Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah - The Life of Muhammad Translated by A. Guillaume

[Timsup2nothin]

Because they are two different books, two different religions, with two different backgrounds.

As for the Christians who want to take the bible literally, they're a relatively new group, I'll go with the traditional view that the Bible is an inspired work, not a direct God produced work like the Koran.

You are claiming that as "traditional"? On any given Sunday in any christian church in the land you will hear the bible called "the word of god." That is absolutely guaranteed.

No one, in any religion, claims that the god of their religion sat down with pen and paper, ever. Almost all of them have some sort of revelation story where someone is inspired to write out the word. All gods employ stenographers.

 

[abradley]

You are claiming that as "traditional"? On any given Sunday in any christian church in the land you will hear the bible called "the word of god." That is absolutely guaranteed.

No one, in any religion, claims that the god of their religion sat down with pen and paper, ever. Almost all of them have some sort of revelation story where someone is inspired to write out the word. All gods employ stenographers.

Are you being serious now or are you still in the discussion for a fun time like last time we met?

If your serious this time and not poking fun, we can discuss.

 

[Atticus]

I am honestly baffled how anyone could read my words and draw the conclusion that I am encouraging hate.

You apparently don't often read what you've written. This is from the thread on antisemitism:

If you are for equal treatment of the sexes and against the suppression of women and girls, if you are for gay rights, for animal rights, for freedom of the individual, for religious tolerance, for secularism, and for free-thought and free speech, you are, per definition, anti-Islam. If you are against the supposed superiority of one group over another based on religious or cultural identity, against honor culture, against stoning, corporal punishment and FGM, and against violence, terrorism and jihad, you are, again, per definition against Islam. Because Islam stands counter to all the values which modern liberal societies adhere to. Not an offbeat interpretation of Islam, not a radical fringe, no, mainstream orthodox Islam, as practised by hundreds of millions of Muslims. That some Muslims don't follow all the instructions laid out in their scripture, that some few Muslims indeed share our secular, liberal values, doesn't change that fact.

It's contradicts what you've written above that you're helping moderate forces to counter the orthodox Islam. That's not what you're saying, you're saying that Islam is bad per se. In essence you're saying: you can't be a Muslim and a good person, Islam is by definition against equality of sexes, gay rights, animal rights, religious tolerance etc.

Your text reminds me of the rabid atheists who justify their hate spewing with the wrongs linked to Christianity: sure you can point out how the Bible tells that women should shut up, and that homosexuality is sin, and you can also point out that these are the justifications that some Christians use. Still, there are tons of Christians who aren't such. It doesn't help to tell them that hating gays is an essential part of Christianity.

My preferred way to speak against those things in Christianity is to point out how the religion doesn't require you to hate gays, or that you don't have to take the Bible literally. That's what I'd prefer with Islam too. You on the other hand say (in essence) that people don't have the option of being peaceful Muslim. When they become such, they're not real Muslims anymore, since they are "per definition, anti-Islam".

As it happens, I had said in that same antisemitism thread that you could find out why Jews are hated by introspection, and the arguments you are dropping there are just the typical arguments of an antisemite:

If you are against the supposed superiority of one group over another based on religious or cultural identity...

This is something I'd expect reading from an antisemitist conspiracy page that points out how the Israel acts the way it does because their faith says they are the chosen people etc.

If you sincerely believe that you're not inciting people to hate, you should take a deep breath and perhaps read some of the posts you've written here. You might be surprised how much you sound like a neonazi.

 

[Yeekim]

So, let me recoup - a guy recommends a biography by an authoritative Muslim hagiographer ... and immediately triggers a massive ad hominem attack?
Real quality discussion, feeling proud of CFC right now.

 

[Funky]

It's contradicts what you've written above that you're helping moderate forces to counter the orthodox Islam. That's not what you're saying, you're saying that Islam is bad per se. In essence you're saying: you can't be a Muslim and a good person, Islam is by definition against equality of sexes, gay rights, animal rights, religious tolerance etc.

I love how instead of going by my own words, you want to tell me that in reality I am saying something else, namely something that I didn't write. How weird is that? Needless to say, I didn't imply that Muslims can't be good people, and it is frankly rather disturbing that you would even come up with such a thought. It says a lot more about you than it does about me.

As for Islam as an ideology being against pretty much every liberal value which we cherish, that isn't an opinion, it is a factual statement. The closer Muslims adhere to the core of their faith, as laid out in the Koran, the hadith and the sira, the more of a problem they are. The more literal their understanding of their scripture, the more we have to worry about them. Many Muslims, especially among those living in the West, are clueless in regard to what their religion teaches. Like many Christians, they have been taught that God is merciful and that it is good to follow certain religious rituals, but they have neither read the Koran nor about the life of Muhammed. And among those who are more familiar with their scripture, there are many who, having been subjected to secularism and humanism, simply ignore or in some way rationalise or re-interpret the barbaric and divisive elements in their religion. These people are not the problem. But as mentioned before, that doesn't change the fact that the ideology itself is disruptive, misogynistic and violent, and that the orthodox interpretation is the mainstream Islam as taught and circulated throughout the Islamic world, which hundreds of millions of Muslims adhere to.

Your text reminds me of the rabid atheists who justify their hate spewing with the wrongs linked to Christianity: sure you can point out how the Bible tells that women should shut up, and that homosexuality is sin, and you can also point out that these are the justifications that some Christians use. Still, there are tons of Christians who aren't such. It doesn't help to tell them that hating gays is an essential part of Christianity.

I went into some length in my last post to outline the three pillar approach to understanding an ideology and pointed out that the second and especially the third pillar are important, and now you are back to talking about the bible? What does that have to do with anything? Christians aren't pushing gays from rooftops. They aren't subjagating their women. They aren't implementing biblical laws and fighting holy wars. Christians don't do these things. What the old testament says is irrelevant if nobody follows it.

When looking at the harm that Islam is causing today, I don't start by reading the Koran to judge the religion. I start by looking at the behaviour of Muslims throughout the Islamic world and notice that to a large extent it is abhorrent. Why do they behave this way? Because they hold extremely problematic beliefs. Why do they hold such beliefs? Because these beliefs are laid out in their scripture and are part of their religious and cultural tradition. I don't see why this is causing so much trouble for you to understand. It is not even hard.

If you sincerely believe that you're not inciting people to hate, you should take a deep breath and perhaps read some of the posts you've written here. You might be surprised how much you sound like a neonazi.

Wait, are you saying that all Nazis are bad? It is quite bigoted of you to paint an entire group with a broad brush. Most Nazis are peaceful people. Only a minority actually commit acts of violence. Yet you are saying that Nazism is bad per se. You are saying that a Nazi can't be a good person. That Nazism is per definition racist and dismissive of other cultures. What you are doing is inciting hatred towards a whole group of people. Sure, you can point out how Mein Kampf is full of antisemitism, and that is a justification that many Nazis use to harrass Jews. Still, there are tons of Nazis who don't engage in such behaviour. So don't be so critical of Nazism. Mkay?

 

[aelf]

So, let me recoup - a guy recommends a biography by an authoritative Muslim hagiographer ... and immediately triggers a massive ad hominem attack?
Real quality discussion, feeling proud of CFC right now.

You must have missed the interesting discussion on historiography, which started in the very first page. Selective reading is typically done with a motive. I wonder what that is.

Also, it's not just "a guy." We know who the guy is. Unless, again, willful ignorance is being exercised.

 

[Atticus]

So, let me recoup - a guy recommends a biography by an authoritative Muslim hagiographer ... and immediately triggers a massive ad hominem attack?
Real quality discussion, feeling proud of CFC right now.

Ad Hominem isn't always that bad thing: If Philip Morris posted the research on the nonexistent harms of smoking here, it would be a good idea to question his motives. Or I don't take seriously Russia Today's news on Estonian human right violations, although some of them probably have factual base. If a poster spammed the forums with them and then opened a thread with a link to some more respectable source, I would question his motives to do so.

I love how instead of going by my own words, you want to tell me that in reality I am saying something else, namely something that I didn't write.

You wrote it here. There's not very many ways to understand it:

If you are for equal treatment of the sexes and against the suppression of women and girls, if you are for gay rights, for animal rights, for freedom of the individual, for religious tolerance, for secularism, and for free-thought and free speech, you are, per definition, anti-Islam.

In case that's too long sentence to understand properly, here's an abridged version:

If you are for [good things], you are, per definition, anti-Islam.

Doesn't leave much room to interpretation, eh?

The oddest thing here is that your message is exactly the same that the ISIS-recruiters are putting forward: that the western values and Islam are incompatible. It's almost like you were trying to help them out.

Picture some poor kid whose parents try to teach him to be a Muslim and to respect the western values. Then there's some ISIS creep that tries to convince him that he isn't Muslim if he doesn't hate gays and women and dogs too. And if that's not enough, his teacher confirms it: "yeah, you can respect human rights, but if you do so you're by definition anti-islam".

That's appalling.

I went into some length in my last post to outline the three pillar approach to understanding an ideology and pointed out that the second and especially the third pillar are important, and now you are back to talking about the bible? What does that have to do with anything? Christians aren't pushing gays from rooftops.

In case you're not just pretending to misunderstand: I wasn't comparing Christians with Muslims, but the structure of your argument to those of the most fanatic anti-Christians.

 

[MilitantSecular]

If we want to understand Islam, shouldn't we just read the Koran?

explain it to me like I am a 4 year old.

There are also sunnah and hadis or hadith and bukhari
Dr Bill Warner a man of logic, math, teaching and history does a good job of breaking it down,
http://www.politicalislam.com/about/
you also get some interesting writing and vids from Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sarah Haider and other apostates, atheists and ex-muslims

I know some Americans will always be big into their Christianity, Shoot 'em bad guys, Jefferson, their Founding Fathers, their Rights for guns, their Cowboy movies....its just part of US culture....so For the yeah haw' kick ass Team 'Murica version, you might start with Ann Barnhardt...I'm not into wars or rightwing and I don't believe in the Bible so I don't bother listening to people like this much. But if you want to you can listen however will I might agree she does have intresting comments on Islam I still would advise taking her with a pinch of salt

Link to video.

 

[warpus]

If we want to understand America, shouldn't we just read the constitution?

 

[HannibalBarka]

I love how instead of going by my own words, you want to tell me that in reality I am saying something else, namely something that I didn't write. How weird is that? Needless to say, I didn't imply that Muslims can't be good people, and it is frankly rather disturbing that you would even come up with such a thought. It says a lot more about you than it does about me.

You are right, what you say is that "A true muslim can't be a good person", so a "Muslim" can be a good person if he is not following the teaching of his religion (and he therefore is not a true Muslim) or he can be a good Muslim that follows the teaching of his religion and end being a bad person therefore. That is exactly what Atticus (I suppose, please correct me if I am wrong) and I before that do not agree with. there is nothing that gives you or any one else for that matter the right to tell a Muslim, that is a "good" person according to your definition, he is not being a good Muslim as well. His way of viewing his religion is his problem, his interpretation is worth as much as yours. You think Islam have to be misogynistic, homophobic, jihadist etc. He does not believe so, What makes your interpretation worth more than his?! that is a fundamentalist view. You are acting like the most extremist Jews against other Jews who they consider bad Jews, You are acting like the most extremist Christians against other Christians who they consider bad Christians, etc.

 

[abradley]

You are right, what you say is that "A true muslim can't be a good person", so a "Muslim" can be a good person if he is not following the teaching of his religion (and he therefore is not a true Muslim) or he can be a good Muslim that follows the teaching of his religion and end being a bad person therefore. That is exactly what Atticus (I suppose, please correct me if I am wrong) and I before that do not agree with. there is nothing that gives you or any one else for that matter the right to tell a Muslim, that is a "good" person according to your definition, he is not being a good Muslim as well. His way of viewing his religion is his problem, his interpretation is worth as much as yours. You think Islam have to be misogynistic, homophobic, jihadist etc. He does not believe so, What makes your interpretation worth more than his?! that is a fundamentalist view. You are acting like the most extremist Jews against other Jews who they consider bad Jews, You are acting like the most extremist Christians against other Christians who they consider bad Christians, etc.

What makes my interpretation better?

Link to video.

I've known many good Muslims, but these incidents occurring around the world by Muslims of every persuasion gives me reason to doubt.

What airliner is safe? No agenda is safe.

No place is safe.


Link to video.

Even disabled people.

 

[warpus]

You're posting something from "The End Time Warriors" ? And you expect people to watch it?

 

[abradley]

You're posting something from "The End Time Warriors" ? And you expect people to watch it?

Don't expect people to watch/read anything I post ... hope they do, who knows? Only the Shadow.

 

[Funky]

Ad Hominem isn't always that bad thing: If Philip Morris posted the research on the nonexistent harms of smoking here, it would be a good idea to question his motives.

Dude, the book which abradley recommended reading is the translation of the first biography of Muhammed, written by Ibn Ishaq around 760. It is this book (and the later shortened version by Hisham from the 9th century) that make up the sira, the life of Muhammed, which together with the Koran and the hadith forms the foundation of Islam. It is viewed as the official biography by historians and has served as the main source for every later biography of Muhammed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

So you can question abradley's motives all you want. It won't change the fact that this book is central to Islamic theology. Reading it will give you a first-hand understanding of the foundation of Islam. And yes, it contains many inconvenient details about Muhammed's life, i.e. how he led over 80 raids with the Al-Saa'alik, his group of thieves, and plundered caravans, killed the merchants and kept the women as sex slaves. How he was a ruthless and power-hungry man, who personally beheaded those who defied him. Or how he raped a little girl at the age of nine, which even for Arabia of that time was utterly abnormal.

I'm sorry that you don't like these details. You are in good company. Moderate Muslims, embarassed by the behaviour of Muhammed, who should serve as a role model for all of humanity, have tried to rationalise his barbarism and repulsiveness through rather astonishing mental gymnastics. What they don't do though is question the veracity of the Ibn Ishaq's work, which should give you an insight into how important this book is for Islamic theology.

In case that's too long sentence to understand properly, here's an abridged version:

Seriously? Is your reading comprehension that limited? I didn't say Islam is against "good things", I listed several specific values which Islam is opposed to, namely equal treatment of the sexes, gay rights, animal rights, freedom of the individual, religious tolerance, secularism, and free-thought and free speech. Because it is. This is not an opinion. Do some research, man. Read the Koran. Look at the surveys. Most importantly, look at how Muslims are behaving. Do you really want to deny that all of the things I listed are greatly lacking in the Islamic world?

The oddest thing here is that your message is exactly the same that the ISIS-recruiters are putting forward

As if this was about the IS. It is not the IS which is putting this message out. The message is being put out by Muslims across the globe, from Morocco to Indonesia, from Somalia to Turkey, and throughout the Muslim diaspora. It's not like they make a secret about these things. This is mainstream, orthodox Islam.

what you say is that "A true muslim can't be a good person"

Sigh. Where did I ever mention the term "true Muslim"? Why is it that in these threads, instead of getting into a real discussion, one is forced to spend one's time to correct the misrepresentations that keep flowing in? I don't care who is a "true Muslim". I don't care what people believe in private and how they identify themselves. What I care about is real world problems and how to solve them.
In the case of the massive problems caused by Islam around the globe, the only solution can be to tackle this ideology. Whether the religion is reformable or not is a different (and very interesting) conversation. But in the context of this discussion I am simply diagnosing the problem. If you are in favour of supporting moderate Muslims and Muslim reformers, the best thing you can do is pull your head out of the sand and start addressing the issue as well. Believe me, I would love it if moderates were producing a strong counter narrative to the Islamist movements. If people like Maajid Nawaz or Hamed Abdel Samad were speaking at Al Azhar University instead of Islamist or fundamentalist crackpots. If the victimisation of women, the practise of sharia, and honour culture were being called into question on a wide scale. But this is not the case. Islamic orthodoxy is as strong as ever. In part because liberals throughout the West will not stand up for liberal values in the Islamic world and help Muslim reformers challenge the theocratic regimes and religious cultures which dominate the Islamic world.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Sigh. Where did I ever mention the term "true Muslim"? Why is it that in these threads, instead of getting into a real discussion, one is forced to spend one's time to correct the misrepresentations that keep flowing in? I don't care who is a "true Muslim".

You wrote that :
As for Islam as an ideology being against pretty much every liberal value which we cherish, that isn't an opinion, it is a factual statement. The closer Muslims adhere to the core of their faith, as laid out in the Koran, the hadith and the sira, the more of a problem they are. The more literal their understanding of their scripture, the more we have to worry about them. Many Muslims, especially among those living in the West, are clueless in regard to what their religion teaches. Like many Christians, they have been taught that God is merciful and that it is good to follow certain religious rituals, but they have neither read the Koran nor about the life of Muhammed. And among those who are more familiar with their scripture, there are many who, having been subjected to secularism and humanism, simply ignore or in some way rationalise or re-interpret the barbaric and divisive elements in their religion. These people are not the problem. But as mentioned before, that doesn't change the fact that the ideology itself is disruptive, misogynistic and violent, and that the orthodox interpretation is the mainstream Islam as taught and circulated throughout the Islamic world, which hundreds of millions of Muslims adhere to.

basically meaning "A true muslim" that is close to the "core of his faith" is bad. Now if you want to withdraw this judgement you're free to do so.

I don't care what people believe in private and how they identify themselves. What I care about is real world problems and how to solve them.
In the case of the massive problems caused by Islam around the globe, the only solution can be to tackle this ideology. Whether the religion is reformable or not is a different (and very interesting) conversation. But in the context of this discussion I am simply diagnosing the problem. If you are in favour of supporting moderate Muslims and Muslim reformers, the best thing you can do is pull your head out of the sand and start addressing the issue as well. Believe me, I would love it if moderates were producing a strong counter narrative to the Islamist movements. If people like Maajid Nawaz or Hamed Abdel Samad were speaking at Al Azhar University instead of Islamist or fundamentalist crackpots. If the victimisation of women, the practise of sharia, and honour culture were being called into question on a wide scale. But this is not the case. Islamic orthodoxy is as strong as ever. In part because liberals throughout the West will not stand up for liberal values in the Islamic world and help Muslim reformers challenge the theocratic regimes and religious cultures which dominate the Islamic world.

And in the context of this discussion I am simply telling you that your diagnosis is not only wrong, as I explained it above, but is also counterproductive. You are not going to "solve" muslims problems while spitting on their faith. Moderate Muslims are paying the blood price fighting against Jihadist and you are telling them that they are of the same kind as the people they are fighting against as long as they keep yelling "Allah Akbar"

 

[Funky]

You wrote that :
(...)
basically meaning "A true muslim" that is close to the "core of his faith" is bad. Now if you want to withdraw this judgement you're free to do so.

Erm, no. Whether a literal understanding of Islamic scripture makes you "true Muslim" or not is not for me to decide, and I frankly find the term to be useless.

And in the context of this discussion I am simply telling you that your diagnosis is not only wrong, as I explained it above

I haven't seen you explain anything, at least not in this thread. I will repeat my question to you which I asked Atticus:
Do you really want to deny that liberal values and basic human rights are greatly lacking throughout the Islamic world? Do you want to deny that these cultures have been shaped by centuries of religious influence?

Moderate Muslims are paying the blood price fighting against Jihadist and you are telling them that they are of the same kind as the people they are fighting against as long as they keep yelling "Allah Akbar"

It is for the sake of moderate Muslims and minorities within the Islamic world that the mainstream orthodox understandings have to be challenged. Is this really so hard? You are doing no good by denying the problem. You are not helping anyone. You are supporting the status quo.

 

[warpus]

You're not going to be helping moderate Muslims by being 100% against all of Islam. The only way for moderates to gain more influence is by having support from other moderates elsewhere.

 

[Funky]

You're not going to be helping moderate Muslims by being 100% against all of Islam.

I am absolutely 100% against Islam, as I am 100% against all religions. But I am also aware of the priorities that reality sets. I would be satisfied for now if Muslims would not want to kill me. If they didn't treat women like crap, and didn't want to impose their religious laws on us. Would be a nice first step. That is how low the bar has gotten.

Ultimately I want to be in a position where I can criticise people like Maajid Nawaz. But, to paraphrase a remark he made, the current battle front doesn't lie between theism and atheism, it lies between secularism and religious dogmatism. So for now I am happy to support Muslim reformers like him and do my own share in raising awareness.

The only way for moderates to gain more influence is by having support from other moderates elsewhere.

Absolutely. That is why it is so crucial to criticise the divisive and violent tenets of Islam and call out the Muslims who adhere to them. We have to stop behaving as if Islam was untouchable. That is why self-proclaimed liberals must stop ducking away every time Islam is criticised. They must stop being cowards and finally man up and face the challenges. If they don't, the discussion will only be further ceded to the political right.

 

[warpus]

All Muslims want to kill you? I really doubt that, not even Rushdie is in that predicament.

Don't oppose Islam, oppose extremists.

 

[HannibalBarka]

I am absolutely 100% against Islam, as I am 100% against all religions. But I am also aware of the priorities that reality sets. I would be satisfied for now if Muslims would not want to kill me. If they didn't treat women like crap, and didn't want to impose their religious laws on us. Would be a nice first step. That is how low the bar has gotten.

A bit paranoid
How are Muslims trying to impose their religious laws on you? I quite am aware that Islamist are trying to impose religious laws, at least their version of it, on Iraqi, Syrians, Maliens etc. But on Germans (I think you 're German)?

Ultimately I want to be in a position where I can criticise people like Maajid Nawaz. But, to paraphrase a remark he made, the current battle front doesn't lie between theism and atheism, it lies between secularism and religious dogmatism. So for now I am happy to support Muslim reformers like him and do my own share in raising awareness.
Absolutely. That is why it is so crucial to criticise the divisive and violent tenets of Islam and call out the Muslims who adhere to them. We have to stop behaving as if Islam was untouchable. That is why self-proclaimed liberals must stop ducking away every time Islam is criticised. They must stop being cowards and finally man up and face the challenges. If they don't, the discussion will only be further ceded to the political right.

I promise to stop being a coward if you stop being a paranoid ;-)
Not agreeing with you on Islam does not make one coward, it's just that one does not think your view are wrong. I won't call a Muslim Kurd or Syrian who is fighting ISIS and still thinks your analysis about his religion wrong a coward, but that is just me