Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
binocular
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by binocular » Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:08 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:17 pm
Again, the three options in front of us are to ignore the problem of islamic fascism, to verbally criticize it, or to take military action. It seems clear to me that the most moral course of action is to verbally criticize it, while calling for people to stop ignoring the problem which is making so many people suffer, and also criticizing military actions not taken in self defense.

What do you think is the most moral course of action?
1. To figure out the Meaning of Life. As long as the Meaning of Life is not clear, everything one does is bound to be unsatisfactory in some essential way.

2. To figure out whether and how the West has provoked or justified Islamic vengeance. Not just in terms of funding and training Islamic terrorists, but in terms of Westerners unduly assuming their moral and other supremacy.

3. To reflect on kamma and rebirth.

User avatar
Will
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Will » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 pm

For myself, his fondness for war, siege and subjugation of people is the main reason why I do not respect him. He was just a very confused worldling, like most of us - only with tremendous ambition and craving for worldly power.

Here is a timeline of his mature lifetime, being born in 570. Depending on how you count, there are at least ten wars or sieges he led or approved of:
624 The Nakhla raid and the beginning of violence in the name of Islam
624 The Battle of Badr: the Muslims overcome great odds to defeat the pagan Meccans
624 Muhammad and the Muslims besiege the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe and exile them from Medina
625 The Battle of Uhud: the pagan Meccans defeat the Muslims
625 Siege and exile from Medina of the Jewish Nadir tribe
627 The Battle of the Trench: the Jewish Qurayzah tribe betrays Muhammad
627 Muhammad beheads the males of the Qurayzah tribe and enslaves the women and children
628 Muhammad concludes the Treaty of Hudaybiyya with the pagan Meccans
628 Muhammad and the Muslims besiege the Khaybar oasis and exile the Jews from it
628 Muhammad is poisoned at Khaybar
630 Muhammad and the Muslims conquer Mecca
630 The Muslims prevail in the Battle of Hunayn and conquer Ta'if; Muhammad becomes the master of Arabia
631 The Arabian tribes remaining outside Islamic rule accept Islam
631 Warfare against the Christians: the expedition to Tabuk
632 Muhammad dies in Medina on June 8
Last edited by Will on Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Nietzsche

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3056
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Mr Man » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:57 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:17 pm
Are you more concerned with semanthics and perceived mean words, or are you more concerned with deaths, such as in the Manchester attack?
Of course people being murdered is significantly more alarming than "semanthics and perceived mean words" but you are putting forward a false dichotomy.
Modus.Ponens wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:17 pm
Again, the three options in front of us are to ignore the problem of islamic fascism, to verbally criticize it, or to take military action. It seems clear to me that the most moral course of action is to verbally criticize it, while calling for people to stop ignoring the problem which is making so many people suffer, and also criticizing military actions not taken in self defense. What do you think is the most moral course of action?
The most moral course of action is be a good person.
This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .amar.html

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Modus.Ponens » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:35 pm

I have justified my description of Muhammad with canonical sources. I have made my stance against islamofascism clear and morally justified. I have warned in the past about the numerous problems and dangers that we are now living with in our democracies. I am warning about future attacks with chemical weapons with examples of thwarted attacks of that nature in recent months. With this information do what you find to be most beneficial.

If you want to attack the bringer of bad news, I ask you to sort your priorities. People are dying due to inaction, and due to criticism of those who act nonviolently.
He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'
(Jhana Sutta - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18602
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:12 pm

Greetings MP,

Well said.

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.

:focus:

Discussion about current and future Islamic threats etc. is best suited to the News, Current Events & Politics section.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

Caodemarte
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Caodemarte » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:45 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:35 pm
I have justified my description of Muhammad with canonical sources...
No, you haven’t as demonstrated in this forum and more throughly debunked by easily findable authoritative sources (as your repetitions of old charges have been demolished for more than a thousand years).

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by L.N. » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:43 am

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.
https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by robertk » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:45 am

:anjali:
good post!

Caodemarte
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Caodemarte » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:20 pm

L.N. wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:43 am
......
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.
https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
Thank you for restoring some decency and reason to respect the forum.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3770
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by SDC » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:31 pm

Caodemarte wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:20 pm
L.N. wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:43 am
......
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.
https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
Thank you for restoring some decency and reason to respect the forum.
A good post, indeed. Sometimes all you need is conviction and good faith to restore balance. And it makes me happy to see it accomplished with words instead of having the platform (the opportunity) removed altogether. Something to consider in these difficult threads.

User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Dharmasherab » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:14 pm

Whether Muhammad is worthy of respect is something we decide for ourselves as individuals. If we are talking from a global point of view then it is not for us to say who is worthy of respect or who is not - Muhammad was a man of his time and he was just following what was considered acceptable during his time. But if we are talking from the moralistic view point of Buddhism then we can say that Muhammad is actually not worthy of respect. Even if we were to look at his character only from the viewpoint of the 5 Precepts, Muhammad led a life violating 4 of the Precepts out of the 5 (Muhammad did not drink alchohol). In my opinon from where I derive my morality from (Sila of Buddhism) I say that the relations with an underage is not the only thing which is morally reprehensible that Muhammad did.

As for his relations with Aisha, the evidence that he had sexual relations with her is way too strong to be ignored. There are so many pointers in the hadeeth which explicity show that this happened and these are authentic hadeeth. However I do not think he should be labelled as a pedophile because back in those days it was an accepted custom. But still there is divided opinion.

Here is an article discussing whether Muhammad was a pedophile or not. It is from WikiIslam (which is website on Islam run by ex-muslims)
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Was_Muhammad_a_Pedophile%3F

Other aspects of Muhammad outside of child marriage which bring to question his behaviour by ex-muslim author, Ali Sina.
Muhammad: a Mass Murderer http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/massmurderer.htm
Muhammad: a Torturer http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/torturer.htm
Muhammad: a Assassin http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/assassin.htm
Muhammad: a Terrorist http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/terrorist.htm
Muhammad: a the Looter http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/looter.htm
Muhammad: a Rapist http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm
Muhammad: a Misogyinist http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/misogynist.htm
Muhammad: a Lecher http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/lecher.htm
Muhammad: a Cult Leader http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/cultist.htm

There are ex-muslims who have left Islam and one of their reasons is the immoral character of Muhammad which made them leave Islam as explained in the links above.

Ali Sina (pseudonym) is a leading ex-muslim author. He has brought evidence from the various sources of hadeeth to back up his claims. There are plenty of ex-muslims who have left Islam for the same reason which shows this is actually common knowledge which is burried within Islam's own sources (espcially the sets of hadeeth).

Here is a list of killings ordered/supported by Muhammad
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killi ... y_Muhammad

The character of Muhammad is definitely not in line with the way of the Dhamma.

DooDoot
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:14 pm
where I derive my morality from (Sila of Buddhism)...
The 4th precept is truthful speech. While history generally cannot be completely truthful (because we personally were not there), I think to follow the 4th precept, better research is required rather than to rely on anti-Muslim webpages. For example, to allege Muhammad was a pedophile would appear to be something illogical to a reasonable person & thus warranting deep research for a person aspiring to truthfulness because it seems unimaginable a pedophile could be considered a prophet to such a large & often very moral religion.
Dharmasherab wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:14 pm
Muhammad: a Mass Murderer http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/massmurderer.htm
Maybe start with Wiki & then research deeper because what happened to the Banu Qurayza was, according to most historical accounts, unrelated to Jews not accepting him as their new prophet. Since the Koran specifically does not call for the conversion of Christians & Jews, the webpage linked above appears, again, illogical, to a reasonable person. Instead, the main account of history appears logical, that is, the Banu Qurayza were aggressors or players in a war & were defeated in war. In other words, the Banu Qurayza broke/transgressed/betrayed their military/political alliance with Muhammad & ended up on the losing side. The punishment they received, according to most accounts, was according to their own Jewish law.
The Banu Qurayza themselves appointed Sa'd, and declared they would agree with whatever was Sa'd's verdict. The verdict was consistent with the Bible and some scholars claim the verdict was based on the Bible.

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27d_ibn_Mu%27adh
:alien:
Dharmasherab wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:14 pm
The character of Muhammad is definitely not in line with the way of the Dhamma.
Muhammad was a secular law maker (proscribing laws of crime & punishment) where as the Buddha was not, therefore I think comparisons between Muhammad & Buddha are unwarranted. Muhammad should be compared to other secular law makers or what we call 'politicians' or 'monarchs'. For example, the Buddha provided moral precepts but left the punishment for breaking those precepts to the kings & monarchs. Therefore, in many suttas, the Buddha accepts as ordinary the death penalty by a king for crimes of murder, theft & even adultery. The Buddha's morals are for transcending the world rather than for administering the world.

User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Dharmasherab » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:51 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm
The 4th precept is truthful speech. While history generally cannot be completely truthful (because we personally were not there)


There are different versions of history of the life of Buddha. People of today may not exactly know what happened but it also doesn't mean that they are breaking the 4th Precept when they explain a version of the accounts of the history of the Buddha. What we say about the Buddha may have differences to what actually happened but when we discuss on these historical accounts they are based on the best possible information what we have.

The 4th Precept actually means to refrain from lying and the word lying means to avoid saying something not truthful with the intention to deceive others. Even if you were to look at a science textbook written a 100 years ago some of the 'science' in it is probably outdated with redundant information because of new discoveries. But this does not mean that the authors of that book were lying because the content what they wrote was based on the best possible information they had at that time even though later developments proved the content to be incorrect. Authors of such texts did not have the intention to deceive. Therefore the authors of such a text were not breaking the 4th Precept. I feel its better to have a good understanding about the precepts before giving advise about them to others.
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm
I think to follow the 4th precept, better research is required rather than to rely on anti-Muslim webpages.
The pages I took material from where not 'anti-muslim' pages. Instead they were pages which expose aspects of Islam which you would not find in Islamic websites. I feel it is better that people make a distinction between what 'Muslim' and what 'Islam' is before labelling things as 'anti-muslim'. The websites/pages I have mentioned have given reference to sources which are the same sources that Islam use (the hadeeth collections). Also the WikiIslam and Faith Freedom webpages are maintained by ex-muslims. These are people who probably have muslims as parents, relations and even close friends. Therefore it was incorrect to call them 'anti-muslim' pages.
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm
to allege Muhammad was a pedophile would appear to be something illogical to a reasonable person & thus warranting deep research for a person aspiring to truthfulness


What I suggested in my previous comment was that Muhammad was just a man of his time. I personally dont feel that he should be called a pedophile. But he did have sexual relations with Aisha and he did beat her and the evidence for that is too strong to be ignored. The word 'pedophile' was a term that was invented later. But saying that Muhammad was not a pedophile does not mean that he never had sexual relations with Aisha - because he did have sexual relations with her. Also in terms of other aspects of Muhammad's sexual behaviour he also raped women and the hadeeth gives names of 3 women which he raped.
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm
because it seems unimaginable a pedophile could be considered a prophet to such a large & often very moral religion.


This is the logical fallacy of 'argumentum ad populum'. What this means is that just because a large number of people follow something then it has to be correct. 1000 years ago the people on this planet did not believe that they were living on a planet. Instead they believed that they were living on a disk. But just because most people believed in that didnt make is correct. As for morality it is something which is relative. What we consider as moral is not what others consider as moral. For example it is considered 'moral' by Islamic law to stone homosexuals to death. It is considered 'moral' by Islamic law for Muslim men in countries with Shariah law to marry four different wives yet a Muslim woman cannot marry four different husbands. It is 'moral' for someone who left the religion of Islam to be brought in front of a court and have his freedom of belief questioned. So what is moral can vary based on where we derive that morality from.
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm
the webpage linked above appears, again, illogical, to a reasonable person. Instead, the main account of history appears logical, that is, the Banu Qurayza were aggressors or players in a war & were defeated in war.
Actually what appears to be the 'main account' is just a politically correct version only to make it look as if what Muhammad did was justifiable. At the end of the article which I posted at the bottom it gives a list of sources and almost all of them are Islamic sources. Banu Qurayza were not aggressors. They were forced to fight alongside Muhammad yet they did not want to get involved in any battle. Therefore it was an act of revenge by Muhammad to conquer Banu Qurayza and kill its people. An article from WikiIslam gives references to Islam's own sources to depict the cruelty and malice displayed by the forces that massacred the tribe of Banu Qurayza.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza

And dont forget the list of killings ordered and supported by Muhammad https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Kill ... y_Muhammad
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:31 pm
Muhammad was a secular law maker (proscribing laws of crime & punishment) where as the Buddha was not, therefore I think comparisons between Muhammad & Buddha are unwarranted.


Muhammad did preach about the importance of monotheism and did explain about typical artefacts of religion such as the existence of angels, a holy book with the word of a god, prayers to a god, place of worship etc. Therefore it is incorrect to say that he was a secular law maker. Yes he did have a role as a politician/totalitarian where he assassinated his political rivals and became the most powerful man in Arabia similar to Hitler of Nazi Germany. However to say he was secular is incorrect. Also Muhammad is popular throughout the world as a prophet (as he claimed to be a messenger of god) as a figurehead of a religion. The Buddha was also a figurehead of a religion - Buddhism. Therefore since this main post was posted on a Buddhist forum the comparison of Muhammad with Buddha is not unwarranted.

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by L.N. » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:06 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:51 pm
... he also raped women ...
A Buddhist discussion forum is not the place for this type of slander against the founder of a different world religion.

I notice that people who say offensive things often try to change the subject by labeling opposing viewpoints as "politically correct." If someone disagrees with an offensive position, framing the discussion in terms of "political correctness" is a way to avoid personal responsibility for speech which probably is not Right Speech.

This entire Topic appears to be a prime example of how DW and other Buddhist discussion forums may sometimes harm the perception of Buddhism. We should not be disparaging other faiths in this manner by, for example, calling the founder of another world religion a rapist. The words we speak here on DW matter and are viewed by others who may have an interest in Dhamma except for what they see on display here. For example, see this.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Dharmasherab » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:06 pm
A Buddhist discussion forum is not the place for this type of slander against the founder of a different world religion.


It is actually incorrect to call what I mentioned about Muhammad as slander. This is because slander means a statement about another person which is not true and unsubstatiated. Here is a dictionary definitions of slander.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slander

All the things I have mentioned about Muhammad are are backed by evidence from Islam's own sources (such as the different Hadeeth from sets of Hadeeth). The articles I posted contain footnotes as well as quotations which are from the sources of Islam itself (which includes different sources of Hadeeth). Therefore you will understand that what I did was not slander but to expose the truth about certain aspect of Muhammad's life which is not common knowledge. Just because people are founders of other religions does not mean that they are above criticism. There are founders of religions such as Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones and David Koresh who are critisiced for some of the actions that they did. Just because people are founders of religions does not make them necessarily elevated above the status of people who did not find/discover religions.

Calling Muhammad a rapist is not slander - because that is what he actually did. Here are sources on how rape (non-consensual sex) is approved in Islam in certain circumstances. It is a list of quotes from Islam's own sources -

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Had ... olars:Rape

Here is an article about how Muhammad raped women and how he did not stop his men from raping other women. Instead of reading the article you can scroll to the bottom and see that these are from the Hadeeth and the Quran (and not things that people are making up). Hence it is not slander.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm
L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:06 pm
I notice that people who say offensive things often try to change the subject by labeling opposing viewpoints as "politically correct." If someone disagrees with an offensive position, framing the discussion in terms of "political correctness" is a way to avoid personal responsibility for speech which probably is not Right Speech.


It would only sound offensive if one had a strong preconceived view about the character of Muhammad without knowing what Islam's own sources had to say about him. Too often people can be quick to consider that all founders of any religion are good immaculate people especially when attention is not paid to the sources of those religions. Some truths about certain religions are not the sort of thing that other people would want to hear even when it is the truth. For example in this world there are people that admire Hitler. Exposing the truth about Hitler ordering the murder of Jewish people in Germany as well as other minorities can be offensive to people who admire Hitler. But this does not mean we need to consider the sensitivities of Hitler fans when speaking out the truth about Hitler especially when his actions caused a lot of harm to humanity. Likewise Muhammad took part in battles which claimed the lives of 1000s of people and he enslaved their wives. He tortured a man who hid a treasure and pressured him under death threats to reveal the hidden treasure and once that man gave up the location of that treasure under pressure, then Muhammad ordered that man to death. None of these things are a figment of my imagination but are in the Hadeeth. There is plenty more accounts of Muhammad which makes him fall far short of the level or morality which is common in todays world. This could be because he was a man of his time following the ways which was acceptable during his time. But it also doesnt mean we have to glorify him either.

Most of the sources I provided are from websites run by ex-muslims (those who have left Islam).
L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:06 pm
This entire Topic appears to be a prime example of how DW and other Buddhist discussion forums may sometimes harm the perception of Buddhism. We should not be disparaging other faiths in this manner by, for example, calling the founder of another world religion a rapist.


Even I was questioning why the main post referring to Muhammad as pedophile even appeared in a Buddhist Forum. Since it was accepted I thought that the reason why such a post was appearing on the forum was because it was considered acceptable within the boundaries of this forum. Therefore I decided to give links to webpages which had articles which also cited hadeeth so that I could answer the question of the person that originally posted the question about Muhammad. Just because Islam has the status of a religion it does not imply that it is above rational criticism. Religions are ideologies. The same way we can criticise ideologies like capitalism and communism we should also be able to criticise religions such as Islam too. Appropriate rational criticism should not be considered as 'disparaging' just to attach stigma to those who hold a different view - especially when those views are backed up by sources.

User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by L.N. » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:21 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm
Calling Muhammad a rapist is not slander - because that is what he actually did.
I suspect many Muslims would disagree. A Buddhist discussion forum is not the proper place to make these claims against the founder of another world religion. Why disparage other faiths here?
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro


愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。

User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Dharmasherab » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:33 pm

L.N. wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:21 pm
Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm
Calling Muhammad a rapist is not slander - because that is what he actually did.
I suspect many Muslims would disagree. A Buddhist discussion forum is not the proper place to make these claims against the founder of another world religion. Why disparage other faiths here?
Its not always about whether people agree of not. More importantly it is about what the sources have to say about those incidents. I am not disparaging and I am not slandering. If you say so then you are also suggesting that Islam's own sources slander and disparage Muhammad which is self-contradictory as Muslims rely on Islamic sources when it comes to deriving their practices as well as the life accounts of Prophet Muhammad as Prophet Muhammad is considered to be the best possible role model according to Islam.

If I was to mention that Hitler committed a holocaust then a lot of NeoNazis would disagree with that. But just because NeoNazis disagree with the statements such as the Holocaust was carried out by Hitler are you saying that this is slander and disparaging too because NeoNazis get offended by that and disagree with that?

DooDoot
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:48 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:33 pm
Its not always about whether people agree of not.
It is a matter of historical fact rather than personal opinion.
More importantly it is about what the sources have to say about those incidents.
No historical or academic source was provided by you.
I am not disparaging and I am not slandering.
It sounded definitely like "slander" to me. Unless you present clear evidence Muhammad raped women, what you posted will sound like "slander".
If you say so then you are also suggesting that Islam's own sources slander and disparage Muhammad which is self-contradictory as Muslims rely on Islamic sources when it comes to deriving their practices as well as the life accounts of Prophet Muhammad as Prophet Muhammad is considered to be the best possible role model according to Islam.
Please quote the sources, where Muhammad raped three women? Thanks
If I was to mention that Hitler committed a holocaust then a lot of NeoNazis would disagree with that.
Holocaust deniers & revisionists generally attempt to present evidence for their claims, which you appear to have not done. Instead, you seem to be merely posting links to dodgy webpages.

User avatar
Will
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Will » Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:58 pm

Perhaps some here have forgotten the old debate tradition between Asian religions. There were often acerbic & insulting words flying between the debaters. And if one loses the debate he has to convert to the winner's faith (at minimum).

We moderns are far too ladylike & delicate. Recall the Saw Sutta where Buddha taught great tolerance & patience with uncomfortable, even painful conditions.
Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Nietzsche

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1493
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:07 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm
backed by evidence from Islam's own sources (such as the different Hadeeth from sets of Hadeeth)
All ʼaḥādīth are not made, or made-up, equal. You have to search the history and recension of the ḥadīth in question.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
神足示現者,
世尊隨其所應,而示現入禪定正受,陵虛至東方,作四威儀,
行、住、坐、臥,入火三昧,出種種火光,青、黃、赤、白、
紅、頗梨色,水火俱現, 或身下出火,身上出水,身上出火,
身下出水,周圓四方亦復如是。

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests