I don't think that's a very good definition from either a secular or religious point of view. From a secular point of view, Muhammad is just a man and not a prophet. He has been dead a long time while the religion he started lives on. Since then thousands of imams/scholars/etc have written and taught and preached interpretations of the Koran and a culture has risen up around it based on the beliefs and thinking of millions of people. That's the religion. What some guy who died centuries ago thought doesn't matter anymore. From a religious (Muslim -- and here I'm treading dangerous ground since I don't understand this religion as well as I do others) point of view, Muhammad was a prophet, but just a man. What Allah says is Islam is what matters. Muhammad of course was supposed to be the perfect prophet, making what he wrote in the Koran inerrant. But what he did in his life isn't necessarily inerrant. So, you can read the Koran and adopt the philosophy as best as you can interpret it from the book. But, you shouldn't be looking at Muhammad the man and adopting 'his' philosophy (along with all the things he'd done in his life). He's just a man. It'd probably be some kind of blasphemy to elevate Muhammad to the level of defining the religion.
The Shahada or the 'creed' of Islam that every Muslim must state to be a Muslim is : lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh or There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. The central premise of Islam is acknowledging that Muhammad is the last messenger of god and according to the Quran, he is the BEST example of what a Muslim ought to be. Thus, if he ordered corporal punishments for apostasy and blasphemy it can be assumed that is what Allah intended.
Good logical fallacy. 27: 91-92 [Say, O Muhammad], "I have only been commanded to worship the Lord of this city, who made it sacred and to whom [belongs] all things. And I am commanded to be of the Muslims [those who submit to Allah ]. And to recite the Qur'an." And whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] himself; and whoever strays - say, "I am only [one] of the warners."
Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that the prophet is not the best example of what a Muslim ought to be? Well that throws a wrench at everything I was taught as a child an adolescent at sunday school.
I'm pointing out the irrationality and flawed logic of your statement: "Thus, if he ordered corporal punishments for apostasy and blasphemy it can be assumed that is what Allah intended."
How is it flawed? If Mohammed ordered that, either he was a crook who was not doing what Allah intended or Allah intended this bullcrap. Either way, one of your two heroes sucks.
Please elaborate on the fallacy. How can the actions of the closest representation of a perfect Muslim not be perceived as what Allah intended? Why is the sunnah of the prophet so revered and mimicked? Why do mullahs go as far as still using miswaks to brush their teeth?
In case anyone missed this article and/or needs further clarification, saying that ISIS is not Islamic is completely incorrect. They are as fundamental as Islam can get. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=262677
