Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AhmadFarooq

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 ... 21
« on: July 26, 2018, 05:35:04 PM »
I would say that the most significant point of interest is: exactly what is meant by a "proven" Hadith. Most things today cannot be proven by absolute certainty, let alone things that happened 1400 years previously. Who gets to decide which narration is "proven" and which isn't? Is it Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Hanbal or Imam Albani? At the end of the day, they are all humans and all their "proofs" are human endeavours.

Now it might be possible that all the Hadiths in all the Sahihs are true (although even most conservative scholars don't believe so), we don't have any way to be sure. No critical thinking Muslim can be expected to believe blindly in all the narrations mentioned, in say Sahih Bukhari, for no other reason than because Imam Bukhari thought they were to be "proven".

If you would like to prove that a hadith is not true in sahih Bukhari, then you should prove that it has not been narrated correctly from the prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).

When Osama Abdullah provides evidence regarding actions mentioned in a particular Hadith being in contradiction with Qur'anic laws, this is exactly what Osama is doing i.e. "prov[ing] that it has not been narrated correctly from the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)." Among the historical criticisms an alleged Hadith is made to go through, include the question of whether the Prophet would have done something that contradicted the Holy Book he was supposed to be preaching, or not?

All hadiths that have been proved to be narrated from the prophet Muhammed (ﷺ) are never in contradiction with the Quran.

Maybe according to your interpretation of the religion. Assuming by "proved" you mean the Sahih Bukhari narrations, as Osama Abdullah points out, the stoning to death punishment for adultery would be one contradiction. The Qur'an specifically mentions the punishment of lashes for fornication and adultery, but the Hadith records stoning as the punishment. Most would see this as a clear contradiction, or at-least re-interpret those particular Hadiths (some scholars argue that the stoning was actually done for the crime of creating corruption in the land, assaults on women, and not adultery).

Furthermore, there are definitely some Hadiths which parallel the Qur'an with regards to historical evidence for their reliability - I would say that such are the strongest argument against the Qur'anists - however, from what I understand, such narrations are comparatively quite few and most refer to prayers and rituals. The vast majority of narrations happen to be Khabr-e-Ahad, like the Prophet advising a few individuals, in his personal capacity, instead of addressing a public gathering.

[An islamophobe's response:] There are contexts to be read by, but often the text doesn’t state the preferred contexts, the text alone without fallible assumed contexts is violence, the history matches the texts.

Another way to respond is to point out the fact that Islam, or any other sufficiently complicated ideology for that matter, has to be taken holistically, as a whole, before any reliable conclusions can be drawn about its teachings.

One group of people, in the service of their interests, can take all the peaceful statements from Islam's primary and secondary sources and represent Islam as a completely pacifist religion; while another group can cherry-pick all the violent sentences and represent the religion in their preferred light. Only when something as complicated as an ideology is taken in its entirety, accurate conclusions regarding its teachings and leanings can be made.

To give a reversed example to what the "islamophobe" was referring to, I can say, that in light of the Qur'anic verse stating: anyone who kills one human being kills all of mankind, Islam is an almost completely pacifist religion. This text does not "state the preferred contexts" that disprove my conclusion, "the text alone without fallible assumed contexts is" peace, "the history", such as the general pardon for the inhabitants at the time of the conquest of Mecca, "matches the texts."

Additionally on a smaller note, some of the terms used by the "islamophobe" are quite fallacious and covertly misleading. "Preferred contexts", such as the contexts preferred by the islamophobe that portray Islam in a negative light. "fallible assumed contexts": Fallible by what measure? All of history is, to some small or large extent, fallible. Assumed by whom? Statements about the context aren't just drawn from thin air, there is usually some argument or some historical evidence to support it. "history matches the texts", except when it doesn't! Such as on the conquest of Mecca, which the islamophobe can quite conveniently, simply choose to ignore.

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Stephen hawking and god
« on: March 20, 2018, 05:15:01 AM »
Should a medical professional's conclusions be directly acceptable when it comes to fields related to material engineering? Usually no; the professional might be completely correct but due to the fact that they haven't studied engineering and is not a scholar in this area, their statements will be met with extreme scepticism and only after reviewing all the evidence and arguments provided in support for that particular conclusion, would the professional's conclusions be potentially in a position to be accepted. Most wouldn't bother with such, and simply ignore whatever the medical professional would have to say on the matter.

In the same way, since (as far as I know) Stephen Hawking was not an expert on religions, his arguments against God's existence should be individually reviewed instead of simply being directly accepted. Only then can a person be logically in a position to conclude whether the late physicist was absolutely correct or completely mistaken.

« on: January 28, 2018, 01:53:50 AM »
From what I've read, Muslim scholars accept that Prophet Muhammad didn't sin but he was capable of making mistakes.
Logically, the "prophet of God the most merciful" should be capable of killing someone if it means protecting others from that someone. In the event that killing is the only option to stop a person who is going to cause death and destruction, or create an effective deterrent against such damage - is it merciful to not kill?
Prophet Muhammad was, aside from being a Prophet of God, a normal human being. He could've needed marriage as much as a normal human being does.

Such is the concept of free-will.

Muslims believe that all humans accepted to go through this test before the beginning of this reality.
Individual humans have to try their best in order to find the truth. If after exhausting all resources, a person still does not find Islam acceptable then this will be taken into account on the day of judgement. What matters is whether a person makes a sincere effort in his query for the truth or does he lives his entire life continuing to ignore his conscience.
If "solid obvious evidence" were to be provided, everyone would be a Muslim and what would then be tested from them?

According to some scholars, God created us to give humanity the opportunity to join Him in eternity.
There is no evidence that God needs us, and frankly I'm always confused regarding the train of thought which forces a person to ask such a question. So... there is a God who has created the entire Universe, but He must need lowly humans? Need them for what, exactly?

Some religious people might close their eyes when science appears to refute religion, but not all of them do so.
Regarding intelligent people, aside from the fact that this is the appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacy, this is also used as a convenient cop-out, used as an excuse to not fulfil one's own personal responsibility to search for the truth.
If "intelligent people" spend most of their lives researching the subjects of science and not those of religion, how exactly are their inferences regarding religion acceptable, or even relevant for that matter?

This is needlessly pedantic…
Not, when you accuse others of lacking critical reasoning when you yourself link to an article that supports your position and not any that go against it.

On its own, there wouldn’t have been a problem with linking to an article which supports one’s position, people do that all the time.
However, you went further; you claimed “both sides are presented”, which is untrue, as Gibson’s response to criticisms against him have been cited but not King’s counter-response. It’s like a scenario in which after my response (my previous one or this one), this topic gets closed and you are restricted from replying. After which, I start advertising on the internet that “both sides are presented” or that everyone got a chance to prove their arguments.

Additionally, only an observation was made when this was pointed out, you were not accused of lying, maliciousness, or arrogance. But instead of accepting it or even ignoring it and just moving on, you couldn’t stop yourself from snubbing it and calling the other person a pedant.

Furthermore, all of this still could’ve been chalked up to an honest inconsequential mistake, but then you went further by accusing someone else of lacking critical intellect, and said “stop thinking, because you can't think. Lol.”
If you are overly emotional about your religion, then don't watch it.

I am not a relativist, things are either true or they are not. Muhammad was not from Mecca, because he just wasn't. Critical thinking isn't your sport... let academic historians do their stuff and then judge from there, stop sprouting misinformation. I linked Gibson's and King's clash, read that and stop thinking, because you can't think. Lol.
In light of the previous points, are you sure “critical thinking isn't your sport.”

I am not into religious apologetics.

If I’m not mistaken, you should realise that pretty much all the responses that have been made to your comments come under the purview of “religious apologetics”.

This is parroted everywhere. Look at the below table from Gibson's book, it largely agrees with the data of the orientations in your linked article. This basically means that after posting your topic here, you don’t really care about the replies. I’m pretty sure that this wasn’t your intention.

I apologise but I don’t understand whether this is supposed to disprove anything or not. From what I understand, pretty much the whole point, or a large part, of Gibson’s response to King’s article was to show how Gibson comes to different conclusions than King using the same basic information. King and others argue the orientation to be inspired by equinoxes/solistices, already present architectural foundations, casual mistakes/coincidences etc. while Gibson’s claims they represent deliberate effort to direct towards Petra.

Rubbish. I will not repeat myself.

I apologise, I missed that you were looking for specific types of evidence and not any evidence that could be provided against the Petra claim.

This dating roughly coincides with the advent of the finalized Qiblah, reinforcing the interests of the Mecca conspirators…

First it was the Abbasids who hatched the elaborate conspiracy and now the Umayyads were in on it too? Abbasids couldn’t accept the Umayyad rule – took over the government, wiped out almost the entire ruling family, fractured the Muslim people – but changing the religion of their entire people, apparently, this they had no issues with. If any evidence that goes against your claim is going to be disregarded and chalked up as being part of the conspiracy, there probably isn’t going to be anything that would have the capacity to convince you.

Assumed conclusions from the hadith literature, salah does not denote a ritual prayer…

So, now I suppose the Salat was a conspiracy too. Out of curiosity, basically what purpose do you think ablution serves which is specifically mentioned in the Qur’an?

This is not our game. I say "Abbasid" for simplicity, what I really mean are the elites in general, because we do not know their dealings fully. Who knows why the Umayyad's would absorb Abbasid reinventions?

So basically, you don’t have any plausible explanation or motivation for the alternate history you are trying to forward. People can’t be expected to believe this alternate version of history if even a pragmatic reason for allegedly one of the most successful and extensive history re-writing campaigns cannot be supplied.

It's like asking why would George Bush want to fly planes into buildings on American soil? No one truly knows (assuming 9/11 was an inside job).

If this is actually what happened, obvious motivations can easily be attributed to it. The Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq and they wanted a plausible reason to do so and for the American people to let it be done. From what I know, money was made due to the Iraq war by Bush administration officials. Bush’ re-election can also be attributed to the war. The American government was able to subvert civil liberties of their people, get rid of the Habeus Corpus, an enemy was needed after the Cold War to keep the funding and innovation going for military and intelligence services (as attested to by multiple US officials). Several plausible rationalities are obvious.

I follow macro-historical data (of which are generally archaeological in nature) and not interjections based upon political micro-translations of a thousand years ago … I use the pre-Islamic macro-historical data and generally disregard the micro-historical data, especially when the micro-historical data takes on a completely different flavour than the macro.

Basically, what you are saying is that you accept some forms of historical evidence but not others. In this particular case being, the type that allows your position to remain alive, but not the type that completely refutes it. Besides, some of the evidence that is used for the Petra claim, comes not under the purview of macro-historical data but under micro-historical form.

You are assuming that there was an iron-rule for the original Qiblah, this is demonstrably not the case when you read the beginning of 2:177 on the Quranic concept of virtue and the historical context of Muhammad's time vis-a-vis the builders of early mosques. The Quran does not favour a racially centric Qilah, details of which can be found in Gerran's translation.

I don’t think there was anything in my quoted reply that appeared to declare that I assumed “an iron-rule for the original Qiblah”. The main point of that paragraph was the question of why protection of centuries old, comparatively irrelevant, Greek texts was possible, but not of any mention of the most important Islamic site. As even without the Hajj or the Salat it would still remain the birthplace of Prophet Muhammad and by extension Islam itself, that is, in addition to all the geographical and archaeological evidence provided in support of Petra being the original Makkah.

… Arguably bigger, if true.
If it were true.

Bart Ehrman, a famous Bible scholar, pointed out in one of his debates, that the only surviving manuscript of the New Testament from the first three centuries consisted of only a few verses. Additionally, we have pretty much no information about the humans from whom we get various New Testament books, we don’t even know their names. Additionally, the text went through a translation process from its original language which then became the widely available format. If similar issues persist with the Old Testament, then it would require the collusion of only a handful people at a certain point in time for such an extraordinary reinvention of history to become a reality. Additionally, the Jewish people were also not propagating their religion to others, which would’ve made an internal conspiracy more plausible. Possible or not, such a scenario still remains unlikely. Not being a scholar on the issue, is the only reason I don’t provide more of an absolute rejection of this idea.

On the other hand, Islamic scripture, for the most part, did not have any of these problems. Islam was not limited to one particular community, its followers became the dominant force over an extensive area in a short time period, major proselytizing work was involved, hundreds, if not thousands, of people, have been recorded to be involved in the works which provide us with the traditionalist history of Islam. Their names, characters, geographic locations have been recorded and even comments about their memories have been made. No major translation efforts can be pointed out that would have afforded the opportunity for such a drastic reinvention of history. Individuals involved with collecting Islam’s history were at times severely disliked by the government, case in point would be of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, author of the most extensive collection of Hadiths, but also one put in jail and allegedly tortured by his Abbasid ruler. Additionally, unlike the Old Testament times, this is also the time from which numerous historical records survive and when literary activities became much more frequent, not only for Muslims but for Jews in Spain as well. In light of all these points and many more, no, I don’t believe a potential Jewish reinvention of history would be a “bigger” achievement.

Numerous forum topics have been opened regarding the same subject. I suggest limiting responses to one, this one as it is the most replied-to.
If anyone wants intelligently presented debates/rebuttals between King and Gibson ... read: ... Both sides are presented...
"Both sides are presented" are not accurate words to attach to a rebuttal work. In the absence of a response by David A. King it is quite inaccurate to claim that "Both sides are presented".

A relevant article, The Qibla Of Early Mosques: Jerusalem Or Makkah?, rebuttal to an argument which can be claimed to be the intellectual predecessor of the Petra claim. Another relevant article, Ka'bah As A Place Of Worship In The History

A relevant quote,
And in those days Heraclius saw a dream in which it was said to him : «Verily there shall come against thee a circumcised nation, and they shall vanquish thee and take possession of the land». So Heraclius thought that they would be the Jews, and accordingly gave orders that all the Jews and Samaritans should be baptized in all the provinces which were under his dominion. But after a few days there appeared a man of the Arabs, from the southern districts, that is to say, from Mecca or its neighbourhood, whose name was Muhammad; and he brought back the worshippers of idols to the knowledge of the One God, and bade them declare that Muhammad was his apostle; and his nation were circumcised in the flesh, not by the law, and prayed towards the South, turning towards a place which they called the Kaabah. And he took possession of Damascus and Syria, and crossed the Jordan, and dammed it up. And the Lord abandoned the army of the Romans before him, as a punishment for their corrupt faith, and because of the anathemas uttered against them, on account of the council of Chalcedon, by the ancient fathers.
– The History Of The Patriarchs Of Alexandria, c. 96 - 97 AH / c. 715 CE.
Source: B. Evetts (Trans & Ed.), "History Of The Patriarchs Of The Coptic Church Of Alexandria - Peter I To Benjamin I (661)", in R. Graffin & F. Nau (Eds.), Patrologia Orientalis, 1904, Volume 1, Librarie de Paris, pp. 492-494. (Cited in Dated And Datable Texts Mentioning Prophet Muhammad ﷺ From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE)

If someone can do the work, it will be interesting to see whether the oldest surviving Hadith manuscripts which also predate the Abbassids include any mention of Mecca or not.

Important to remember at this point is that the Qibla, due to the Muslims performing five prayers each day has the foundational importance of a magnitude so as to make hoodwinking hundreds of thousands of Muslims quite difficult, if not practically impossible.

Additionally, another side-point to add is the fact that by 50 years after the Prophet's death, the Arabs had taken over the Persian empire, therefore strong Islamic influence and its knowledge had reached from the borders of India to Egypt. In around a century after the Prophet's death Muslim rulers, religious influence and the knowledge of Islam had reached up-to-the Iberian peninsula (i.e. Spain). All this happened before the Abbassids even came to power and therefore before any alleged burning of libraries by the Abbassids.

Basically the Petra-truthers claim is that somehow, against all odds, the Abbassid efforts to subvert Islam in one of the most fundamental ways possible was so absolute, so comprehensive that they managed to remove the mention of the original Qibla from the hearts and minds of not only all the Muslims of their time, which by now should number in the hundreds of thousands, but also from the minds of hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims especially Persians who had just lost their centuries old empire to the Arabs and were, quite understandably, especially bitter about it.

Furthermore, the Ummayyads were ruling in Spain while this supposed Abbassid inquisition is taking place, who had, just a few decades previously, been overthrown in a bloody coup by the Abbassids. A coup which included incidences of brutality, such as barring one male, all members of the deposed Caliph's family getting eliminated. Exactly what extraordinary theory do the Petra-truthers have, to explain as to why even the deposed surviving Ummayyads accepted the Abbassids re-invention of religion? Co-incidentally, this Spain also has a culturally and intellectually vibrant Jewish community which, according to the Petra theory, apparently had also been completely convinced by the Abbassids even though they were pretty much completely beyond the reach of the Abbassid power.

Moreover, making the Abbassids as the conspirators in this elaborate scheme is even more problematic since their time was one of the most intellectually rich times for that region. Supported by facts such as The Abbasids’ House of Wisdom in Baghdad. So, basically, the Muslims and people of other faiths of those regions were able to save centuries-old Greek works but found themselves completely incapable of saving a single mention of Petra as the Qibla.

Such extraordinary efficiency of a government is absolutely unprecedented and unheard of, well aside from fiction that is.

Assuming the question was regarding the image of an fatwa by Sistani allowing bestiality, see Legal status of bestiality in Islam#The Sistani Fatwa

I remember Shabir Ally also mentioning this in one of his lectures on the numerical relationships in the Qur'an. He said something of the sort that the "even/odd" relationship got established in a natural way, that the total number of verses wasn't already accepted and the 6,236 number was the one Muslims generally accepted by the 20th century. I always assumed that he was talking about only the difference of opinion on the matter of whether Bismillah... (at the beginning of almost all Surahs) should be counted in the total number of verses or not. The above citation shows that there was more to it.

I find it odd that there is resistance to accept this idea. Shabir Ally considered this as a strength of the "even/odd" relationship; an additional evidence for the uniqueness of this phenomenon. The most valid/popular criticism of the "even/odd" relationship has been that this was designed by whoever the human author of the Qur'an was  (i.e. Prophet Muhammad). Unlike other relationships like the "golden ratio" one, a human could easily have designed and structured the Qur'an to conform to this "even/odd" relationship. All that human would've needed to know was addition.

However, the idea that the Qur'an didn't have a universally accepted number of verses, provides evidence that no human knew about this "even/odd" relationship prior to its discovery in the 20th century.

If Prophet Muhammad had himself painstakingly worked to create the "even/odd" relationship, even if we were to accept that for some reason he chose not to disclose it and therefore risk wasting all his hard-work; it becomes quite difficult to accept that he would further choose to not even, at the very least, disclose the total number of verses either.

At this point the critics' claim devolves to as follows, Prophet Muhammad himself designed the structure of the Qur'an in order to conform to these mathematical "miracles" and then, apparently, he did pretty much everything to make sure that no one found about it.

« on: September 27, 2017, 11:09:02 PM »
The reddit post says pretty much what I meant. There is a difference of opinion. As the IslamiCity article mentions:
Some people refer to the Hadith of Um Warqah who was allowed by the Prophet -peace be upon him- to lead the Salat. According to the Sunan of Abu Da'ud, the Hadith says: "Umm Waraqah wanted to accompany the Prophet to the battle of Badr, but the Prophet told her to stay in her home." Further in this Hadith it is said that the Prophet used to visit her in her home. He appointed a person to give Adhan for her and he told her to lead the prayer for the people of her house (Ahl dariha). Abdur Rahman ibn Khallad (the reporter of this Hadith) said, "I saw her mu'adhin who was a very old man." (Abu Da'ud 500). In another reports of this Hadith it is said that the Prophet told her to lead the prayers of the women of her house (nisa' dariha). (Reported by Dar Qutni).
Some Muslim scholars interpret this narration for allowance of women to lead prayers for all her family members, and some restrict this only to women. As far as I know, this is the only narrations which even mentions the issue of women leading prayers. Due to non-existence of enough material on the matter, a significant amount of ambiguity has been left on the issue, and external general principles are used by scholars to support the conclusions they reach. In short, I don’t think it can be denied that there exists a difference of opinion on the issue and a group of scholars exists who don’t see a prohibition for women leading the prayers for all her family members.

So either she obeys her husband or seek divorce?

Although, I didn’t mean to say anything along those lines, but from what I understand, this is exactly what happens in marriages.

When the first spouse wants to do something the second spouse doesn’t want him/her to do, there are left only three paths. Either the second spouse compromises and allows the first spouse, OR the first spouse compromises and gives up his/her desire OR they get divorced. From what I understand, there is no other alternative. Most people don’t look at this problem from such an angle, but practically-speaking, this is exactly what happens.

Furthermore, if God wasn’t advocating “destruction of marriages” when He gave the right of divorce to the wife, how can I be encouraging “destruction of marriages” when I simply state this fact. The only thing I did, was to mention a wife’s Islamic right to divorce. When a wife feels that she can no longer continue the marriage, or continue to make compromises, as far as I understand, if she so desires, it is her Islamic right to get a divorce.

If God didn’t accept the fact that there are going to be legitimate reasons when a wife will differ from her husband and she wouldn’t want to compromise, why would God give her the right to divorce? Of course, the first option is to compromise, to reach an amicable settlement; but if that doesn’t work out, the right to divorce is a God-given right.

« on: September 27, 2017, 04:28:29 PM »
I would say there is a significant difference of opinion on this. I have seen Muslim women being “imams”, “judges”, leaders of Muslim majority nations, “teachers to stranger men” and Muslim scholars not having an issue with such state of affairs. Even if women cannot be imams for male congregations, I haven’t seen Muslim scholars having many problems with women being imams for female congregations. Assuming “stranger men” means non-Mahram men, then if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Lady Aisha a prominent teacher whose students included many Sahabah too?

Furthermore, regarding “the woman is bound to her husband's rule in the house”, I have an issue with using the word “bound”. A jailed prisoner is bound to remain in the prison because he/she has no choice. On the other hand, a wife has the choice to take a divorce and leave such restrictions behind. The word “bound” should apply only to a choice-less person.

Additionally, as I mentioned above “the husband can be bound by pretty much any condition or stipulation by his wife through their pre-marital agreement.” By such conditions, if the woman doesn’t want to give up her right to free movement or whatever there is a way for her to do so.

« on: September 27, 2017, 11:29:08 AM »
I might be wrong, but this looks more like an attempt to find an excuse, any excuse, to free the slave rather than favouritism.

If favouritism was indeed the intention, then such preferential statements should be visible in most or every other place Muslims are encouraged to free slaves, however, such is not the case.

« on: September 27, 2017, 11:18:24 AM »
Of course men are superior to women in Islam.

If by this statement the author meant that men are superior to women in all areas of life then I take issue with such a concept. It is true that Islam places the financial responsibilities on men of the family and by default envisages a hierarchal family structure but this is quite incomplete evidence to make the simple and all-encompassing argument that men are superior to women. If this wasn’t the author’s intention then I suggest that it would be further helpful to use more careful wording.

Regarding divorce, as far as I’ve read, the husband can be bound by pretty much any condition or stipulation by his wife through their pre-marital agreement. Many scholars have no issue with the inclusion of a clause to allow women to directly divorce their husbands without having to go through any courts.

In fact, some countries like Pakistan have such a clause by default included in the legal matrimony contract. Because of mainly cultural reasons a lot of times it doesn’t work like it is supposed to, but in cases where culture and government work as they should, it wouldn’t be incorrect to say that at the time of marriage, the bride herself decides whether to keep or give up her right to divorce her husband.

GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: David Wood's new video....
« on: September 22, 2017, 08:57:26 PM »
Regarding the "camel going through a needle's eye" verse, the Qur'an has a very similar verse with one significant difference. Instead of the "rich" people, in the Qur'an "arrogant" people are being chastised.

Indeed, those who deny Our verses and are arrogant toward them - the gates of Heaven will not be opened for them, nor will they enter Paradise until a camel enters into the eye of a needle. And thus do We recompense the criminals. - Qur'an 7 (Al-A'raf):40

Since arrogance is usually associated with the rich, it is possible that the Bible used rich people as a parallel for arrogant people or possibly the verse was corrupted and  "arrogant" was actually the original word used.

« on: September 17, 2017, 02:38:16 PM »
Sometimes certain disingenuous authors draw conclusions beforehand and start searching, high and low, for evidence to support those conclusions. What is being done in these arguments is that several accusations with a lot of accompanying rhetoric are mentioned and then to prove all of them just one supporting "evidence" is presented insincerely cherry-picked from the entirety of Muslim scripture.

This can be observed in the first paragraph, using the event of the Prophet visiting his wives. However, the following testimony which directly contradicts the author's conclusions is ignored:

... `Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet (ﷺ) could."

Regarding the veil for wives of the Prophet, those special rules came to them because of their special status in the society as the hypocrites could have found opportunities to tarnish their characters and thereby hurt Islam in that particular society. Additionally, from what I've read, there were instances that when wives of the Prophet used to go to the fields to relieve themselves, some among the malicious non-Muslims would move towards them and when they got caught, used to make the excuse that they mistook them for their women. For such cases, the veil was introduced, so that those individuals wouldn't have any excuse, and to even be killed if they tried such tactics again.

Furthermore, Allah through the Qur'an gives the wives of the Prophet, the choice to either remain with him and be subject to a special lifestyle (involving additional restrictions) or to leave the Prophet. As the authors of such anti-Islam arguments believe that the Prophet himself authored the Qur'an, they have to accept that the Prophet himself mentioned such allowances. This would directly contradict the accusations of paranoia, insecurity, and jealousy.

Regarding the quoted narration, it is an actual Bukhari narration ( I personally don't see much issue with it, as how are the people supposed to follow the Messenger of God's commands and sacrifice their personal interests if they give preference to their spouses, or their parents, or their children, or their worldly material belongings over God and His Prophet?

The next paragraph presents an extraordinary amount of assumptions as fact, without providing any supporting evidence. "Spurned by his mother", "loveless childhood", "who took pity on him", "spoiled him", "not receiving love", "not receiving discipline", "narcissistic personality disorder", "bereft of conscience", "fantasized about unlimited power", "expected praise and admiration", "took advantage of others", "jealous", "extremely hurt when rejected", "killing those who deserted him", "lied", "deceived", "entitled and justified in doing so".

While all may be traits of narcissistic personality disorder, evidence has not been presented to prove that they were the Prophet's traits. A lot of accusations are made, but it would've been more beneficial if more content was spent on actually proving those assertions than on simply enumerating them.

The next paragraph suffers from the same fault i.e. of no supporting evidence. Furthermore, if the Prophet's brain and psychology was so susceptible that he would accept mundane environment influences as signs of extraordinary, supernatural divinity - then why was this susceptible-ness absent in arguably the most significant supernatural event (for which everyone was a witness to) of his lifetime i.e. the day of the solar eclipse.

Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu`ba:
"The sun eclipsed in the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) on the day when (his son) Ibrahim died. So the people said that the sun had eclipsed because of the death of Ibrahim. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life (i.e. birth) of someone. When you see the eclipse pray and invoke Allah."

The Prophet's alleged vulnerable mind should have quickly and automatically made the connection that a divine power had darkened the mighty Sun, in sorrow and consolation over his son's death.

Regarding the Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) allegation, see my replies here,2598.msg12726.html#msg12726.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 ... 21

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube