Ashtiname Of Muhammad Puns

( Copied from a previous post)

So let's just ignore the belief that he was a prophet of God for now and not include it any of the answers, what are some of the things he said or did that are revolutionary and exceeds what has been done by other people?

How is he a better moral example than let's say the creator of Insulin who sold his patent for $1, thus saving literally hundreds of millions of lives or the man who sacrificed his life to save the 12 kids in the Than Luang cave rescue, or the men who sacrificed their lives in the midst of the Chernobyl nuclear plant meltdown thus averting the deaths of millions and saving the world from a crisis, or men who have devoted their lives to saving and helping hundreds or thousands of poor people in Africa, or how is he superior to other philosophers and other moral leaders like Confucious or the Buddha

I am not here to troll, but am genuinely curious as to why some people venerate him so highly and call him the greatest man to ever live and how there will never be anyone as great as him but on the other hand there is a lot of people who absolutely despise him and consider him to be an evil man.

As a Christian something I've always wanted to do is make a comprehensive TV series that would span the entire Biblical narrative.

However, something else I've always thought would be interesting would be an adaptation of the Arabian Nights, but featuring in the middle of it the entire story of Muhammad's life. And imagine how devastating that would be.

Imagine if the BBC produced it and the world saw a 54 year old man taking a 9 year old girl to his tent to have sex with her. Imagine if the world saw Muhammad ordering the execution of poets who criticised him. Imagine is the world saw Muhammad's insanity in response to his revelations: trying to kill himself when he first started to get them.

I genuinely think that if a western TV channel made a TV series about Muhammad's life, it would stop the spread of Islam dead in its tracks.

Sunnis killing Shias. Shias killing Sunnis. Sunnis and Shias killing Ahmmadiyas. A mix of all three (not much Ahmmadiyas) killing non muslims.

The legacy of Muhammad is a splintered religion full of violence, mass confusion, hatred and his followers slaughtering each other on a regular basis.

Alhamdullilah, such perfection!

EDIT: Condensed version (I made the original post at night, and was poorly worded, but I have left the Original Post under this a bit below):

According to:

Sahih Muslim: look up USC-MSA English reference: Book 1, Hadith 301

Sahih Bukhari Vol 1, Book 1, Num. 3

Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasoul Allah Page 20, last paragraph

The origin story of the religion doesn't make sense to me. And the absence of any inquiry about that event in the time while the Prohpet was alive doesn't sound like something any logical people would do if they were ever convinced they were in front of what the Prohpet claimed he was. Muhammad was being told to read/recite. The first oddity is the accounts of Muhammad saying he doesn't know how to read, if that's the case, why would Gabriel tell him multiple times to do so. Likewise if he was being told to recite, then why was the Prophet asking "recite what?" multiple times as he was being embraced to the point where he would think he was going to die? Also perplexing is why Gabriel was physically doing that to him.

The problem I have, is if he was being told to recite, then why do some of the Hadith say the Prophet was telling Gabriel he was not literate, and in some Hadith he is asking Gabriel multiple times what he wants him to recite for Gabriel? If he was being told to read (which I believe is the more honest interpretation according to Ibn Ishaq that says Gabriel came to the Prophet with actual reading material and also complies with accounts where the Prophet tells Gabriel he is not literate), then what is this text that was being presented for the Prophet to read?

Either way you look at it, these historical accounts of the event don't add up, because with such a perplexing story, no one thought to ask for clarification in the lifetime of the Prophet. That doesn't seem like something normal people would ever want to not know.

So the problems are: If he was being told to read literally, what was the entire contents of this text, and why has no one talked about it while the Prophet was alive. If he was being told to recite, then why was the Prophet replying he doesn't know how to read multiple times, and asking even what to recite in the first place. Also why is Gabriel embracing him. And in conclusion the final question is, what sense does it make to have such lingering questions go u

He showed it to his Chinese neighbour who said

"I cannot believe it's not Buddha"

Muslims are leaving Islam :Ex-Muslims of North America : Muhammad Syed , a descendant of Prophet Muhammad, is President of Ex-Muslims of North America .

Please visit: Ex-Muslims of North America

https://exmuslims.org/

So they said only the faithful will dream of Mo and I'm not a faithful person not do I even like him a bit.

Last night, I had a dream that I raised an army against his thousands of men and my army and I somewhat won a campaign against him. There was his flag and all.

At the discussion table, Mo was negotiating with me on the terms of distribution of loots. I had cut a bargain with him. However, behind, I saw his wife, Khadijah and also cut a deal with her to betray Mo.

Apparently in my dreams, Khadijah was pretty pissed with Mo's womanizing antics. So was some of Mo's generals.

I woke up laughing because I remembered only the most faithful of his followers can dream about him but here I am, a person who hates Islam so much that if given a chance, I'd go to war with it anytime if called.

This is my attempt to make a case that, as laypersons who are at the mercy of historians, assuming the reliability of hadith literature is problematic.

The hadith (and seerah) providing an accurate picture of the time of Muhammad is a phenomenon that exists only in the Muslim world. Most secular historians are not convinced by the claims of these Muslims.

Professor Francis Edward Peters writes:

>However, so great has been the doubt cast on the bona fides of the alleged eyewitnesses and their transmitters in legal matters that there now prevails an almost universal Western skepticism on the reliability of all reports advertising themselves, often with quite elaborate testimonial protestations, as going back to Muhammad's time, or even that of his immediate successors.^[1]

Additionally, Robert Hoyland points out the issue with trusting isnads:

>The chief objection to this technique is the obvious one that if someone could forge the text of a tradition, they could also forge its isnad.^[2]

Bear in mind that the existence of God is irrelevant to this discussion, for two reasons:

1. False prophets and false religions can exist even when God is a reality
2. It is intuitive to seek natural explanations for a given event over supernatural ones, even for the theist. Only when most natural explanations have been exhausted does the theist allow God to be an explanation.

Also note that being skeptical of hadith is not equivalent to claiming all hadith are forged. Mass forging is only the opinion of the revisionist school, and its views are not the majority in today's orientalist studies. I side with the Muslims in their defence that it would be unbelievable that all scholars throughout Arabia came together in a mass forging conspiracy. Scholars need not forge everything. All reports come from either the sahabah, or Muhammad himself. If Muhammad lied, then every transmitter in the chain could be trustworthy and it would not matter. Same could be said of the sahabah.

We don't need to assume Muhammad and the sahabah lied about everything. Most hadith may indeed be true, including instructions on how to pray, how to apply various Islamic rulings, and reports about mundane things Muhammad did such as ones reported by Ayesha. Major events such as the Hijra, the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq, the treaty of Hudaibiyah, the conquest of Makkah and the farewell pilgrimage might all be true. Reports which we might consider dubious include ones that are mysti

It is reported on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that when this verse was revealed:" And warn thy nearest kindred" (and thy group of selected people among them) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) set off till he climbed Safa' and called loudly: Be on your guard! They said: Who is it calling aloud? They said: Muhammad.

They gathered round him, and he said: O sons of so and so, O sons of so and so, O sons of 'Abd Manaf, O sons of 'Abd al-Muttalib, and they gathered around him. He (the Apostle) said: If I were to inform you that there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain, would you believe me? They said: We have not experienced any lie from you. He said: Well, I am a warner to you before a severe torment. He (the narrator) said that Abu Lahab then said: Destruction to you! Is it for this you have gathered us? He (the Holy Prophet) then stood up, and this verse was revealed:" Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and he indeed perished" (cxi. 1). A'mash recited this to the end of the Sura.

(Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Iman #406)

1. ‘Ali said: My prostatic fluid flowed excessively. I used to take a bath until my back cracked (because of frequent washing). I mentioned it to the prophet (May peace be upon him), or the fact was mentioned to him (by someone else). The Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) said; Do not do so. When you find prostatic fluid, wash your penis and perform ablution as you do for your prayer, but when you have seminal emission, you should take a bath.

Sunan Abi Dawud 206 Sahih (Al-Albani)

2. Sa'id (bin Mansur) also reported something similar from 'Ali (RA) and added: "And (if) she has something like a horn (Qarn) (coming out of her vagina), her husband then has the right to divorce her or keep her. And if he had intercourse with her, she gets her dowry for the intercourse her husband has had."

https://sunnah.com/bulugh/8/54

What does Qarn/horn mean here?

3. Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: The eyes are the leather strap of the anus, so one who sleeps should perform ablution. Grade : Hasan (Al-Albani) Sunan Abi Dawud 203

There is a similar translation that is worded differently, but graded daif.

It was narrated from 'Ali bin Abu Talib that: The Messenger of Allah said: "The eye is the leather strap (that ties up) the anus, so whoever falls asleep, let him perform ablution."

https://sunnah.com/urn/1254760

Narrated Mu’awiyah (rad): Allah’s Messenger (saW) said: “The eye (when awake) is the string of the anus (to stop air escaping), and if the two eyes sleep the string is untied”. [Reported by Ahmad and At-Tabarani who added, “Whoever sleeps should perform ablution]” Bulugh al-Maram 80

https://sunnah.com/bulugh/1/97

I feel this hadith should make things more clear, but I don't even.... My mind is full of fuck.

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/36889/sleep-invalidates-wudoo-if-it-is-deep What this means is that wakefulness is the string that ties the anal sphincter, i.e. it keeps what is inside from coming out, because so long as a person is awake he can feel what comes out, but when he sleeps the string is loosened.

4. Muhammad suggests the one who knows the most about the Quran should lead the prayers.

>So they looked for such a person and found none who knew more Qur'an

Hello. Apologies for the wall of text.

I have been following Abbas since his tour to England. I remember how he dismissed English batsmen for cheap in first innings, which played major role in Pakistan's only test win.

 

But what is curious, how englishmen adapted to the conditions. During 2nd innings, they started taking guard outside the crease with the exception of one or two batsmen. Lo and behold. They immediately looked totally different batsmen batting against the most ordinary bowler the world may have produced. And the result of 2nd match proved to be different as well, as they owned Abbas in that match, leveling the series 1-1.

 

So, how did Pakistan counter that? Well, they couldn't. Sarfraz, the fitness champion he was, and captain at the time, didn't even bother standing close to stumps as he was downright incompetent to collect balls travelling at that pace. That reminded me of Gilchrist, how he used to stand right up to stumps for Aussie Medium Pacer: Ian Harvey. The nip and slight swing were enough to catch the batsmen in the crease while he bowled wicket to wicket.

 

Fast forward to South Africa tour, and Abbas failed again. And everyone questioned him for the lack of pace. That's when we first started to hear about his shoulder injury. Seems convenient. No one even suggested how keeper should suck it up and at least try to do his job for a change. Because standing close to stumps would require fitness of Sarfraz and more effort on his part.

 

Eventually, Abbas was left out of the ODI squads citing the same shoulder injuries when Amir was available. Had the medium pacer played ODIs and bowled his quota of 10 overs, with nip and seam he gets off the new ball, and keeper standing close to stumps, the results might have been drastic for the opposition in the world cup. Reason? Because, Abbas is crafty with the ball. He works the batsman by bowling over and over again, in the same area and rely on slight variations of seam movement on deck, as his real weapon. That's what earned him huge victory in the start of his career in UAE. The dead track where the only the likes of McGrath succeeded for the same reason.

 

But McGrath used to bowl in mid-high 130s, fast enough that I almost never saw any batsman standing outside his crease to him. Also, partly because of his height. The well directed bouncer to batsman advancing was too much of risk to take. But Abbas doesn't have height to

Salaam brothers and sisters,

I am trying to word this question very carefully as not to rise Fitna amongst us. So I'll preface by saying that I accept the Prophethood of Muhammad (SAWS), I accept Allah and Yawm ad-Deen, and I seek nothing but Allah's good pleasure. I'll also say that I have a hard time wording this question succinctly, so please excuse me for this if it is confusing. I'm asking the question sincerely and in good faith, not as a doubter or provocateur.

So my question is about the necessity of the Prophethood of Muhammad; specifically given that Isa (AS) was sent as al-Masih before Muhammad. So... if we had the Messiah, then why did Allah need to send Muhammad before the Mahdi? Why not just have Isa -> Mahdi -> Return of Isa? Or, alternatively why was Isa specifically the Masih, why not make Muhammad the Masih and Isa just a "regular" rasul?

Now, I believe that, according to the way the Tawra and Injeel are set up, and indeed by the way Allah teaches us by giving many chances, that Isa AS must have ascended before he could fulfill all of the prophecies of the Tawra and Zabur. So we can at least by reason get that Isa must have been sent by Allah, that he must have beet rejected by Bani Israel, he must have been taken from Dunya, and that after some time the Mahdi must come and that Isa returns to defeat ad-Dajjal.

But what in all this was the necessity of the Prophethood of Muhammad? I get that there are arguments that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible, but... that just asserts that Muhammad was promised. It doesn't say why we had a 600 wait after Isa just to have another 1400-indefinite year period before the Mahdi.

I'll also note, just to be clear, that questioning the motives of Allah is never truly wise if you're doing it just to cast around doubts. But I'll justify my question by stating that the answer to this question gets to the heart of the consistency of Islam's (and, indeed, even Christianity's) internal logic. If we can deduce logically that Muhammad must have been a promised intermediary between Isa and the Mahdi, then that goes a long way to testing that the truth of Allah's apostles is certain and that it stands up to attempts to falsify the foundational claims of both religions. We can't be sure that our deductions will be right, since we don't have access to divine insight like the Prophets did, but we can surely take up Allah's exhortation to continually test and reprove His ayat.

Muslims claim him to be perfect, while many others claim that he’s the devil incarnate. I just want the truth. How do I go about building an authentic record of Muhammad and his actions? Most sources about his history are Islamic and therefore biased

Jubayr bin Mut'im, may Allah be pleased with him, said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say:

"I have several names: I am Muhammad, and I am Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi (the eradicator) through whom Allah will erase disbelief; I am Al-Hashir (the gatherer) at whose feet mankind will gather; and I am Al-Aqib (the final one) after whom there will be no Prophet."

https://sunnah.com/urn/630690

As far as freedom of speech goes, muslims (and sadly the leftists too) quickly draw a line when it comes to criticising Islam (be it any form). Blasphemy is considered as hate speech by them and thus impermissible. This has been the unanimious opinion of the muslim world (with minor deviations). Even many muslims have used the same logic to defend the acts of violence against those who criticized Islam, such as the Charlie Hebdo killings.

But would Muhammad himself not come to the aid of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and many others who just exercised their freedom of speech to criticize a religion?

SURE HE WILL!

I mean, who is the best example of freedom of speech other than Muhammad, the champion of free speech! I mean that guy started a whole religion by blaspheming the culture and Gods of the pre Islam Arabs. He mocked and slandered their Gods in the most disgusting of manners! And then he first handedly bore the wrath of the offended too! We cannot help but infer from this that if Muhammad was alive today, he would definitely sympathise with the blasphemers, given that he himself was one!

We cannot help but draw here a parallel between Muhammad of Arabia, and the cartoonists of France or any other human in the world who commits an act of blasphemy as Muhammad himself was very much in favour of a speech that could be perceived as offensive to other religious groups.

This is the reality of Islam, and to put in simply, Muhamamd is the champion of free speech and the right to blaspheme!

All hail the Voltaire of Arabia! The defender of Blasphemers! The protector of Free speech!

(Btw not really lol. He was as shallow a person as a dry pond. His hypocritic ass would never permit blaspheming Islam, but would allow unrestricted freedom when criticising other religions, but I guess this is already evident. Anyway this is another thing that proves that Muhammad was a cheat. Hope Voltaire's soul will not swear vengeance against me for insulting his life by drawing a comparison with Muhammad. 😂)

I've recently stumbled upon the youtube channel of Youssef Tiktak (Arabic) and it got me really thinking. I thought that I know the history of early Islam. But that history that was written much later by people with agenda. And how much of it is lies? We don't know. Obviously Muhammad didn't do miracles (that's even confirmed in the Quran, by saying "he's only a warner"), so we can throw that out. But that casts doubt also on the non-miraculous stories. But how much % of it is fake? 10%, 50%, 99%, 100%?? And why early mosques didn't face Mekka? There's something wrong. I don't see people discussing it much, probably because it doesn't fit to our current understanding, so we rather ignore it. But archeology doesn't lie, but history books can lie. And why don't we have non-Muslim texts talking about Muhammad from early Islamic period? Critics of Christianity regularly criticize that there are no sources outside the gospels from that time, but 7 centuries later, when more people can write, and again no sources. And why were early Muslim scholars Persians and not Arabs? And why was not Mecca always the capital of the caliphates? Shouldn't it always be the main city? And isn't it strange that the Quran doesn't talk about Muhammad but centuries later there's a lot of books about him with many details about his life? How can we be sure that the Abbasid caliphate rulers didn't have influence over what was written? When I saw the hadith "If there's a plague, don't go there, but if you're there, stay there and you'll be rewarded" - when I saw it first, I thought this doesn't sound like message of a prophet, it sounds more like Abbasid rulers wanted to put this into people's minds to prevent plagues from spreading.

Most critics of Islam take the sahih hadiths as facts about Muhammad. But is it really facts? Maybe it would be more appropriate to criticize the untrustworthiness of the sources.