Saudi cleric calls for burkas for babies

any more depth than this will be up his...
m

"I should think that contributors to the Hadiths would want to present Muhammad - the messenger and prophet of the "almighty Allah" - in the best possible light to make him the object of admiration and worth following.

thomas_h,

Funny enough, although not Spencer, I do have a reply for you.

Although your picture of Muhammad is repugnant to you, that represents your values.

It is entirely possible that the values espoused and acted upon by the Muhammad of the hadiths is consistent with the values of the desert rulers who embarked on conquering the known world, and systematically destroying the existing civilizations.

As desert lords, tribal leaders, their values were shaped only by tribal ties, and by a need for absolute dominance over their slaves. So, they had no concept of reigning in their impulses, say, towards infant sexuality or of ethical behavior towards people who were not members of their tribe.

Thus, they were not in the situation of telling an unpleasant truth, but of simply constructing a system of mythology that supported their conquered empire. They found it absolutely necessary to emphasize tribal loyalty and tribal ties, to the exclusion of all else, because that was the foundation of their power. Even absolute, secular dictators like Saddam Hussein knew they had to maintain a tribal base of power.

your question does not make any sense. they portrayed muhamad as he was. they did the right thing. they t0ld the truth as who he was a merderous pedophile, what would you recomend that they say, he was an angel? I am not getting your point.
m

Ronald,

Thank you.

With all respect, I think your explanation is not good enough.

Arabs of time of mohammed, real or invented, were no strangers to the universal ethical concepts shared, if not always followed, by other peoples of the region.

You identify tribalism as the universal key to understanding the morals of Arabs. While it is true that loyalty to the tribe was a great virtue it was not an absolute one. Arabs followed a quite explicit rules of engagement in wars or raids against other tribes. For example it was considered wrong to pollute oasis waters belonging to another tribe, or to cut down their date trees. There is much written on the subject by researchers of pre Islamic Arabia.

Another thing is that Mohammed’s religion didn’t favour one, or a few chosen tribes against others. On the contrary, his message being universal greatly transcends tribalism, indeed one can say it cancels it out. He is not a chieftain, but the “ prophet of Allah” the just and the merciful not only toward the members of his tribe but ALL men who believe in him. Also, please note that mohammad would punish most severely his own tribesman for not accepting or turning away from Allah.

Moreover, how can tribalism account for the fact that members of other than muhammad’s own Quraish tribe could ascend to position of great prominence once they declared their faith in Allah and his “prophet”?
No, Muhammad’s tribe was not the new “chosen people”. His followers whether Quraishi, even converted Jews, or Christians, were the “chosen people”
Also, Arabia was not only nomadic Beduins, but a place of ancient kingdoms of quite sophisticated cultures like Himyar, Qedar and Sassanid Empire to mention but a few. These were not “tribal kingdoms”, but social structures requiring placing considerable restrains over the “tribal” for the sake for greater than tribal good.

Finally, Islam conquered and was accepted at end by cultures and civilizations far greater and greatly more sophisticated than islam. Think of Persia or India for example, whose codes of universal morality, decency and honour were generally very much akin to our own. While it is true that many were coerced to accept the new faith there is nothing indicating they tried to “soften” the image of Muhammad so it agreed better with their inherited norms of what is good and decent. After all Pakistanis are ethnically vey much like Hindu and once were Hindu. Yet Pakistan is the country of most rabid, stupid and vicious Islam.
Finally, there are hundred of thousands European, former Christian converts to Islam who grew up in our moral universe and their entire mentality is Western. How do they manage to put up with the character of their prophet?

"your question does not make any sense. they portrayed muhamad as he was. they did the right thing. they told the truth as who he was a merderous pedophile, what would you recomend that they say, he was an angel? I am not getting your point.
m"

What gave you the idea I am trying to recommend anything?

I am asking how did the authors of the Hadiths know that the monster they depict in all horrid details will become an object of adulation, admiration and love instead of evoking most natural reaction of revulsion.

If I recommend anything it is that you try to read my comment carefully again.

Thank you.

Thomas H wrote:

"I wanted to ask why, regardless whether one assumes that muhammed existed or not, the persons who compiled and depicted his deeds, true or imaginary, and described his conduct and character made not the least effort to present him as anything lesser than a most reprehensible monster."

"I should think that contributors to the Hadiths would want to present Muhammad - the messenger and prophet of the "almighty Allah" - in the best possible light to make him the object of admiration and worth following.
..................

I have a few observations here, Thomas.

Firstly, many Muslim believe Muhammad admirable not because his actions are admirable, but because it is necessary under Islam for them to consider him admirable.

Likewise, his actions are admirable for the sole reason that they were performed by the "Prophet".

This creates a circular and closed system that continues to sacralize evil.

That's why you find the queasy phenomenon of Muslims who *know* that these actions are wrong tying themselves into moral pretzels trying to excuse and condone pedophilia, caravan raiding, and slaving.

This is *very* different from the figures of, say, Jesus and Gautama Buddha—where even those who do not believe in these faith traditions can admire the actions and character of their founders.

And here's another salient point: Islam wasn't designed to attract decent people with good values like yourself.

It was formulated to attract brutal thugs and murderers—hence, Islam's perennial popularity among prison populations.

But it has another purpose, as well as being attractive to sadists and bullies—and that is scaring the crap out of more civilized people, many of whom will submit to Islam out of abject fear.

Moreover, if Islam presented Muhammed in a more palatable light, it simply could not continue being Islam.

After all, if the "Prophet" were not depicted as a pedophile, rapist, wife beater, kidnapper, slave trader, and mass murderer, then on what possible basis could Muslims continue to "marry" children, rape women, girls, and boys, beat and kill their wives, kidnap and ransom, steal and pirate, and slaughter their victims?

hey Graven,

"Firstly, many Muslim believe Muhammad admirable not because his actions are admirable, but because it is necessary under Islam for them to consider him admirable. Likewise, his actions are admirable for the sole reason that they were performed by the "Prophet"."

I think the logic employed here is circular.
Before they were “under Islam” they must have been “outside of it”. When being “outside of it” there was no Islam-dictated requirement that they should consider him admirable. Those “outside of it” could only admire him for his boldness and ruthlessness, but not for being a “prophet”. To admire him for latter they would have to first accept the truth of the religion he was peddling. So what was first got into Arabs – the chicken (mohammad) or the egg that he laid.
The above reckoning applies to the generally accepted belief that Mohamed was a real person and the founder of islam. If he was invented a few centuries after the arab eruption out of the Arab peninsula and subjugation of neighbouring peoples and states - most notably Persia - then the picture would certainly be more complex.

But, Dear Graven. I have only a minute or so because I need to go to an important meeting. I will be back in a couple of hours and will try to address the other points you are bringing up.
Cheers,
Thomas

hey Graven,

Took much longer than I thought, but I am back and will try to add something that makes sense

“That's why you find the queasy phenomenon of Muslims who *know* that these actions are wrong tying themselves into moral pretzels trying to excuse and condone pedophilia, caravan raiding, and slaving.”

If they go through these contortions despite “knowing” the truth about Muhammad then their hypocrisy is the testimony to their sharing moral standards with us. Which leads to the next question: are these moral precepts somehow inferred from the Koran or held onto despite the Koran? If former then the poor sods must force themselves on the daily basis to swallow the absurdity of their Prophet being unworthy his message. If latter then they are aware of that the Koran and Allah are false and the “Prophet” must be evil, or mad or both.

So why do they persist in their folly (of being moslems)? Of course fear is a possible explanation, but if so wouldn’t it be much simpler and safer to just shut up instead of attempting to explain and defend the indefensible?

”Islam wasn't designed to attract decent people with good values like yourself. It was formulated to attract brutal thugs and murderers—hence, Islam's perennial popularity among prison populations.”

I think this is the crux of your comment.
I really don’t think this is so simple. If Islam was designed to attract brutal thugs it would have been for the sole purpose of plunder, conquest and slave taking. But the fact is that although these motivations played a considerable role identical to the one motivating the American Plane Indians, Mongols, or Huns it would have never developed into a religion if it was all about material spoils. In fact it was the religious core of the phenomenon that was the unending source of the energy of expansion and intellectual and moral justification for the conversion of the subjugated infidels. It is true that brutal thugs and murderers played a role, but without spiritual energy and the conviction of serving the ruler of the universe Islam would have never had such a fantastic success like in its first one thousand years.

“After all, if the "Prophet" were not depicted as a pedophile, rapist, wife beater, kidnapper, slave trader, and mass murderer, then on what possible basis could Muslims continue to "marry" children, rape women, girls, and boys, beat and kill their wives, kidnap and ransom, steal and pirate, and slaughter their victims?”

These things although characteristic to Islam were not introduced to it by Muhammad’s example, but carried over from the arab tradition and customs preceding Islam. Muhammad helped himself to these atrocities, perhaps even “perfected” them, but would he be less attractive figure in the eyes of Arabs had he shown the virtues of magnanimity, honesty, truthfulness, mercy attributed to the great moslems warrior praised and admired by every moslem – Saladin?