Christian Writer Needs Our Help Against Islam-Hating Blogger

[m.akbhar1982]

A Christian HubPages writer is outraged by another blogger who claims
that Mohammed (PBUH) "is a liar, a murderer, a pedophile and a thief. He
is a false prophet who should have been killed..." He asks for help in
convincing HubPages to delete this profound offense against one billion
believers. Please post a comment at
http://hubpages.com/hub/In-defense-of-the-theologically-indefensible (http://hubpages.com/hub/In-defense-of-the-theologically-indefensible) and agree with our Christian brother that HubPages must learn Muslims will not stand by while our Prophet is slandered!

[Suhaib Jobst]

These are the comments which I just posted on that site:

Let me first preface by saying that I am a former Christian who converted to Islam nearly seven years ago. My purpose will not be to force my Din upon you all -- that is certainly not my place to do so, since "there is no compulsion in the Religion" (Sura al-Baqara, 2:256) -- but rather to address some misconceptions as it regards the character of the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Let us break down these claims one by one. SirDent begins by calling him "a liar". Apparently he failed to do his research. If he would have done so, he would have known that his nickname was al-Amin (the Trustworthy). Even his worse enemies from the pagan Quraish testified to his trustworthiness. These enemies used all sorts of arguments, but never once did they dispute his honesty.

I would also add that if he was "a liar", what do most liars do? They lie to pump up their egos. Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was actually very humble and the Qur'an refers to many earlier prophets more than it even refers to him. In a hadith, or recorded statement of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), he said that the prophets were brothers to each other and none is better than another. Certainly not the statement of "a liar".

SirDent then calls him "a murderer". The perfect refutation to this is his conquest of Makkah, the city which had just been fighting him and his message for the past two decades. Yet he granted an amnesty to its inhabitants and even the leaders of Quraish, all except for a few leaders who fought him to the end.

Earlier there had been a Jewish woman who tried to poison him, yet he pardoned her. Some of those who had fought him earlier later became his followers, he accepted them with open arms as his brothers in Islam. He did not hold grudges and refrained from retribution, such as when he held true to the terms of the treaty of Hudaybiyya even while the Quraish violated several of its terms. He later pardoned the ones who had earlier killed his beloved uncle Hamza.

SirDent calls him "a pedophile". Pedophiles are those who prey upon children for lewd and lascivious acts. Apparently he failed to recognize that the youngest of his wives was A'isha, all the rest were older widows whom he supported financially and emotionally. A'isha became one of his staunchest followers, later narrating many ahadith (plural form of hadith). This is certainly not the act of one who fell victim to a "pedophile".

SirDent also fails to recognize that age during that time was a far different concept than now, due to our higher life expectancies. To condemn the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) he would have to condemn all early human beings, who married at earlier ages than now. I would like him to consider the example of the Virgin Mary, who was a teenager when she gave birth to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

Our detractor then goes on to claim "a thief". Not even his worse enemies during his lifetime accused him of such a deed, since they knew he was Al-Amin. If he was "a thief", why then did the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) live a very humble life? He shied away from wealth and riches. He did not seek after any comforts of this life, rather he was known for his humble means. He would not take so much as a date from the Zakat and Sadaqa, but rather these would be distributed with justice.

Thiefs will accept things when honestly given to them as well, since it is their greed that is the root of the problem. However, the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) expressly refused to accept any charity. The private property of his Companions (Sahaba) were considered inviolable, certainly not the act of one who is allegedly a thief in a position of power, who could easily use this position to steal from his followers. Yet the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was the exact opposite of this.

As for being "a false prophet who should have been killed", this statement definitely speaks for itself. While speaking about the alleged violent teachings of Islam, in true Orwellian fashion (double-speak) SirDent is the one who actually espouses violent tendencies. I think that this statement shows his true nature as one who has some mental imbalances and lives in a fantasy world where the sword decides everything. Now we know where he comes up with all of these claims!

[ummafnaan]

These are the comments which I just posted on that site:

Let me first preface by saying that I am a former Christian who converted to Islam nearly seven years ago. My purpose will not be to force my Din upon you all -- that is certainly not my place to do so, since "there is no compulsion in the Religion" (Sura al-Baqara, 2:256) -- but rather to address some misconceptions as it regards the character of the Prophet Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

Let us break down these claims one by one. SirDent begins by calling him "a liar". Apparently he failed to do his research. If he would have done so, he would have known that his nickname was al-Amin (the Trustworthy). Even his worse enemies from the pagan Quraish testified to his trustworthiness. These enemies used all sorts of arguments, but never once did they dispute his honesty.

I would also add that if he was "a liar", what do most liars do? They lie to pump up their egos. Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was actually very humble and the Qur'an refers to many earlier prophets more than it even refers to him. In a hadith, or recorded statement of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), he said that the prophets were brothers to each other and none is better than another. Certainly not the statement of "a liar".

SirDent then calls him "a murderer". The perfect refutation to this is his conquest of Makkah, the city which had just been fighting him and his message for the past two decades. Yet he granted an amnesty to its inhabitants and even the leaders of Quraish, all except for a few leaders who fought him to the end.

Earlier there had been a Jewish woman who tried to poison him, yet he pardoned her. Some of those who had fought him earlier later became his followers, he accepted them with open arms as his brothers in Islam. He did not hold grudges and refrained from retribution, such as when he held true to the terms of the treaty of Hudaybiyya even while the Quraish violated several of its terms. He later pardoned the ones who had earlier killed his beloved uncle Hamza.

SirDent calls him "a pedophile". Pedophiles are those who prey upon children for lewd and lascivious acts. Apparently he failed to recognize that the youngest of his wives was A'isha, all the rest were older widows whom he supported financially and emotionally. A'isha became one of his staunchest followers, later narrating many ahadith (plural form of hadith). This is certainly not the act of one who fell victim to a "pedophile".

SirDent also fails to recognize that age during that time was a far different concept than now, due to our higher life expectancies. To condemn the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) he would have to condemn all early human beings, who married at earlier ages than now. I would like him to consider the example of the Virgin Mary, who was a teenager when she gave birth to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

Our detractor then goes on to claim "a thief". Not even his worse enemies during his lifetime accused him of such a deed, since they knew he was Al-Amin. If he was "a thief", why then did the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) live a very humble life? He shied away from wealth and riches. He did not seek after any comforts of this life, rather he was known for his humble means. He would not take so much as a date from the Zakat and Sadaqa, but rather these would be distributed with justice.

Thiefs will accept things when honestly given to them as well, since it is their greed that is the root of the problem. However, the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) expressly refused to accept any charity. The private property of his Companions (Sahaba) were considered inviolable, certainly not the act of one who is allegedly a thief in a position of power, who could easily use this position to steal from his followers. Yet the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was the exact opposite of this.

As for being "a false prophet who should have been killed", this statement definitely speaks for itself. While speaking about the alleged violent teachings of Islam, in true Orwellian fashion (double-speak) SirDent is the one who actually espouses violent tendencies. I think that this statement shows his true nature as one who has some mental imbalances and lives in a fantasy world where the sword decides everything. Now we know where he comes up with all of these claims!

Well said brother,

May Allah reward u.

[morbius]

A liar, a murderer… Muhammad didn’t really do anything that any other average ruler of his time wouldn’t do. He ruled in difficult times over difficult people, some amount of cruelty and deception was probably unavoidable.
A pedophile… under today’s definition Muhammad would definitely qualify as a pedophile, but again people should not forget that customs were different in 7th century Arabia and that marrying girls whose age was in single digits was not uncommon.

So, everything really has to be looked at through the prism of time and place.
For instance, we can say that Muhammad’s laws were cruel, as they appear so to us today, but they were actually quite merciful for 7th century Arabia and certainly an improvement to previous Arabian lawlessness. We might say that Muhammad’s teachings are oppressive and demeaning to women, but at that time and place they were actually quite pro-feminine, for they granted some rights to women.