Mohammad Is Indefensible
Terrific post over at a blog called Staring at the View, about the man behind Islam, whose actions (sunnah) are supposed to be emulated by Muslims. An excerpt:
I've reached the conclusion that Muslims face an impossible task. Simply put, their entire faith rests upon defending a man - Muhammad - who is indefensible.Wafa Sultan expressed it best when she said, "It is impossible that a man who did the things Muhammad did could be a prophet of God."
It is impossible that a man in his mid-50's could engage in sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old child, possibly damaging her physically so that she never became pregnant, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could finance his religious and political community by robbing the trade caravans that passed through his area on their annual trips between Arabia and Syria, and be a prophet of God.
...It is impossible that a man could call other men to follow him, and then watch them die one after the other in the battles he instigated to build his empire while giving them promises of the sensual Paradise that awaited them, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could behead 800 Jewish men who had lived in his city for centuries for the simple reason they refused to accept him as their leader, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could trade the Jewish wives and daughters of the men he had just beheaded for weapons and horses, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could be so fearful of criticism that he would send a man at night to kill the mother of a nursing child because of the poems she had written against him, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could sentence a woman to death by having her limbs attached to camels that moved in opposite direction pulling her apart, then behead her and parade her severed head throuth Medina, and be a prophet of God.
The list goes on. Islam, practiced according to the Quran (which is supposed to be taken literally) is not a religion of peace, because the Quran is not a book of peace, and Mohammad was certainly anything but a man of peace.
Turn the other cheek? That's Jesus stuff. Here, from IslamMonitor, are a few examples of the difference:
Jesus taught that the MEEK will inherit the earth. [Beatitudes Matt 5:2-12]
Mohammed taught that through TERROR you will inherit the earth. [Bukhari 4.220]Jesus made those who were blind to see. [Luke 18:35-43]
Mohammed put out eyes to make men blind. [Bukhari 8.794]Jesus made those who were lame to walk. [Matt 9:2-8]
Mohammed cut off feet to make men lame. [Bukhari 8.794]Jesus healed withered hands. [Matt 12:9-13]
Mohammed cut off hands. [Bukhari 8.795]Jesus saved an adulterous woman from stoning. [John 8:1]
Mohammed stoned women for adultery. [Muslim 17.4194]
I'm an atheist, as I see no evidence there is a god, but I see plenty of evidence that Islam, correctly practiced (as directed by the Quran) is a religion that endangers western freedoms and democracy and the lives of anyone who doesn't believe in Allah.
While I agree that Muhammed was an evil man, I would take issue with Wafa Sultan that because people can do evil things, they can't be men of God.
King David was variously a conspirator, rapist and murderer (and probably other not nice things). He was also regarded by God as "the apple of his eye."
Solomon, while the recipient of divine wisdom, fell into idolatry and had 700 wives and 300 concubines. As the Bible tells us, Solomon "loved many strange women," to which I can only remark, "They'd have to be."
But I will say that most, if not all the prophets of the Bible, manage to keep their sinful legacies as separate from their divine offices. Muhammed seemed to be engaged in acts of terrorism and other assorted nasticities (yes, I made this word up) even while he claimed to be a prophet.
Patrick at December 10, 2009 11:39 PM
Solomon's actions are not supposed to be emulated.
David committed adultery with Bathsheba. We were taught that this was wrong (when I was growing up and went to religious school), not that we should all go out and do it.
Amy Alkon at December 11, 2009 5:11 AM
I believe Amy's right on this one, Patrick. David committed adultery, not rape. And according to the Bible, he paid dearly for his transgressions with Bathsheba and his devious offing of her husband.
And Solomon isn't painted to be the model of anything.
Regardless of what you actually believe about God, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the stark contrast between the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed.
other Beth at December 11, 2009 5:47 AM
"Sin and redemption" is one of the recurring themes of the Bible. I'm not so sure about the Koran.
Pseudonym at December 11, 2009 6:14 AM
The other Beth: I believe Amy's right on this one, Patrick. David committed adultery, not rape.
I wasn't aware we were disputing the point. I've heard it stated both ways. I guess it really boils down to how Bathsheba felt when she was ordered to appear before King David.
Whether it was adultery or rape, it was most definitely not nice. And his follow up when it was discovered that Bathsheba was carrying his child was certainly no better, as Nathan the Prophet pointed out to him.
Patrick at December 11, 2009 8:47 AM
Patrick, agreed. Not trying to be argumentative, just that the versions I've read implied a consensual liaison.
And yes, sin's sin. In God's eyes, don't know that one was better than the other.
other Beth at December 11, 2009 8:50 AM
Am I actually seeing a civil discussion of Christianity here? Lujip must be on vacation.
KarenW at December 11, 2009 9:31 AM
Actually Luj is more antagonistic towards Mormonism. He can be pretty reasonable - you have to catch him on a good day - about Christianity.
Jim at December 11, 2009 9:53 AM
Also, Patrick's point still stands. Amy asserted that Mohammad's wicked behavior showed he could hardly be a prophet. I happen to agree - I don't see how either David or Solomon were particularly prophetic. The objections to his pointing out the bad behavior of David etc. have been basically to agree with him, not refute him.
Jim at December 11, 2009 9:58 AM
Pedant point:
According to 2 Samuel 12, part of the punishment God inflicted on David was to kill the son of his adulterous union with Bathsheba. The kid did nothing do deserved being killed but God offed him anyways. I do not consider killing a child to punish its father as remotely ethical.
parabarbarian at December 11, 2009 10:32 AM
Virtually any prominent person alive 1000 years ago will have repugnant ideas and have performed repugnant act. Our society clearly has much higher standards than any previous society. (This is strong evidence that all the major religious “prophets” were bogus.) If you look at today’s actual religions and people, you will see both the good (King, Ghandi) and the vile (bin Laden, Jim Jones.) Just as Jones does not make all Christianity evil, neither does bin Laden make all Islam evil. Islamic sects, like any other , can be a force for good or evil.
For an example of the good, look at the Mourides (also spelled Murid) from Senegal. This is a sect that promotes self reliance, business acumen and shared education for both sexes. Its expanding prominence in the last 40 years is the reason that Senegal is one of most successful African nations. They have large diaspora which has set up business networks across Africa, Europe and the US. They have been written up favorable in The Economist and other western magazines.
http://africaunchained.blogspot.com/2006/12/adaptive-diasporan-communities.html
In many ways they remind of the Mormons - hardworking, business-oriented, community-loving zealots. While I do not support the religious ideas of the Mourides (or Mormons), their societal beliefs are improvements for Senegal. If you care to learn more, I suggest Richard Dowden’s book Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles
Curtis at December 11, 2009 10:38 AM
I do not consider killing a child to punish its father as remotely ethical..
That is a biblical theme though, that the sins of the father will be born by the son.
http://www.happinessonline.org/InfectiousGreed/p13.htm
-Julie
JulieW at December 11, 2009 10:40 AM
David and Solomon, although both important historical figures in the Bible, aren't considered to be of the significance to the religion of Christianity as Jesus is. Jesus is to Christianity what Mohammed is to Islam. (Or so the conventional wisdom goes).
Lujlp does get pretty fired up about Christianity on here, but I rather like him, all the same....we may hear from him yet!
other Beth at December 11, 2009 10:55 AM
All this back and forth between Christians and Muslims just makes me confirm my entire atheist outlook. Screw you all.
Crusader at December 11, 2009 11:45 AM
I don't think comparing Islam to anyone is the point... the question is how does it compare to itself. When looking at David and Solomon or anyone else in The Bible, you should ask yourself WHY are they included the parts of their characters that are bad? Think a point was being made? If you wanted to show people who are completely righteous, you wouldn't show the bad parts.
It's amazing to me, that no matter what is said about Islam, people immediately try to reletiveize everything back to Christianity and Judaism. Why? Each religion really needs to stand on it's own for transgression. Relativeism doesn't change the fact that the mission of Islam is to convert everyone or kill them.
Islam is the religion that venerates EVERYTHING that their leader did, down to the smallest thing. People never venerated David in the same way. Took the good and repudiated the bad. A human being and not God.
What I would love is to have a show made directly from the sunnah of Mohammed. Straight no dramatazation. To graphically show exactly what is reported to be this guy. Islam wouldn't be able to say it's a lie, they would have to see it as truth. I think westerners would get it then, maybe. 'Course, it'd prolly be a sin against him or something, so it'd never happen. Besides, the self-loathing appologists for Islam would immediately start saying, "yeah but, look at what Charlamagne did", or something.
SwissArmyD at December 11, 2009 12:06 PM
I am perfectly cpable of calm discusion on religion under three conditions.
1 you know what the hell you talking about
2 you dont use it to justify bigtory
3 no proselytizing
as this discusion is accurate, so far as biblicl mythology goes, and noone is using it to justify the behavior of David, Solomon, or anyone who emulates them and noone is trying to convince anyone else that their diety is the real one.
I have nothing to add thus far, noone to correct on thier errors, and no reason to point out the incongruities of any particular diety's behavior or doctrine
lujlp at December 11, 2009 12:06 PM
In a figurehead sense, yes.
Mohammed, in addition to being a prophet of God (according to the Q'ran), was also a head of state. And that's where it gets tricky. Because Mohammed is held to have been a prophet, the empire he built (and empire building) was endowed with religious significance.
Mohammed is also held in Islam to have been the last prophet of God. So no one can come after him and alter God's will as taught by Mohammed. Only the interpretations can change (and you can only interpret "kill or enslave the heathens" in so many ways).
This dual nature of Mohammed (secular and holy), along with the fact that none of his successors would be divinely guided, made his succession problematic (and led to the first schism in Islam: Sunni vs. Shia).
The early successors to Mohammed (the "rightly-guided" Caliphs) were imbued by most of the faithful with some religious authority. Later Caliphs were not viewed as having religious significance, but the singular nature of religion and state remained.
On the other hand, Jesus eschewed empire building and spoke only to religious views. When he died, his followers used his teachings to found a religion without a state. Even the Holy Roman Empire had a secular ruler who was quasi-independent from the religion's. While church and state were de facto one in some lands, in very few were they explicity bound together. Kings didn't want to cede their authority to the church and vice versa. Finally, the Protestant Reformation gave kings a way out of that delicate balancing act.
Of course, all of this depends upon who you think wrote the books of the Bible and when. It also depends upon how much trust you put in the hadiths as faithful interpretations of Mohammed's intentions.
Conan the Grammarian at December 11, 2009 12:19 PM
"Jesus is to Christianity what Mohammed is to Islam. (Or so the conventional wisdom goes)."
Actually Jesus is to Christianity what God is to Islam. And that is the primary dispute between the two religions.
Conan, small quibble about Protestantism breaking the deadlock between Church and State - initially the church either became the state, as in Calvin's Geneva, or else the church became completley subordinate to the state, as in Henry VIII's England. In fact the link between church and state was so close that when the smoke finally cleared after the 30 Years War - which was only superficially about religion, and even then only about religon as political ideology - the treaty established a principle under which the religion of the ruler became the religion of his state, as a way to settle the matter. It was really the enlightenment that began the process you are alluding to.
Jim at December 11, 2009 1:00 PM
Jim, I was holding the view that Henry's break with the Catholic Church was a part of the Protestant Reformation.
However, you do make a good point with the subservience of the Church of England to the monarch negating the argument of church-state separation.
And, I'll have to study Calvin and Geneva. Thanks for giving me a new research topic. I just finished Great Expectations, so I needed a non-fiction subject.
Conan the Grammarian at December 11, 2009 1:11 PM
Nooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A
~~~
"Sin and redemption" is one of the recurring themes of the Bible.
Agree. Even God decides he made a mistake.
After Noah & the Flood, he says he won't destroy the world like that again.
Old Testament God was angry & vengeful. New Testament God is hands off.
But it's all bedtime stories anyway.
MeganNJ at December 11, 2009 1:17 PM
Just to set the record straight, I am in no way trying to compare Muhammed's actions to David and Solomon. I merely brought them up because of Wafa Sultan's statement, "It is impossible that a man who did the things Muhammad did could be a prophet of God."
David and Solomon were considered men of God and they did some pretty despicable things, too. Not to attack Christianity or insist that Christianity is as bad as Islam. Only to contest the naivete and oversimplification in Sultan's statement. Of course men of God do bad things. That was my only point.
I do agree that Muhammed's actions, regardless of how despicable, seem to be venerated by Islam, but no one has ever pretended that David and Solomon's bad deeds, however, were anything but.
Conan, I would agree that Henry VIII's break with Rome was part of the protestant movement. Granted, Henry was motivated by a desire for a divorce rather than to start a new religion and the Anglican Church was still essentially Catholic. Henry even earned the title Defender of the Faith for his reasoned response to the attacks of Martin Luther.
But regardless of his motivations, he did instigate the greater Protestant movement in England, which was adopted by two of his children, Elizabeth and Edward and wife number six, Katherine Parr.
Patrick at December 11, 2009 3:21 PM
"Jim, I was holding the view that Henry's break with the Catholic Church was a part of the Protestant Reformation."
Oh, it certainly was, and the real issue was the devlop of modern nation states and the related sovereignty issues - taxation, who selected those bishops that sat in the House of Lords and so on. I wasn't saying it wasn't Protestant; I was saying that it didn't separate Church and State.
In fact it brought them closer together. One of the recurring tragicomical stories in the midlde Ages is the on-going centuries-long catfights between secular and clerical leaders - often related by blood! Moves like Henry's brought that kind of thing to an end.
Jim at December 11, 2009 3:45 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/12/11/mohammad_is_ind.html#comment-1681942">comment from PatrickDavid and Solomon were men, with flaws, not considered prophets to be emulated.
Amy Alkon at December 11, 2009 4:22 PM
The Goddess writes: David and Solomon were men, with flaws, not considered prophets to be emulated.
Prophets were men (or women), too. The psalms which David authored were prophetic. Prophets were certainly flawed. Aaron and Miriam instigated rebellion, apparently jealous of Moses favored status and annoyed by Moses marrying an Ethiopian. (So, we have biblical sanction of interracial marriages.) Numbers 12:1.
Moses himself, through a singular act of disobedience, was barred from the promised land.
The point being that "prophets" and "men with flaws" are not mutually exclusive.
Patrick at December 11, 2009 10:00 PM
Quoth Amy:
David committed adultery with Bathsheba. We were taught that this was wrong (when I was growing up and went to religious school), not that we should all go out and do it.
_________________
Did they say David's practice of slavery was wrong too?
If so, I wonder just when that became standard teaching in religious schools.
After all (moving on to the New Testament, or as George Carlin liked to say, the Less-Old Testament), it wasn't just St. Paul who felt Christianity and slavery were perfectly compatible - Peter seemed to think so too.
And, oddly, Christians seem to have a bloodier history than Jews when it comes to killing in the name of God - though maybe that's just because Christians had bigger armies.
lenona at December 12, 2009 10:17 AM
Leave a comment