whereas the other militants were told to wait until later to have the booty of war) and Ali had sex with the slave. When word got back to Muhammad, Muhammad praised Ali for his character. The point is having girl slaves for sex is just fine. If you are telling me Muhammad encouraged freeing of slaves, you are correct in a few hadith, however did you not know that Muhammad himself had a slave?

We need to look at the whole picture.

This is a common argument yet we see clearly that Muhammad himself was fond of many women not just for political reason but for desires. The Quran says treat wives equally yet in article part 1 I showed how not even Muhammad (the SEAL OF ALL PROPHETS) himself could treat his wives equally.

If you refer above to my response to Ekanta you can see what hadith I used and how the hadith I used are authentic. If you want to dispute their authenticity then you need to bring evidence that the consensus of Scholars has been wrong for 1400 years. I am still waiting for muslims to do that instead of always saying "hadith are infallible". The scholars of hadith knew hadith were fallible that is why they devoloped the Science of Hadith. So when the scholars agree to the authenticity of a hadith you should agree also unless you have some new knowledge that the Consensus (which is called ijma in islam) was wrong all along. This would mean that Islam needs a reformation.

Which hadith are fallible? They are the hadith that are lone narrations (though sometimes used), ghareeb (strange but sometimes accepted), mawdoo (fabricated), and daef (weak). The hadiths I based my articles on are all authentic and the Consensus of the Scholars support. Just because a few muslims today say that hadith are unreliable does not change the position of the vast majority of scholars. Imagine saying imam malik, imam bukhari, imam muslim, ibn hajar al-asqalani, imam nawawi, Imam shafii, Imam ahmad, and the vast majority were all STUPID because they accepted that which you think are questionable. It is absurd, you have no argument to base your views, it is just a modern apologetic stance. Go to medina university with your argument and see what they say, go to al-azhar, go to daru ul uloom deoband in India, Pakistan, or afghanistan. You will be rejected and shot down as a modernist.

Jesus turned over tables so that makes him a man of anger? Name one man jesus ever struck? Name one man Jesus ordered to be executed let alone 700 people. You probably also believe that Jihad is defensive only. Yet do you not realize that Jihad is offensive aswell and it is sinful for an islamic state to be in existence without waging Jihad. These are all points you probably never studied because instead you just listen to local lectures at the mosque and thats the only ounce of islam you get. Look listen to the Biography of the Prophet on audio CD by Shaykh Anwar Awlaki, it is a CD set you find in many mosques. Yet if you listen you will see all sides of Muhammad and also defense of his angry actions and his slaughter.

This is 100% incorrect! Jihad is offensive aswell. Here is straight from the Quran

�Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued�9:29

This is offensive. You conquer spain and cause them to pay jizya. This is discussed in my article did you bother to read it? Read this
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/26125/offensive%20jihad
Shaykh munajid shows proof for his stance on offensive jihad stating this:

Jihaad against the kuffaar with weapons is of two types: jihad talab (offensive jihad) and jihad daf� (defensive jihad).
Jihad talab means attacking the kuffaar in their own lands until they become Muslim or pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: �I have been commanded to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no god but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and establish regular prayer, and pay zakaah. If they do that, then they have protected their blood and their wealth from me, except in cases decreed by Islamic law, and their reckoning with be with Allaah.� Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 25; Muslim, 20.

With all due respect you are just speaking out of emotion and not from knowledge.

Yet it teaches much more like offensive jihad which you denied. Muhammad will surely be responsible for the karma he has created.

Until you can truely defend your beliefs with evidences and wipe out my evidences then you have nothing to say. You need to respond to the points. You cant just decide that you dont accept it and say I am wrong. If that is the case then kiss goodbye all the scholars for 1400 years that have thought otherwise.

Muhammad shows how to be an imperfect human who always misses the mark. The Quran teaches dogma. Dogma does not help someone evolve. It can only get us so far.

Well if you read my articles you will notice that he couldnt even follow his own teachings on anger and other issues.

If I had proof Ganesha didnt have an elephants head as is protrayed in the scriptures then I would have an argument. Now I do have arguments against Muhammad from authentic sources. You just cant fathom that because you are attached to dogma. It is an attachment you have to give up before you can obtain the bliss of liberation.

I am not condemning all muslims. I am condemning Muhammad. I have evidence for this, you cannot just respond that you find it fallible. Unless you can point out that the hadith are not authentic and the quran is saying something else then there is no argument. I spent day in and day out studying islam for 7 years. I went to the Masjid. I prayed and I sat with local shaykhs. I listened to lectures from scholars and read countless books. I still have an islamic library. I use this library now to point out the facts. Now if you wish to truely respond to the points I would love to discuss more with you, but you cant just dismiss my claims without investigation just because you saw the Biography of the Prophet on some film or went to the local imam and he tells you muhammad is love and peace.

Best regards
-juan

Spiritualseeker

19 December 2009, 07:16 AM

Namaste,

Atanu based on what I have written in the first two articles can you honestly say Muhammad was other than unenlightened? I understand Sanatana Dharma is Eternal truth and Eternal truths can be found in other religions, like compassion, love, etc.... but based on the actions of Muhammad should we hold hands with him and say kumbaiya ? Muhammad is considered to be the ideal examle for all mankind, yet he has been exposed by myself and others on this forum. If you find some verses of the Quran that reflect some of the Hindu teachings, thats all fine and dandy, but take the whole Quran and the WHOLE PERSON MUHAMMAD and see if it coincides with hinduism. Please dont insult hinduism and Buddhism with such views that Muhammad was a highly enlightened or spiritual being. If you ever want some reading material I will send to you not from a hate site but from Muslim sites and from books by major scholars saying all that I and others have said.

atanu I am a seeker and I am not enlightened just yet, but does that mean since I am not enlightened I cannot judge the mormon cults that are marrying young children and brain washing crowds of people? Islam is just a gigantic cult. When I made the mistake of Islam i was lured in that islam was peace, then after becoming muslim I learned that what Islam considered innocent people is not necessary of what we may consider innocent people. Until you atanu, ekanta, or any other muslim or new age theorist can prove the hadiths I provided are not authentic then there is no need for discussion.

-juan

heartfully

19 December 2009, 07:32 AM

Namaste,

I'm sorry if you saw me as a Muslim who has come here to make mischief. I am not trying to force Islam on people or to beat them up with it. I'm merely saying not every snake is poisonous.

Wahabi and Sufi are two distinct ways of understanding Islam.

If things keep going as they are going, non-Muslims will start believing it is ok to wipe all Muslims off the earth. And that means I would be killed for something I did not do.

And I do not support wahabis. That much should be obvious. But we are all looking at the same thing and seeing a different picture.

I am not abusing Hindus by defending Sufis. I assume because there is a forum for discussing Islam here, it is safe to share my opinions about Islam on it. I have said absolutely nothing critical of Hindus. I am here to learn about it. You do not have to accept Islam, but please accept me because I am not the one who committed any of the actions you are hating me for. I am on your side.

Love to you,
Heartfully

Ekanta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=1192) writes: #4 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36690&postcount=4)
He is claiming we are not understanding Mohammed prophet in proper context and it will help us to understand in context that Bhagavan was a mass murderer? Outrageous.

Ekanta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=1192) writes: #21 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36728&postcount=21)
This is a blatent attempt to manipulate the forum to tolerate attacks against Hindu religion and convert it to some kind of propagation of correct "Dharmic" spirituality of Islam and defense of prophet Mohammed.

Now Koran is "Sruti" for Hindus too? So we must accept Mohammed as the final prophet and accept conversion to Islam by default? Do Hindu's have a right to protest these abusive and negating analogies and manipulative political mischief by forces antithetical to Hindu religion? This ideology is directly from the fanatical Muslim Missionary propaganda sites.

Do you still believe Muslims are not here to defend themselves as they clearly are infiltrating Hindu forums to undermine authenticity of Hindu beliefs with this mischief? This is Muslim missionary propaganda Satay. You delete in an instant my responses to anti-Hindu attacks. Yet his clearly anti-Hindu posts remain undeleted, and you ask him to kindly self-edit. For what purpose? He has exposed himself. He should be banned as an anti-Hindu. You shouldn't threaten Hindu's with banning for defending against these brazen attacks against Hindu Dharma.

Ekanta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=1192) writes: #15 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36714&postcount=15)
Must we endure the mischief of non-Hindu's hiding their hostile, anti-Hindu and pro-Islamic identities behind Hindu avatar pictures, telling all of us that Islam is a part of Sanatana Dharma and we are some kind of idiot not to know this? And Bhagavan Krishna is some kind of mass murderer? Enough is enough. This is becoming abusive to Hindus.

Satay jio, this is too much. I cannot even leave the forum in protest without the concerns I had getting bigger and worse and more insulting. Do us the favor on a Hindu forum of allowing Hindus to DEFEND against these numerous attacks on our religion and culture and nation.

You have allowed undeleted video posts of Dr. Zakir Naik mischeviously undermining Hindu teachings about the nirgun/sargun Oneness with Abrahamic monotheism, yet deleted my posts PROVING the virulent anti-Hindu conversionary mischief of the same man ON VIDEO calling for DEATH TO KAFFIRS and defending jihadi murders. This is the voice you allow on Hindu forums and then say Muslims aren't here to defend themselves? THEY ARE ATTACKING! This is getting well past the point of being "fair."

Now it has become an injustice to every Hindu to read this rubbish of personal attacks and tolerate undeleted this barrage of MISINFORMATION, HALF-TRUTHS, OUTRIGHT LIES, AND DISTORTIONS OF WHAT WE BELIEVE WHILE DELETING OUR PROTESTS AND CORRECTIVE RESPONSES AS UNFAIR TO THEM.

CAN YOU SEE THE SNAKE IN ACTION?

devotee

19 December 2009, 07:33 AM

Let's not derail this thread !

Come on SS, please continue. :)

OM

Spiritualseeker

19 December 2009, 07:39 AM

Thank you devotee. Ill have part 3 up by sunday :)

devotee

19 December 2009, 07:48 AM

I'm merely saying not every snake is poisonous.

Wahabi and Sufi are two distinct ways of understanding Islam.

If things keep going as they are going, non-Muslims will start believing it is ok to wipe all Muslims off the earth. And that means I would be killed for something I did not do.

And I do not support wahabis. That much should be obvious. But we are all looking at the same thing and seeing a different picture.

I am not abusing Hindus by defending Sufis.

Namaste Heartfully,

Sufis are already in minority and very few are left on this earth, thanks to Islamic extremists. I don't think anyone here is talking against the Sufis.

Islam is a very sensitive issue. It is difficult to control emotions when you discuss Islam. You need to understand that the doctrine of Islam being preached in Madrassas in many Muslim countries is creating Jihadists which is a threat to this world's peace. Hindus & India are worst sufferers due to our neighbourhood. So, the outbursts that you are witnessing here is quite understandable.

There is nothing personal against you. We are only discussing different philosophies & seeing things from our different perspectives.

OM

atanu

19 December 2009, 10:02 AM

Namaste,

Atanu based on what I have written in the first two articles can you honestly say Muhammad was other than unenlightened?
-juan

Namaste Juan,

I relax and cast aside all mental burdens,
allowing God to express through me

What you see is your own mind. Of course you have to work it out, till you cast aside all burdens and let the above happen.

Best Wishes

Ganeshprasad

19 December 2009, 11:34 AM

Pranam Atanu ji

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritualseeker http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=36756#post36756)
Namaste,

Atanu based on what I have written in the first two articles can you honestly say Muhammad was other than unenlightened?
-juan

Namaste Juan,

I relax and cast aside all mental burdens,
allowing God to express through me

What you see is your own mind. Of course you have to work it out, till you cast aside all burdens and let the above happen.

Best Wishes

What a co-pout my friend, you are very quick to judge everyone on the forum as mere Jigyasu, yet you resort to above when difficult but obivious question get asked.

Jai Shree Krishna

satay

19 December 2009, 12:23 PM

satay

19 December 2009, 12:25 PM

Pranam atanu,

What you see is your own mind. Of course you have to work it out, till you cast aside all burdens and let the above happen.

Best Wishes

A friend used to say to others, 'physician heal thyself'.

Take Care.

atanu

19 December 2009, 12:36 PM

Pranam Atanu ji
What a co-pout my friend, you are very quick to judge everyone on the forum as mere Jigyasu, yet you resort to above when difficult but obivious question get asked.
Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasadji,

Since i am no more than a seeker, so i cannot answer any better than saying that obvious questions have obvious answers:

I relax and cast aside all mental burdens,
allowing God to -------

The above was quoted from the signature line of SS. It was reminder to SS and not to all -- not to you surely.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ekanta

19 December 2009, 01:54 PM

Namaskar Ekanta,

I asked you a simple question and you gave us an emotional response. I am still trying to understand the logic behind your post.

You call us hypocrites for questioning you on why you are calling Krishna a mass murderer? Hmm...

Instead of getting into emotional responses back and forth with you and other members who are pretending to be established in turiya, I request you to refute the points spiritualseeker has made in his OP.

I want to make clear that no one here is against muslims and exposing ills of Islam is not the purpose of this forum.

However, I challenge you and atanu to refute spiritualseeker's original post instead of making personal attacks on him and other members.

If you cannot accept this challenge and rather enjoy the turiya state that you are established in, then I request you to stop posting on this thread and don't make personal attacks on us who are clearly established in duality. Otherwise, you look like an hypocrite yourself.

Thank you!

Namaskar
I guess there is emotion, to be unimotional is inhuman. And... I repeat, I didnt call Krishna "mass murderer". It was an example how scriptes can be used depending on intention. You dont have to doubt my attitude towards Krishna. To me he was a full avatar.
By hopocrites I meant members who otherwise post but never in this kind of threads. This I agree might be provocing, but the intention was good.
One doesnt have to be established in turiya to see a little bit of light. Neither does one have to be established in turiya to notice absense of light.
I was on my way to discuss spiritualseekers original post a bit more. But then a lot of folks showed up and started misquoting and turning everything I said upside down. I then quite naturally lost interest. But since "no one here is against muslims" perhaps I dont have to anymore.

Ganeshprasad

19 December 2009, 04:47 PM

Pranam Atanu ji

Namaste Ganeshprasadji,

The above was quoted from the signature line of SS. It was reminder to SS and not to all -- not to you surely.

Om Namah Shivaya

Please do pardon me i missed that signature line.
even though question was asked by ss a lot off us are interested in an open forum with honest answer. instead of evading it.

instead of Muhammad what if i replaced him with Ravan, what would be your answer?

Jai Shree Krishna

Spiritualseeker

19 December 2009, 05:10 PM

Namaste Ganeshprasadji,

Since i am no more than a seeker, so i cannot answer any better than saying that obvious questions have obvious answers:

I relax and cast aside all mental burdens,
allowing God to -------

The above was quoted from the signature line of SS. It was reminder to SS and not to all -- not to you surely.

Om Namah Shivaya

Thank you atanu, but that still doesnt get muhammad off the hook.

namaste

atanu

19 December 2009, 05:57 PM

Thank you atanu, but that still doesnt get muhammad off the hook.
namaste

namaste spiritual,

Since you had written me several pm's requesting advice on some issues relevant to practise of hinduism, i took the liberty to remind you of your signature line. If you think i am wrong (as the moderator and GPji also believe) you simply ignore my unsolicited advice. I am sorry in that case.

I want to get off the hook myself and do not have much time to put Prophet Muhammad on the hook or to get him off.

Logically, I cannot put credence on the personalty cult based Puranic stories as shruti, if they contradict the Vedas. If one goes only by puranic stories, creating mental images of fleshy divinities, in place of spiritual beings, then one would come across many horrendous ideas.

Similarly, i cannot accept Hadiths as stand alone evidences. But I acknowledge Koran as revelation. Koran could not have been written by an illiterate goon and without divine intervention -- this I believe. Also, no authentic Hindu Guru has termed koran as non revealed scripture. And why should revelation descend on to a beast? (I know that only Maharishi Dayanand has questioned the validity of Koran as a revealed scripture but he has also condemned all other Hindu groups).

Moreover the points you raised are all available on internet (mainly on evangelical christian sites). These, i believe have nothing to do with spirituality, logic, and love.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm
http://inthenameofallah.org/Zainab%20bint%20Jahsh%20&%20the%20Veil%20Verse.html (http://inthenameofallah.org/Zainab%20bint%20Jahsh%20&%20the%20Veil%20Verse.html)
http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Lust.Islam
http://www.muslimhope.com/index.html
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm
http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Farsideology:_Top_11_Prophetical_Traits_of_Muhammad

Best wishes again. Nothing against you or any one else. Every one is entitled to beliefs.

Om Namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker

19 December 2009, 08:32 PM

Similarly, i cannot accept Hadiths as stand alone evidences. But I acknowledge Koran as revelation. Koran could not have been written by an illiterate goon and without divine intervention

Namaste,

with all due respect atanu, it does not matter if you accept it or not, or if I accept it or not or if heartfully accepts it or not. This is a matter of Islamic revealation and what is considered to be revealation. For 1400 years there is absolute consensus in following the Quran as it is compiled today, and the books of ahadith (the Sunnah) and the third ruling is Consensus of scholars. This is how rulings come in Islam. Like I mentioned you cannot truely understand the Quran without ahadith. Not only this but these people who claim that they dont accept hadith are nothing but innovating into the religion of Islam. It is as if saying that the Consensus for over 1400 years has been wrong.

The Quran itself that you accept has many verses concerning not just DEFENSIVE jihad but also OFFENSIVE. Not only this but the permissibility of bringing war to so called "pagans". Atanu you cannot just read some verses of the Quran and say "oh it has a deeper meaning" but yet change the other offensive verses. The book itself allows for women to get beaten. But if you read in many translations it says beat (lightly). In original arabic it simply says BEAT. now how do muslims know how to beat their wives "lightly"? The answer is through the hadith. The hadith clarify that the Prophet said to LIGHTLY beat your wives.

Anyways like I mentioned earlier if someone who is a muslim rejects hadith and yet goes and does their five daily prayers, it is just an utter contradiction. The five daily prayers are described in detail in hadith. There would not be a single muslim that would know each movement and each words to say in the Salat (prayers) without the hadith.

Now atanu personally you may feel Muhammad is a nice guy, but if you cannot prove it, why mention anything? Its like someone defending George Bush or Saddam Husayn and yet have no proofs against the crimes they commited.

Moreover the points you raised are all available on internet (mainly on evangelical christian sites). These, i believe have nothing to do with spirituality, logic, and love.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...s-sex-life.htm (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm)
http://inthenameofallah.org/Zainab%20bint%20Jahsh%20&%20the%20Veil%20Verse.html (http://inthenameofallah.org/Zainab%20bint%20Jahsh%20&%20the%20Veil%20Verse.html)
http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Lust.Islam (http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Quotes_Lust.Islam)
http://www.muslimhope.com/index.html (http://www.muslimhope.com/index.html)
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/women.htm)
http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php (http://www.islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php)
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Farsid...ts_of_Muhammad (http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Farsideology:_Top_11_Prophetical_Traits_of_Muhammad)

That is fine, I wish to continue my articles because I have seen these first hand. I can grab my collections of books and read through horific hadith and also QURANIC commentary. I will continue because someone needs to hear it from one who was on the inside.

Best wishes
-juan

devotee

19 December 2009, 08:32 PM

Spiritualseeker

19 December 2009, 08:48 PM

Namaste All,

My request to you all is that let SS continue & prove his point. Atanu, you may be aware of all those things by visiting those sites but everyone here is not ... for example, I am not aware.

What is the harm in listening to a person as long he is not distorting the truth ? SS is talking about Hadith (ahadith ? ... Sorry, I don't understand the difference between these two.) & that is a valid scripture in Islam. If anyone, including Heartfully who is a practising Muslim on this forum, knows better than SS & can prove otherwise, it would add to everyone's knowledge.

I myself have read Q'uran & read the life-history of Muhammad & the way Muhammad behaved ... does put a big question mark on him as a prophet. Why ? All the earlier prophets ... all the earlier enlightened beings in all other religions didn't behave the way he did. In fact, seeing the hatred that God wants to spread against non-Muslims & cruelty that is reflected in Q'uran makes for me very hard to believe that Q'uran is a revealed scripture. I must add that I am not an expert on Q'uran but that is what I felt after reading it.

OM

Namaste,

Thank you devotee. Don't worry hadith is fine and ahadith. Ahadith is like plural. Like when I say hadiths thats like slang, it is better for me to use ahadith (though out of lazyness I use hadiths a lot).

I am glad that you dont mind me continuing I know some others dont mind other I just hope I will be able to speak about this more and shine some light on the reality of Muhammad.

Your not alone in feeling the way you did after reading the Quran. Thats why I wish atanu and others could take the Quran as a whole and not just the parts that are nice and sweet. If you listen to lectures by Usama ibn laden , anwar awlaki, the famous Abu Musab al-zarqawi, al-dhawahiri (zawahiri) and others you will note how frequent they quote the Quran. Also they provide scholars of old who were the pillars of Islamic jurisprudence. The point is it is all over the Islamic scriptures.

best wishes
-juan

Eastern Mind

19 December 2009, 09:02 PM

Namaste all:

I normally stay way back from such discussions because I know nothing at all about Islam. I don't think I've even seen a copy of the Quran let alone read it, and I don't intend to start. Having said that, I have been following the ups and downs of this discussion, and watched it go emotional off and on, or at least interpreted by some that way.

What bothers me is that we aren't talking solutions much. Defining and redefining scripture, and discussing it ad nauseum doesn't really offer up much. If the planet is to get along without nuking the dickens out of everyone, solutions need to be discussed. From my point of view, both heartfully, and SS are signs of the solution. They've bothed renounced radical fundamental Islam, and moved on. Why? I am wondering. What catalysed this behaviour? As herein lies the secret to having more and more denounce the craziness. So tell me, SS, and HF, what got you thinking out side THAT box? Perhaps we can use what you say to spread this word, and slowly get others elsewhere to change as well. I know its nigh impossible at times (same goes for fundamentalist Christians) and it feels like its just not worth the hassle, but surely some can see the positive in such dialogue. Its like buliding a temple one brick at a time, but in this case we are demolishing the temple (the rigid mind structure of radical Islam) one brick at a time.

Aum Namasivaya God Siva is All and in All.

satay

19 December 2009, 11:16 PM

Namaste Ekanta,

I don't wish to derail this thread. So I thank you for the clarification.
If your time permits, please refute Spiritual Seeker's original post.

Thanks,

Namaskar
I was on my way to discuss spiritualseekers original post a bit more. But then a lot of folks showed up and started misquoting and turning everything I said upside down. I then quite naturally lost interest.

Ganeshprasad

20 December 2009, 10:43 AM

Namaskar
I guess there is emotion, to be unimotional is inhuman. And... I repeat, I didnt call Krishna "mass murderer". It was an example how scriptes can be used depending on intention. You dont have to doubt my attitude towards Krishna. To me he was a full avatar.
By hopocrites I meant members who otherwise post but never in this kind of threads. This I agree might be provocing, but the intention was good.
One doesnt have to be established in turiya to see a little bit of light. Neither does one have to be established in turiya to notice absense of light.
I was on my way to discuss spiritualseekers original post a bit more. But then a lot of folks showed up and started misquoting and turning everything I said upside down. I then quite naturally lost interest. But since "no one here is against muslims" perhaps I dont have to anymore.

Pranam if you thought, others and I misquoted you or misunderstand you, then it behoves you to correct us, Instead you chose to congratulate me on my understanding of sanatan dharma, by all means convince us about your intent, hopefully not by equating Vedas with Koran revelation, unless off course you can prove the method, the application and the result to be similar.
Jai Shree Krishna

Ekanta

20 December 2009, 12:01 PM

Pranam if you thought, others and I misquoted you or misunderstand you, then it behoves you to correct us, Instead you chose to congratulate me on my understanding of sanatan dharma, by all means convince us about your intent, hopefully not by equating Vedas with Koran revelation, unless off course you can prove the method, the application and the result to be similar.
Jai Shree Krishna
I can not both do it and not do it, can I?
Or perhaps I can... Veda can be said to be eternal, not adjusted to time and place. Koran contain the eternal but is also adjusted to time and place. [I could quote Sathya Sai Baba on this, but Im to lazy to find the reference right now]
Lastly I believe Ramakrishna proved the results to be similar some 150 years ago.

satay

20 December 2009, 12:38 PM

Admin Note

Some of the posts that were unrelated to the topic of this thread have been moved to the Hindu Universalism thread at http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4982

Thanks,

Ganeshprasad

20 December 2009, 12:51 PM

Pranam

I can not both do it and not do it, can I?

off course you can but first let me explain, I had asked you to clear our doubts on a specific misconception, others and my self were accused off by you, and that was about Lord Krishna, we all reacted to that specific, off course you are welcome to correct any other misconception that we might not have correctly interpreted of your intent.

Or perhaps I can... Veda can be said to be eternal, not adjusted to time and place. Koran contain the eternal but is also adjusted to time and place.

Good try, last time I checked the meaning of eternal was this,

existing through all time: lasting for all time without beginning or end
Encarta � World English Dictionary � & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

If it is adjusted for time and place it can�t be eternal can it?
It is high time they become peaceful, and respect all other religion it is that simple for the sake of humanity.
　

Lastly I believe Ramakrishna proved the results to be similar some 150 years ago.

Really can you quote any specific where he said Vedas and Koran are same eternal truth.

Although I am no follower of Ramakrishna I respect him but not for his meat eating.

Jai Shree Krishna
　

Ekanta

20 December 2009, 02:14 PM

Ganeshprasad... A knife is good in the hands of a doctor and bad in the hands of a murderer right? In the same way Dharma which is not fixed is flexible [Sva-Dharma] and will adapt to any time/place, but once fixed in details [Para Dharma] will eventually go bad since you cant fix it for every possible situation.
In both these cases there is authentic dharma. One will always be right, the other is APPLIED to time & place and there it might be correct, but once the society changes it will inevitably go wrong... this is what has happened to many religions who dont know the difference between the two.

�Better is one�s own duty [Sva-Dharma], though devoid of merit, than the duty of another [Para Dharma] well discharged.�
�Better is death in one�s own duty [Sva-Dharma]; the duty of another [Para Dharma] is fraught with fear.� (Bhagavad Gita 3:35)

"Sva" here impies Suvah/prajna/atmic feelings. "Para" implies what is ordained by another, i.e. as fixed rules.
This is my last post to you in this thread.

Spiritualseeker

20 December 2009, 02:26 PM

I am hoping to finish part 3 of my article. In the meantime I wanted to give this link for atanu, heartfully, ekanta, and others http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_CYZoaxIfw its about offensive jihad :)

Spiritualseeker

20 December 2009, 04:06 PM

http://journeytozen.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/was-muhammad-enlightened-part-3/

Was Muhammad Enlightened? Part 3
Continuing with proof against Muhammad’s spiritual state, we mentioned once again that Muhammad himself could not treat his wives equally. The Qur’an commands equal treatment but we see the ideal example for all mankind fell short once again. When discussing this with a muslim friend he simply admitted that Muhammad was just a normal man who did not desire prophethood, but was instead chosen and like a normal man he makes mistakes. So as I pointed out earlier Muhammad could not follow his own advice when it came to anger and he struck Aisha. So not only did he not follow his own advice of abstaining from anger, he also contradicted the verse of the Quran that reads:

As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly) (4:34)

Instead of following the verse by first admonishing Aisha, then if she persist he should refuse to share the bed, and as a supposed last resort beat her. Instead Muhammad jump the gun and struck her chest which Aisha said caused her pain. So, the prophet is what we call a hypocrite, even though he is the example for all mankind. How are we to emulate noble manners if the Prophet cannot even emulate these laws of the Quran and his own advice?

Quoting from hadith again we find Muhammad instructing men when it comes to women:

“I advise you to treat women well. They are like prisoners under your authority. You have no rights over them other than that unless they come with a clear illicit act. If they do that then avoid them in their beds and beat them in a “non-violent manner” (al-Tirmidhi classifed Sahih by al-albaani)

Even if we overlook Muhammad jumping the gun and striking Aisha, we still have to wonder how a Prophet of God which is the example of all mankind, allows beating even in a so called “non-violent manner”.

Dr. Saalih ibn Ghaanim al-Sadlaan says in his book Marital Discord (al-Nushooz) translated by Jamaal al-din M. Zarabozo:

“Therefore, the legality of beating women is not something strange to the reasoning or human inclination that thereby needs for it to be reinterpreted. It is a matter that needs to be resorted to when the environment has become evil and bad characters have taken over the situation. It is permissible if the husband views that it will make his wife return from her nushooz and stop the action she is taking. “
later he states:

“Yes, although Islam permits beating it restricts it to its limited scope and it is enclosed by conditions that must be met. These are laid down so it is not resorted to for purposes other than refining and improving the situation. It is never to be resorted to out of revenge, humiliation or disdain. Furthermore, the striking must not be a vicious striking and must be done with something like a handkerchief, siwaak (the toothstick), hand, light stick or something similar to those. It should never exceed the minimum that is required in the given circumstances. It should also never be a strike to the parts of the woman’s body that form her beauty nor to harm her.”

It is strange that the so called enlightened Muhammad allows striking even if “lightly” to correct a behavior of the wife. We wonder what a woman should do when her husband is out of line? Not only this but was there anything non-violent about Muhammad striking Aisha? He is not even following his own silly rules. How do you hit in a non violent manner? If you are in the streets and someone argues with you and you strike them lightly this is assault and in most countries you will go to jail.

Light beating or non violent beating in Islam is the beating in which does not cause bruising, bleeding, or breaking of bones. However if you wish to hit your wife and cause pain to her chest like Muhammad did, then there is no crime for you. A good spot to hit a the wife is in the stomach because you can use a lot of force and possibly avoid any blood or bruising, but at the same time you may harm her pretty good. This is absolutely fine to the Prophet of Mercy Muhammad.

We examine that Muhammad continued the trend of wife beating:

Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,”

As we can see Muhammad does not scold Abdur Rahman for beating his wife and causing mild bruising. Why should he? After all he had his moments of anger, which we have cited the hadith of him striking Aisha. Again I will cite it to refresh the topic:

Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ”A”isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi”. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ”A”isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi” (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

This Prophet of “Mercy” allows wife beating as long as it doesnt break bones, cause visible bruises, or to break the skin, yet you can strike and cause the women pain. Tell me whom amongst the many saints of various of religions ever permitted men to use force against their women? Where does the Buddha, Krishna, or others state you should hit your women as a last resort to return the women back to an obedient state? You won’t find this with others. Only with the Likes of muhammad.

Muslims love to quote a hadith in which the Prophet critizes one who beats his wife and then sleeps with her in the same night, yet they do not show or reveal his contradictory nature in other ahadith. Such as this one:
Iyas b. Abdullah reported God’s messenger as saying, “Do not beat God’s handmaidens;” but when `Umar came to God’s messenger and said, “The women have become emboldened towards their husbands,” he gave licence to beat them. Then many women went round God’s messenger’s family complaining of their husbands, and he said, “Many women have gone around complaining of their husbands. Those are not the best among you.” Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Darimi transmitted it. (Mishkat Al-Masabih: volume 2, p. 692)

We see that Muhammad changed his opinions a lot when it came to the way of life he was bringing to the world. We will investigate other such inconsistancies later.

So Muhammad gave in and allowed beating and a verse so conviently came down concerning beating women. In addition we see Muhammad himself hitting Aisha and instructing men in how to beat their women. Muhammad always seem to give revelation in favor of himself and other men as can be judged by this hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (p.) said, “if a man invites his wive to sleep with him an she refuses to come to him, then angels send their curses on her till morning.” (Bukhari: volume 7, book 62, number 121, Khan)

It seems the world revolves around Muhammad and his men. This so called Prophet gives revealation that you can beat your wives, women are of lower intelligence, and if she does not answer the call of the husband then angels will curse her all night. What a strange mysogynist man Muhammad was.
It isn’t odd that Muhammad had a low opinion of women. This was how he was raised in his culture. A lot of local imams love to say that Muhammad was the best to his wives and never hit his wives, but the proof we established shows that not only did he strike Aisha, he also instructed men how to beat their women. Muhammad also viewed that most people of hellfire are women due to disobedience to their husbands:
Narrated ‘Imran bin Husain: The Prophet said, “I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.”

Again we will bring the hadith of Muhammad viewing women as having lesser intelligence:

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.”

So women have a lesser intellegence? Yet Muhammad believed that when the sunset it would go up to the Throne of Allah and prostrate itself to Allah then Allah would send it back on its course:

Sahîh Muslim (159,205). Its text, as related by Abû Dharr al-Ghifârî, is as follows:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said one day: “Do you know where the Sun goes when it sets?”
They said: “Allah and His Messenger know best.”
He said: “It goes until it arrives at its place of settlement beneath the Throne. Then it falls down in prostration and remains like that until it is said to it: ‘Arise! Go back from whence you came.’ Then it goes back and rises from its place of rising. Then it goes until it arrives at its place of settlement beneath the Throne. Then it falls down in prostration and remains like that until it is said to it: ‘Arise! Go back from whence you came.’ Then it goes back and rises from its place of rising. Then it goes without people finding anything wrong with it until it arrives at that place of settlement it has beneath the throne. Then it will be told: ‘Arise! Enter upon the morning rising from your setting place’.”
Then Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Do you know when that will be? It will be when ‘its faith will not avail a soul which had not believed before or earned some good from its faith. [Sûrah al-An`âm: 157]’.”

The same man claimed in ahadith that Adam was a giant! Yet he says women are deficient in intelligence. We will examine further contradictions in the teaching of Muhammad in part 4 of this series, such as Muhammad changing the Quran.

Spiritualseeker

31 December 2009, 10:46 AM

http://journeytozen.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/was-muhammad-enlightened-part-4/

Was Muhammad Enlightened? Part 4

Muhammad as we have so far investigated, would get angry as any other normal man, had lust and desires, failed to obey even the Qur�an, and also failed to follow his own prophetic advice. He is suppose to be a man to be emulated, yet we see him as imperfect. Many sunni muslims have admitted that Muhammad was just a normal man who sometimes made mistakes. However, we see that if Muslims want the world to follow this man, then Muhammad needs to be a man of great excellent character. But what we do see is that Muhammad even allowed killing those who left Islam and also allowed killing for people who insulted him. What we can also question is how Muhammad and his revelation came about.

What we find out is that Muhammad was confused about his own revelation. He did not know if it was from a god or if it was from a devil. In this hadith we hear it from Muhammad�s favorite wife Aisha:

`A�ishah said:

The first revelation that was granted to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, was the true dream in a state of sleep, so that he never dreamed a dream but the truth of it shone forth like the dawn of the morning. Then solitude became dear to him and he used to seclude himself in the cave of Hira�, and therein he devoted himself to Divine worship for several nights before he came back to his family and took provisions for this (retirement); then he would return to Khadijahand take (more) provisions for a similar (period), until the Truth came to him while he was in the cave of Hira�; so the angel (Gabriel) came to him and said, Read. He (the Prophet) said, �I said I am not one who can read.� And he continued : �Then he (the angel) took hold of me and he pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more, and then he let me go and said, Read. I said, I am not one who can read. Then he took hold me and pressed me a second time so hard that I could not bear it any more, then he let me go again and said, Read. I said, �I am mot one who can read.� (The Prophet) continued : �Then he took hole of me and pressed me hard for a third time, then he let me go and said, `Read in the name of thy Lord Who created�He created man from a clot�Read and thy Lord is most Honourable.�� The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, returned with this (message) while his heart trembled and he came to Khadijah, daughter of Khuwailid, and said, �Wrap me up, wrap me up,� and she wrapped him up until the awe left him. Then he said to Khadijah� while he related to her what had happened : �I fear for myself.� Khadijah said, Nay, By Allah, Allah will never bring thee to disgrace, for thou unitest the ties of relationship and bearest the burden of the weak and earnest for the destitute and honourest the guest and helpest in real distress.

Then Khadijah went with him until she brought him to Waraqah ibn Naufal ibn Asad ibn `Abd al-`Uzza, Khadijah�s uncle�s son, and he was a man who had become a Christian in the time of Ignorance,and he used to write the Hebrew script, and he wrote from the Gospel in Hebrew what it pleased Allah that he should write, and he was a very old man who had turned blind. Khadijah said to him, O uncle�s son! Listen to thy brother�s son. Waraqah said to him, My brother�s son! What hast thou seen? So the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, related to him what he had seen. Waraqah said to him, This is the angel Gabriel whom Allah sent to Moses; would that I were a young man at this time�would that I were alive when thy people would expel thee! The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, said, �Would they expel me?� He said, Yes; never has a man appeared with the like of that which thou hast brought but he has been held in enmity; and if thy time finds me (alive) I shall help thee with the fullest help. After that not much time had passed that Waraqah died, and the revelation broke off temporarily. (Sahih Bukhari)

In this hadith we see that the entity that Muhammad encountered squeezed him tightly three times. The entity overwhelmed muhammad. Out of fear Muhammad fled and went to his wife Khadija. She had to console him and tell him that God would never disgrace him. Then she took him to Waraqah. This man had to comfort Muhammad aswell. It is odd that a man such as Muhammad feared that perhaps a devil had taken over him, would be followed by so many people. Today if someone claims to be a messenger of God, the gullible would follow him as we see with many cults today, but the regular masses would find this man to be crazy. They would especially think a man to be crazy if he claimed to be a Messenger of God and yet was confused at his initial revelation. It makes us wonder what was the source of Muhammad�s revelation? Was it some spirit? an angel? or was it just delusion from Muhammad�s own mind and perhaps mental sickness?

Now we examine Muhammad�s second encounter with the so called Angel Gabriel:
Jabir said, speaking of the temporary break in the revelation, (The Holy Prophet) said in his narrative:

�Whilst I was walking along, I heard a voice from heaven and I raised up my eyes, and lo! the Angel that had appeared to me in Hira� was sitting on a throne between heaven and earth and I was struck with awe on account of him and returned (home) and said, Wrap me up, wrap me up. Then Allah revealed : `O thou who art clothed! Arise and warn, And thy Lord do magnify, And thy garments do purify, And uncleanness do shun�.� (Sahih Bukhari)

Why was Muhammad so afraid of this being? I now come to understand the silly christian argument that Muhammad was visited by a devil, whereas other prophets of the bible were never fearful of angel visitations. Though I also dont believe in the christian tales, I do see that Muhammad being confused about his initial revelations cast doubt on his prophethood. Now adays that I can have an objective view, I see how easily I myself and others can be deluded by tales of Muhammad and others claiming prophethood. Ofcourse one who is Muslim will defend and say Muhammad was seeing divine angels which struck fear because they were so majestic, but as an outsider now I can see that these arguments do not hold weight. If I am supposedly commanded by some Creator God to follow Muhammad, then I think Muhammad has to be an upright man and also not doubt his own revelation as he initially did.

We find strange accounts of Muhammad�s revelation from the heavens. Again in this hadith we see a strange change in muhammad:
Ubadah ibn al-Samit said, The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, felt, when the revelation was sent down upon him, like one in grief and a change came over his face. (Sahih Bukhari)

So Muhammad initially was afraid of the angel on multiple accounts (there are other reports than that which I cited) and sometimes when revelation came he would look as one who was in grief. We wonder about the state of Muhammad.
Now going back to the first hadith cited by Aisha we can read the rest of the hadith and notice that the man that is the ideal of example for all mankind, and the best of all, the Final Prophet contemplated suicide.

But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, �O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah�s Apostle in truth� whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before. (Ibn �Abbas said regarding the meaning of: �He it is that Cleaves the daybreak (from the darkness)� (6.96) that Al-Asbah. means the light of the sun during the day and the light of the moon at night). (Sahih Bukhari)

Sometimes I feel sorry for Muhammad. What was it that had him so depressed at these times? Muslims may say it is because Muhammad wanted revelation to guide his people, but it makes us wonder why this man would intend to jump off a mountain to end his life. Is this a man worthy of being followed?

Perhaps the pagan arabs were justified in saying that Muhammad was mad. They even believed that there was a devil spirit of poetry that would visit people and possess them. Perhaps this explains why they called him a poet and madman. Maybe they were right all along.
We will continue part 5 discussing how the Qur�an which is suppose to be the proof of Muhammad�s prophethood, has been change, even though Muslims claim that Allah has preserved it and always will.

Spiritualseeker

08 January 2010, 12:02 PM

http://journeytozen.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/was-muhammad-enlightened-part-5/

Was Muhammad Enlightened? Part 5
Thus far we have spoken about Muhammad�s lust for many women and refuted the claims that he married solely for political purposes. We showed that Muhammad himself could not treat all his wives equally as the Qur�an commands. We see the suffering his caused many of his wives for his favortism towards Aisha. We also shed light on Muhammad�s anger and failing to even follow his own advice that he gave to his companions on controlling Aisha. Muhammad clearly struck Aisha on her chest in anger as we proved despite the claims of local apologetic Imams stating that Muhammad never hit a woman. We showed that Jihad is not just defensive as apologetic Muslims might have you believe, but also can be offensive. We saw how Muhammad allowed the execution of over 700 jews, some of which were considered adults only because they had pubic hair. We even showed that Muhammad allowed killing people who disrespected him such as the woman in the hadith in which she was stabbed by a believer for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. We showed how Muhammad allowed wife beating as long as it did not cause bleeding or bruising. We even showed a hadith concerning a woman who had a bruise on her from her husband, yet Muhammad did not rebuke the man for beating his wife. Then we investigated Muhammad�s initial revealations in which he was frightened of the spirit or entity that visited him. We saw how Muhammad had suicidal thoughts and actually went as far as to climb ontop of a mountain MULTIPLE times in an effort to throw himself off.

There is much more that could be showed about Muhammad�s behavior. Even him allowing mutiliation of disbelievers who mutilate believers. We could go deeper into his life of Jihad and the atrocities that he has committed. But I want this to be very brief and so I end with refuting the belief that the Qur�an has never been changed.

According to Muslims Allah has been preserving the Qur�an and does not allow it to be changed. This is taken from the verse of the Qur�an:
We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it 15:9
This verse has been used by Islamic missionaries in their attempts to convert non muslims into Islam by claiming the Qur�an has not been changed like the Torah and bible. However, we will see if we look objectively without a bias mind that this is actually a lie.
In Islam there is also the doctrine of Abrogation. This is in which Allah revealed some verses of the Qur�an, but later caused them to be forgotten or excluded from the Qur�an.

Such of Our revelations as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? 2:106

This is supported by early Islamic scholars and still to this day.
Al-Bajy said: �All the Muslims are on the view of the possibility of abrogation� (Ahkam Al-Fusool p. 391).

Now Muslims may argue as a fellow friend has with me, that the abrogations are only certain rulings. For an example: It was allowed to drink alcohol as long as you did not pray while intoxicated. The ruling was later abrogated by a verse forbidding alcohol. The Muslims say the reason is that the arabs were used to drinking so it would be a great difficulty for them to quit cold turkey, so Allah out of his All-Knowingness allowed gradually some time until he abrogated it and replaced it with a verse prohibiting any drinking of intoxicants.

To this I say that is fair enough. But did Allah only abrogate verses such as these? Or did he abrogate other verses that do not fit that particular argument?

The act of Stoning the adulterer is a common practice in Islamic state. It is usually women who are stoned (emphasis added) as it is more difficult for women to convict men of this crime without a certain number of witnesses. The stoning of the adulterer has been practiced for 1400 years. This has been passed down by Muhammad himself. In the Sunnah he clearly approved of it. Not only this, but Allah had revealed a verse concerning stoning, but later removed it.

Saheeh Muslim
Book 017, Number 4194:
�Abdullah b. �Abbas reported that �Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah�s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah�s Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah�s Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.
The argument that Allah only replaced verses of the Qur�an in which rulings were null (such as drinking alcohol) does not fit in this scenario. Imam nawawi also commentates on this:
�And the companions of the Prophet abandoning the writing of this verse is clear evidence that the abrogated should not be written in the Quran and that Umar�s statement about the stoning as he is on the pulpit and the silence of the companions and other than them from who were present from opposing him is evidence about the ruling of the stoning (still being implemented) (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Thayb fil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 3201)

I have heard from scholars myself that the reason why the verse of stoning was removed from the Qur�an is because Allah wanted to test the believers to see if they follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (ie. the hadith). This is a very rediculous response. Here we have muslims claiming that at one time the verse of stoning was recited as part of the Holy Qur�an, but now it is no longer recited, but the ruling of stoning still applies because of evidence of Muhammad himself.

We wonder truely why the verse was taken out. If the Qur�an has never been changed, then how can you claim there was a verse concerning stoning and then later it was taken out? This is obviously a change. No matter if you think it is because Allah wanted to test believers, it still means the Qur�an is changed. It makes us wonder, was Muhammad truely a prophet of God? Or did he and his followers fail to preserve the Qur�an?

How about we turn towards the fountainhead of Islamic knowledge, whom is Aisha herself as Muslims claims thats why Muhammad married her so young so that she could be a great propagator of his way of life since she would know much of his lifetime because she was with him when she was young.

Aisha says:

The stoning verse and another verse were revealed and recorded on a sheet (sahifa) which was placed for safe-keeping under her bedding. When the Prophet fell ill and the household were preoccupied with nursing him, a domestic animal got in from the yard and gobbled up the sheet.
(p. 86, Burhan al Din al Baji, �Jawab�, MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur �majami`�, no. 207, f. 15)

We wonder if this is truely what happend.

Anas reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that
�There was revealed concerning those slained at Bi�rMa�una a verse which we recited until it was withdrawn�
Can we truely claim that the Qur�an has been unchanged?
We now turn again to Sahih Muslim
Abu Musa al-Ashari invited the Quran readers of Basra. Three
hundred ( 300 ) readers responded to his invitation. He told
them
You are the readers and the choice of the People of
Basra. Recite the Quran and don�t neglect it. Other
wise a long time may elapse and your hearts will ne
hardened as the hearts of those who came before you
were hardened.

We used to read a Chapter from the Quran similar to Bara�ah in length and seriousness, but I forgot it. I can remember from the Chapter only the followingwords :

Should a son of Adam own two valleys full of wealth, he should seek a third valley and nothing would fill Ibn Adam�s abdomen but the soil.

We also used to read a chapter similiar to the Musabbihat and I forgot it. I only remember out of it the following:

�Oh you who believe, why do you say what you do not do? (which is
now in another place in Quran 61:2) Thus a testimony shall be
written on your necks and you will be questioned about it on the
day of judgment.� (which is a little different than what is in
another place in Quran 17:13)

I would like to remind the reader again that Sahih Muslim very authentic next to Sahih Bukhari. Muslims have no way around this.
In Sahih Bukhari it states:

Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak�at prayer; I said, �O Allah!
Bless me with a (pious) companion.� Then I saw an old man coming
towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), �I hope Allah
has given me my request.� The man asked (me), �Where are you from?� I replied, �I am from the people of Kufa.� He said, �Weren�t there
amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet�s) shoes, Siwak and the
ablution water container? Weren�t there amongst you the man who was
given Allah�s Refuge from the Satan? And weren�t there amongst you the
man who used to keep the (Prophet�s) secrets which nobody else knew?
How did Ibn Um �Abd (i.e. �Abdullah bin Mas�ud) use to recite
Surat al-Layl (The Night; ch. 92)?� I recited:�

�By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness.
And by male and female.� (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, �By Allah,
the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to
him, but these people (of Sham) tried their best to let me say
something different.�

There is no way around this. If Muslims want to claim abrogation was simply concerning laws that were later abrogated and replaced, perhaps we can accept that, but not with these other verses.
In Sahih Bukhari we read again:

Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:
I said to �Uthman, �This Verse which is in Surat-al-Baqara:
�Those of you who die and leave widows behind�without turning them
out.� has been abrogated by another Verse. Why then do you write it
(in the Quran)?� �Uthman said. �Leave it (where it is), O the son of
my brother, for I will not shift anything of it (i.e. the Quran) from its original position.�

Why are these verses not found in the Qur�an if they are still part of it but simply abrogated in terms of the ruling?

Without a doubt the claim that the Qur�an has not been changed is a total lie. We have investigated how the verse of stoning was once recited as part of the Qur�an and then taken out. It is still practiced due to hadith supporting stoning. Why did Allah cause it to be forgotten? Is it as the muslims say that he is testing the believers to see if they follow the Sunnah? Even so can we say the Qur�an has never been changed? If at one time in history people recited certain verses, and now those verses are COMPLETELY taken out of the Qur�an then that constitutes a change in the Qur�an.

We see that Muhammad wasn�t just inconsistent with his character but also with the divine law itself. Can we truely trust the claims of muslims now? I have only given traditions that I know without a doubt are AUTHENTIC. There are many other traditions that are accepted, but for the sake of laymen and women I want only those that the laymen know are authentic (mainly from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih muslim). There could be many pages filled on this topic.

In conclusion it is very difficult for us to have trust in Muhammad. After all his character though sometimes noble, had ugly traits of lust, anger, rage, lack of compassion, and inconsistancies. Is the Qur�an really revelation from some Divine source? Or is it simply the work of a poet and mandman? After all the arabs were widely known for their poetic nature and oral traditions.

All may judge however they wish. Keep an open mind always. And for muslim readers out there please dont wish my death or me to be killed by one of your own, but if you truely believe I am on falsehood then pray for me instead of wishing death upon someone.

May all be peace