Mohammed the historical figure

Even when there are hadiths like the ones he posted that scholars don't like to hear, where Muahammad decreases the importance of his hadtihs vs the Quran? The Quran also says to use common sense or logic (qiyas/aqal iirc) so when educated Muslims know that many of these sayings are centuries past Muhammad's death, that information has a tendency to be like a game of telephone, how can one say that should be held with same regard as the allegedly divine Quran?

 

You know how every song that can be written already has been? The same is true for religion. You can list off the people who Jesus resembles: Mithra, Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, Krishna, Zoroaster, etc. Of course, the atheists and the theists have different explanations for why this is the case. Either the Christians stole from other religions or the coming of Jesus was written into the soul of humanity and echoed before he came (probably poorly worded, but that's the general idea I've seen).

And when you look closely at Judaism, it appears that Judaism was at one point polytheistic, and was at one point retrofitted for monotheism. A bunch of the demons and whatnot are god from other polytheistic religions. For instance, Beelzebub is Ba‘al Zebûb.

So really, everything is ripped off from/presages everything else.

Additionally in the specific case you mention, Mohamed's wife's cousin was a Christian which apparently is how he knew details about Christianity, but apparently her "brand" of Christianity was kind of fringe at the time and many of the things that she believed have since been discarded by Christianity altogether. For instance, I think there are references to some of the fringe books that were rejected from the Christian Bible and the commonly agreed upon apocrypha.

 

According to my professors, Islam's several thousand prophets could've been founders of many religions (including some names you posted like Zoroaster) and that Islam has no problem with this. The similarities, or perceptions of influence, of other religions with Islamic teachings is valued and part of its "this is the final perfected form of an idea that has been here since the dawn of time".

 

Great post. This is one of the point that my friend told me about how pretty much one religion took from other religions. From what I can remember is that they took it from Hinduism. This is one of the reason why the Quran totally contradict itself since it borrowed from all aspects of religions before it and trying to weave it into something that could be coherent.

 

How is that a contradiction?

 

There are a list of some contradictions/inconsistencies in the Quran if you care to Google them. It could be due to the fact that it took verses/quotes/stories and ect. from other religions and slap and twisted them together a little too carelessly.

 

Would it help you much if I said that I am very interested in the topic at hand, and so far SJC is staying respectful. I would understand your POV if I read any irony or any sarcasm in his posts, but I dont, and since he does have some of the muslims that I respect most participating in here, Id really appreciate it if you guys would allow this thread to run its course.

 

Sorry, I probably didn't make it clear enough. Of course the Quran has precedence over any other Islamic book. The scholars who actually gathered all the Hadith from the Sahaba's (people that were always with/around the Prophet and saw and heard things he did and said) from all over the world made it clear that if any of their Hadith contradicts the Quran, then go with what the Quran says.
What I meant to say was that in the Quran it mentions that we must follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (things he said and the way he did things). We have different classes of Hadith classified as either strong or weak (depending on the chain of narration). The one's that Mathloom posted were from Sahih Muslim which is considered to be part of the strong, authentic Hadith. But I never came across that Hadith nor did I correctly understand it because it goes way over my head. That's why we should not even read any Hadith unless we read it with commentary from the scholars who have spent their whole lives trying to understand these Hadith.

 

It's pretty obvious you're an Islam hater (Religion hater?) and that you have nothing to contribute to this thread except for your whole "contradictions/inconsistencies" argument which keeps going in circles. If you really believe so, please try to actually provide some proof or basis to your argument rather than asking us to do it ourselves.

 

Just an FYI: Wikipedia is not always accurate nor is it allowed as an academically acceptable reference if you are researching a particular topic, especially one as specialized as early Islamic history in the Arabian peninsula.

Some major figures in Sunni Islam have in recent years gone back and researched this specific topic of the age of Aisha upon her marriage. According to most of them, Aisha could not have been less than 14 or 15 upon her marriage, and was by no means a minor (there are Hadiths and other historical statements which they use as supporting evidence). According to one of the leading Al-Azhar scholars, Sheikh Khalid Al-Gendy, who is very well-known and respected leading scholar of Al-Azhar (the oldest and most respected research and educational institution in the Sunni Islam world), the age of Aishah was no less than 14 or 15 by most modern estimates, and we know for a fact that she consummated her marriage 5 years after her nikah, which puts her close to 19. This is widely accepted as reliable information among Al-Azhar scholars today and other Sunni scholars in the Muslim world, and here is some of what they wrote as evidence:

More historical evidence quoted from the website:

http://www.aaiil.org/text/acus/islam/aishahage.shtml

 

Islam hater? So what are you, Islam lover? It's so obvious that Mohammad did not heard the words from God.

 

Considering that Islam was not meant to be a radically unique or a new message but rather the finalizing and corrective message of God to all of mankind, and considering that Muhammad was merely the last of the prophets and not the only one and that he carried the same message to the people which God tasked previous prophets with, and considering that Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the one to write the Quran himself, but rather that it is the direct spoken word of God (in first person, I mean), then yes, it would make sense that God would plagiarize himself

The core of the message: radical monotheism (the unquestioned oneness of God, whom some refer to as the Abrahamic God), doing good deeds and abstaining from the few things strictly forbidden in this life.

The above, of course, is what Muslims themselves believe, and not what others believe about Islam or Muslims.

 

I mentioned you directly in my first post in this thread, then thought better of it. In the intervening time, you have shown why I singled you out, so I will say it again.


Are you smart enough to get out of this thread when asked nicely or do I need to be a dick about it?

 

If you already believe what you believe and obviously just came to this thread to unload some more anti-Islam propaganda, then why even bother with this thread or these type of discussions? Are you basically intent on bashing Islam repeatedly and doing it enough so that you might convince some Muslims to see things your way? Are you preaching? What is the point of coming to an educational topic about a very specific thing (the historical Muhammad) and then saying things like "the koran is full of contradictions" and mention how "obvious that Mohammad did not heard the words from God", and worst still that you never back up your statements with reliable evidence? What do you seek to accomplish?

 

alright, no problem. i don't get on here much but i gave a cursory glance to the thread and it seems as if some of the other posters are answering any questions that you may have.

i would like to say this though. as muslims we believe that the main reason islam was revealed to the holy prophet via the angel gabriel was because the original teachings of all the prophets, from adam to abraham to moses to jesus had become corrupted/changed.

for example, muslims believe that jesus never preached that he was the son of god, lord of the people, etc. over time, the original teachings of jesus changed to the point that it was necessary for god to send another revelation to all of mankind, and muhammad was chosen for that task.

the fundamental purpose of muhammad's message, via god, was to teach to mankind again that god was one and that he had no partners/sons. in arabic, this is referred to as tawheed, or the oneness of god. moreover, even our shahada or creed or statement of belief is "there is no god but god and muhammad is his messenger."

so in order to make sure that this teaching - that god is one, no person, thing, can be partnered with him - remained pure, a number of rules or restrictions were put in place. one prime example being that there could be no pictures or drawings that depicted god or muhammad for fear that people may begin to worship these. another example being the prohibition against bulding statues or sculptures devoted to people (thats why hakeem didnt want statute of himself in front of the toyota center).

my point in saying all this is that ultimately, at the end of the day, islam came down to reestablish one thing - that god is one, and nothing else is worthy of being attributed to him, partnered with him, or worshipped alongside him.

regards

 

The Quran says to follow the Prophet as an example and to listen to what he says.

If we don't have an accurate account of what he says, do we then listen to the "best available record"?

Remember, God's rules have to be perfect. That means zero errors. So if the hadith has an error in it, then it is not perfect, and therefore should not be followed as divine law.

We follow the Prophet's example. That means, if/when he says grow your beards to differentiate from the mushrikeen: the way we follow him is by not imitating mushrikeen. But these days, how do they follow him? Everyone grows their beard as if that's sunna. When I ask "What if the mushrikeen start growing their beard? Doesn't that mean growing your beard is imitating mushrikeen?" That kind of rule is not from God, because God's rules are designed to apply forever without conflicting with human values, whereas the hadith is rife with rules that do not and cannot apply forever.

Last and most important: The Prophet is not infallible (ma39oom). God said to follow the messenger... not the Prophet, not Muhammad. He said to follow the messenger. That means follow what he says about the Quran. Then it says follow his example, and that he is the best exampler. What does that mean? It means take the Quranic rules and apply them to your circumstances.

Do you speak Arabic? This guy speaks so well and he's very rational. I agree with a lot of what he says, and he discusses what we're talking about very well.. Watch a few minutes, see what you think. I always say though, if you're not confident in your faith, make sure you write down questions and ask someone you trust later. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaTFKCKKcI

 

Frankly, even second in line, is too close. There is no book like it. God said it in the Quran. Tell them to bring a book like it. We have protected it. Tell them that if they try to make such a thing, in it they will find many contradictions.

The Quran is a book that does tashree3 i.e. it's legislation on each person who accepts it. If Muhammad PBUH could do that, he would've done it before the Quran. If God inspired it, then God would've put it in the Quran. If we were going to decide for ourselves that we could make a book accurate enough to follow to the letter and follow it as we do God's book, something is wrong IMO.

I urge you. Instead of ignoring the example hadiths I posted, find out more about them.

Also consider this: If the scholars are all wrong about the method of following hadith, how would you ever know? Since scholars have already bought into the idea and don't question it, are you under the impression that the hadith can disprove the hadith? and when the Quran discredits the hadith, we brush it off as a replacement instead of realizing it's an error?

The guy who built the house will never tell you it's made with crappy materials.

 

Interesting

 

Thanks to Mathloom, dmc, sm0d and other Muslim posters for providing so much info. I knew that there were different sects, and that they had different interpretations, but didn't know there was such a big disagreement on not just interpretation but on which texts "count". If there's disagreement on (75%?) of the religious law, they are practically different religions, like Protestants vs Mormons.

Mathloom: Curious what you think of Tariq Ramadan, and if you agree/disagree with his views on Islam, and Islam and its interaction with the non-Islamic world.