1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Nozzi: The biographers you quote depend on the ancient biographers I quote

Reader comment on item: A Saudi Prince's Threat to the Obama Administration
in response to reader comment: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD, THE PROOF OF HIS MERCIFUL

Submitted by Plato (India), May 2, 2009 at 09:09

Nozzi you wrote:

>>I feel a little frustrated when I've heard some bad comments about Prophet Muhammad. In order to prove that Prophet Muhammad was merciful while he was on earth, I extract herewith the history of Prophet Muhammad as below (The words in bold as italic are words extracted from an article, Funk & Wagnalis - New Encyclopedia - 2005 World Alamanic Education Group):<<

This book on Muhammad is by modern biographers. Have you asked yourself where they got their information on Muhammad? Check this book and see the references they give. I can bet you will find they refer extensively to Ibn Ishaaq's biography of Muhammad, Ibn Saad's 'Tabaqat' , the history of Tabari and the sahi hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. .

Funk and Wagnalis as modern writers would have had to use these sources on Muhammad as they are the closest to his time. I try and restrict myself to these original sources on your prophet. Let me now quote some comments from these original sources about their and your prophet:

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637: "Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."

This hadith tells you that the prophet found nothing wrong in Ali raping a captive slave girl.

Bukhari Book 008, Number 3373: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl with them. We then asked Allah's Messen- ger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judg- ment must be born."

In this hadith the prophet gives blanket permission to rape captured slave women.

"BukhariVolume 7, Book 71, Number 589: Narrated Anas: Some people were sick and they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of Medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk." But when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away his camels. The Prophet sent some people in their pursuit. Then he got their hands and feet cut and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. I saw one of them licking the earth with his tongue till he died. "

Can you call this a merciful act. Could the prophet not have given them a merciful death instead of torturing them till they died slowly and painfully?

In Muhammad's time (c. 570-632), the Arabian Peninsula was inhabited by nomadic Bedouins engaged in herding and brigandage, and by city-dwelling Arabs engaged in trade. The religion of the Arabs was polytheistic and idolatrous. Nonetheless, an old tradition of monotheism, or at least a belief in a supreme deity, existed. Jewish and Christian communities probably contributed to a growing receptivity to monotheistic doctrines, although Judaism nor Christianity proved attractive to the Arabs. A number of monotheistic preachers preceded Muhamad but had little success.

>>My explanation: From the above statement, we could come to the conclusion that Arabs were surrounded by pagans.<<

What kind of conclusion is this? The majority of Arabs were pagans. Muhammd himself was one until he morphed into the messenger of Allah.

Muhammad began his ministry at the age of 40, when, he claimed, the archangel Gabriel appeared to him in a vision. Muhammad confided to his family and close friends the substance of this and succeeding visions. After four years he had converted some 40 persons to his views, and he thena began to preach openly in his native city of Mecca. Ridiculed by the Meccans, he went in 622 to Medina. Muhammad soon held both temporal and spiritual authority, having been recognized as a lawgiver and prophet. Arab and Jewish opposition to him in Medina was crushed, and war was undertaken against Mecca. Increasingly, Arab tribes declared their allegiance to him, and Mecca surrendered in 630. At his death, in 632 Muhammad was the leader of an Arab state growing rapidly in power.

>>My explanation: It is mentioned above that Prophet Muhammad met an angel at the age of 40.<<

How did you come to the conclusion that Muhammad met an angel from the statement "Muhammad began his ministry at the age of 40, when, he claimed, the archangel Gabriel appeared to him in a vision. Muhammad confided to his family….?

All it says is Muhammad CLAIMED Gabriel appeared to him. If I claimed Archangel Michael appeared to me and told me Allah had abrogated his decision to make Muhammad the seal of prophets and has decided to install me as His absolutely last messenger would you believe me and if not why not?

Allah does reserve the right to abrogate His verses in the Koran by: 013.039 YUSUFALI: Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book

016.101 YUSUFALI: When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

It is possible for Allah to reveal to me through Michael a better revelation than the Koran. Is there anything that can prevent Allah from making me His latest messenger? He has left Himself loopholes to abrogate the Koran with 13:39 and 16:101.

>>After receiving the message from an angel, Gabriel, he did not slaughter all his surrounding pagans one by one. Instead, it is mentioned that Muhammad confided to his family and close friends about the visions. Or in other words, he began to preach the message from Allah to them.<<

You simply don't seem to understand that with a handful of followers Muhammad was in no position to slaughter the pagans. He began his killing spree only when he had enough armed men under him in Medina.

>>After four years of his preaching, there were about 40 muslim converts. To get 40 muslim converts within four years such a long period, we could imagine how mericul that Prophet Mufhammad was.<<

The prophet was being prudent, not merciful, in not trying to murder the pagans around him.

He wanted the pagans to be saved and that was he involved actively in preaching to the pagans so as to patiently wait for the repentance of the pagans. He was not such a cruel man that liked to slaughter the pagans. Instead, he took time to reach out to the pagans and he's got 40 muslim followers in total within four years.

>>…..However, muslim extremists mis-interpret that Prophet Muhammad was a cruel man so much so they want to kill the pagans without sharing the message of Allah from the Holy Quran to them.<<

Are you are implying that after Muhammad had shared the message of Allah and if the pagans still worshipped idols he was justified in killing people? Your extremist brothers seem to think so as the message of Allah has now been conveyed to almost all of humanity over the past 1400 years.

>>As mentioned in those words in bold that the Meccans began to ridicule him after four years later when Prophet Muhammad decided to preach openly in his native city of Mecca.<<

Your historian has got it wrong. It was Muhammad who started the ridicule business when he started telling the Meccans that worshipping their beloved idols was a crime against his Allah. He was left in peace by the tolerant pagans until he began intrusively preaching his religion.

Ibn Isahq reports (The Life of Muhammad, translated by Guillaume) page 119 that the pagans complained to Muhammad's uncle "O Abu Talib your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion and mocked our way of life…" Nozzi, as a Muslim would you tolerate anyone insulting and cursing Allah or Muhammad? And Muhammad did this for ten years without much harm coming to him from the tolerant pagans.

>>Arab and Jewish opposition began to crush him in Medina.<<

Really?? Muhammad sent some killers to Nakhala to raid an Arab caravan. He personally went to loot Abu Sufyan's caravan at Badr. The Arabs of Medina did not oppose his raiding expeditions. He exiled or killed all the Jews of Medina on the flimsiest of excuses. Who crushed whom? Get real Nozzi.

>>Or in other words, non-muslims were the first to trigger off their war against Prophet Muhammad.<<

Show me one incident which shows non-Muslims triggering a war against Muhammad. I am quite certain that your favourite historians will be unable to demonstrate this.

>> As the war began from the Meccans, it implies that Prophet Muhammad had no choice but to fight so as to protect muslim religions. Or in other words, the war was triggerred off from the pagans.<<

I have mentioned the Nakhala incident in which your Prophet drew first blood by attacking a peaceful caravan traveling hundreds of kilometers away from his location in Medina. Muhammad also set out with a large force to capture a rich caravan being led by Abu Sufyan at Badr. Ibn Ishaq Page 289: "Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan b. Harb was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Quraish, containing their money and merchandise accompanied by thirty or forty men….he summoned the Muslims and said, 'This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.'…..

Either you are ignorant of Muhammad's raids or you are doing taqia. The violent attacks by Muhammad are reversed and the pagans are accused of beginning the violence against Muslims by people like you. You are typical of other Muslims who make this DISHONEST claim.

>>However, Muslim extremists abuse the Holy Quran to start their fighting with the pagans even though non-muslims are not those that begin their fighting with them.<<

It is not extremists who abuse the Koran. They know the real history of the prophet and the contents of the Koran which requires Muslims to fight unbelievers. Read Koran 9:29 which begins with "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day….

>>We, moderate muslims, act the same as Prophet Muhammad.<<

No you do not! I have demonstrated using original sources that Muhammad attacked without provocation when he was in Medina. You are not following Muhammad's example. The so-called extremist Muslims are being more faithful in following your Prophet's violent activities.

>>We don't fight if non-muslims do not start their fighting with us first. However, if non-muslims start their battle with us, we will fight back so as to protect our mosques and to defend our muslim fellows.<<

I have demonstrated many times that you are deluded (or is it taqia?) in thinking that non-Muslims are the ones who are aggressive. Your prophet was himself involved in as many as 70 gazwas and caravan raids.

>>Bear in mind that Prophet Muhammad did not fight with the Meccans and were actively involving in preaching to 40 followers within the first four years. The war began when Prophet Muhammad began to preach publicly in which Meccans stirred up fire with them <<

I have shown you that it was Muhammad who stirred up fire with the Meccans by abusing and cursing their religion and gods. He also began slaughtering people afte he reached Medina. Nozzi, you know zilch about your prophet and his violent nature.

Regards

Plato

.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Nozzi: The biographers you quote depend on the ancient biographers I quote by Plato

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)