Who is Prophet Muhammad?

[good]

Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, is the man beloved by more than 1.2 billion Muslims. He is the man who taught us patience in the face of adversity, and taught us to live in this world but seek eternal life in the hereafter. It was to Prophet Muhammad that God revealed the Quran. Along with this Book of guidance God sent Prophet Muhammad, whose behavior and high moral standards are an example to us all. Prophet Muhammad’s life was the Quran. He understood it, he loved it and he lived his life based on its standards. He taught us to recite Quran, to live by its principles and to love it. When Muslims declare their faith in One God, they also declare their belief that Muhammad is the slave and final messenger of God.

When a Muslim hears Muhammad’s name mentioned they ask God to send blessings upon him. Prophet Muhammad was a man, a human being just like any other man, but it is his love for humanity that sets him apart. Muslims love Prophet Muhammad, but it is his love for us, that makes him a man like no other. He longed for Paradise not only for himself but also for all of us. He wept tears not for himself but for his Ummah[1], and for humanity. He was often heard to cry “O God, my Ummah, my Ummah�.

Muslims also believe in the same Prophets mentioned in Jewish and Christian traditions, including Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus, and they believe that all prophets came with the same message – to worship God alone, without partners, sons or daughters. There is a difference, however, between all other prophets and Prophet Muhammad. Before Muhammad, prophets were sent to particular people in particular places and periods. Muhammad however, is the final Prophet and his message is for all of humankind.

God tells us in Quran that He did not send Prophet Muhammad except as a mercy for humankind. “And we have sent you O Muhammad, not but as a mercy for humankind and all that exists.� (Quran 21:107) God did not say Muhammad was sent to the people of Arabia, or to men, or to the people of the 7th century. He made it clear that Prophet Muhammad was a prophet like no other, one whose message would spread far and wide and be applicable in all places for all times. Muslims love him, respect him and follow him. They hold him in such regard that for many it is emotionally painful to see or hear their beloved mentor ridiculed or disrespected.

Throughout history and around the world non-Muslims have shown great respect and honour to Prophet Muhammad and he is considered influential in both religious and secular matters. Mahatma Ghandi described him as scrupulous about pledges, intense in his devotion to his friends and followers, intrepid, fearless, and with absolute trust in God and in his own mission. Prophet Muhammad taught Islam as a way of life, founded an empire, laid down a moral code and instituted a code of law focusing on respect, tolerance and justice..[2]

What is it about Prophet Muhammad that inspires such devotion? Is it his gentle and loving nature, his kindness and generosity or is it his ability to empathise with all of humanity? Muhammad was a selfless man who devoted the last 23 years of his life to teaching his companions and followers how to worship God and how to respect humanity. Prophet Muhammad was acutely aware of just how much responsibility had been thrust upon him by God. He was careful to teach the message just as God had prescribed and warned his followers not to adulate him the way Jesus, son of Mary was praised.[3]

Muslims do not worship Prophet Muhammad; they understand that he is only a man. However, he is a man worthy of our utmost respect and love. Prophet Muhammad loved humanity so much that he would weep out of fear for them. He loved his Ummah with such deep and profound devotion that God remarked on the depth of his love for us in Quran.

“Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He (Muhammad) is anxious over you (to be rightly guided, to repent to God, and beg Him to pardon and forgive your sins, in order that you may enter Paradise and be saved from the punishment of the Hell-fire), for the believers he is full of pity, kind, and merciful.� (Quran 9:128)

Prophet Muhammad taught us to love God and to obey Him. He taught us to be kind to each other, to respect our elders, and care for our children. He taught us that it was better to give than to receive and that each human life is worthy of respect and dignity. He taught us to love for our brothers and sisters what we love for ourselves. Prophet Muhammad taught us that families and communities are essential, and he pointed out that individual rights although important are not more important than a stable, moral society. Prophet Muhammad taught us that men and women are equal in the sight of God and that no one person is better then another except in respect to his or her piety and devotion to God.

Who is Prophet Muhammad? Quite simply he is the man who will stand before God on the day of Requital and beg God to have mercy on us. He will intercede for us. Muslims love him because he is the slave and messenger of God, he is a mercy to humankind and his gentleness, and devotion to humanity is unprecedented.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2626/

[Murad]

That's because it is indeed freedom of speech which is being prosecuted. People, including journalists, politicians, and other "intellectuals", are scared of what legitimate criticism of Islam may bring to their societies, their families, and themselves, notably violence against innocents and "radicalization of the poor victimized Muslim youth" (which seems unreasonably easy to do), so they aim to stifle it by all means necessary.

Could you please tell me what the Dutch politician has said that is factually incorrect?

Do you support his being prosecuted for speaking his opinion without ever, as far as I've seen, inciting violence?

He tried to introduce federal laws which bans muslims to enter the country....

Not all Muslims are like you - not all of them support violent and oppressive Shariah law. Do you not consider them to be ignorant about Islam, since their beliefs massively differ from yours?

The same can be said for you; i've met athiests that are not close minded or critically biased like yourself.

Muslims are quite often shielded from criticism of their beliefs, since criticizing Islam is more than frowned upon in most Muslim countries - it can get you persecuted and/or killed by the state or angry mobs in a frenzy quite easily, or at the very least you can end up ousted from your families and circles of friends.

Actually no, it is critisized; ofcourse the word 'critisized' itself varies when compared to the western countries. He is not labelled with profanities; if thats what you mean by critisized.

You mean like the Quran, Sahih Hadith and biographies by renowned and widely respected scholars? I think these are as "unbiased" as it gets, and I do believe that they all support my contentions above. Again, do you disagree?

No they are perfect sources; but i don't see how you justify calling him a "terrorist" by quoting out of them. And also there is nothing wrong with those sources; they make perfect sense once you accept Sharia Law. It was muslims themselves you gathered the hadiths; we well know our own history.

Do you disagree?

I have a different view-point.
The Banu Qurayza tribe was charged with treason; and thus the death penalty is permitted.
Read the wiki info:

The Banu Qurayza (Arabic: بني قريظة; بنو قريظة‎ alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina), until the 7th century, when their conflict with Muhammad led to their demise.

Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a culturally, economical and politically dominant position. However, in 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance. When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients or allies of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.

In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a compact between the conflicting parties. While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.

In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into (eventually inconclusive) negotiations with the besiegers. Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad. The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while the women and children were enslaved.

Do you have any evidence for "Allah" existing in reality?

Do you want to start a debate on the existence of God? There are plenty of threads on this site that you can come across.

[Woland]

Hello Murad,

Could you please tell me what the Dutch politician has said that is factually incorrect?

Do you support his being prosecuted for speaking his opinion without ever, as far as I've seen, inciting violence?

He tried to introduce federal laws which bans muslims to enter the country....

Can you not find anything he has said which is factually incorrect?

Do you find it illegitimate that a politician would attempt to prevent immigration of a group of people containing several elements which are not only an economic drain on the system (as demonstrated by the rates of unemployment and welfare claims and abuses of Muslims, especially in places like the Netherlands), but are also hate-filled and refuse to integrate? No other group consistently causes problems of rapes, gang-rapes, inciting violence against homosexuals, inciting hatred against non-believers in general, endlessly demanding special privileges, violently stifling criticism, supporting a violent theocracy, etc. Muslims are extremely overrepresented in the prison population of several Western countries.

Immigration is not a right, it's a privilege - one which has been extremely abused by many of your Muslim brethren. Putting the politician on trial for trying to put a stop to the Islamization of his country by keeping out elements who wish to supplant the democratic system with a violent Shariah state -even by "peaceful" means- is nothing short of oppressive and suicidal.

I would never let anyone who supports violence, intolerance, and oppressive policies (like you) in my country if I had the choice.

Not all Muslims are like you - not all of them support violent and oppressive Shariah law. Do you not consider them to be ignorant about Islam, since their beliefs massively differ from yours?

The same can be said for you; i've met athiests that are not close minded or critically biased like yourself.

You did not answer my question, nor can you substantiate the claim that I am close-minded or biased from the notion that I despise Shariah-supporting Islam like all other forms of violent oppression. This is your opinion, and it is irrelevant. Are you close-minded about communism or nazism, or do you reject them because you find them abhorrent? Then you understand why I reject Islam, an ideology that would subjugate me as a second-class citizen -again, at best, since atheists and polytheists have not always been even tolerated in Islamic societies- and oppress everyone (including homosexuals, apostates, etc.) by enforcing a most violent and intolerant form of theocracy on those who do not believe in its ideology of supremacism.

Muslims are quite often shielded from criticism of their beliefs, since criticizing Islam is more than frowned upon in most Muslim countries - it can get you persecuted and/or killed by the state or angry mobs in a frenzy quite easily, or at the very least you can end up ousted from your families and circles of friends.

Actually no, it is critisized; ofcourse the word 'critisized' itself varies when compared to the western countries. He is not labelled with profanities; if thats what you mean by critisized.

Really? When was the last time an atheist or polytheist criticized Islam in a Shariah Muslim country and didn't face persecution?

Are you suggesting that people may "criticize" Islam, but only within certain boundaries and as long as they don't say anything unpleasant about the "prophet"?

This is effectively stifling freedom of speech - something which irrational and dogmatic cults like Islam are of course bent on doing, as can be seen from the past and present.

You mean like the Quran, Sahih Hadith and biographies by renowned and widely respected scholars? I think these are as "unbiased" as it gets, and I do believe that they all support my contentions above. Again, do you disagree?

No they are perfect sources; but i don't see how you justify calling him a "terrorist" by quoting out of them.

Of all the things I mentioned about Muhammad, the only thing you wish to dispute is calling him a terrorist? Do you disagree with any of the other things I mentioned about him?

Terrorist:
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.� Bukhari 4:52:220

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them

Qur’an 33:26 “Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them.

Ishaq:461 “Muhammad besieged them for twenty-five nights. When the siege became too severe for them, Allah terrorized them. Then they were told to submit

Seems pretty clear to me.

And also there is nothing wrong with those sources; they make perfect sense once you accept Sharia Law.

Your point being? Once you accept Mein Kampf, it makes perfect sense to commit mass genocide of innocents.

It was muslims themselves you gathered the hadiths; we well know our own history.

Correction: some Muslims know their history. In my experience, those who know most about their religion tend to have beliefs such as yours - they support all sorts of violent and intolerant policies. After all, if it's in the Quran and Hadith, it's endorsed by Allah and unquestionably moral. That's the danger with Muslims - they simply define atrocities as morality, and there is no way of making them see how inhuman the policies they support are.

I have a different view-point.
The Banu Qurayza tribe was charged with treason; and thus the death penalty is permitted.

Interesting. In your mind, this justified killing every single person who had grown pubic hair? You do realize that a number of youngsters would have been brutally executed, don't you?

Did "treason" justify the enslavement of women and children as well?

Do you have any evidence for "Allah" existing in reality?

Do you want to start a debate on the existence of God? There are plenty of threads on this site that you can come across.

No - I want to you demonstrate, if you can, that Allah specifically exists as a deity, not a generic God. After all, it only makes sense that you would be able to substantiate your claim that Allah exists if you wish to impose a violent form of theocracy on others, correct?

-Woland

[Murad]

Immigration is not a right, it's a privilege - one which has been extremely abused by many of your Muslim brethren. Putting the politician on trial for trying to put a stop to the Islamization of his country by keeping out elements who wish to supplant the democratic system with a violent Shariah state -even by "peaceful" means- is nothing short of oppressive and suicidal.

I would never let anyone who supports violence, intolerance, and oppressive policies (like you) in my country if I had the choice.

Thanks for making that clear.
I'll respectfully end our discussion here.
Im going to put you in my ignore list, to keep my civil discussions ofcourse

[Woland]

Immigration is not a right, it's a privilege - one which has been extremely abused by many of your Muslim brethren. Putting the politician on trial for trying to put a stop to the Islamization of his country by keeping out elements who wish to supplant the democratic system with a violent Shariah state -even by "peaceful" means- is nothing short of oppressive and suicidal.

I would never let anyone who supports violence, intolerance, and oppressive policies (like you) in my country if I had the choice.

Thanks for making that clear.
I'll respectfully end our discussion here.
Im going to put you in my ignore list, to keep my civil discussions ofcourse

Do you deny the truth of my words?

I will also have to take for granted, since you did not object to my characterization of your prophet, that you agree with the attributes I mentioned, perhaps with the exception of terrorist.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep people who support oppression, violence and intolerance out, and I am not surprised that once again you end the discussion when it becomes hard for you to defend your position.

I agree that personal comments, which we have both done here, have no place in debate, so I apologize for the "like you", but I maintain that the truth of it can easily be substantiated using other posts of yours. With that being said, I find it extremely hard to remain calm when dealing with human beings who would torture and perhaps kill people like me and the ones I love because of their belief in the supernatural tales of a long-dead desert warlord.

-Woland

[otseng]

No other group consistently causes problems of rapes, gang-rapes, inciting violence against homosexuals, inciting hatred against non-believers in general, endlessly demanding special privileges, violently stifling criticism, supporting a violent theocracy, etc. Muslims are extremely overrepresented in the prison population of several Western countries.

Moderator comment:

These would be considered blanket statements. And if they cannot be supported by evidence, they would be against the rules. If you make allegations like these, you'll need to back up your statements or else retract them.

[Woland]

Of all the major religious groups, the one who contains all the people describing themselves as "Muslim" is disproportionately responsible for several problems in Western societies (which I detailed) when compared to other religious groups.

Any of the claims I made can, as far as I am aware, readily be verified and supported, although it would take some time and effort on my part to document each one properly, which I'm entirely willing to do and which also explains why I didn't write an endless novel in my previous post.

Does anyone dispute my claims? If so, which one (s)?

-Woland