retrofuturist wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:12 pm
That said, I think it's time we get back specifically to the topic of Mohammad, and the extent to which he may or may not be worthy of respect.
Muhammad, as the central figure of a world religion revered my a large portion of the world population, is worthy of being discussed in a respectful manner, especially by Buddhists on a Buddhism discussion forum which may present the face of Buddhism to those who visit here. There should be no disagreement that it is proper to be respectful of other religions, and not to mislead.
clw_uk wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:17 am
From my understanding, Muhammad married Aisha at age seven and consummated the marriage at age 9. This makes Muhammad a paedophile as he engaged in intercourse with her before puberty.
This is a common slander and should have no place among respectful discussion about "what we can learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies" except to show that the statement itself is discredited. As discussed at the following link, previously provided: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... isha-truth
The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."
Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character.
Aisha's union would also have cemented Muhammad's longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammad married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.
What the records are clear on is that Muhammad and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Qur'an. Insights into their relationship, such as the fact they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.
There's more, and the article ends with the following observation:
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
Here is a link to 30 facts about Muhammad, from one perspective of Islam: https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/0 ... mmad-pbuh/
Buddhist disrespect for Islam (as demonstrated in some of the comments above) is regrettable, especially at a time when the treatment of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and Sri Lanki has draw international attention. From here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/13 ... tolerance/
... history also provides examples of violent intolerance legitimated by Buddhist doctrines and conducted by practitioners. As many ancient Jain and Brahmanical texts speak of persecution at the hands of Indian Buddhists, as Buddhists accuse their South Asian competitors of the same. And consider Jerryson’s examples of the sixth century Chinese Buddhist monk Faqing, who promised his 50,000 followers that every opponent they killed would take them to a higher stage in the bodhisattva’s path. Or recall that with the advent of nationalism, Buddhist monks rallied to the cause as with Japanese Rinzai support for the military campaign against the Russians in 1904-5, or Zen and Pureland Buddhist justifications of the Japanese invasions of China, Korea and Singapore during World War II. Buddhism has been corrupted in these places, they argued, and violence is necessary to insure that ‘true’ Buddhism is restored and preserved. The same rhetoric – of some fundamental Buddhism under threat – also underwrites the more recently nationalized bigotry and violence that Buddhist monks and laypersons have unleashed on non-Buddhists in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and, last but not least, Myanmar.
“No religion has a monopoly on ‘violent people’,” Jerryson astutely concludes, “nor does any one religion have a greater propensity for violence.”
Some reasons to respect Muhammad are expressed at the following link: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-you-respec ... t-Muhammad
One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.