(Whew!  finally found time to plough through this!)

The Quran itself acknowledges that it is possible for Muhammad to make errors:
"Say: If I err, I err only to my own loss, and if I am rightly guided it is because of that which my Lord hath revealed unto me." [34:50]

But I shouldn't need to prove the commonplace observation that "to err is human".  The claim of infallibility is the "extraordinarily unlikely thing", and as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I don't see why.  The role of women in society is very different from the role of men.  I don't think we need to take a poll to prove that.  And if the roles are different, then the role models must be different as well.

Is there anything to be learned about automobile maintenance based on how Muhammad treated his camel?

The point is that we have many more and better choices with regard to transportation than Muhammad did.  Did he choose a camel because it's better, or because he didn't have a car?  We don't know, but we can't simply say that camels are better than cars because Muhammad rode a camel.

The same can be said about shaving, or about using miswaks to clean teeth, and so on.  We live in a very different world, with different circumstances to deal with, and different choices available.  There is no reason to assume that Muhammad would make the same choices today as he did 1400 years ago.

And where does it say that their authority lasted until the next messenger?

In all cases the messenger is given "the message" in order to explain things to the people.  The Message is the explanation: by reciting it, the messenger explains God's law.  The Quran refers to itself as the explanation in several places, for examples:

"This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds." [10:37]
"We have explained in detail in this Qur'an, for the benefit of mankind, every kind of similitude: but man is, in most things, contentious." [18:54]

This sounds like mere word play to me.  If he was instructed to, then surely he needed to.  As for whether it was God's revelation or his own, that still needs some supporting evidence.

You realize that that is a totally meaningless statement, don't you?  The Quran is complete, because it contains everything that is in the Quran?

Where in the Quran can I verify Muhammad's statements about beards?

So you're suggesting that God chose to reveal certain aspects of Islam through the sunna because a "live" demonstration was the best form of explanation?  But we don't have that anymore, do we?  We don't have a person performing it in front of us -- all we have is words.  So even if the theory made sense at the time, it just doesn't make sense now.

Well of course he does, and so should all Muslims.  "What was revealed" being the Quran, naturally.

"Nothing have we omitted from the Book..." [6:38]
"For We had certainly sent unto them a Book, based on knowledge, which We explained in detail,- a guide and a mercy to all who believe." [7:52]

And what did the Prophet say about prayer and fasting times in a place where the sun never sets of rises for days, maybe months?

See 7:52 above.  Also:
"Say: 'Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail.' They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt." [6:114]

I said it's impossible to literally follow him -- therefore we need to interpret the phrase more loosely.  Because Muhammad is emphatically presented in the Quran as a mortal man and not a partner to God, surely the interpretation ought to be to follow him as one normally follows a mortal man, and not a partner to God.

And was that leadership helpful or harmful?  As I look back at Islamic history, I see a civilization that was one of the greatest in the world during its early days; but one which has remained isolated and frozen in time, which failed to adapt or progess with the others (the very word "innovation" has derogatory connotations), and thus has become intellectually stagnant and politically corrupt.  I believe that is largely because Muslims follow the "leadership" of a dead man, as if he were a living God.

 

The kindness of a mother for her child might be somewhat different from that of a father, for instance.  A mother's role is traditionally more nurturing and comforting, whereas a father might be a better role model for his son by teaching him the more masculine virtues of stoicism and endurance.

Look they are one in the same.. gender does not have a monopoly on any given trait. There are many kind fathers and I could easily argue that women demonstrate plenty of stoicism and endurance. There are plenty of role models for us in our lives. Some better than others.

Its like saying my teacher.. who is considered a master in martial arts and self-defense cannot be a role model for men. Why not? She is to the many men who train under her. So why can't the Prophet (PBUH) be a role model to women? He can be a model as a loving kind parent. See that is the beauty of Islam.. when you look at its core.. it actually de-accentuates gender once you get past the basics. My success as a person- whether I live the values of Islam is up to me. And that is true of men as well.

And was that leadership helpful or harmful?  As I look back at Islamic history, I see a civilization that was one of the greatest in the world during its early days; but one which has remained isolated and frozen in time, which failed to adapt or progess with the others (the very word "innovation" has derogatory connotations), and thus has become intellectually stagnant and politically corrupt.  I believe that is largely because Muslims follow the "leadership" of a dead man, as if he were a living God.

See Ron that is where you live.. this world. Guess what.. there are reasons for everything. How has following the Prophet (PBUH) stagnated us.. because Muslims don't what... drink booze? Eat pork? Umm fornicate? Do you want us to live like the people who think the ends justifies the means? Do what you want as long as you get "yours in the end? What exactly is your beef? People pray 5 times a day? They limit the amount of TV they watch? I mean are we "stagnant" cause we don't watch MTV? I just don't get what you are seeing? we don't 'date?'  What is your problem. Why do you think because we THINK About our lives beyond  the hear and now that you think is SO bad.

And it could be argued that the issues you raise have to do with that Muslims are NOT following the Sunnah. They are not raising their families in an Islamic manner. You think the corruption and greed of say, the Saudi govt has to do with following Islam? The issue is they DO NOT. That is what many Muslim here say. You read anyone here and the despotism and greed of t he elite who destroy Muslims (against the Sunnah) is WRONG.

The thing is at the core you know LITTLE about Islam. You have a limited vision.

Take for instance.. the Prophet (PBUH) never, ever hit a woman or anyone. Imagine is all Muslims did that? Can you imagine? He (PBUH)  was kind to EVERY person, even those who tried to kill him. He (PBUH) never spoke ill of people. THAT is the Sunnah. That is what every Muslim should be striving to do. The fact that we do not IS the issue. Muslims have been led astray.




Edited by Hayfa - 20 October 2009 at 7:06am

I think we may be disagreeing over terminology.  To me, desirable traits that are common to all people regardless of gender, age, occupation, etc., are what I would call core values.  Kindness would be one such value.  However, kindness is an abstraction.  What does kindness actually mean in practice?  How is it expressed and what does it look like in a particular situation?

As a young child, if I accidentally hit my thumb with a hammer, my mother would probably scoop me up in her arms and console me.  My father, on the other hand, might jokingly chide me about hitting the wrong nail, and then show me how to use a hammer safely.  There is nothing wrong or unkind about either response, and no reason why either should be exclusively male of female; but mother and father generally play different roles in the family, and IMHO that's as it should be.  I certainly respect and cherish the many things I learned from my mother, but there's no doubt in my mind that my father was a better role model for me to emulate as a father.

Thank you.  I consider that as a high compliment.

I don't care whether you drink booze etc. or not.  My "beef", as you call it, might be better discussed as a separate topic; but briefly, it is that Muslims continue to model themselves after a man who might have been an excellent role model in 600 A.D. but would probably (and rightly) be in jail if he behaved that way in 21st century Canada.

"Or anyone?"  Oh, come on, Hayfa!  Muhammad was a famous and celebrated warrior.

Have you actually read the hadith?

I beg to differ on that Ron,even the bible speaks of his skin tone and wooly hair.My whole point was if the picture was true then he surely shaved im not off the topic.we can make this long or short,and hey! you replied to my comment to Hayfa,i never meant for this to go this far.

I could give you plenty of examples, but I don't want to turn this into an anti-Muhammad discussion because that is not my intent.  However, since you insist, consider that he had sex with a nine year old girl.  Yes, I know that was not considered immoral or perhaps even especially unusual at the time.  Once again, my point is that Muhammad was a man of his time, perhaps an excellent role model for the seventh century but not for today.

Of course, Muhammad was kind to his family and friends (do you need a role model to teach you that?), but he was ruthless toward his enemies.  Many of his wartime activities would be considered war crimes by modern standards.