The prophet of Islam, who many will know of by the name Mohammed (or Qathem, his actual name) has had a great deal of criticism thrown in and about his direction, and although every blogger and or television personality that dares to raise an objection suchlike this are themselves subject to the worst kinds of attack, most of what they bring to light you’ll find in the authentic Muslim writings about the life and teachings of Mohammad himself. So wherein is the conflict to be found?
Today I’m writing on the subject of Mohammedans, not Muslims generally, but that very special, very large section of the Islamic and Western world that so love Mohammad they’ve earned themselves the name. However if you’re new to the subject you’ll be asking yourself, ‘What’s wrong with loving Mohammad, didn’t he preach, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” (Jesus) As well as, “One should not despise what one has received, nor envy the gains of others.” (Buddha) And much of the same?’ Well the plainest answer to the question ‘What’s wrong with loving Mohammad?’ would be not a thing, not if he taught love and compassion in a familiar fashion to that of other religion’s spiritual leaders, which he sadly did not. Because Mohammad’s neighbor wasn’t the good Samaritan, nor would it be the historic Jesus of Nazareth (a practicing Jew). Instead only other Muslims (Quran 9:123) found in Mohammad any sort of kind-heartedness. So there’s slim to nothing to concern ourselves over, not if this is indeed an article about the followers of Mohammad, since such an unsympathetic figure as the prophet of Islam should quickly fade into obscurity, hence becoming unloved by all save his most early, and therefore most fanatical followers, much like Vlad the impaler, Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Now in assuming that we’d be spot on, who historians call Mohammad goes largely unreported on via popular media here in the free world, he to the world is dead and forgotten therefore, for if we aren’t writing in unbiased a fashion the Islamic world most assuredly isn’t.
Rather it’s this fantasy Mohammad of Islam’s Mohammedans who’s yet spoken and written of, even to the point of being written upon here, that nevertheless the idea of recasting Mohammad as a fantasy figure who can do no wrong, or al-Insān al-Kāmil (the perfect man) as he’s considered throughout the Islamic world, isn’t simply right judgement gone amiss according to the Westerner’s enlightened mindset, it’s also incoherent when applied to Islam itself. Suddenly the self proclaimed prophet who’s only sign the Koran calls ‘terror’ (Quran 17:59) we now read to be shooting water from his fingertips, and receiving revelatory warnings by way of his lamb dinner! (Ibn Sa’d page 249). This being part of the scene which led to Mohammad’s death, according to Muslim sources. Can a second fantasy Mohammad, one whose life is rich in miraculous happenings supersede another found throughout multiple verses of the Koran, one who the Koran says did nothing in terms of signs and wonders (Quran 13:7), apparently so. Yet the glorification of Mohammad through the Mohammedans doesn’t stop there, choosing instead to defy both the Koran and their traditions in favor of a creed titled Fiqh Akbar II, which goes on to say: ‘All the Prophets are exempt from sins, both light and grave, from unbelief and sordid deeds. Yet stumbling and mistakes may happen on their part.’ (Wensinck, The Muslim Creed, p. 192). Ought right minded people believe men, men like Mohammad who’ve sinned just as any man sins (Quran 47:19), sharing in God’s sinlessness? Yes according to modern day Islamic teachings.
You’ll find with contemplation that questions like this resonate with you too, if you’re an open minded student of Islam, since you like many others earnestly want to please God through good actions, and not simply be part of an ever expanding movement, one based primarily on Arab/Muslim superiority. That leads me to ask if anyone happens to think deifying Mohammad an acceptable practice in the Islamic religion, since passages considered authoritative explicitly state how the earth belongs to Allah and Mohammad (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4363). Or we could discuss the Koran verses that demand Muslims to help Allah’s apostle, and revere him, and glorify him day and night (Quran 48:8-9). Reading the passage in an unaltered form, which I’d advise all readers to seek out online, is certainly an eye opener. Can we honestly say the divine creator of the universe has ordered mankind to revere and glorify a human prophet day and night, and if Mohammedans believe that’s the case when do we find time in the day to praise and glorify Allah amid all this sinful idolatry? Could this be in part part of the reason why anti blasphemy laws are now being geared towards Mohammad himself, and less concerned with the defense of Allah.
Is it even possible to be guilty of blaspheming another member of mankind, since blasphemy is most often described as being, ‘The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a God.’ Is Mohammad a God? Or is this perhaps another misused word on the lips of many Muslims today, much like how an Islamic martyr is a perversion of an actual martyr, with the authentic being someone who suffers greatly and is ultimately put to death for refusing to denounce their religious convictions (think Justin Martyr or Ignatius of Antioch). While an Islamic martyr is in actuality a murdering jihadiphile slaughtered in violent combat (Quran 9:111).
The death of Ignatius of Antioch, martyred by lions for refusing to deny Jesus of Nazareth before Roman authority.
Yet Mohammedan love for the prophet of Islam doesn’t finish there, rather it usurps the very throne of Allah himself! As found in this narration, deemed authentic by the likes of al-Tabari, Imam al-Qurtubi and Al-Hakim:
‘When Adam committed his mistake he said: “O my Lord, I am asking you to forgive me for the sake of Mohammad.” Allah said: “O Adam, and how do you know about Mohammad whom I have not yet created?” Adam replied, “O my Lord, after You created me with your hand and breathed into me of Your Spirit, I raised my head and saw written on the heights of the Throne: LA ILAHA ILLALLAH Mohammad UN RASULULLAH I understood that You would not place next to Your Name but the Most Beloved One of Your creation.” Allah said: “O Adam, I have forgiven you, and were it not for Mohammad I would not have created you.”
Would these words spoken about Moses in Pakistan or about Jacob in Iran be considered anything other than setting up partners with Allah? Yet why be so shocked or offended by such writings as this, since the Koran, a source as authentic as you can get, tells believing men and women the world over how ultimately Allah and all the angels pray over Mohammad (Quran 33:56). Yes, Allah prays, sadly you’ll rarely find this passage translated honestly for the damaging implications of it all. Nevertheless, there’s a well known criticism of Mohammad that doesn’t involve him being raised to the status of demigod, and that’s that he took to himself more wives than his revelations actually allow. Furthermore, although there’s justification plainly stated in the Koran for Mohammad’s questionable behavior (Quran 33:50), the overzealous Mohammedans can’t help but race to defend him, doing so with their lives if needs be, as if to say the Koran testimony itself isn’t fitly enough a defense.
And the Koran (in defense of Mohammad) states:
‘O Mohammed! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those captive whom your right hand possesses — whom God has given to you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who migrated with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to you, and you wish to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the rest of the believers.’
‘A privilege for you only.’ Is of course the obvious escape clause herein the text. These sorts of convenient exemptions are usually met with a round of applause, in Saudi Arabia, however promoting these sorts of revelation anywhere else would hint at the prophet being merely a commonplace fraud, one backed by little bar his thugs and their swords. It’s fair to say Islamic history, albeit impressive to the 8th, 9th and 10th century Arabs who wrote it, hasn’t aged particularly well, instead the men you’ll find therein appear as you’d expect a band of 7th century caravan raiders to appear, that being patriarchal, sexually motivated in much of what they do and unlearned of beliefs outside of their immediate culture, altogether an earthly, cardinal bunch.
But maybe there’s more to the revelation! Something that can turn around this seemingly self serving hodgepodge into something more befitting a humble prophet of Allah. Herein steps the Mohammedans, bringing with them what perhaps is the second best known defense, in which a firebrand of an apologist would usually concoct a myriad of reasons why Mohammad just had to marry this troupe of females, which included although wasn’t limited to non-Muslims, slaves and his infamous child bride Aisha (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65). Of course these are in lion’s share utterly contrived, classic ideas you’ll always find attached to the fantasy Mohammad, ideas which largely depart from both the Koran and traditions of Mohammad into areas which to call speculative would be overly generous. Some of these fantasy scenarios include, ‘To break social taboos.’ This would be found in Mohammad breaking up the marriage of his adopted son, only to subsequently marry the divorcee himself. Or, ‘To offer a practical role model to Muslims until the end of time.’ Which makes absolutely no sense when considered beside the Koran, since their examples are both considered a guidance for Muslims, whereas Mohammad (remember al-Insān al-Kāmil?) advises obedient Muslims through his seemingly lecherous actions to contradict their holy book’s teachings.
You can imagine how tempting it is on the part of the Muslim apologist to simply assert that Mohammad was sexually involved with a string of slaves, captives, family members and children, most of whom he wasn’t actually wedded to, all for the sake of mankind. The justifications are in fact so rampant you’ll find more reasons why Mohammad had to behave this way than he had wives! Does the fact disprove Mohammad’s claim to be a bona fide prophet? Of course not, instead it’s illustrative of how far into fantasy some Mohammedans are willing to go to excuse the life of their personal idol, be he prophet or otherwise. These points notwithstanding many will persist in their defense of Mohammad, doing so regardless of their traditions, solid history, or even the Koran, which leads me to my final thought on the issue today. Is Mohammad simply worth it, is he worth being praised more so than Allah, is he the sinless owner of the world much like Allah, is he so wonderful that we’re willing to excuse any and all practices of his without the faintest resistance. If so then Islam can no longer be known as simple submission to Allah, but wholesale slavery to the memory of Mohammad, slavery to Mohammad’s grave yet worshiped by Muslims in a Medinian mosque, slavery to comply with the sexual misconduct of this 7th century Arab, and even slavery to the lies by which he misled.
― T. C. M