Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Locked
User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4210
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: USA West Coast

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

L.N.
"Connections to Other Paths" to me suggests something better than this.
Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Correct, learning what to avoid is helpful.
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Will wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:30 pm L.N.
"Connections to Other Paths" to me suggests something better than this.
Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Correct, learning what to avoid is helpful.
Agreed.

In this capacity, I think here about how one relates to their own experiences of being parented, once they themselves become parents. They will reflect upon their experiences and look at what worked well, and should be repeated, and they will look at what didn't work well, and endeavour to do something else.

Often the best lessons in life come in the form of what not to do. When finding what not to do, there should be no compulsion to find something positive in that which should be avoided.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Caodemarte »

Modus.Ponens wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:07 pm
Caodemarte wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:59 pm
davidbrainerd wrote:....Its from their own books. The only thing they dispute is whether she was 6 or 9, because apparently their sources are contradictory on that point.
No, that is simply not true. What is the motive for this stream of unreasoning hatred?
......
If this does not generate excessive controversy, I will quote other original sources that describe several actions of someone unworthy of spiritual worship.
If you know anything about the tradition you should know that Muhammad is not worshiped in Islam nor is he a Messiah This would be idolatry and the gravest sin in Islam.

This claim has been hashed over and rejected for much more than a thousand years.

According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) she is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed or proclaimed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, she had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. This contradicts with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah, who is the main source of the claim. Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage is held to be nine years only by Hisham ibn `urwah. Given the critical comments in the tradition on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, there is no compelling reasons why should accept his claims as more accurate that the widely accepted Islamic historians.

According to a number of narratives, she was present in the battle of Badr and Uhud. It is also reported in accepted hadith and accepted histories that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. She then would have had to be 15 or more to be present.

According to almost all the historians Asma, her elder sister, was ten years older. It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if she was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha would have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha, if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

There is much, much more that is widely known and easily found. Again, what is the purpose of this stream of distortion and bile? What connection to Theravada is being explored?
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Caodemarte wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:29 pm
Modus.Ponens wrote: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:07 pm
Caodemarte wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:59 pm
No, that is simply not true. What is the motive for this stream of unreasoning hatred?
......
If this does not generate excessive controversy, I will quote other original sources that describe several actions of someone unworthy of spiritual worship.
If you know anything about the tradition you should know that Muhammad is not worshiped in Islam nor is he a Messiah This would be idolatry and the gravest sin in Islam.

This claim has been hashed over and rejected for much more than a thousand years.

According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) she is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed or proclaimed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, she had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. This contradicts with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah, who is the main source of the claim. Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage is held to be nine years only by Hisham ibn `urwah. Given the critical comments in the tradition on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, there is no compelling reasons why should accept his claims as more accurate that the widely accepted Islamic historians.

According to a number of narratives, she was present in the battle of Badr and Uhud. It is also reported in accepted hadith and accepted histories that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. She then would have had to be 15 or more to be present.

According to almost all the historians Asma, her elder sister, was ten years older. It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if she was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha would have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha, if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

There is much, much more that is widely known and easily found. Again, what is the purpose of this stream of distortion and bile? What connection to Theravada is being explored?
It is not distortion and bile if the canonical texts afirm straightforwardly that Aisha was 6 when she married, and 9 when she consumated the marriage. Can you quote the original and reliable texts, please? I've witnessed these mental gymnastics and contortions before in order to deny the canonical texts, but none were convincing. It is also not generally accepted islamic tradition, but a modern day inspired objection to what is clearly asserted in the canonical texts. I'll leave you with a quote in this post that sums up an exchange between Robert Spencer and modern day deniers of Aisha's age.

"Armstrong, and you, dismiss all the evidence that she was nine, primarily because you don’t want it to be so. Yet testimony that she was nine appears in Bukhari, which Muslims consider the leading hadith collection, as well as in Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, An-Nasai, and Ibn Majah — that is, five of the six hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable (Sahih Sittah).

Islamic theologians will tell you that Tabari does not take precedence over any of those, and in any case, Tabari also records she was nine, in several places — which multiplicity of testimony indicates a multiplicity of sources, which for Islamic theologians adds a presumption of reliability. The assertion that she was nine also appears in the sira of Ibn Ishaq, as well as in that of Ibn Kathir (...)

Stack up all that, and place against it that Tabari says in one place that Aisha was born in the time of Jahiliyyah. Let’s assume that by the time of Jahiliyyah Tabari meant the period before 610, and add in the other scattered passages that suggest — although none of them ever say directly — that she was older than nine. Even then you don’t have a case, since the testimony of the Sahih Sittah is so overwhelmingly in favor of her having been nine.

Then there is the evidence from the Islamic world, which you dismiss as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but which I maintain clearly stems from Muhammad’s status as uswa hasana. There is also evidence that mainstream Muslims today believe she was nine — contrary to your claim. I gave you one above, and now here is more. In al-Mubarakpuri’s biography of Muhammad, “The Sealed Nectar,” which won first prize in a Muslim World League competition for a biography of Muhammad in 1979 (ooh, 1979), it says this of Aisha: “She was six years old when he married her. However, he did not consummate the marriage with her till Shawwal seven months after Al-Hijra, and that was in Madinah. She was nine then” (p. 483)."

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/real ... erent-nine

If Aisha was an isolated case, I would be willing to be charitable to Muhammad. However, that is not the case as I will show in the next post. Not by distorting, but by quoting.
'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
User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 4210
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: USA West Coast

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Nicholas Weeks »

Violence and anger are personal qualities that are more significant in valuing a person. This book, Jihad in the West by Paul Fregosi focuses mainly on the many wars or jihads waged by Muhammad and his followers. But there is some information about the violent temper of Muhammad, from chapter 4:
Muhammad was pitiless with those who fought him, stole from him, who
acted against his interests, or whose wealth he hankered to acquire. Kinana, the chief of a Jewish
settlement at Kheibar, automatically became Muhammad's foe when the Prophet learned that Kinana had
a fortune in gold vessels hidden away somewhere, and Muhammad ordered him to be tortured until he
revealed its hiding place. His executioners tied him down to the ground and lit a fire on his chest "till his
breath had almost departed." When Kinana finally died under torture, Muhammad ordered his head to be
cut off, and that night went to bed with the victim's widow, Safiya, aged 17, who later became one of his
eleven wives.

The Dictionary of Islam exposes various instances of the Prophet's harsher side. A striking instance of the
cruelty of Muhammad's character occurs in the Sahibu al-Bukhari (p. 1019 in the French translation, Les
traditions islamiques
), when he killed several tribesmen to whom he had given hospitality, who robbed him of
several camels, killed one of his men, and then fled. "The Prophet sent some people after them and they were
seized and brought back to Medina. Then the Prophet ordered their hands and feet to be cut off as a
punishment for theft, and their eyes to be pulled out. But the Prophet did not stop the bleeding and they died."
Another entry reads: "The Prophet ordered hot irons to be drawn across their eyes, and then [for them] to be
cast on the plain of Medina [where they were impaled] and when they asked for water it was not given to
them and they died." With masterly British understatement, his biographer William Muir noted that
"magnanimity and moderation were not among the Prophet's great qualities."
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Aisha's age is not the only thing criticizable about Muhammad, as can be seen in the following quotes of the canonical texts:

The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s law]. (Hilali and Khan).



And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas [Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of traditions] who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger forbad it, saying, ‘Do no punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’" (Bukhari, Apostates, no. 6922; online source)

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.")
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)


As quoted, Muhammad's behaviour is not the behaviour of a worthy spiritual leader. He is not to be worshiped, acording to islam, but he is to be emulated.
'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
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Caodemarte »

I have noted the “canonical” and classical sources, even tracing the origin of the story. I am not paid to defend Islam and it probably needs no defense from people like me. I doubt any more light will be shed by my repeating the 1,000 and more years old and ongoing extensive debunking of this sort of thing.

When bizarre figures like Robert Bruce Spencer, are quoted (UK Home Office barred Spencer, self declared expert on Islam, from travel to the UK in 2013 for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence" ) the intentions of these postings is made clear. It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Caodemarte wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:43 am It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.
Why is it bigotry and intolerance to make well-reasoned arguments for or against something?

:shrug:

What makes Islam so special and protected that its set of ideas, traditions, practices and beliefs are beyond reasonable critique, so much so that anyone who would dare to critique them in such a way is instantly deemed bigoted and intolerant? Can Islam, its founders and its practices not stand on their own merits like everything else, without PC protections and accusations of "hate speech" (and associated punishments) against those who dare to disagree with it?

It's a curious situation indeed...

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
alfa
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:43 pm
Location: India

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by alfa »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:32 am Greetings,
Caodemarte wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:43 am It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.
Why is it bigotry and intolerance to make well-reasoned arguments for or against something?

:shrug:

What makes Islam so special and protected that its set of ideas, traditions, practices and beliefs are beyond reasonable critique, so much so that anyone who would dare to critique them in such a way is instantly deemed bigoted and intolerant? Can Islam, its founders and its practices not stand on their own merits like everything else, without PC protections and accusations of "hate speech" (and associated punishments) against those who dare to disagree with it?

It's a curious situation indeed...

Metta,
Paul. :)
Probably because most people who 'critique' Islam are not interested in critiquing Islam at all. That is just excuse to demonize Muslims. The proof is right here in this thread - they talk about Mohammad and Aisha, whether she was too young etc. Now let's say Mohammad was a pervert. Let's say Aisha was a child. Now what you have accomplished? You've managed to create a (false) perception in the minds of 21st century people that most Muslims living today don't belong here, and instead belong to a primitive age.

So by exposing Mohammad, you haven't done anything extraordinary or scholarly. You've simply created a certain stereotype of the average Muslim, and so people will at a subconscious level associate just about all Muslims with child marriage, perversion, etc. But then this is what these critics of Islam want to begin with, right?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Alfa,
alfa wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:12 am Probably because most people who 'critique' Islam are not interested in critiquing Islam at all. That is just excuse to demonize Muslims.
Have you actually asked them their motives, or have you just decided to be totally lacking in charity and cast this aspersion upon them?
alfa wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:12 am The proof is right here in this thread - they talk about Mohammad and Aisha, whether she was too young etc. Now let's say Mohammad was a pervert. Let's say Aisha was a child. Now what you have accomplished? You've managed to create a (false) perception in the minds of 21st century people that most Muslims living today don't belong here, and instead belong to a primitive age.
That's an interesting conflation on your part. I've seen no one saying Muslims are automatically barbaric just because aspects of Islamic doctrine and history are. In fact, many Muslims (and ex-Muslims) have the courage to stand up to such practices and insist upon reform. Can we therefore not critique female genital mutilation, stonings, child brides, Sharia Law, throwing homosexuals off cliffs and buildings etc. just because indirectly, someone's feelings might get hurt? You do know that most of the victims of Islam are actually Muslim, don't you?

If so, we do indeed live in crazy times, where the coddling of feelings is prioritized over the right to life and the right to not be mutilated, enslaved, stoned, punished for being raped etc.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
L.N.
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by L.N. »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:32 amWhy is it bigotry and intolerance to make well-reasoned arguments for or against something?
It isn't. However, something less than "well-reasoned arguments" are mixed in among what is being presented here with regard to Islam.
What makes Islam so special and protected that its set of ideas, traditions, practices and beliefs are beyond reasonable critique,
Nothing.
... so much so that anyone who would dare to critique them in such a way is instantly deemed bigoted and intolerant?
Is that what is happening? Not sure the discussion is quite so black and white.
Can Islam, its founders and its practices not stand on their own merits like everything else,
Yes.
... without PC protections and accusations of "hate speech" (and associated punishments) against those who dare to disagree with it?
I believe this is the first mention of "hate speech."

One issue here is the image of Buddhism that we all present to others when Islam and other faiths are essentially slandered, for lack of a better word, through comments that have little or nothing to do with the actual merits of the religion. I may be as guilty as others of inadvertently speaking in this dismissive manner about other religions, but I am becoming more aware of the damage this can do.

Asking whether Muhammad or Jesus or Bahá'u'lláh or any other central figure of a major world religion is "worthy of respect" is probably not the most effective way to discover "what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies."
O Atula! Indeed, this is an ancient practice, not one only of today: they blame those who remain silent, they blame those who speak much, they blame those who speak in moderation. There is none in the world who is not blamed.

There never was, there never will be, nor is there now, a person who is wholly blamed or wholly praised.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.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
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Caodemarte wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:43 am I have noted the “canonical” and classical sources, even tracing the origin of the story. I am not paid to defend Islam and it probably needs no defense from people like me. I doubt any more light will be shed by my repeating the 1,000 and more years old and ongoing extensive debunking of this sort of thing.

When bizarre figures like Robert Bruce Spencer, are quoted (UK Home Office barred Spencer, self declared expert on Islam, from travel to the UK in 2013 for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence" ) the intentions of these postings is made clear. It is depressing that this forum has provided a platform for such bigotry and intolerance.
The Sahih Al Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim are canonical. You cannot deny this. It is even more so with the Quran, which I also quoted. Quoting original sources cannot be distortion and bile. On the other hand, quoting Robert Spencer is not the most conciliatory thing to do, I'll admit. But I rather have truth with a rough edge to it, than pleasant sounding lies. Ill will is easy to detect, but lies are not, which is why lies are so dangerous. If you weigh the effect of unpleasant truths on the world against the effect of pleasant lies, you will find that lies are far more devastating. For exampe, if the UK authorities claim that Robert Spencer is more dangerous than the hundreds of ISIS jihadists that have returned to the UK, then they are doing a clear disservice to the British citizens. Pointing this out is not bigotd or intolerant. It's common sense.
'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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings L.N.,

L.N. wrote:I believe this is the first mention of "hate speech."
To clarify, any mention I've made in relation to hate speech and associated punishments, pertains to this example provided by Caodemarte...
Caodemarte wrote:When bizarre figures like Robert Bruce Spencer, are quoted (UK Home Office barred Spencer, self declared expert on Islam, from travel to the UK in 2013 for 3 to 5 years for "making statements that may foster hatred that might lead to inter-community violence" ) the intentions of these postings is made clear.
... and not to anything specifically said in relation to this particular discussion. Thus, my point was a general one, moreso than being limited in scope to this topic.
L.N. wrote:Asking whether Muhammad or Jesus or Bahá'u'lláh or any other central figure of a major world religion is "worthy of respect" is probably not the most effective way to discover "what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies."
Maybe, but it does seem a reasonable lens by which to separate that which is meritorious, from that which is demeritorous. If much of Mohammad's legacy falls into the latter of those two categories, then I do not see how that outcome is a failing on the part of members of this forum.
AN 10.94 wrote:"I tell you, venerable sirs, that the Blessed One righteously declares that 'This is skillful.' He declares that 'This is unskillful.' Declaring that 'This is skillful' and 'This is unskillful,' he is one who has declared [a teaching]
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Garrib
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by Garrib »

IMO demonizing Muslims is unskillful.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Muhammad - Worthy of respect?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Garrib,

Of course.
MN98 wrote:"Birth makes no Brahmin, nor non-Brahmin, makes; it is life's doing that mold the Brahmin true. Their lives mold farmers, tradesmen, merchants, and serfs. Their lives mold robbers, soldiers, chaplains, and kings. By birth is not one an out-caste. By birth is not one a Brahmin. By deeds is one an out-caste. By deeds is one a Brahmin."
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Locked