There is a very popular teaching amongst the anti-Islamic polemicists that the radical Islamist terrorists are “true Muslims” who are “just going back to the violent roots of Islam as taught by it’s founder.” For example, here is how it was stated in a recent post on my forum:
Since in Islam Mohammad is the model of conduct for Muslims the Fundamentalists are just following his example and how he applied his teachings. So its not what most of the politically correct crowd today wants you to believe that those who are committing terrorism in the name of Islam have hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam. On the contrary I think they are getting back to what Islam originally taught as carried out by Muhammad.
And here was my response:
Your assertion that Muhammad is “the model of conduct for Muslims” is exactly correct. But your assertion that they use this to justify “terrorism” directly contradicts the universal testimony of all believing Muslims. They believe that Muhammad was the most merciful and just man who has ever lived! Here is what they say about their Prophet (link):
In fact, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was not only a great person in his own time, but is one of the greatest figures of all times for all races, colors, and nationalities. His example was excellent for the 7th-century Arabs and remains excellent for all people living in the 21st century. The Prophet Muhammad was an excellent example for the rich and poor, the young and old, the rulers and subjects, and for intellectuals and ordinary people. Allah sent him as His Prophet for all humanity.
The morality of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not restricted to just a few moral attributes, but included diverse traits and aspects of life. He was kind, compassionate, caring, generous, and humble, but he was also strong, brave, eloquent, wise, and insightful. He was a great planner, organizer, and thinker while at the same time he was also a man of faith, trust, and devotion to Allah.
He was the most merciful person in all of history. He was merciful to his family, followers, friends, and even enemies. He was merciful to the young and old, to humans and to animals. Those who persecuted him in Makkah and killed his relatives and his followers were later defeated in the battles. When they were captives under the Prophet Muhammad, he forgave them. He did not ever take revenge or retaliate. He was the most forgiving person. Even in times of war, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) never allowed the killing of anyone except those involved in the fighting; he issued clear orders against the killing of civilians, including women, children, and even those who were engaged in worship of any kind. He taught his followers to observe the sanctity of all life while engaged in a just war.
Any Muslim who deliberately kills innocent people is violating the example of the Prophet as taught by all Muslims (including the fundamentalists)! When folks murder innocent people in the name of Islam, they are directly contradicting the very teachings of Islam that they themselves proclaim. In other words, they are deeply confused about what they really believe. Their actions are incoherent with their beliefs. They are subject to the false teachings of the political cult of Islamism.
I think that pretty much settles it. Anyone who deliberately murders innocent men, woman, and children to accomplish a political aim is most definitely NOT following the pattern of the “most merciful person in all of history.” But all Muslims claim to be following the pattern of Muhammad whom they identify as “most merciful person in all of history.” Therefore, the idea of a “Muslim Terrorist” is an oxymoron, a self-contradictory concept.
Note for News Outlets: You should never attach the word “Muslim” to “terrorist.” By definition, a Muslim is a person who submits to the Will of God, and I think we all can agree that targeting innocent men, woman, and children is not the Will of God. The correct term is “Islamist terrorist” because “Islamist” refers to the political movement cloaking itself with the religion of Islam. See my review of “The Islamist” by Ed Husain for more information.
With the name of God, As salamu ‘alikum wr wb brother Richard.
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/muhammad-written-about-in-bible.html < This is a blog about the Prophet (saw) mentioned in the Bible.
In the end of my blog post I quote something from a proflific Sweedish author and writter Frijoth Schuon
" If the Prophet had so wished supposing Islam were the product of his mind, he could also have declared himself the son of God; he could have declared the Arabs a people elect; he could have founded a dispersed and dispersing cult which would have included his own personality, the Archangels some pagan divinities and, possibly, one or more of his wives, along with God; and he would certainly have done so if he had the character still all to readily attributed to him in the west, That he did not do so proves in any case two things, namely a character of absolute integrity, and an authentic message from God.
Source: (Christianity/Islam Essays on Esoteric Ecumenicism by Frithjof Schuon pg. 174)
This very short piece by Karen Armstrong here is worthy of mention: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/karen_arm/qurayzah.html
Huns Kung a respected Christian Theologian has said recently,
"The Christian who wishes to engage in dialogue with the Muslims acknowledges from the outset his or her own conviction of faith that for him or her Jesus is the Christ and so is normative and definitive, but he or she also takes very seriously the function of Muhammad as an authentic prophet. (“Ecumenical” 124)"
I hope that this adds in some way. Peace and Blessings be to you and your family.
The Peace of God be upon you, brother Jonathan.
Your comments are very helpful. And thank you for the link to Karen Armstrong’s brief article. The article also mentions her book “Islam, A Short History”
Here is a review from the Amazon page:
With the name of God, and peace be returned unto you. I also thought that this was worthy of note.
http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/responding_to_the_fort_hood_tragedy/
This article was written by one of my teachers Imam Zaid Shakir who is a teacher at the first Islamic University in the west (www.zaytuna.org). This article was his reflection upon the fort hood tragedy.
Imam Zaid and Imam Hamza who both live and work in the Hayward (bay area) are also good friends with the honorable pastor Rick Warren.
sorry to post so much but this is also an interesting link here: http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=newcontent
This initiative has been on going. Thank you once again and may peace be with you and your family.
Mash’Allah brother! 🙂
“The morality of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not restricted to just a few moral attributes, but included diverse traits and aspects of life. He was kind, compassionate, caring, generous, and humble, but he was also strong, brave, eloquent, wise, and insightful. He was a great planner, organizer, and thinker while at the same time he was also a man of faith, trust, and devotion to Allah.”
So, it is not true that he married a 6 year old and had sex with her at 9?
Hi Lydia,
I’m glad you brought up that point. It is one of the favorite lines of attack against Islam, so I have taken a little time to research it. I’ve only just begun looking into it, but here is what I’ve found. Therre are a number of issues Islamic apologists bring up:
1) Some challenge the text of the Hadith and argue that Aisha was 16 and 19, not 6 and 9. But that does not seem to be the majority position.
2) Many attempt to mitigate the sense of “outrage” by pointing out that the age of consent differs with culture and cite the little known fact that in some states in the USA it used to be as low as 10.
3) It is argued that Aisha was definitely post-pubescent so she was sufficiently mature. This is based on the fact that Sharia law (which is based on the Quran and Hadith) prohibits sex with pre-pubescent children. They assert that there would be an inconsistency between Sharia and the Hadith if Aisha was pre-pubescent. I find this argument weak because I have never seen any complex religious text without the appearance of contradictions.
But the bottom line for me is this – Muslims begin with the assertion that Muhammad was a truly great man and a Prophet of God. Therefore, anything that appears to contradict that assumption must be explained, not used as an excuse for wicked behavior. This is exactly the same problem faced by Christians when we are confronted with “contradictions” in the Bible. We begin by assuming the Bible is inspired, and then are forced to “explain” apparent contradictions.
Therefore, to attack Islam by attacking Muhammad as a “pedophile” is the tactic used only by anti-Islamic polemicists interested not in truth, but only in “defeating Islam.” That approach helps no one. Only the TRUTH will set us free.
And finally, Jerry Vines, the “Pastor” of the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville Florida, publicly slandered Muhammad from the pulpit when he declared that he was a “demon-possessed pedophile” (a charge he justified by citing the Caners’ abysmal book). But we have only one questionable example of any “pedophilia” associated with Muhammad – which is nothing compared to the hundreds of examples of pedophilia and sexual abuse that runs rampant in the Southern Baptist religion. And worse, the pastors and leaders regularly cover it up! They are complicit in the crimes! So the Baptists are the last who should think to be casting accusations about “pedophilia” at others. They have condemned themselves as “demon-possessed pedophiles.”
All the very best,
Richard
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Sorry I have been away for a while just got back from Langkawi with the wife! I love that island it’s beautiful mash’Allah! Richard brings up very good points.
It should be noted that in the Hanafi usul (one of the four madhabs of sunni Muslims) a hadith can never contradict the Qur’an. Because the Qura’n is a decisive text where as the hadith in their usul (approach to the primary and secondary sourcies) is not decisive.
Since I am Maliki in my usul I think I would simply ask this question.
1) To athiest and agnostics, if a girl starts having menstration and production of eggs occurs (all morals a side) does not evolution dicate that she is able to have children (again leaving aside mental maturity) ? If we are to look at it from this perspective.
2) To Jews and Christians if we are to adopt ‘sola scriptura’ or bible alone and if this was something so morally repugnant (marrying girls at age 9 etc) than is there a decisive verse in the Bible that tells us the appropriate age to get married?
3) Was there any objection from the girl’s father or from the people of that time? OMG! she’s too young and so forth?
How are we not taking the admonishment of ‘lean not unto thine own understanding’.
Not only that but think about the statement ‘consummated the marriage at such and such an age’ I mean really think about what that entails. How would we have absolute certainty of such an event unless someone actually saw this occur with their very own eyes which would be next to impossible to fathom.
I am interested in fruitful discussion this matter.
Grace and Peace.