Re: Very disturbing
^ I think it was gutsy of you to entertain that question in your mind and then ask it in this thread.
Re: Very disturbing
I think you should pray two nafal to ask for forgiveness for the thoughts that struck your mind about Prophet :saw:. You don’t have to do it but its a good way to ask for forgiveness and to be on the safe side on the day of judgement. 
Doesn’t take that long.
Re: Very disturbing
Um... actually if you read my first post carefully, I have the whole story in quotation marks... O.o
I was just relaying what I had read from other sources, not believing it to be true, but actually asking for the real story. Asking was better than being in doubt, ya?
Re: Very disturbing
From an outsider's view point - It's good that sensitive questions are being asked to clear doubts. Unfortunately, some people cannot tolerate this and discourage any debate on religion.
Just for your satisfaction - ALL religions have weaknesses which we try to "brush under the carpet". Like an Ostrich sticking it's head in the sand, we hope if we cannot see, then no one else can see (these shorcomings).
Re: Very disturbing
^ I don't understand what you mean by run away? Who ran away? From what? If you addressed that to me pls explain.
Look - if a non-Prophet human gets a vision that says something he did is now ok, we would all calll that a lie or a custom made vision ti fit the error. I can understand everyone wanting to see this case differently since it is the Prophet. But then don't make it out as if it was shown as an example for all non-Prophet humans to follow.
Secondly - by updating the rules of islam does not erase history as you seem to think. Nobody erases what happened in the 6th century by changing the rules that have clearly become unacceptible and untenable in modern times.
I think you do, this is not your first encounter with me where you leave questions unanswered or hanging on tangents.
Ah! You are still turning a deaf ear to what we have been saying when you state "... an example for all non-Prophet humans to follow". It is not an example to follow but to demonstrate and establish the validity of something. You are not bound to follow it and there is no compulsion to do it. You cannot force yourself onto another. If the two are agreeable then it is not forbidden. Obviously if you have social or familial reasons not to do it then it is a non-issue. But then again you will come back with the same rant because you refuse to accept a resonable answer because it defeats your underlying agenda which is to malign relentlessly out of ignorant hatred. Prove me wrong.
Re: Very disturbing
From the slew of responses. To my call to update islam re adoption and inter-marriage, it is clear that a hornet's nest of guilt has been poked!
Please, do not consider it an insult what I say about updating. When you find something is wrong, changing it to the better will only make it better. I am sure God will have no ego to feel insulted.
God gave us all a brain - I am sure he gave it with the ability think so that we can better the world.
If you don't like the world update use something else!
Touch your heart and tell me this: In this day and age, are you comfortable in the presence of a man who married his ex-daughte in law? Will like that to happen in your family? I am certain you won't.
So why not admit it?
Peace Tariq Akhtar
Oh yes there is a hornets nest but its not one of guilt and those people who poke hornets nests are not nice people they are trouble makers ... are you calling yourself a trouble maker Tariq?
Fitna fasadees sit back after poking hornets nests and watch for nothing but their own pleasure the reaction of emotional flurry.
The defense manouver is not one of guilt logically you must be obliged to give way that it is one of truth and zeal and preservation of interpretation. We all know that there are deceivers out there. They misconstrue and slander and lie about the truth and then you expect people to sit back and take it? No .... Guilt is that what you are feeling upon typing every word to stir a hornets nest being corrected and put in your place and you have nothing to defend yourself with except more pokes. Good on ya Tariq!
Re: Very disturbing
Lets not put the prophet on a pedestal.
If we are to believe Zaid was not his son, why was Prophet Muhammad around Zainab to begin with? Not to mention finding her attractive in her "nightgown". He had no relation to Zainab, he was not her mahram, and he STILL allowed himself to be attracted to her. Why? So he could "prove" Islam didn't allow adoption rights? Yeah right. Talk about a self-serving power trip.
All this nonsense goes to show just how insignificant Hadiths can be. Follow the Quran and you'll be fine. The moment you start fantasizing about the prophet you have problems like this.
Re: Very disturbing
^
Let's not lie about the actual events in order to "humanize" the Prophet (pbuh) either.
All eveidence suggests that the maritial problems between Zaid and Zanib had everything to do with the difference in their social status. The sexualization of that particular event is nothing but a perverse Orientalist fantasy.
Re: Very disturbing
^ isn't that akin to burying one's head in the sand and hoping the monster will go away? I'll be interested to hear from scholars in islam as to what if any the Holy Quran says.
2 Likes
Re: Very disturbing
^ The sexualization of that particular event is nothing but a perverse Orientalist fantasy.
No its not. Muhammad was an Occidentalist. The sexualization of that particular event is an Occidentalist reality ignored by Muslims who choose to worship a human being and his hadiths instead of God and his Quran.
Re: Very disturbing
^ so you want to say you trust Quran-e-Majeed, but not Muhammad PBUH, by whom Quran-e-Majeed was delivered to us.
ha...wat an irrational logic!
Re: Very disturbing
Lets not put the prophet on a pedestal.
If we are to believe Zaid was not his son, why was Prophet Muhammad around Zainab to begin with? Not to mention finding her attractive in her "nightgown". He had no relation to Zainab, he was not her mahram, and he STILL allowed himself to be attracted to her. Why? So he could "prove" Islam didn't allow adoption rights? Yeah right. Talk about a self-serving power trip.
All this nonsense goes to show just how insignificant Hadiths can be. Follow the Quran and you'll be fine. The moment you start fantasizing about the prophet you have problems like this.
"Nightgown"? "...finding her attactive"? which "hadith" did all that come from?
Stop running around like a headless chicken, yelling "follow the quran...leave the hadith", when you havent even bothered reading and trying to understand the Quran.
Dumwits like you prove your worth when you try talking religion.
Re: Very disturbing
^ so you want to say you trust Quran-e-Majeed, but not Muhammad PBUH, by whom Quran-e-Majeed was delivered to us. ha...wat an irrational logic!
I don't believe he said that. The trust in question, is the medium or the carrier of this information.
Re: Very disturbing
No its not. Muhammad was an Occidentalist. The sexualization of that particular event is an Occidentalist reality ignored by Muslims who choose to worship a human being and his hadiths instead of God and his Quran.
Yes it was. The term Occidentalsist (as a rather knee-jerk and out of place response to the proper use of Orientlalist) aside; the sexualization of the event is purely a fabrication done by rather lewd orientalist interpretations, and has nothing to do with humanizing the prophet (saw) but everything to do with demonizing him...at least with respect to victorian standards of decency. In any case, the "occidental" inrerpretation is no doubt the right one here, as it is privy to the exact dynamics of the society in question, and better able to discern the true reason for divorce.
So I'll just echo Sharaabi's point; where the hell did this nightgown business come from anyway? Look to the paragraph above for the answer...
Re: Very disturbing
I don't believe he said that. The trust in question, is the medium or the carrier of this information.
see here
No its not. Muhammad was an Occidentalist. The sexualization of that particular event is an Occidentalist reality ignored by Muslims who choose to worship a human being and his hadiths instead of God and his Quran.
Re: Very disturbing
Lets not put the prophet on a pedestal.
If we are to believe Zaid was not his son, why was Prophet Muhammad around Zainab to begin with? Not to mention finding her attractive in her "nightgown". He had no relation to Zainab, he was not her mahram, and he STILL allowed himself to be attracted to her. Why? So he could "prove" Islam didn't allow adoption rights? Yeah right. Talk about a self-serving power trip.
All this nonsense goes to show just how insignificant Hadiths can be. Follow the Quran and you'll be fine. The moment you start fantasizing about the prophet you have problems like this.
Peace hskhan
Are you another trouble maker? If not then please ratify the statement above with evidence if not then please leave the poker with us.
Re: Very disturbing
No its not. Muhammad was an Occidentalist. The sexualization of that particular event is an Occidentalist reality ignored by Muslims who choose to worship a human being and his hadiths instead of God and his Quran.
Peace hskhan
I don't get it! You saying Muhammad (SAW) was a scholar of the West or a Western scholar? Either way why is it that Occidentalists view Oriental fantasies as realities? Why can it not be an occidental fantasy as well as an oriental fantasy?
By the way Muslims worship One God ... it is correct however to say that Occidental worship equates to human deification.
The sexualisation of that event is a cunning addition to the narrative reading between the lines with pervy glasses on ... done by whichever entalist. You choose!
Re: Very disturbing
HSKhan
Your moral standards are very evident from the perverse explanation you have spewed out in this thread. Please leave the Occidental and Oriental arguments aside, these are things of later with no baring on the society back then. Even the occidental scholars today should realize their roots originate from the orient. Yet they choose to pollute with their occidental slant baring upon todays times.
Anyway fellow guppies I suggest we stop debating this with HSKhan since his intentions are quite clear and unless he has a decent line to pull for his discussion we will just encourage more filth coming into this thread. So please ignore him. People who cannot discuss based on academic merit use such tactics and emotions.
Re: Very disturbing
This is not a debate. You guys are nothing but idol worshipers obsessed with a man named Muhammad. If you want to differentiate yourself from Christians you need to stop propping up Muhammad on a pedestal through a silly "what would Muhammad do" (WWMD) dogma.
Ask yourself, are you a Muslim or a Muhammadan? (pysah: talk about orientalism! most of the people in this thread ARE orientalists)
Islam is not about Muhammad. Islam is about the Quran. To be a good Muslim does not mean blindly defending a human being whenever and wherever. If someone can prove he liked his son's wife - so be it. If someone drew cartoons of him - so be it. We dont give a damn what people say about Muhammad because God is worshiped by Muslims. Muhammad is worshiped by Muhammadans.
If they insult God or the Quran it's a different story entirely. THEN, and only then can we get defensive because they are insulting and belittling not only God, but God's word.
The problem with you guys is that you're arm-chair muslims caught somewhere between being a Muslim and Muhammadan. Not only do you have no understanding of Islam and the Quran, but you insist on worshiping a man that lived in the 5th century.
Re: Very disturbing
I don't get it! You saying Muhammad (SAW) was a scholar of the West or a Western scholar?
Peace Pysah,
The titles of Orientalist and Occidentalist are not isolated to scholarship or reality. They can apply to anyone that looks to other cultures as inferior because of their own perceived superiority. Key point: perceived inferiority of other and superiority of self.
^ so you want to say you trust Quran-e-Majeed, but not Muhammad PBUH, by whom Quran-e-Majeed was delivered to us.
I used the word worship. I WORSHIP God and his Quran. Not Muhammad and his diaries. The two are separate - a crook can tell you your face is ugly and be right. You can still believe what he said is true without caring about him.
Dumwits like you prove your worth when you try talking religion.
Dumwits like you write something, chicken out of it, then edit your post a day later. Your wandering mind proves how little confidence you have in yourself.