The Reality of the Looking Glass: Seeing Muhammad

re: HP`s post
(Human sacrifice and cannibalism were rampant in Vedic Aryan society....)
You are only partly correct.
You need to go much deeper into the lives of Vedic times to know how the society evolved. We are talking about at least 5000 years ago. Society was mostly primitive.
You may read this to know more about Vedic times.
Early Vedic times did have Purushamedha sacrifice that was done at certain auspicious occasions but that does not automatically mean it was rampant.
There were many detractors. Even in the epic Ramayana, sage Viswamitra strongly objects to a king (Ambareesha)sacrificing a young boy (Sunahsepha) in a vedic ritual and saves the boy. Apparently, the concept of sacrifice to please God was a powerful one in many religions as this article from Wikepedia would argue.
(Human sacrifice has been completely absent at all times in mainstream Hinduism, and is severely condemned and seen with utmost horror by all mainstream Hindus. But the absence of any central dogma in Hinduism has allowed some unscrupulous sideline cults to exist. A few Indian tribes like Maraya and Thugs used to also practice human sacrifice. In Hindu narratives, practising human sacrifice and eating human meat was a work of the demons).
Also, some cults (like Shakt, Tantrism) practised it and probably still do but it is outlawed. Hindus have payed some prize for their tolerance in that they had to tolerate even such ``demonic`` things amidst them.
Early Vedic religion slowly evolved to get rid of practices of ritualistic sacrifices, building altars, homa etc and internalized much of the symbolism as this article reveals.
(In the last two periods of the Vedic era, the emphasis from the outer mode of offering shifted towards the internalization of the ritual. The gods and their expressions in the outer form of yajna were found to be in the human body itself. The Upanishads particularly point out that whatever manifests as Divine expression in the external world could be found in the internal world of a practitioner of yajna. Various correspondences were made in order to show that the Divine powers or expressions of divinity were present as potentialities in the human being. This approach was very much consistent with the teachings of the Upanishads.

Yajna evolved to be less ritualistic by a total mental attitude of surrender know as atmarpana, the offering of every action to Atma, the Divine. A systematic practical approach to yajna became yoga with its many forms and a good methodological approach towards the issue of freedom, the liberation in a spiritual sense.)
It would, therefore, be wrong to draw any conclusions from the ancient practices. When we talk of today, we see hinduism as encompassing all tribal, vedic, post-vedic belief system under one umbrella. Hindus do not kill each other because of religious differences. They don`t go about killing people of other religions due to religous differences.
So, my post about your prophet was to remind everyone that the seeds of hatred were sowed early on by the founder himself. To understand it is to get rid of the hatred from your midst and finally come to term with realities.
Sridhar

Re: # 130

Kaal it would help if you would indulge in less verbiage and called a spade a spade. -)

I can interpret your last paragraph in two ways, meant for both Muslims and non-Muslims. Which would you prefer? Or would it be the sword that cuts both ways?

IMHO, there is nothing to be gained by discussing the objects of people`s faith. If the context is right, FAITH in itself, irrespective of its object, can be a useful force.

Aap Rehmat-ul-Aalmeen hain.

amid the din & cacophony of ill-wishers, here is what sounds sweet & provides solace to the heart.


aaya hai bulawa.......

Re: # 129by echoboom on April 13, 2006 9:16am PT

Many scholars pointed out good things about Mohamed, a lot more have documented very bad things about Islam/ Mohamed. What`s ur point?

The following are the reasons non-muslims want to discuss bad things about Mohamed and Islam:

Numero Uno#1
1)Use of violent Islam as a political tool to attain political goals.
i.e waging terrorism in the name of Islam.

2) Demanding and enjoying equal or special rights in countries
where they are minorities, but not giving this to non-muslims
in their own countries.

for a starter how about allowing a Church (not even a temple or Gurudwara) in a remote part of Saudi Arabian desert?

3) Propagating an ideology -supra national loyalty-that completely undermines the concepts of nationhood, concepts of security that Animists, Nativists, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Communists, Hindus and every non-muslim in the world hold dearly- this is the 1 billion Vs 5 billion struggle.

Re: # 129
Hehe we must have touched some raw nerves to bring about that kinda response.
Out here, there are so many ... errr. ...uncomfortable .... facts have been
brought about by so many interactors. But the puki comes up with the ( very puki )
arguement that

---

look so many ppl praised Mo , they must be right, na !

:)

One more thing that I noticed was that there are a lot of HS that have written good things
Mo and company - how come I never see a post showing HI writing good things about
any HS religion.
These stupid HS still don`t get what they are dealing with....

Legend:
HS= h0m0 sapien
HI= h0m0 islamus

HisExcellency

The spectacle of any Hindu killing an innocent child or man while invoking the name of his God is so contrary to the sense of humanity and Indian, that it has no defense. Nor will any educated Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, or Jain advance any justification for this crime because he or she can find none.

Even so, denial cannot be the solution of choice for a people following a broad and dynamic spiritual tradition. Verbal legerdemain and guilt-ridden emotional theatrics cannnot be their way. They must actively work to expose, acknowledge, and put an end to any element of barbarism among their own.

those here with twisted brains & tiny hearts might benefit from this: but only if so Allah wills


Thomas Carlyle in `Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,` 1840

``The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.``
``A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so.``




A. S. Tritton in `Islam,` 1951

The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur`an in the other is quite false.



De Lacy O`Leary in `Islam at the Crossroads,` London, 1923.

History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.



Gibbon in `The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire` 1823

The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.



Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870

``The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force.``
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”




Reverend Bosworth Smith in `Muhammad and Muhammadanism,` London, 1874.

``Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope`s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.``
``In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.``




Edward Montet, `La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,` Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in `The Preaching of Islam,` London 1913.)

``Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur`an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men.``



Alphonse de LaMartaine in `Historie de la Turquie,` Paris, 1854.b>

``Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God`s name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.
``If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.

``On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.

``The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it`s utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen... This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.

``Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?``




Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in `Young India,`1924.

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet`s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.



Sir George Bernard Shaw in `The Genuine Islam,` Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.

``If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam.``
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.``

``I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”




Michael Hart in `The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In History,` New York, 1978.

My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the secular and religious level. ...It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. ...It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.



Dr. William Draper in `History of Intellectual Development of Europe`

Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca, in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race... To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.



Arthur Glyn Leonard in `Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values`

It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of Muhammad`s deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true inspiration.



Philip K. Hitti in `History of the Arabs`

Within a brief span of mortal life, Muhammad called forth of unpromising material, a nation, never welded before; in a country that was hitherto but a geographical expression he established a religion which in vast areas suppressed Christianity and Judaism, and laid the basis of an empire that was soon to embrace within its far flung boundaries the fairest provinces the then civilized world.



Rodwell in the Preface to his translation of the Holy Qur`an

Mohammad`s career is a wonderful instance of the force and life that resides in him who possesses an intense faith in God and in the unseen world. He will always be regarded as one of those who have had that influence over the faith, morals and whole earthly life of their fellow men, which none but a really great man ever did, or can exercise; and whose efforts to propagate a great verity will prosper.



W. Montgomery Watt in `Muhammad at Mecca,` Oxford, 1953.

His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.... Thus, not merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with difficulty.



D. G. Hogarth in `Arabia`

Serious or trivial, his daily behavior has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so minutely. The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.



Washington Irving `Mahomet and His Successors`

He was sober and abstemious in his diet and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected but a result of real disregard for distinction from so trivial a source.
In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints.

His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting a regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonials of respect were shown to him. If he aimed at a universal dominion, it was the dominion of faith; as to the temporal rule which grew up in his hands, as he used it without ostentation, so he took no step to perpetuate it in his family.




James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.

``No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience.``
“Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word sensing his own inadequacy. But the Angel commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: ``There is one God``.``

“In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God `s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being`.``

“At Muhammad`s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If there are any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you Worshiped, He lives for ever`.”




Lawrence E. Browne in ‘The Prospects of Islam,’ 1944

Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.



K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in `Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,` 1989

My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that “there is no compulsion in religion” is well known.

#127 by HisExcellency
I am going to assume (I know very well that I could be wrong here) that you are open minded and willing to learn about Hindu society,and not committed to the unfortunate stuff you read in Pak text books. Don`t retaliate and say we read bad stuff about Pak in India, we read the glory and benevolence of Akbar, and cursory vague comments about Aurangazeb.

I grew up in a town where muslims constitute 15% of population. I grew up listening to prayer calls from Mosque in the next street. My father`s muslim students will bring us Biryani during Ramzan. Since u have just about exterminated the Hindu population in Pak, you don`t have that luxury.

>>>>My references are drawn from scholarly work about Hinduism, its practices and beliefs.

You tend to look at Hinduism the same way you look at Islam. Most Hindus don`t know what are in the Vedas. To ASSUME THAT CRUEL PRACTICES, AND SUPERSITIONS ARE AROUND BECAUSE OF THERE ARE HINDU SCRIPTURES is complete ignorance. There are a million concepts, despite the many common threads each region has its own books, different versions of the same stories, the diversity is astonishing. That`s why your infighting about how to interpret Koran will sound bizaare to all Hindus ( I know this comment from a Kafir may invoke more insults).

If Hinduism is such an open religion why did the society in Indian subcontinent degrade so much? caste system, sutee, all kinds of societal evils. Vigourous propaganda that Islam and Christianity will cure these ills is negated by the fact that there are Muslim castes and
Christian castes praying in separate churches.

>>>>These honor killings happen in spite of Islam, not because of it.
I agree with you, it is possible to have your own good version of religion.

Your anger was provoked by the mere suggestion to examine objectively the personality of your prophet. No ther religionists are as sensitive as you are on this issue.

re: bharath

The maulvis of NWFP are only politicians with beards. I am not talking about Hindu politicians, Shiv Sena or their ilk. My references are drawn from scholarly work about Hinduism, its practices and beliefs.

Can you provide any Quranic verses or precedents from Muhammad`s life when he barred women from participating in public life? Can you provide any references when Muhammad ordained human sacrifice? Can you provide any quote that encourages slave-ownership in Islam?

The truth is that Muhammad`s first wife Khadija was a prominent business woman of Mecca. After her death, he married Ayesha who became acting chief of Mecca whenever Muhammad went to war against his enemies. These examples speak louder than any proclamation of a NWFP maulvi.

Slave ownership was already rampant in Arab society before Muhammad was even born. Muhammad freed a slave (Bilal) and made him the commander-in-chief of the army. Muslims were prohibited from taking more slaves and encouraged to free them or adopt them as family members. These personal examples speak louder than the practices of decadent Turk rulers.

re: bharath

++
Paki honor killings extensively reported in South Asian and international media
++

There is a difference. None of these killings are ordained by religion. Most Muslims consider the era of Prophet Muhammad followed by his comrades Abu Bakr, Usman, Umar and Ali as the finest era of Islam. Yet there is no precedent of honour killings in this era.

These honor killings happen in spite of Islam, not because of it.

re: sridhar

++
The bigger question is:was Mohammed being ignorant when he married Ayesha who was just 14 and he was more than 50 years old?
++

There are even bigger questions here than the one you posted:

1. Why is it that only one man (Hisham bin Urwah) mentioned Ayesha`s age? Hisham was a teacher yet none of his pupils confirmed this report. There were thousands of Medinites and Meccans who personally knew Muhammad, yet none of them reported Ayesha`s age.

The very fact that this narrative is not confirmed by at least 2 or 3 sources means that it is factually incorrect. Ayesha was not a minor when Muhammad married her. 50-year old men are allowed to marry younger adult women in every culture

2. Hisham was 80 year old when he reported Ayesha`s age. But Hisham learnt about it from his father. Once again the chain of authenticity is weak. Can 80-year old men remember exactly what their dads told them decades ago?

3. Why do non-Muslims rely on unauthentic and disputed narratives to attack Muhammad? Perhaps they realize that they can`t find fault with Muhammad if they relied on authentic scholarly work.

re: sridhar

++
What has ignorance got to do with religion?
++

Depends on which religion you are talking about.
You will not find any precedents or commandments about Puru-shamedha (human sacrifice) and Sattee in the Quran. The Vedas are different.

Human sacrifice and cannibalism were rampant in Vedic Aryan society. This is evident from the mass graves containing human bones found in Kaushambi. It was the Buddhists who abolished this practice. But when Hinduism revived, human sacrifice and cannibalistic rituals were restored.

Here is what the learned Professor R.C. Majumdar wrote in his book ``Ancient India`` about the Hindu ritual of human sacrifice:

``The Purushamedha (human sacrifice) was a ritual in which a human being was sacrificed instead of a horse as in the Asvamedha. The ceremonies performed were very similar in the two cases. Just as the horse was let loose for about a year, the human victim was allowed to enjoy himself for the same period, during which all his wishes were satisfied. The Hindu queen copulated with the dead human corpse in the Purushamedha, exactly as she did with the dead horse in the Asvamedha sacrifice. (See also Brihad- Aranyaka Upanishad 1.3.22; 3.9.8-9. Chandogya Upanishad 1.2.10-12 and 6.8.1).``

Enlightening, isn`t it?

#105 ahmadzai sahib jii

I apologize if, by any chance I offended your ideology. I just read your i-log and again sorry , I am posting this i-log here with out your permission as it is addressed towards me.

ahmadzai sahib

I will reply with pushto/english and urdu mixed.

Zamma point of view is same as sttaa. Remember I said if, pompous shows are harmless and benign. If, they are harmful like you stated in your i-log, then I will be the first one to oppose them. Yes, as
Khushal Khan Khattak said,``
``Za da hagha shazalmo zine zaregam

Che ranisee da asmaan stoori pa las

take care {{{Khudaa paaimaan theiy kanaa}}} and derra derra merbani for your i-log.

PS:-Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. At the end no hard feelings.

In the Michael Hart`s book Mohandas Gandhi finds honorable mention and but the list does contain Hitler. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806513500/ref=sr_11_1/104-2962536-1359106?%5Fencoding=UTF8

ISBN: 0806513500

#82 by pmishra2

If you think indians had anything to do with blowing up worshippers anywhere, you are much crazier than I thought you were.

Mishra Sahib, I always used to think Ostriches were found only in Africa until I came across Ahmadzai. Now I know a few are found in Pakistan too.