Was Muhammad Peaceful? (Respectful Answers Only Please)

[A-ManESL]

Yeah and what about Pagans? Tell them what Muhammad says about Pagans.

Tell who?

After the conquest of Mecca when people asked Muhammad (pbuh) what would happen to the Meccan Arabs who had not accepted Islam he replied ""I speak to you in the same words as Joseph spoke to his brothers. This day there is no reproof against you; Go your way, for you are free."

At no stage, was this declared that they should all be killed. All who say this, only have a superficial understanding of Islam.

Regards

 

[Wombat]

I'm curious: is there any evidence of this actually happening? Any historical references?

"With respect to the pre-Islam Arab’s relation with his offspring, we see that life in Arabia was paradoxical and presented a gloomy picture of contrasts. Whilst some Arabs held children dear to their hearts and cherished them greatly, others buried their female children alive because an illusory fear of poverty and shame weighed heavily on them. The practice of infanticide cannot, however, be seen as irrevocably rampant because of their dire need for male children to guard themselves against their enemies."

Aspects of Pre-Islamic Arabian Society ​

After the research we have made into the religious and political life of Arabia, it is appropriate to speak briefly about the social, economic and ethical conditions prevalent therein.
Social Life of the Arabs​

 

[Christian Gnosis]

At no stage, was this declared that they should all be killed. All who say this, only have a superficial understanding of Islam.

Regards

No I mean tell everyone the ridicilous statements your Quran says about Pagans themselves. Tell them how the Quran says we are the enemies of Allah and all his messengers. That we envy the Muslims for having a messenger sent down. That we knowingly invent lies about Allah because Paganism is all about our personal desires. Tell them how the Quran says all this nonsense.

 

[A-ManESL]

No I mean tell everyone the ridicilous statements your Quran says about Pagans themselves. Tell them how the Quran says we are the enemies of Allah and all his messengers. That we envy the Muslims for having a messenger sent down. That we knowingly invent lies about Allah because Paganism is all about our personal desires. Tell them how the Quran says all this nonsense.

You are misinterpreting the verses of the Quran. Such verses are not targeted at paganism in general. These were condemning the attitude of the Arab idolators who were Prophet Muhammad's contemporaries. The idol worship of pre-islamic Arabia was not true worship, nor a true religion but a facade used for trade purposes. It was devoid of spirituality. It was a society which was in which oppression of the weak and all kinds of social ills were paramount.

The idolatory of the Arab idolators was not even called a "religion" by the Arabs themselves, indeed classical Arabic doesnt even have a word for "religion". It was more of a system of life for the Meccans. This whole system was responsible for the illness caused in the society.

The Berbers of North Africa who didnt have any revealed scripture (and rejected prophethood) were given equivalent status to people of the book (i.e. Christians and Jews) by Caliph Uthman(RA). When Islam came to India, a council of Muslims scholars studied the idol-worship of the Hindus and came to the conclusion that this wasnt what was really condemned in the Quran, and gave Hindus equivalent status as people of the book as well.

"Not only have some of the most authoritative Muslim scholars during the Mughal period called the Hindus Ahl-e-Kitab, belonging to the chain of prophets preceding Islam and begining with Adam, but also some of the Muslim Indian commentators have considered the prophet Dhu'l-i-Kifl mentioned in the Quran to be the Buddha of Kifl (Kapilavastu) and the Fig tree of Surah 95 to be the Bodhi tree under which the Buddha recieved his illumination."- From the book: Sufi essays by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. SUNY Press, 1972. Pg 132

Regards

 

[Christian Gnosis]

A-manESL- I appreciate your answer really. I just have one more question. If it is as you say, why do many Muslims have such a hatred of Pagans, and tell me that under Sharia I wouldn't be allowed to live? Is this uninformed statements on their parts?

 

[A-ManESL]

A-manESL- I appreciate your answer really.

Thanks

If it is as you say, why do many Muslims have such a hatred of Pagans, and tell me that under Sharia I wouldn't be allowed to live? Is this uninformed statements on their parts?

Those Muslims who have hatred for pagans are similar to all those people who have hatred in their hearts for some other groups. The primary reason is ignorance, perpetuated by people exploiting this ignorance for their own ends.

Under true Sharia no one can stop you from practicing the religion of your choice as long as it is not hurting others.

Most of what I said in my previous posts is factual and if you want I can provide you with more references. If you really want a mature understanding of Islam you can read Schuon's Understanding Islam.

Regards

 

[TJ73]

this is why i earlier asked for a definition of peaceful... it means different things to different people.
My view of peaceful is one who does not fight...even when under attack.
Perhaps, but to sit passively while some attacks you and takes your freedom does not encourage peace, it encourages more violence as the one attacking learns how get what they want .
peace of mind is another thing...if he had issues with some nationalities then thats a whole different thing in my opinion.


so really Muhammad's peace with others was conditional...so long as they agreed with him and obeyed him, he remained at peace with them
On the contrary! It was not conditional. It was extended to all. As a leader he was responsible to protect the peace of his people, in fact beyond his own people. He was charged with protecting all peoples freedom. The "condition" was that others would not attack HIM .They didn't have to agree they had to let them be at peace. They were free to disagree just not hurt.

How much more powerful would his words be if he actually remained at peace with those who were against him. Its easy to retaliate because its a human trait to do so, but to raise above the pettiness of human traits is so much more powerful.
It is not necessarily a human trait. Some people are passive. It takes greatness to stand up for what is right.



And therein lies the problem... we take matters into our own hands because we are not at true peace with our neighbors. True peace would make us completely neutral when it came to retaliation. To be willing to retaliate means that our peace is only temporary and conditional... to be truly peaceful, we must BE peace under all circumstances. If my neighbors tried to force me to go against God, I would be in fear, like the first Muslims. I would ask to leave, like they did. If they continued to accost me and take my freedom and try to attack me,I would DEFEND, myself, as they did. I would also ask them for peaceful relations and the right to my freedom and restore all peaceful relations with them if they left me alone, just like Muhammad, pbuh, and his followers
Jesus was truly peaceful because he did not retaliate when he was being attacked and he taught his followers to do the same.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 22:36 He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. And I am not trying to insinuate that Jesus,pbuh, was not peaceful, but God sent these prophets for a reason and wanted it clear that He alone posses the way. They were full of peace but were prescribed a way to defend it and restore it......

I can vote now that Muhammad was peaceful to a point, but like most of us, not truly peaceful.

.....

 

[TheQueenCat]

i think peaceful..

 

[Autodidact]

I do think it is relevant to consider what "peace" is so you can guage if someone is full if "peace".
Definition of PEACE

1
: a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>

2
: freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions

3
: harmony in personal relations

4
a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity

5
—used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell

— at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity

So I have no problem saying that although NONE of the prophets of God ( through the line of Abraham) lived in peace, they came to give the way to peace. Had there been peace there would have been no need for any prophet with any message. As a believer I think God created us and a means for us to live in peace. His prophets came with the message of attaining it, each for his own generation and the ever expanding human family.
So there was, and continues to be, no peace but Muhammed pbhu, certainly provided a means to attain it. Yes he certainly had to advise us on the ways to handle conflict because that is what stands in the way of peace. So He was full of peace. He advised us how to attain it and how to handle living in a world where it has never existed.

And that's why Muhammad's followers are among the most peaceful people on earth, difficult to provoke, rare to commit violence against anyone, especially other Muslims.

 

[Meow Mix]

Some of those signs look photoshopped, like the "Just so we're clear we mean women and children" one... not saying you did it Auto, just saying it looks off somehow.

Also, it's funny to use freedom of expression to argue against freedom of expression.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think, to the best of his ability, that he was as peaceful as possible. He sometimes had to fight in order to protect himself and his people, but I don't think he was by any means bloodthirsty.

 

[painted wolf]

Some of those signs look photoshopped, like the "Just so we're clear we mean women and children" one... not saying you did it Auto, just saying it looks off somehow.

Also, it's funny to use freedom of expression to argue against freedom of expression.

It's also funny to use modern followers of a religion to imply the founder from centuries before was a monster... or somehow wanted his followers to behave in this way.

Like saying the Founding Fathers wanted a global empire that would kill and torture people from other countries.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

Like saying the Founding Fathers wanted a global empire that would kill and torture people from other countries.

What?
You mean they didn't?

 

[Autodidact]

It's also funny to use modern followers of a religion to imply the founder from centuries before was a monster... or somehow wanted his followers to behave in this way.

Like saying the Founding Fathers wanted a global empire that would kill and torture people from other countries.

wa:do

Here's what I'm responding to, pw:

they came to give the way to peace. Had there been peace there would have been no need for any prophet with any message. As a believer I think God created us and a means for us to live in peace. His prophets came with the message of attaining it, each for his own generation and the ever expanding human family.
So there was, and continues to be, no peace but Muhammed pbhu, certainly provided a means to attain it. Yes he certainly had to advise us on the ways to handle conflict because that is what stands in the way of peace. So He was full of peace. He advised us how to attain it and how to handle living in a world where it has never existed.

[Dr. Phil mode] How's that working for you? [/Dr. Phil mode]

 

[painted wolf]

Here's what I'm responding to, pw:

[Dr. Phil mode] How's that working for you? [/Dr. Phil mode]

And the founding fathers gave us a mandate for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... while still having slavery, genocide and so on...

No one lives up to their ideals... some of us have done worse at it than others.

(not that this forgives anyone for not following through)

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

And the founding fathers gave us a mandate for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... while still having slavery, genocide and so on...

No one lives up to their ideals... some of us have done worse at it than others.

(not that this forgives anyone for not following through)

wa:do

Well it seems to me if you want to argue that Muhammad was peaceful, then you need to either be able to say that he behaved peacefully, or that he brought a way to peace. Since he was in fact a war general who conquered a large area, and he has brought war and violence wherever his religion is practiced, it follows that he was not peaceful.

If he was peaceful, where is the peace? Neither during his lifetime, nor after.

 

[horiturk]

no he was not peaceful,and neither is islam. of course christianity isn't peaceful and judaism is not either so there's plenty guilt to go all around.

 

[painted wolf]

Well it seems to me if you want to argue that Muhammad was peaceful, then you need to either be able to say that he behaved peacefully, or that he brought a way to peace. Since he was in fact a war general who conquered a large area, and he has brought war and violence wherever his religion is practiced, it follows that he was not peaceful.

If he was peaceful, where is the peace? Neither during his lifetime, nor after.

War and violence are everywhere, Islam doesn't add or remove this.

The Samurai also followed a way to peace... but clearly were also deeply involved in war and brutality.

wa:do

 

[YmirGF]

War and violence are everywhere, Islam doesn't add or remove this.

Then it is absurd to label Islam "the Religion of Peace".

The Samurai also followed a way to peace... but clearly were also deeply involved in war and brutality.

wa:do

Hehehe. That analogy doesn't actually help make Muhammad look peaceful. I hope you realize that. One could also say that countries annexed by the Nazi's were relatively peaceful after people stopped fighting them. Then the Allies had to go and spoil it all... Imperialistic demons they were and still are...

 

[painted wolf]

Then it is absurd to label Islam "the Religion of Peace".

It's absurd to label any religion/philosophy "of Peace". Humans are not peaceful.

Hehehe. That analogy doesn't actually help make Muhammad look peaceful. I hope you realize that. One could also say that countries annexed by the Nazi's were relatively peaceful after people stopped fighting them. Then the Allies had to go and spoil it all... Imperialistic demons they were and still are...

Countries annexed were relatively peaceful, if you don't count the genocide and other political killings. Peace is an illusion of safety... if you feel safe, you assume peace exists.

And, my point with the analogy was that there is a difference between inner peace and outer peace.

wa:do