IIRC, the account of that killing is heavily disputed. It doesn't come from the Quran itself, but rather from some Hadiths (basically written down accounts of things the Prophet and his companions did) and plenty of past and present Muslim scholars argue that the Hadiths relating to this story are pretty weak in terms of their verifiability, and likely fabricated.
Often Hadiths were forged long after Muhammeds death by people who knew that having a document of the Prophet doing something which supported their point of view could be very advantageous materially/ideologically. Perhaps a ruler centuries wanted a Poet killed, but thought he needed to invent sacred precedent to do so.
There are, however, other Hadiths that suggest Muhammed was a pretty tolerant guy, saying that he once checked on the health a women who threw trash at him everyday and so on. We'll probably never know the actual truth of any of these, because of the frequent unreliability of Hadiths.
For what it's worth here's a post on a Salafi QA website (Salafis are frequently seen in the Global North as the bad kinds of Muslims) which passionately argues that the story of Asma bint Marwan is complete propaganda.
There are, however, other Hadiths that suggest Muhammed was a pretty tolerant guy, saying that he once checked on the health a women who threw trash at him everyday and so on. We’ll probably never know the actual truth of any of these, because of the frequent unreliability of Hadiths.
I meani f you want a more related story, there's a story of Aisha dunking on Muhammad for always having a handy revelation whenever he wants something done, and he's fine with it.
I don't know anything about the poet story though.
Often Hadiths were forged long after Muhammeds death by people who knew that having a document of the Prophet doing something which supported their point of view could be very advantageous
That does make quite a bit of sense, especially in the broader context of Islam (multiple splits and schisms based on who said what/who was related to the prophet). My source on this was just lazy googling, will edit comment accordingly
Kind of; there was allegedly a poet (Asma bint Marwan) who criticized tribesmen who converted to Islam and Mohammed himself via poems. She was allegedly killed, although it is disputed whether this was done on behalf of Mohammed or just the work of a different individual who went after her by himself; it is also disputed as to whether or not this even happened.
Can we stop doing this sanctimonious nonsense? "Woah, are you saying x did y bad thing? Well, maybe that's just cause you are RACIST! No other explanation."
The Prophet was a "warlord", yes. Most Muslims, for most of our history, fully accepted this fact. This isn't a dark secret. We should be proud of the fact that he was a political and military leader, that he actually took direct action to stop oppression. The Prophet was a revolutionary, a warrior as well as a prophet, he took up arms against tyrants. Attempts to paint Islam retroactively as a "religion of peace" is an op. Westernized/liberal Muslims are scared into believing this rhetoric for fear of being called Islamists, when the problem with Islamist terrorists is not that they are using Islam politically and with violence, but that they target civilians and follow a relatively new, horrible, reactionary interpretation of Islam which rips off puritan Christianity. But denying this fact, making us associate Islam as a political tool only with terrorists, is a sinister liberal project meant to pacify all but these reactionary Muslims. The two go hand in hand.
We should not be hiding that Islam has within it the capacity to defend ourselves and fight against oppressors, or be ashamed of our rich history of Muslims doing just that, we need to embrace them in order to confront the problems at hand - this is why Islam is fully compatible with leftist ideologies.
I was actually thinking of making a no-judgement, open Ask Muslims thread on the new !islam community we have, so I was anticipating questions like this, don't worry. So long as they are in good faith, which this seems to be. In the interest of not derailing this thread I'll keep it short. Also realize I am not an authority in Islam - no one but God is, which is why Islam traditionally has no clergy.
The usual tack you will see is the cultural relativist one, that it was not seen as unusual at the time. We're talking about a very different cultural context where marriages were of political expedience and could spell the life or death of a movement or even an entire community, where before the Prophet women were reduced to basically objects. The subsistence strategy was different, it was a survival-based society, to the point that people literally aged physically faster. However you have probably seen this a lot, so I will not belabor the point.
The more important point that I've rarely seen talk about - the hadith that talk about Aisha's age at the time of marriage are suspiciously the only few hadith that really describe specific ages, because at the time, people barely kept track of these things. They had calendars that learned elite kept track of somewhat, but the average person did not pay attention to age number, that's a modern concept that didn't apply back then. Instead, age of majority for women was based on menarche, and for men was usually based on completion of training since this was a warrior society.
Why is this important? Because almost every single hadith that describes Aisha's age at the time of marriage was narrated by Aisha herself, when she was a middle aged woman enraptured in a civil war where emphasizing herself as the Prophet's only virginal wife would legitimize her side. Not that I'm saying she was consciously actively lying, I don't think she was, but that she and many others probably didn't know her exact age, and she was guesstimating her menarche as young an age as possible to emphasize her point.
like i took it as a "historical analisys should not measure historical people using modern concepts" argument like he was a warlord and it was not a uncommon thing he was not only a religious leader but a military and political leader like you could argue the same about the papacy when they were at their height but i could be taking it wrong
I kinda doubt a 6th century warlord would be that phased by a few beheaded people...
deleted by creator
actually his color was green.
#MuhammadForHowie
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
hah! look, guys, look what i found on pol, this brown savage was craaaazy! haha the fools who believe in him are dumb
edit: stop the comment war. you are both engaging in liberalism and western chauvisnism. as i already said: stop. shut the fuck up. be better.
I mean this just seems like an Abrahamic thing
Would you like to hear about what Christian leaders did?
deleted by creator
IIRC, the account of that killing is heavily disputed. It doesn't come from the Quran itself, but rather from some Hadiths (basically written down accounts of things the Prophet and his companions did) and plenty of past and present Muslim scholars argue that the Hadiths relating to this story are pretty weak in terms of their verifiability, and likely fabricated.
Often Hadiths were forged long after Muhammeds death by people who knew that having a document of the Prophet doing something which supported their point of view could be very advantageous materially/ideologically. Perhaps a ruler centuries wanted a Poet killed, but thought he needed to invent sacred precedent to do so.
There are, however, other Hadiths that suggest Muhammed was a pretty tolerant guy, saying that he once checked on the health a women who threw trash at him everyday and so on. We'll probably never know the actual truth of any of these, because of the frequent unreliability of Hadiths.
For what it's worth here's a post on a Salafi QA website (Salafis are frequently seen in the Global North as the bad kinds of Muslims) which passionately argues that the story of Asma bint Marwan is complete propaganda.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/177694/the-story-of-the-killing-of-asma-bint-marwaan-is-false
I meani f you want a more related story, there's a story of Aisha dunking on Muhammad for always having a handy revelation whenever he wants something done, and he's fine with it. I don't know anything about the poet story though.
Interesting, was not aware of this:
That does make quite a bit of sense, especially in the broader context of Islam (multiple splits and schisms based on who said what/who was related to the prophet). My source on this was just lazy googling, will edit comment accordingly
See above comment by T_Doug.
Kind of; there was allegedly a poet (Asma bint Marwan) who criticized tribesmen who converted to Islam and Mohammed himself via poems. She was allegedly killed, although it is disputed whether this was done on behalf of Mohammed or just the work of a different individual who went after her by himself; it is also disputed as to whether or not this even happened.
like to be fair as a poet myself it is fine not a huge loss for the world really
no you should shut the actual fuck up and be smarter
deleted by creator
"get it right the first time without needing to be corrected" ok
Can we stop doing this sanctimonious nonsense? "Woah, are you saying x did y bad thing? Well, maybe that's just cause you are RACIST! No other explanation."
this discourse always feeds into liberal imperialism against the history of * the others* . we shouldnt discuss it in these terms
So this place is just tankie stormfront now
The Prophet was a "warlord", yes. Most Muslims, for most of our history, fully accepted this fact. This isn't a dark secret. We should be proud of the fact that he was a political and military leader, that he actually took direct action to stop oppression. The Prophet was a revolutionary, a warrior as well as a prophet, he took up arms against tyrants. Attempts to paint Islam retroactively as a "religion of peace" is an op. Westernized/liberal Muslims are scared into believing this rhetoric for fear of being called Islamists, when the problem with Islamist terrorists is not that they are using Islam politically and with violence, but that they target civilians and follow a relatively new, horrible, reactionary interpretation of Islam which rips off puritan Christianity. But denying this fact, making us associate Islam as a political tool only with terrorists, is a sinister liberal project meant to pacify all but these reactionary Muslims. The two go hand in hand.
We should not be hiding that Islam has within it the capacity to defend ourselves and fight against oppressors, or be ashamed of our rich history of Muslims doing just that, we need to embrace them in order to confront the problems at hand - this is why Islam is fully compatible with leftist ideologies.
deleted by creator
I was actually thinking of making a no-judgement, open Ask Muslims thread on the new !islam community we have, so I was anticipating questions like this, don't worry. So long as they are in good faith, which this seems to be. In the interest of not derailing this thread I'll keep it short. Also realize I am not an authority in Islam - no one but God is, which is why Islam traditionally has no clergy.
The usual tack you will see is the cultural relativist one, that it was not seen as unusual at the time. We're talking about a very different cultural context where marriages were of political expedience and could spell the life or death of a movement or even an entire community, where before the Prophet women were reduced to basically objects. The subsistence strategy was different, it was a survival-based society, to the point that people literally aged physically faster. However you have probably seen this a lot, so I will not belabor the point.
The more important point that I've rarely seen talk about - the hadith that talk about Aisha's age at the time of marriage are suspiciously the only few hadith that really describe specific ages, because at the time, people barely kept track of these things. They had calendars that learned elite kept track of somewhat, but the average person did not pay attention to age number, that's a modern concept that didn't apply back then. Instead, age of majority for women was based on menarche, and for men was usually based on completion of training since this was a warrior society.
Why is this important? Because almost every single hadith that describes Aisha's age at the time of marriage was narrated by Aisha herself, when she was a middle aged woman enraptured in a civil war where emphasizing herself as the Prophet's only virginal wife would legitimize her side. Not that I'm saying she was consciously actively lying, I don't think she was, but that she and many others probably didn't know her exact age, and she was guesstimating her menarche as young an age as possible to emphasize her point.
deleted by creator
Lmao ok “Saif”
i have no idea what you're implying or how i'm supposed to respond?
like i took it as a "historical analisys should not measure historical people using modern concepts" argument like he was a warlord and it was not a uncommon thing he was not only a religious leader but a military and political leader like you could argue the same about the papacy when they were at their height but i could be taking it wrong
deleted by creator
When you definitely know what words mean
This you?