Nozzi: These biographers also depend on the original sources I quote

Submitted by Plato (India), May 2, 2009 at 09:16

Nozzi you wrote:

>>The words in bold below are the extracted words from Biolgraphy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), by Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq:<<

Like your previous reference article by Funk & Wagnalis if you check the original sources for this biography of Muhammad you will find many references to Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Saad, Malik Ibn Anas and the sahi hadith. Please refer to them rather than various modern historians whose only sources are these ancient chroniclers of the prophet's life.

>>…Khadijah then consulted with her cousin Waraqa who was an old, saintly man possessing knowledge of previous relevations and scriptures. Waraqa confirmed to her that the visitor was none other than the Angel Gabriel who had come to Moses. He then added that Muhammad is the expected Prophet. Khadijah accepted the revelation as truth and was the first person to accept Islam..<<

From the long passage you have quoted I have cut and paste the above part for analysis. From it you will note that Khadija's cousin Waraqa is claimed to be knowledgeable about previous scriptures (Judaism, Christianity, he was believed to be a Christian). Now ask yourself how Waraqa knew that it was Gabriel who had visited Muhammad. Had Waraqa also seen this angel? Muhammad's description of Gabriel (he could have been using his own fertile imagination, like the human-faced horse that carried him to Allah) stretching from horizon to horizon is not found in the Bible or Jewish scriptures.

The only proof you have for Muhammad's having seen Gabriel is Waraqa's shaky evidence. Would you accept a statement by me that the angel Michael had visited me if I describe some fantastic many winged creature and a saintly man confirms the vision was that of an angel of Allah?

>>As mentioned above, also that he was the first convert for muslim.<<

You are wrong. The very first human Adam was also a Muslim and so were the other prophets and their followers according to Islam.

>>However, muslims abuse the Holy Quran and assumed that he was so bad that he would kill all non-muslims without waiting for their repentance.<<

Does this imply that it was okay for Muhammad to kill non-Muslims who did not repent?

>>Even though he was surrounded by pagans, he would help the poor and this should show how merciful that Prophet Muhammad was<<

The prophet was a penniless man with a rich wife. It is easy to be generous with your wife's money and take credit for being generous and merciful. The credit for his generosity in Mecca should go to Khadija. In Medina he began to be generous only after his successful raids on caravans and rich Jewish tribes.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 357: "Narrated Anas bin Malik: People used to give some of their datepalms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors. "

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 446: "Narrated Anas: Some (of the Ansar) used to present date palm trees to the Prophet till Banu Quraiza and Banu An-Nadir were conquered (then he returned to the people their date palms). ….."

>>For instance, if Allah's mission for Prophet Muhammad was to slaughter the pagans without leaving any mercy to share the message of Allah to them, Gabriel should have informed him to do that for his initial three years with his wife, friends and associates. However, he did not slaughter them and it implies the teaching on slaughtering the pagans without mercy is erroneous.<<

Nozzi, you keep repeating this ridiculous claim that since Muhammad did not begin his slaughtering career during the first three years of revelation it shows he was a merciful man. Imagine if I received revelation and I had a handful of followers in Singapore. Would I not be stupid to start slaughtering the people around for not believing me unless I had sufficient numbers to be confident of not getting killed by the vast majority surrounding me? Is this simple logic so difficult for you to understand??

>>When Prophet Muhammad become the first muslim and then followed by his wife, they did not slaughter the pagans, such as, his servant Zayd ibn Harithah, his friend Abu Bakr and his daugthers. ……For instance, if Allah's mission to him is to slaughter all the pagans by not sharing the message of Allah to them, his servant, friend and his daughters could have died in his hands without hearing the message of Allah.<<

ROTFL. Would Muhammad have got a single follower if he killed his own daughters for his religion? Has Islam completely robbed of your ability to think??

>>For instance, if Prophet Muhammad was cruel and he was so selfish that he did not want the pagans to know the message from Allah, he would simply keep the words by not sharing it to them and he simply slaugthered non-muslims from one place to another and act accordingly as what muslim extremists behave nowadays<<

Muhammad could not create havoc because he did not have enough people or weapons to slaughter when in Mecca, unlike today's Muslim extremists, who have plenty of weapons and killers to spread mayhem.

>>The slow growing number of only forty new converts within three years implies that Prophet Muhammad was willing to wait patiently for the repentance of the pagans.<<

What else could he do but wait patiently with so few followers to threaten the pagans?

>>The prhase, youth as well as older people from a wide range of economic and social backgournd, implies that Prophet Muhammad did not look down on those poor pagants and he was willing to step down to lower his position rather as a Prophet to reach out to poor pagans for their conversions to muslims. Indeed, we, moderate muslims, should be proud of him since he was the man that was willing to mix with the poor pagans.<<

The gullible poor and illiterate were more willing to follow him because he lured them with false visions, like any other charlatan, of a life after death that was better than what the rich had in Mecca. His paradise consisted of plenty to drink, including wine that did not cause a headache, mounds of food and any number of buxom women for the asking.

>>He did not abuse his authority to kill and kill all the pagans that he saw but was willing to reach out even the poor pagans.<<

He had no authority in Mecca. He was a very poor orphan married to a very rich woman.

>>THE LEADERS OF MAKKAH, TOOK HIS PREACHING WITH HOSTILITY. THE MOST HOSTILE AND CLOSEST TO THE PROPHET WAS HIS UNCLE ABU LAHAB AND HIS WIFE.<<

Nozzi, if your nephew started cursing and abusing Allah and Muhammad would you not turn hostile towards him? What is your answer?

>>Initially, they and other leaders of Quraish tried to bribe him with money and power including an offer to make him king if he were to abandon his mesage.<<

Would also not persuade your nephew by bribes and if that failed by threats to abandon his hostility to Islam? If your nephew was as convinced of his mission as Muhammad he would also reject such bribes.

>> When this did not work, they tried to convince his uncle Abu Talib to accept the best young man of Makkah in place of Muhammad and ALLOW THEM TO KILL MUHAMMAD.<<

Abu Talib refused and refused to lift his protection of his nephew.

>>His uncle tried to persuade the Prophet to stop preaching but the Prophet said, "O uncle, if they were to put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to stop me from preaching Islam, I would never stop. I will keep preaching un til Allah makes Islam previal or I die."<<

After claiming to be Allah's messenger accepting the bribes on offer would have made Muhammad lose face. He was now stuck with being the Messenger.

>>Prophet Muhammad would wish all the pagans to be saved and yet muslim extremists do not like them to repent but kill and kill. What the sad thing happens in the world!<<

Sadder still are the stories that 'moderate' Muslims like you believe about Muhammad. Unless the general mass of Muslims realize the sad fact that Muhammad is the primary cause for all the killing by your brothers in faith, the world will continue to suffer Islamic violence.

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".