Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
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 10:11 pm

There is also an entire movement in Islam called Quranism which rejects all ʼaḥādīth. It is a radical movement, much like reconstructionist Judaism, but it is quite strong for such a radical movement.
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。

DooDoot
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:13 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:54 pm
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
The quotes from the Koran above (which is reportedly Muhammad's teaching) are about women captives of the tribal wars. Now, in the Pali suttas, there is a definition of 'sexual misconduct', as follows:
He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
This definition of sexual misconduct seems to allow for sex in many other circumstance, such as between non-married adults. However I doubt this was the intention of this definition because DN 31 says parents must arrange the marriage of their teenage children therefore I doubt there was a swinging singles scene during the time of the Buddha.

Therefore, I think it is logical the Buddha provided this definition of sexual misconduct to particularly accommodate the sexual practices of the ruling classes, which includes concubines, harems & probably women or war widows captured in war.

The Muslim practise of war widows was different to the Hebrew practise in the Bible, where the Israelites often killed all men, women & children in their total wars of anihilation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence , similar to the violence the Zionists committed against Palestinian women & children in 1947.
Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:33 pm
life accounts of Prophet Muhammad as Prophet Muhammad is considered to be the best possible role model according to Islam.
Dharmasherab. What do you think about the persistent sexual misconduct that continues in Tibetan Buddhism by Tibetan male gurus towards women, which has been reported as being rooted in Tibetan culture? Thanks https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_in_Buddhism

DooDoot
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:00 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:11 pm
There is also an entire movement in Islam called Quranism which rejects all ʼaḥādīth. It is a radical movement, much like reconstructionist Judaism, but it is quite strong for such a radical movement.
For a reader of the Koran, it seems not so radical because the Koran often appears very moderate where as Sharia & Hadith appear closer to the Jewish Torah. For example, the Koran prescribes punishment of 100 spankings for adultery where as Hadith & Sharia, like the Torah, seem to prescribe the death penalty for adultery (& homosexuality), based on some alleged account of Muhammad. The history of the anti-homosexual obsession appears predominantly Jewish, which includes Christianity, which was a Jewish religion (rather than Muslim or Nazi). In ancient times, homosexuality appear to be quite common & it was Judaism & Christianity that were the leading homophobic forces in the whole world.
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 11:06 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
I was born a Catholic & had Catholic rituals performed on me as a boy. If I decide to ridicule Christianity, this does not make my critique valid because I was born a Catholic.
You mentioned that those sources which I provided as ‘Anti-Muslim’ which was incorrect because first of all those aricles were no against Muslims – they were just exposing the aspects of Muhammad. I did not claim a validity purely based on the fact that those websites were managed by ex-muslims. I only used that fact to refute your statement that those websites were anti-muslim simply because it can be appreciated the some (probably most) of the ex-muslims who are involved with Faith Freedom and WikiIslam have Muslims as their parents, siblings, cousins, relations and close friends. Those websites in their pages clearly say they are not again Islam but they want to help Muslims by helping them to leave Islam.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
Please provide links to these hedeeths. Thanks. Since rape is a crime in Islam, it seems illogical Muhammad would be a habitual rapist.
Rape is not recognised in Islam because back then non-consensual sex was permissible with captive women. It is only adultery that is a crime in Islamic law which is why in rape cases under Islamic law the perpetrator as well as the victim also get punished because the sexual activity between the perpetrator and victim is not seen a wrong doing on behalf of the perpetrator but as a form of adultery where both parties are considered to be in the wrong.

Here are evidence from the Quran that rape (non-consensual sex) with captive women was permissible - Qur’an, 4:24: Qur’an, 33:50 Qur’an, 4:3
Here is evidence from the hadeeth that Muhammad did not disapprove of rape while he also took part in raping captive women - Bukhari, Volume 5, Book59, Number 459, Bukhari 3.34.432, Abu Dawood, 29.29.32.100,
Bukhari 3.46.718, 5.59.459, 7.62.135, 7.62.136, 7.62.137, 8.77.600, 9.93.506
Sahih Muslim 8.3383, 8.3388, 8.3376, 8.3377
You can check the hadeeth and the ayahs of the Quran online
I will make it easier for you – all rape related verses from Koran as well as hadeeth all in here https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Ha ... olars:Rape
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
I said Islam was often a strictly moral religion. It is the strictness of the morality that would make the idea of a pedophile as their leader to be absurd. It has been argued logically that the age of the girl was understated to show she was a virgin & thus his only virgin wife; which is to highlight the morality of sexual fidelity.

They may consider that as ‘moral’ sexual behaviour. But this doesn’t mean that everyone else has to agree that that activity is moral. Because like I mentioned where we derive our morals from is different. It is obvious that Aisha did not reach puberty when Muhammad made her have sexual relations with him. I also mentioned earlier that words like ‘pedophile’ appeared later because throughout history different people have married girls who were pre-pubertal. It is just that in todays world there are muslims who follow the example of Muhammad where young girls do die in pregnancy simply soon as a girl starts to menstruate doesn’t mean she is ready to have children. It was the example that Muhammad left behind to the population of today which is of concern as there are victims where some of them are young girls married off to older men.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
In Buddhism, this does not appear to be case. In Buddhism, the Buddha taught the Golden Rule (SN 55.7); that basic social morality of the precepts is always the same.

Actually you misunderstood. What I meant by morality being something relative is from a global point of view where different people derive their morality from different domains where some people derive their morality from their own religion. In Buddhism it has its own standard of ethical conduct as outlined by the precepts. So I myself as a Buddhist derive my morality from the precepts outlines by the Buddhist texts and not the actions of Muhammad. So this is just my viewpoint only where I agree and adhere to what Buddha considered as ethical/moral as outlined by the precept which he put forward. But from a global point of view Islam has its own standards as to what its own moralistic views are which are not the same as Buddhism – hence from a global point of view morality if relative.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
I think you are mixing up Islamic Law with Jewish Law. It is Jewish Law in the Old Testament that literally states to stone homosexuals to death. Now you would have to find this Law in the Koran to prove your post. Note: Many Muslims hold Sharia is not the Islam of the Koran, just as many Buddhists hold Mahayana is not Buddhism.

Actually the Koran is not the only source of Islamic law. There are the hadeeth as well and the stoning to death of adulterers comes from the hadeeth (and not the Koran).
Having said that most of the Islam that is practiced is based on hadeeth. The Koran is not a very clear book so it is necessary to have the hadeeth to interpret what is in the Koran. Koran-only Islam is impossible because it means the diversity of interpretation would be far greater to the extent that Islam would be a nebulous category or else people would start acting upon the instructions of the Koran regardless of the context.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Onl ... t_Possible
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
In Buddhism, men also married many wives, including men who later became arahants. There is nothing inherently immoral about polygamy.

That was because of a reply I gave to you when you said Islam was a ‘moral’ religion. I was just trying to illustrate that what may be seen as moral is not moral according to another group of people which is why from a global viewpoint morality is something which is relative. As for Buddhists we have our own morality which we derive from the Buddhist scriptures.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
As for a woman having many husbands, this idea is ridiculous due to the nature of pregnancy & child raising.


But there have been instances where woman have married more than one husband in the history of the world. Unless one has fixed views of morality without appreciating the diversity of morality on a wider scale we cant say for everyone what makes sense and what is ridiculous. We can only speak from the point of view where we derive our morals from whiles appreciating that others have their own moral views where they derive that from.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
If you are referring to apostasy here, this is a different matter. I have read apostasy in Islam is similar to the Jewish Bible.

Check out the hadeeth section where it has provided various hadeeth which suggests that apostasy is punishable by death in Islam.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Ha ... s:Apostasy
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
This is not good enough for the practise of Honest Speech. You should do your own research. I posted it is illogical they were killed due to not accepting Islam because the Koran plainly states the Peoples of the Book (Jews & Xtians) do not need to convert to Islam. The article you posted sounds like Right-Wing-Christian-Zionist-Evangelical propaganda, with its emphasis upon this Jewish tribe being killed because they were Jewish. This idea makes no sense because the Koran does not teach to persecute Jews or the Jewish religion.

For starters you do admit that they were beheaded and their bodies thrown into a trench. What you are saying is just academic which doesn’t look at the wider context of the incident. Banu Qurayza was a tribe and they preferred not to take part with Muhammad’s battles. They just did not want to risk further death to their people. And you are justifying the killings don’t by this group of Muslims that attacked Banu Qurayza and then later beheaded their men after they surrendered. They were given the option of converting as a last resort after these people surrendered after being under siege for a few days.

I never mentioned that Islamic sources encourage the forced conversion of Christians or Jews (the people of the book according to Islam). They only pay a poll tax (Jizya) in an Islamic state. If a person of the people of the books fails to pay this poll tax then they either have to convert to Islam or they have to face the penalty of death.

Just to repeat that the articles in Wikiislam and Faithfreeom does not promote any religion. It just exposes Islam and Muhammad. Therefore it is ad hominem to compare these articles with right wing Christian groups because. Its no different from calling somebody a fascist when they done agree with another person’s view.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
This is non-sense, referring to "Genocide" or "Holocaust". Since when was the execution of a small political group a "genocide"? Was the execution of the Nazis a "genocicde"? I am getting the impression you have a Pro-Political-Jewish bias & you seem to ignore the fact that Islam, particularly Sharia Law, is basically a replica of Jewish Law (Torah).


Back in those days killing 600 people or more is a form of genocide because the individuals that were killed were unarmed stationary targets and it was the entire settlement that was killed in a single day. I also do not understand why some people become very defensive and justify this hideous act of killing and entire group of people in a single day. I wander what such people are doing in Buddhist groups since this is a large scale violation of the First Precept which is inexcusable.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
Monotheism, similar to Non-Duality, is a non-sense or non-reality, which is why Buddhism does not adhere to Monotheism. Even Christianity, which tried to represent what was more true, abandoned Monotheism (by attributing evil to Satan/Mara). If Monotheism was true, then God created both good & evil. This is why Monotheism is a non-sense or non-reality.


I was saying that Muhammad preached teachings and part of them was the encouragement for people to adhere to monotheism. Despite monotheism is not accepted in all religions the ‘theism’ is an artefact of faith and it is incorrect to say that Muhammad was a secular law maker. If Muhammad was just a secular law maker then why is the Quran filled wish verses about praising a God? Because Islam is not secular. What you mentioned may be your own understanding – its just that that may not always be what Islam represents.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
The Jewish religion (of the Old Testament & more modern Kabbalah) appears to clearly state & believe G-D is the creator of both good & evil and fortune & misfortune. This is not a Buddhist view & utterly contrary to Buddhism. Where as Mohammed followed this Jewish non-sense or non-reality of Monotheism;

You misunderstood what I mentioned. You incorrectly assumed that I said monotheism is found in all religions. That is not what I said. I only refuted your statement that ‘Muhammad was a secular law maker’ by showing what Muhammad preached did have artefacts which are typical of religions such as monotheism. Its just that you mistakenly understood that I said that monotheism is there in all religions which is not what I said.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
at least Muhammad followed a more Buddhist view that, on the day of judgment, every atom's weight of good performed & every atom's weight of evil performed will be weighed up.
But there are also plenty of teachings in Islam and the character of Muhammad which are no in line with the teachings in Buddhism and outright contradictory to that.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
I think you did not understand the point I made, which might explain why you started a thread elsewhere which showed you have not learned about the structure of Buddhism. He was primarily a moralist; where Buddha was primarily a liberationist.


Nowhere I made a post in this forum where I said “I do not understand the structure of Buddhism” or anything even close to that. It could be that it is your mistaken understanding of what I posted. Its just that claiming Muhammad was a secular law maker is just completely incorrect. The very foundation of Islam – which is the acceptance of a one god and accepting that Muhammad was his last messenger shows that Muhammad was not a secular maker by any mean.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
There is a huge difference between religions of morality & religions of liberation. Judaism & Islam are religions of morality, which therefore both include similar laws of crime & punishment. Where as Buddhism & Christ are religions of liberation, which have no laws of punishment.

Morality and liberation are not always mutually exclusive. The Buddhism has laid out its own form(s) of ethical conduct by its precepts. Even though the ideal is based on liberation it is incorrect to say that Buddhism is void of morality.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
I think your reference to Hitler shows a bias in your thinking. Sharia Islam (which is not Koranic) is basically a replica of Jewish religious Law, including the stoning to death of homosexuals. When the Nazis ended the Weimar sex-tourism-pornography-industry, which included targeting homosexuality, homosexuality was also illegal at that time in Britain & America. You seem to be spinning around in the Holocaust-Homosexual-Nazi narrative without realising homosexuality was a crime in the USA-UK & Judaism during the 1930s.

Yes there was a time when Britain and America had homophobic laws except that they never considered putting homosexuals in concentration camps and sending them to gas chambers unlike Nazi Germany did.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
He was secular because his religion is mostly about social law and because he never said all people should convert to Islam.

If Islam was mostly about social law then why are there the obligation of five prayers a day? Fasting on the month of Ramadan? Pilgrimage to Mecca? The social law aspect is only a part of Islam only and does not represent everything about it. And according to Islamic law even ‘the people of the book’ still did have to pay poll tax to keep their faith. But if they failed to pay that then they were either expected to convert to Islam or face the death penalty.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
Mohamed is similar to a law maker, like George Washington. Is George Washington worthy of respect?

George Bush never made laws based on a divine revelations. Muhammad did claim the rules and laws he put forwards was coming from Allah. Whether people deserve respect is not based on whether they are secular or religious.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
For example, many of the Buddha's disciples abandoned their wives & children. Yet you wish to assert the Buddha is a better social role model than Mohamed, who married many (lonely) widows & whose young wife became enormously politically powerful.

Except that Buddha did not leave his wife to look for 9 other wives and especially not looking for a child wife. Whiles Muhammad had multiple wives he also had concubines (sex slaves). Muhammad practiced slavery and some of these were sex slaves. I mentioned earlier that Muhammad raped women and I have given the sources which you can look for yourself. Muhammad he himself committed adultery with a slave girl on the night he was meant to sleep with one of his wives and he was caught. The details of the embarrassing account is there in the hadeeth but in a very shameful manner. Also women already had more rights prior to the time of Muhammad. There were women leaders such as Umm Kirfa who were killed by Muhammad’s people.
Also don’t forget that Muhammad said "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 92, Hadith 50)
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
It is reported (in DN 31) the Buddha taught a duty of parents is to arrange the marriage of their (teenage) children. Do you respect the Buddha for this?


Arranged marriage does not mean forced marriage. It just that parents can help their (teenage) child to find a partner to be married but nowhere it says that his has to be forced upon their (teenage) children.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
Do you respect the strict religious Jewish (Hasidic) communities that also follow this practice of strict marriage laws; which some Muslims say is also represented by the role model of Aisha?

It doesn’t make a difference what religion it comes from because the when one person cannot consent (due to their age) then they become the victim.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:57 pm
Or are you just a Left-Wing-Anti-China-Neo-Con-Zionist-Sexual-Liberal that thinks the Buddha supports your political position?
I don’t have any strong political views.

DooDoot
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:17 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:06 pm
Those websites in their pages clearly say they are not again Islam but they want to help Muslims by helping them to leave Islam.
Imo, those pages are unacceptable to sincere people intent on non-harming & non-violence because they are clearly very dangerous & dishonest propaganda, such as saying Muhammad killed Jews merely because the Jews were Jews. Muhammad protected practising religious Jews & Christians, which is why those religions, with their many sects, survived & often thrived under Islam. Even many Christian sects preferred Islam because they were persecuted by the Roman & Byzantine Churches. To me, the pages you are posting support a false Christian-Zionist-Evangelist narrative that supports continued Western war against secular Muslim nations. I repeat. The Jewish people generally thrived under the Islamic Empire. Neither Muhammad nor his successors murdered Jews merely because those Jews were Jews. There were battles between various tribes and the tribes that lost were often executed, including Jewish tribes who aligned themselves with other non-Jewish tribes.
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 11:24 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:10 pm
If not, your posts sound heavily influenced by a Holocaust-Homosexual-Anti-Muslim-Zionist-Neo-Con-Christian-Evangelist political narrative. This common Holocaust-Homosexual narrative is particularly ridiculous because homosexuality was illegal in basically the entire Western world in the 1930s.
You did already mention this and I have clearly mentioned that I have no strong political views. I also mentioned that the pages I posted are done by ex-muslims. WikiIslam does not have any political or religious or any other affiliation apart from that it just exposes Islam using Islam's own sources.

DooDoot
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:28 pm

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:24 pm
You did already mention this and I have clearly mentioned that I have no strong political views.
I was suggesting to be more heedful or careful. These are very dangerous pages because they include dangerous false speech; such as saying Muhammad killed Jews because of Jewishness.
Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:24 pm
I also mentioned that the pages I posted are done by ex-muslims.
Yes, ex-Muslims, who obviously dislike Islam.
Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:24 pm
WikiIslam does not have any political or religious or any other affiliation apart from that it just exposes Islam using Islam's own sources.
This pages clearly have false information, such as Jews were killed by Muhammad merely because they were Jews. Your correlation of Muhammad with Hitler was indicative of this false information. The persecution of the Jewish religion is clearly against the teachings of Muhammad in the Koran. Unlike Nazism, Islam had no salient agenda against the Jewish people. To compare Muhammad to Hitler is illogical to most sincere people.

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 11:36 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:00 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:11 pm
There is also an entire movement in Islam called Quranism which rejects all ʼaḥādīth. It is a radical movement, much like reconstructionist Judaism, but it is quite strong for such a radical movement.
For a reader of the Koran, it seems not so radical because the Koran often appears very moderate where as Sharia & Hadith appear closer to the Jewish Torah. For example, the Koran prescribes punishment of 100 spankings for adultery where as Hadith & Sharia, like the Torah, seem to prescribe the death penalty for adultery (& homosexuality), based on some alleged account of Muhammad. The history of the anti-homosexual obsession appears predominantly Jewish, which includes Christianity, which was a Jewish religion (rather than Muslim or Nazi). In ancient times, homosexuality appear to be quite common & it was Judaism & Christianity that were the leading homophobic forces in the whole world.
I wouldn't say that necessarily, because I am a pretentious liberal, and, as such, no one can say anything to me without me adding an extra two cents.

Zoroastrianism and ancient Egyptian religion were anti-gay before Judaism and Christianity. But all of those do indeed stem from the same Near Eastern cultural sprachbund.
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。

DooDoot
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:44 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:36 pm
I wouldn't say that necessarily, because I am a pretentious liberal, and, as such, no one can say anything to me without me adding an extra two cents.
I don't follow what you said above. Are you saying there is not a salient discernible difference between the Koranic directives and those of later Hadith/Sharia? Are you saying the Koran has the death penalty for adultery, for example? In other words, are you saying I am a "radical" for claiming the Koran has a different spirit to the Hadith/Sharia?

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 11:49 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:28 pm
I was suggesting to be more heedful or careful.


Yes I am careful. I can appreciate there are right wing oriented websites who try to portray Islam in bad light. They dont really care about Islam or Muslims - they just dont want non-white people in their countries. I would also encourage you to be careful too and also reconsider what you appear to consider as 'knoweldge' about Islam and Muhammad.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:28 pm
These are very dangerous pages because they include dangerous false speech; such as saying Muhammad killed Jews because of Jewishness.


Where in that article does it say that the killing of the people of Banu Qurayza was carried out only because those people were Jewish? It doesnt make a difference whether they were Jewish or any other religion or no religion - they were all killed and you were justifying that in that first reply you made to my post.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:28 pm
Yes, ex-Muslims, who obviously dislike Islam.


It is much more than just to do with dislike. They are helping other Muslims to leave Islam by exposing the truth about Islam which tends to be hidden under political correctness. You need to understand that it is not just because of liking/disliking that people do what they do. One could even say the Buddha disliked suffering which is why he taught the Dhamma. But it was much more than just dislike - it was based on understanding and the will to help all beings to liberate themselves from Samsara. Likewise ex-muslims who freed themselves from Islam are helping other Muslims - such as their parents, friends, relatives and any muslims out there to help leave Islam by helping them understand the hidden truth about Islam.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:28 pm
This pages clearly have false information, such as Jews were killed by Muhammad merely because they were Jews. Your correlation of Muhammad with Hitler was indicative of this false information.


How can they have false information when the articles of WikiIslam are clearly cited? Saying that such information is false when they have made references is false speech. Of course there are differences as well as similarities between Hitler and Muhammad.
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:28 pm
The persecution of the Jewish religion is clearly against the teachings of Muhammad in the Koran.
First of all according to Islam the Quran is meant to be the word of God and not the teachings of Muhammad so that statement is incorrect. As for persectution that depends on the way you understand the word persecution. Jews have to pay poll tax (Jizya) for their protection - and I consider this as a form of persecution. Muhammad he himself made laws (even though according to Islam they are from God) which gave Muslims more privilage and opportunity over non-muslims (both people of the book as well as pagans).

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 11:54 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:44 pm
I don't follow what you said above. Are you saying there is not a salient discernible difference between the Koranic directives and those of later Hadith/Sharia? Are you saying the Koran has the death penalty for adultery, for example? In other words, are you saying I am a "radical" for claiming the Koran has a different spirit to the Hadith/Sharia?
Quran only Islam is not a reality. Its just an ideal but impossible to practice. Here is a detailed explaination as to why 'Quran only Islam' is not possible

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an_Onl ... t_Possible

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

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:10 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:44 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:36 pm
I wouldn't say that necessarily, because I am a pretentious liberal, and, as such, no one can say anything to me without me adding an extra two cents.
I don't follow what you said above. Are you saying there is not a salient discernible difference between the Koranic directives and those of later Hadith/Sharia? Are you saying the Koran has the death penalty for adultery, for example? In other words, are you saying I am a "radical" for claiming the Koran has a different spirit to the Hadith/Sharia?
Nonononono. I was trying to make a joke. My apologies.

There are other religions older than the Abrahamic faiths that feature homophobia is all I meant. The thing about being a liberal was a joke, about the fact that I was essentially agreeing while seeming like I was disagreeing. A very liberal thing to do, which I am very aware of, as I do it.
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。

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 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:45 am

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?
I get that all this is unsettling, but it is also factual.

If someone in this forum were to claim that the Buddha was an evil person we would quote the countless suttas where the Buddha discourages evil behaviours and encourages good ones. And we would challenge the person to come up with original credible sources backing up their accusations against the Buddha.

The reverse is also true. What DharmaSherab has written, as well as what I have written, is described in the canonical islamic texts. You can check the original and trusted islamic sources because the translations are available online from islamic sites and from universities. I have not seen rebutals of our points by quoting the original trusted sources. If you do not take the time to check the original sources, which are available for free, you will lie again due to voluntary blindness.

And, although I understand that this is a touchy subject, telling pleasant sounding lies about it is worse than telling unpleasant truths. For this reason, you cannot adopt a judgemental tone against us for telling the unpleasant truth, as opposed to pleasant lies unsuported by the canonical trusted sources. This kind of unpleasant truths would be acceptable if we were talking about L Ron Hubbardd. The criticism of conservative and ultraconservative christian beliefs would be acceptable. We can think about Islam and Muhammad with the same level of scrutiny.
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
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1603
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA
Contact:

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by lyndon taylor » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:03 am

Except that Dharmasherab's quotes are full of lies and misinformation about Islam.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

Disciple
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Disciple » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:09 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:03 am
Except that Dharmasherab's quotes are full of lies and misinformation about Islam.
What does your research about Islam tell you?

DooDoot
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:25 am

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:49 pm
As for persectution that depends on the way you understand the word persecution. Jews have to pay poll tax (Jizya) for their protection - and I consider this as a form of persecution. Muhammad he himself made laws (even though according to Islam they are from God) which gave Muslims more privilage and opportunity over non-muslims (both people of the book as well as pagans).
Jizya is tax. The Muslims tried to create a civil society, with charity, which requires tax revenue. Charity is a significant theme in the Koran. I already posted many Jews become enormously wealthy under Islam (because they were able to particularly dominate the banking industry); therefore the tax was obviously not an issue to them.

Personally, I do not have any love affair with Islam, just as I don't have a love affair with Judaism (which Christianity has attached itself to also). These are worldly mundane political-law systems; which include worldly militarism. However, ordinary society needs law & order; just as the USA has police, a court system & military. Islam was an attempt at this. But if you starting measuring Muhammad against Buddha, this is unfair, because they are different in their roles.

When the ordinary person is being attacked, Muhammad says to defend yourself & Buddha says to practise non-violence. The ordinary person obviously wants to defend them self. Imagine if the Buddha was walking around during the Holocaust. Buddha would just say: "Let it go; its not yours; not-self".

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 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:39 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:03 am
Except that Dharmasherab's quotes are full of lies and misinformation about Islam.
We have provided original trusted canonical sources to back up our solid statements. I'm sorry, but it's time for you guys to provide some substance to your arguments.
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)

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

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Caodemarte » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:50 am

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:39 am
lyndon taylor wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:03 am
Except that Dharmasherab's quotes are full of lies and misinformation about Islam.
We have provided original trusted canonical sources to back up our solid statements. I'm sorry, but it's time for you guys to provide some substance to your arguments.
No, you have not. Reliable sources, what you call canonical, have been cited and you ignore them. Such displays of bigotry and bile are not worthy of respect.

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

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by L.N. » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:05 am

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:33 pm
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?
This is uncalled for. Now you are comparing Muhammad with Hitler, and you are comparing those who disagree with you to Nazis.
Will wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:58 pm
We moderns are far too ladylike & delicate. Recall the Saw Sutta where Buddha taught great tolerance & patience with uncomfortable, even painful conditions.
And you want to justify Buddhists disparaging other faiths by implying that if adherents of other faiths can't take it, it is because they do not live up to the tolerance displayed by Buddhists.

This Topic is an embarrassment. It has no place on a forum devoted to a Buddhist discussion on the Dhamma.
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。

DooDoot
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by DooDoot » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:11 am

Dharmasherab wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:49 pm
Yes I am careful.
Not careful. This is obvious. Millions of innocent lives have been destroyed due to anti-Islamism since 9/11.
Where in that article does it say that the killing of the people of Banu Qurayza was carried out only because those people were Jewish?
You claim to be careful yet can't read clearly?
There were three Jewish tribes living in and around Yathrib, the Banu Qainuqa’, the Ban Nadir and the Banu Quraiza. Once Muhammad realized that they are not going to accept him as their new prophet, he turned against them. He banished the first two, after confiscating their properties and wealth and massacred the last one.
The Banu Quaiza engaged in a war against Muhammad & they lost that war. If the Banu Quaiza were merely praying in a synagogue they would not have lost their lives as a result of their own actions of making war. The Muslims quickly administered all of Persia, Egypt & the Levant yet did not go on a killing spree against Jews & Christians (the Peoples of the Book).
It doesnt make a difference whether they were Jewish or any other religion or no religion - they were all killed and you were justifying that in that first reply you made to my post.
Many tribes were killed in those wars in Arabia. Yet the article highlights a Jewish tribe and you bring into your posts a Holocaust-Nazi narrative. Have you mentioned the other tribes who died in the wars they chose to be involved in? Have you mentioned the millions murdered by American presidents? Have you mentioned the slaughters by the Israelites in the Bible or in Palestine? To me, your posts are tainted with political propaganda.
They are helping other Muslims to leave Islam by exposing the truth about Islam which tends to be hidden under political correctness.
It is against Buddhist principles to seek to have others leave their religion. The other thread you started seems to want people here to help you have people leave Islam. This is not ethical in Buddhism.
One could even say the Buddha disliked suffering which is why he taught the Dhamma. But it was much more than just dislike - it was based on understanding and the will to help all beings to liberate themselves from Samsara. Likewise ex-muslims who freed themselves from Islam are helping other Muslims - such as their parents, friends, relatives and any muslims out there to help leave Islam by helping them understand the hidden truth about Islam.
This comparison is invalid because:

1. Your posts here obviously are samsaric. Wanting Muslims to leave Islam is samsaric. Supporting a war-promoting-Neo-Con-Anti-Islamic narrative is samsaric. Yet you claim you are a Buddhist wanting to be liberated from samsara?

2. The Buddha in Theravada never ever intended to help all beings liberate themselves from samsara.

3. Islam is a moral doctrine that is more closer to Buddhist morality than Western societies. The Buddha in Theravada taught the duty of religious teachers is to show laypeople a path to heaven, which Islam does. The Buddha in Theravada never ever taught all beings are to be liberated in Nibbana.

Since your modus operandi here seems to have become clear, I will attempt to amend my post on the other thread. :anjali:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests