NOzzi:Wikipedia endorses Muhammad? LOL. Wikipedia also endorses various gods of Hindus. Why don't you worship them also?

Submitted by Plato (India), May 4, 2009 at 07:17

Nozzi, you write:

>>Those words that are in bold are the extracted words pertaining to the history of Prophet Muhammad from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah (also spelled Mohammed or Muhammed) (ca. 570 Mecca - June 8, 632 Medina), is the foundation of the religion of Islam and is regarded as Muslims as a mesenger and prophet of God (Arabic: Allah), the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of prophets……... He was also active as a diploma, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military, general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action.

It is mentioned above that Prophet Muhammad is regarded to be the messenger and prophet of God, the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of prophet.<<

Given below is an extract from Wikipedia on Rama a Hindu God. To paraphrase what you have written: "It is mentioned below that Rama is regarded as an incarnation (avatar) of the God Vishnu and he is referred to as the Perfect Man.

Now that Wikipedia has endorsed Rama as an avatar of a God are you willing to start worshipping Rama in your mosque? If not, why not?

Rama (IAST: rāma, Devanāgarī: राम, Khmer: ព្រះ​រាម, Thai: พระราม, Lao: ພຣະຣາມ, Burmese: Yama, Tagalog: Rajah Bantugan) or Ramachandra was a legendary king of Ayodhya in ancient India. In Hinduism,^[1] he is the seventh avatar of Vishnu^[2] and a lila-avatara as described in the Bhagavata Purana.^[3] A significant section of Hindus do not doubt his historicity, and consider him an actual king who ruled over a large part of what is now India from his capital Ayodhya.

Rama is one of the many popular figures and deities in Hinduism, specifically Vaishnavism and Vaishnava religious scriptures in South and Southeast Asia.^[4] The majority of details concerning Rama come from the Ramayana, one of the two great epics of India.^[5] Born as the eldest son of Kaushalya and Dasharatha, king of Ayodhya, Rama is referred to within Hinduism as Maryada Purushottama,^[6] literally the Perfect Man or Lord of Restrictions.^[7] Rama is vethe husband of Sita, who Hindus consider to be an Avatar of Lakshmi and the embodiment of perfect womanhood.^[6][8]

>>As he is the last law-bearer in a series of prophet, it is rational for moderate Muslims to accept that the Holy Quran to be the only source that is reliable for meditation and it is not justifiable for anyone to use the words from other muslims, especially the words from muslim extremists, in replacement of the words from Allaah<<

How do you know Muhammad was the last law giver? It is only his own self-proclaimed claim.

Is it rational for you, a moderate Muslim, to obey this command of Allah:

002.216 YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

Allah is telling you, a moderate Muslim, like the Muslims of the prophet's time, that you should be out fighting the non-Muslims. You are turning a blind eye to what Allah tells you to do.

According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin ali ibn Abi Talib, close fiend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid.

Prophet Muhammad received the revelation from Allah, he did not slaughter his wife, friend and adopted son since they were not Muslims at all in the beginning.<<

Nozzi, I don't know what is happening or going on in your mind. But it is certainly very dangerous. You seem to think that Muhammad was being merciful for not slaughtering his wife and friends as soon as he received Allah's revelation. What great crime had they committed to deserve being slaughtered? Being pagans? Is that what you really want to say?? If yes, you are saying that pagans deserve to be slaughtered for their unbelief. Your calling yourself a moderate Muslim is pure taqia. I know Islam does drive people out of their minds and your statements on this blog are prime examples of what it does to Muslims.

>>Prophet Muhammad was willing to spare his time to reach out to the pagans and that lead to the conversions to muslims one to be followed by another.<<

Muhammad had plenty of time to spare. He had a rich wife who took care of all his creature comforts.

>>For instance, if Prophet Muhammad was a selfish and cruel man, he would simply hide the message of Allah from his close firiend and his adopted son without showing mercy to reach out to them so as to patiently wait for their repentance to become muslims since they were not muslims initially at all.<<

If Muhammad did not declare himself to be a prophet who would ever know he was one? Who would respect him? It was not mercy that induced him to preach about an angry jealous Allah but the desire to dominate the people around him. That is why Allah's message is so full of incitement to war against people who did not believe in Muhammad. 9:29, 9:111 etc.

>>If Prophet Muhammad was cruel and that Allah's mission for him was to slaughter non-muslims as long as they'd found them, Prophet Muhammad would not spend time to preach to the public since he would began his battle to slaughter all the surrounding pagans.<<

Nozzi, do you have any use for logic at all? How was he to go about slaughtering all the pagans around single handedly? There is no evidence that Allah had given him super powers to do so.

You may have noticed (or have you?) that Muhammad began his career of slaughter only after he had sufficient armed men under his command.

>>As Prophet Muhammad did not slaughter the pagans immediately after receiving revelation from Allah and yet he began to preach to be public actively, it implies that he is a righteous man that he would not like to see pagans to suffer in the Last Judgment Day and that caused him to begin his mission to preach the message of Allah to be public. Thus, he was indeed merciful to the pagans and he did not want to see pagans to perish during the Last Judgment Day.<<

Read this little para I have composed and compare with the yours above:

"As Prophet Plato did not slaughter the Muslims immediately after receiving revelation from Halla and yet he began to preach to be public actively, it implies that he (Plato) is a righteous man that he would not like to see Muslims to suffer on the Great Day and that caused him to begin his mission to preach the message of Halla to be public. Thus he was indeed merciful to the Muslims and he did not want to see Muslims to perish during the Great Day."

Now what sense did I make? Do you want to hear the message of Halla and be saved? I will be glad to start my dawa with you, take you as my first convert, and save you on the Great Day.

>>it is mentioned above that Meccan tribes were hostile to Muhammad. As he and his followed were treated harshly by the Mecann tribes and that caused him to trigger off the war against them.<<

Muhammad started insulting their gods and customs. If the pagans in Singapore insult Islam in what would you do?

Will you expect the Chinese Buddhists to treat you mildly if you insulted the Buddha? (I expect given the nature of their religion they may also not bother like the pagans of Mecca did, patiently bearing the insults heaped on them by Muhammad).

>>He only fought back when the pagans began to trigger off their battle with him.<<

Instead of making a statement without any evidence why don't you show from the reports of Muslims of the time that the pagans were the ones who triggered the violence. Your Islamic teacher ashamed of your prophet's violent nature painted a different picture for you. Read the original sources about Muhammad.

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".