The Truth About Muhammad

Will

This is a recent biography of the Founder of the "religion of peace". He was not a very peaceful person and thus his religion has never been that peaceful. "Submission" is a more accurate translation of Islam.

At any rate, all non-Muslims and modern Muslims who wish to reform some aspects of their faith, should read this book. It is based on traditional Muslim biographies.

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281

Here is a book review: http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061014-102317-6886r

Sabine

Islam has always seemed a bit...odd to me. It's kinda sad that it took terrorist attacks to raise awareness of the religion's power, but I'm glad that there's more literature like this available nowadays, or else I'd still be clueless.

RaDmaTist

After reading about the book, I find myself angered by the sudden extreme that is being portrayed.

The book seems determine to place the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light and I hope I have the permission from my fellow friends on this forum to say what I have to say, not becuase I'm a Muslim myself, but for the sake of preventing any misunderstanding.

I have been enrolled in a religious school since young and we were taught (not indoctrinated) various subjects. One of the subjects available was Sirah, and it teaches about the past of our religion and how it grew. Prophet Muhammad was shown to us as one whose heart was clean and pure. Yet, at the same time, we were also taught about the various wars that were fought for Islam. From young I have read about the various battles and there was not much attempt to disguise the fact that there was indeed violence back then. However, is this enough to show that Muhammad was a violent man himself. He had compassion for everyone, even those who were not Islam. Why else are we taught not to chide other faiths but instead to embrace everyones and show no hatred.

Prophet Muhammad wafat during the month of Rabiulawal and the year 11 hijrah at the age of 63. Even in the moment of the sickness and suffering, he made a few actions that one would not link to a violent figure. He adviced the Muslim community to remain faithful to our religion and not to be arrogant or proud. He even asked for his gold to be donated as he did not want to die with the gold still under his name.

Yet, from the book, we seem to be able to 'learn' that "The truth about Muhammad's multiple marriages (including one to a nine-year-old) - How Muhammad set legal standards that make it virtually impossible to prove rape in Islamic countries - How Muhammad's example justifies jihad and terrorism - The real "Satanic verses" incident (not the Salman Rushdie version) that remains a scandal to Muslims - How Muhammad's faulty knowledge of Judaism and Christianity has influenced Islamic theology--and colored Muslim relations with Jews and Christians to this day" and the "true nature of Islam".

While there was indeed war in the past, it cannot be compared with now. It is clear that we, Muslims do not go around holding weapons and attacking anyone freely. In fact, our religion itself forbides murder. In Singapore, you see the clear existance of Malays, Chinese, Indians and other religions and races together in harmony. Yes, there might have been traces of violence of war in the past but right now, what is being witness is an act of terrorism not an act of pure Islam. We believe in peace and that is the way. In fact, terrorism alone is a threat to us. A bomb does not distinguish from a Muslim and a Non-muslim before exploding.

My point is, why is there a need for a book to turn the negative spotlight on one party. Peace in essence should be everyones principle

While there is no malice of offense in this post, I cannot hide my displeasure of the book and the fact that there really is such acts in the world today. I apologise if there is discontent against this and once again, I say, i'm still learning and so are you.

-RaDmaTist

Simonthepilgrim

RaDmaTist, dear friend,

Thank you so much for your spirited defence of the Prophet (pboh). It is a sad fact that some of those who oopose different faiths turn to insulting the founders, often in the name of historical 'truth'. Very little that is useful or edifying comes from such endeavours. The message is never truly damaged even when the messenger is vilified.

It is particularly appropriate that we should celebrate the beauty and power of the message of the Q'ran now, at the end of Ramadan, when we are reminded how important a life of practice has again become for the umma.

Will

This book is small, 200 pages or so, and so far, (I am about half-way through) pretty dry & scholarly. It is also totally based on the best & most authoritative Muslim sources. So there is nothing new to a well-read Muslim; but to this non-Muslim, Muhammad seems very ordinary - not spiritual (maybe mediumistic) or bodhisattvic at all.

federica

I think what we're trying to tell you here Will, is that whatever may be may well be, but our focus is on the good, and even though we don't ignore the bad, we prefer to accentuate the positive.
we see and know that there is good in all. Even if not apparently transparently obvious, it is there to be found....That's what we choose to home in on.

ajani_mgo

I find the publication of this book rather disturbing, not as in per se, but rather the direction of the work that is.

What I may find disturbing, is that so far to the little-read me, that his works seem to focus on fundamentalist Islamism. A September-dated work is this book, I believe. Some time ago, my local paper ran an article, originating perhaps from elsewhere around the world, that what was missing in the War Against Terror was above all, Moderate Muslims.

Moderate Muslims hold a significant advantage, and role in the War, despite being neglected and left-on-shelf by American operatives, as I currently see. Every infiltration into enemy operations seem to involve CIA agents who are either extremist or posing as one. The American public (well, most of the, rather ) STILL, after 5 years of the incident, seem to be having trouble aiming their pointed fingers to the correct group of he world.

Very sadly, Robert Spencer seems to write as though there is only one group of Muslims in the world - the Fundies! (Well, not to mention that fundies elsewhere also believe that they are the ONLY ONE GROUP of truth-bearers in the world ) Such literature, I believe, might not possibly injure the repute of our Director of JihadWatch, but instead misinform our American public! (Darn, I'm speakin' like an American here!)

I quote from the JihadWatch website:

Jihad (in Arabic, "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam.

This is at least politically correct... Thank... Him!

But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

Still alright...

But while their content in accurate, their direction seems not to be... In fact, from the website, it seems that they have neglected the existence of moderates. The entire site focuses on fundies and their views of the West and apostasy.

Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. We hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.

True, but you guys have forgotten the moderates exist!! The website also features central articles meant at advocating free speech, frequently brining up the Danish cartoons and showing them to surfers, but where has all their sensitivity gone to? Perhaps really, the moderates have ceased to exist in their eyes, and perhaps this is why the most important weapon in the War, the moderates themselves, still lay bench-warming.

Although not an American myself, I have to say that this saddens me, indeed! Someone correct me if I may be wrong in any part...

Simonthepilgrim

I am not sure whether "moderate Muslim" is a really useful label. These are, in my experience, mainstream Muslims. We don't speak about "moderate Christians" - perhaps because the fanatics have grabbed the microphone. To characterise some as "moderate" ignores the reality that the bulk of the Umma is neither Arab nor jihadist.

Personally, I refer to the terrorists as "jihadists" if they are (ab)using Islam for their cause, or "crusaders" if they do the same with Christianity. I wish to insult neither the Prophet (pboh) nor Jesus by associating their particular brand of spirtitual life with indiscrimate slaughter or abusive language and actions.

Will

One reason the Islamic moderates are paid less attention to by Spencer is because they say little and do even less to oppose the jihadists. Part of their problem in being so passive is some are quietly sympathetic, some are just indifferent and some know well & fearfully that Islamic tradition forbids criticism of Islam by Muslims.

Recall the Afgan Muslim man who converted to Xtianity? He was given, only after much international pressure, asylum in Italy. Now the Taliban have kidnapped an Italian and wish to swap him for the apostate, so the latter can be killed, as Islamic tradition provides.

ajani_mgo

True, Simon, but it is regrettable that the press of today uses such "moderate" labels as they see fit.

I do remember my local press, however, once running an article on local Muslim leaders, the imams, who counsel and guide "misguided" jihadists back to mainstream. As far as I know, they are very successful in this. But how much can we change, if the Imperium Holder of the world, the States, may not adopt such strategies in the war?

In fact, I am quite against the idea of the Imperium the US Administration announced some years ago to hold, and more objective, an Imperium of any kind. I deem it as a form of veto over the democratic world even, if anyone may agree with me.

Is it not true that even the mainstream may not interfere into the fatwas of the jihadists? Where the States have failed, why should the mainstream succeed? This statement is of course, wrong only if, I stress, that the States allow the Muslims to properly join in the War against Terror.

Something that can be put into its context here too, with the same sort of logic, I believe, by HHDL.

"A tree with strong roots can withstand the storm, but a tree cannot grow strong roots just as the storm is approaching in the horizon."

Food for thought. If the States will not ask the mainstream to help during normal times (and there isn't much peacetime left now), why should it expect the mainstream to do their magic, too, when such international incidents arise? I believe it is clear too demanding on the Muslims too, who now have to keep their faith against the rising numbers of infidels and misinformed audience, most of whom see Islam as a hypocritical faith, despite the inner meaning of "Peace". This only causes further disillusionment amongst the mainstream, and slowly coercing them to extreme methods of getting their faith to survive, and more sympathizers for the jihadists.

I believe that it is clear that the model of warfare is changing, and as my history teacher has told me once before, the UN Security Council now faces a crisis, as its mission of peace is jeopardized by more frequent small-scale wars of terror rather than the rare global war that it once was so committed to prevent. This of course includes North Korea, Iran, and a couple of other examples, as the UN's duty seems expanded across many genres of war.

This to me also means that the decision-making, and shaping of the War on Terror today no longer lie in the hands of the elite few, but rather in each and every individual who walks on Earth's soil. As with the past wars of the world, where intelligence was ever so important in winning the enemy, the war of today that pertains to terror also will require proper intelligence to win.

And of course, this stems from the very basic - to be well-informed about Islam, and all that the jihadists may believe in, to win this jihad that not only involves the latter, but maybe us all, too. We cannot possibly hope to win this time, if there exists huge communities ignorant of the beliefs of Islam and the false messages the jihadists spread, as this will constitute as a major failure of intelligence. :rockon:

"By knowing yourself and your enemy, you can fight a hundred battles and win them all." - Chinese proverb

Anything about my post that anyone may find disturbing?

Simonthepilgrim

The only thing that I find disturbing in what you say, mon petit Ajani, is its accuracy.

We have to be aware that, from within, the US 'Imperium' does not seem imperialistic and our attempts to alert 'moderate North Americans' to the risks are taken as attacks on the democratic ideal. As with the misuse of the Q'ran by jihadists, so the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are twisted in support of political theory and action which would have horrified the original writers.

The Fourth Noble Truth lays out the way in which we, hearing and practising the Buddhadharma, can give example in our own lives to help. Samyag-drishti (Right or Complete View) challenges us to a proper understanding of the world yathabhutam - just as it is, without being misled by names and labels. Those of us who perceive a new Imperium need to engage in dialogue with those within it who do not.

To my mind, both sides in the 'War on Terror' are imperialistic in their aims. The jihadists want a New Caliphate which, by imposing sharia (as they understand it) across more and more nations, continues the westward expansion of Islam which stalled when Suleiman the Magnificent and Ibrahim Pasha fled from the siege of Vienna in 1529. The crusaders (what other name can we give them?) believe that enabling democracy (as they understand it) and the growth of its associated institutions simply continues the process begun in the Age of Revolutions - and, unstated by most, continues the worldwide expansion of Western Christianity.

Because both sides arise from a tradition of polemics, there is no dialogue, only a shouting match. As HHDL and others have shown it is by eirenic dialgue that we shall have any hope for peace. By eirenic, I mean dialogue which aims to empower peaceful communication, where we begin by finding common ground to which we can all return when differences arise. It means giving up ideas of being 'right' or 'wrong'. It means Right View.

RaDmaTist

One reason the Islamic moderates are paid less attention to by Spencer is because they say little and do even less to oppose the jihadists. Part of their problem in being so passive is some are quietly sympathetic, some are just indifferent and some know well & fearfully that Islamic tradition forbids criticism of Islam by Muslims.

My first point is that, it is not the job of Muslims alone to keep those people in check for we do not spawn the birth of people with such mindsets and neither do we serve as parents of jihadist. It is like in a simple train carriage where we see a child running about and crashing into people without care about who gets hurt. We don't ask whose child he is or where did he come from. We don't ask why is the reason behind his chiildish act of running about and neither do we turn to our partners and whisper criticism about the parents. We know by essence that everyone in the carriage itself have the responsiblity of stopping this child.

The same goes for this situation.

because they say little and do even less to oppose the jihadists

And I would say the same for majority of the people in this world. There is nothing much we can do and its mainly based on the authorities to take the action and much good do they do other than employ proper procedures after an attack. Why must we oppose the jihadist? Opposing merely satisfy their hunger and it clearly shows that we have falen for their trap and that they have succeeded in brewing the emotion of hatred in us. We say little because there is not much to be said. And this is better than writing a book on the negative aspects of a religion.

some know well & fearfully that Islamic tradition forbids criticism of Islam by Muslims

It does not forbid but it discourages criticism of Islam. But who says anything about criticism of jihadist and terrorism. My recent trip to the library made me discover books with titles such as "Terrorism is a Devils ritual" and the clear context shows that there are key figures speaking up. What the jihadist are doing does not qualify them as Islamic teachings for even I myself know how to operate a gun, let alone a bomb. You don't really expect us to gather in numbers with guns and sticks and charge towards their base, do you?

Once again, I hope my post have not offended anyone(aside from its poor English) and that I am still learning and so are you.

Simonthepilgrim

RaDmaTist™ wrote:

My first point is that, it is not the job of Muslims alone to keep those people in check for we do not spawn the birth of people with such mindsets and neither do we serve as parents of jihadist. It is like in a simple train carriage where we see a child running about and crashing into people without care about who gets hurt. We don't ask whose child he is or where did he come from. We don't ask why is the reason behind his chiildish act of running about and neither do we turn to our partners and whisper criticism about the parents. We know by essence that everyone in the carriage itself have the responsiblity of stopping this child.

The same goes for this situation.



And I would say the same for majority of the people in this world. There is nothing much we can do and its mainly based on the authorities to take the action and much good do they do other than employ proper procedures after an attack. Why must we oppose the jihadist? Opposing merely satisfy their hunger and it clearly shows that we have falen for their trap and that they have succeeded in brewing the emotion of hatred in us. We say little because there is not much to be said. And this is better than writing a book on the negative aspects of a religion.



It does not forbid but it discourages criticism of Islam. But who says anything about criticism of jihadist and terrorism. My recent trip to the library made me discover books with titles such as "Terrorism is a Devils ritual" and the clear context shows that there are key figures speaking up. What the jihadist are doing does not qualify them as Islamic teachings for even I myself know how to operate a gun, let alone a bomb. You don't really expect us to gather in numbers with guns and sticks and charge towards their base, do you?

Once again, I hope my post have not offended anyone(aside from its poor English) and that I am still learning and so are you.

Just as the parents of your unruly child have primary responsibilty for that child, the same goes for the nations within whose borders terrorists - of whatever stripe - gather.

Will

A recent review of this book by Brigitte Gabriel:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25186

RaDmaTist

Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace.

And what use will that be? One bag egg doesn't mean the whole basket is spoilt.

Hmm..I'll try my best to bring across my view.

First of all, I still don't understand how this book can help defeat the jihadists. It seems more bent to make Muslims everywhere go angry and rise up so that they too will fall under the category of jihadist. Seriously, why attack the founder of a religion if the main aim is the jihadist? Would it help if I say "Jihadist is NOT Islam". Cause if I'm not wrong, I was taught by my religious school to respect other religion around us and that violence against anyone was intolerated. In essence, everyone is peaceful.

So, this book entitled "The Truth about Muhammad" and goes on about how he is actually evil and that he was violent and thus make a conclusion that "hey, that means now Islam is also evil". last I checked, I'm still talking to my Chinese friends and not slicing their head off. I find myself surprised to say that I'm no longer angered by the book by intrigued why he feels that this is the way to beat'em.

Let me try telling a story.

Lets say, one day the animals all gain intelligene as the same level as us. They saw how some humans(Lets call'em Attackists) are attacking and poaching some of their kind. So they decided that every human is bad and started speaking up against humans and why they claim to be intelligent people but instead still go on killing other animals.One even wrote a book entitled "The Truth about Humans" where they claim that the best way for humans and non-humans to beat the Attackists was to stop claiming that Humans are intelligent. Soon, the humans got split into two. Some decided to launch more poaching. Innocent creatures such as cats were tortured. Yet, there was the other party who were genuinely willing to stop all these and were against the Attackist. But they couldn't do anything. They tried spreading different policies to stop the poaching yet it still continues. The animals got fed up and started chiding the non-Attackist for not doing much to help them.

Two cases can happen from here

1) The non-Attackist eventually gets fed up and declare "Forget it, since the animals seem so intent to see ALL humans as Attackist, lets just rise up against them)

2) The animals decided "Lets say we work with this non-Attackists and just isolate the Attackist as a separate the other group from them. Anyway, theres strength in numbers."

So you see, its either

1) Muslims everywhere get flustered cause there seem to be people so intent to disprove them. Worse come to worse, the world will really simply be split into two

2) Or we simply stop seeing Islam and Jihadist together and accept that there is really only two groups of people: (Islam and all the other non-Jihadist) vs (Jihadist)

Now wouldn't case two be so much better. Anyway, provng that islam as not a peaceful religion doesn't seem to help to me. Its like trying to say "Hey, look, they really are not peaceful. thats why we are having all these atacks".

(By the way, sorry if the example given was lame or confusing =X. I tried to the best of my intelligence(which isn't much =P))

Peace

RaDmaTist

Refering to my recent post, I made an error. Kindly replace all the word "evil" with "violence". My sincere apologies.

Will

Finally I finished this 200 page book. It was a dreary, dry read. Muhammad does not come across as a monster, just a very ordinary psychic, with the usual vices & virtues.

The very early Islamic sources that Spencer uses were honest, unlike the latter-day hagiographies. But I suppose that is natural; to ignore the flaws in spiritual leaders.

Celebrin

dude.. thats speculative. U remind of the 'jew boys' (christians) talking about dinosaurs being in the bible.. and scientific rules (which are theories but are 100% real and not theories cough) supporting god and so on.. i mean

speculation should remain speculation.. cus nothing can be proved like what u saying..

i think most religious stuff bears as much proof as the church of the giant floating spagetti monster

Simonthepilgrim

Celebrin wrote:

dude.. thats speculative. U remind of the 'jew boys' (christians) talking about dinosaurs being in the bible.. and scientific rules (which are theories but are 100% real and not theories cough) supporting god and so on.. i mean

speculation should remain speculation.. cus nothing can be proved like what u saying..

i think most religious stuff bears as much proof as the church of the giant floating spagetti monster

I take strong exception to the expression "jew boys". It is anti-semitic and hate-filled. Just thought I'd let you know. I now know how to read your posts, Celebrin. That's all. Say it by all means, it will still be loathesome.

Celebrin

im against all religions and the use of all all social groups personally i'd add "wannabe" to every social group that ppl say they belong to

..anyway its just a funny nickname. As i see it, i find it bemusing that europeans are following a religion based and aimed at jewish ppl. Call that twisted if u want.I find it bemusing that allah is based of judaism and they're having a battle royale.Nyways enough of me.. speculation is not truth and thats what these claims are

fofoo

Celebrin wrote:

..anyway its just a funny nickname. As i see it, i find it bemusing that europeans are following a religion based and aimed at jewish pplr

You do realize that christianty is a non-ethnocentric offshot of judaism, a (of course not undisputed) doctrine for universal salvation of all human beings?

Adiana

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

I take strong exception to the expression "jew boys". It is anti-semitic and hate-filled. Just thought I'd let you know. I now know how to read your posts, Celebrin. That's all. Say it by all means, it will still be loathesome.

I agree.

Adiana:usflag:

Will

Spencer was interviewed today about his views & book. Click on Truth About Muhammed. The interview is about 35 minutes.

http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?ContentGuid=27ce028a-143e-41ec-9ad9-faafc6df72e8&RadioShowId=3

Adiana

Will,

Thanks for sharing this link. It was quite informative.

Adiana:usflag:

masteravatardavidsta

Once-again I have a problem with monotheistic religions in general. Yes! There ARE kind & good Muslim PEOPLE. Just like there are good Christians. I am friends with people in both of these catagories. But I find (more often than not ) that whenever ANY group of people presents itself as the sole bearer of "truth" someone inevitably ends up being persecuted. I've read about Islam's severe punishments of gays,"loose" women, and the persecution of non-Muslim religious adherents. I dissagree with the idea that this discussion is,"negative"simply because it shines a glaring light on the facts. After all-we are here to discuss Buddhist teachings. The Buddha blatantly condemned such things as war, violence of ANY kind, as well as persecution of other religions. But it's NOT religious persecution to look at a religion that promotes hatred , bigotry and violence. Not all Muslims fall into this catagory. But the FACT is that many do. These are the people that worry me. And burying our collective heads in the sand is'nt going to solve a VERY real problem in the HUMAN society. We're ALL connected.