Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 02:45 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 12:50 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 04:17 AM

What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:39 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 05:47 AM

Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM

عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM

Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 01, 2024, 12:10 PM

Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM

Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed

 (Read 6453 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     OP - January 15, 2010, 12:05 PM

    Am I the only that gets pissed of anytime these two talk about Mohammed? If they love him so much how come they never converted to Islam?

    I know they try to focus on the good sides as well. But I don't know, they never seem to touch on the negative sides, and when they do, they do it with an apologetic twist. Is it because they thought he was a Divine Prophet? And not a mere man?


    Watt writes:

    Quote
    The other main allegations of moral defect in Muhammad are that he was treacherous and lustful. These are supported be reference to events like the violation of the sacred month on the expedition of Nakhlah (624) and his marriage to Zaynab bint-Jahsh, the divorced wife of his adopted son. About the bare facts there is no dispute, but it is not so clear that the facts justify the allegations. Was the violation of the sacred month an act of treachery or a justified breach with a piece of pagan religion ? Was the marriage with Zaynab a yielding to sexual desire or a mainly political act in which an undesirable practice of ' adoption ' belonging to a lower moral level was ended ? Sufficient has been said above about the interpretation of these events to show that the case against Muhammad is much weaker than is sometimes thought.


    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html

    What's morally low about blood brothers or adoption? In a place where tribal feuds were recurrent? It would seem to be a necessity. Why abolish it? Because brotherhood in Islam abrogated blood brotherhood and adoption?

    I can't help getting pissed off at them. What you guys think? Am I being overly-sensitive and reading Mohammed?s biography or their accounts of him with a biased view of an apostate? Am I trying to get to your good graces in this forum with my points made in this post? Or are my comments justified?

    If they thought his moral character was something worth implementing today then how come they never converted? Do they mean adoption is a bad thing? Or the concept of blood brothers stupid? Especially when being a blood brother does require you to share the same religion.


    Am I simply preaching to the choir?
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #1 - January 15, 2010, 12:19 PM

    After further reflection am I wondering what in these manners are so special? Seems like any decent person would behave in the same manner:


    Quote
    Of the many stories illustrating his gentleness and tenderness of feeling, some at least are worthy of credence. The widow of his cousin Ja'far ibn-Abi-Talib herself told her grand-daughter how he broke the news of Ja'far's death. She had been busy one morning with her household duties, which had included tanning forty hides and kneading dough, when Muhammad called. She collected her children --she had three sons by Ja'far -- washed their faces and anointed them. When Muhammad entered, he asked for the sons of Ja'far. She brought them, and Muhammad put his arms round them and smelt them, as a mother would a baby. Then his eyes filled with tears and he burst out weeping. ' Have you heard something about Ja'far ? ' she asked, and he told her he had been killed. Later he instructed some of his people to prepare food for Ja'far's household, ' for they are too busy today to think about themselves '.

    He seems to have been specially fond of children and to have got on well with them. Perhaps it was the yearning of a man who saw all his sons die as infants. Much of his paternal affection went to his adopted son Zayd. He was also attached to his younger cousin 'Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, who had been a member of his household for a time; but he doubtless realized that 'Ah had not the makings of a successful statesman. For a time a grand-daughter called Umamah was a favourite. He would carry her on his shoulder during the public prayers, setting her down when he bowed or prostrated, then picking her up again. On one occasion he teased his wives by showing them a necklace and saying he would give it to the one who was dearest to him; when he thought their feelings were sufficiently agitated, he presented it not to any of them, but to Umamah.

    He was able to enter into the spirit of childish games and had many friends among children. He had fun with the children who came back from Abyssinia and spoke Abyssinian. In one house in Medina there was a small boy with whom he was accustomed to have jokes. One day he found the small boy looking very sad, and asked what was the matter. When he was told that his pet nightingale had died, he did what he could to comfort him. His kindness extended even to animals, which is remarkable for Muhammad's century and part of the world. As his men marched towards Mecca just before the conquest they passed a bitch with puppies; and Muhammad not merely gave orders that they were not to be disturbed, but posted a man to see that the orders were carried out.


    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html

    By all accounts he seemed only gentle around people that supported him. How is that a Universal Leader? A person that loves all of humans should show this in his words and actions. Especially when people disagree with you. That's how you know the moral fibre and character of a person, how they react when people react negatively to your ideas. And most importantly, how you behave when in absolute power and people around you disagree with you and criticize you.

    Watt compares him to Old Testament Prophets, as if these were the beacons of humanity and kindness.  
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #2 - January 15, 2010, 12:24 PM

    Quote
    He seems to have been specially fond of children and to have got on well with them.


    No comment.   lipsrsealed

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #3 - January 15, 2010, 12:32 PM

    Quote
    The more one reflects on the history of Muhammad and of early Islam, the more one is amazed at the vastness of his achievement. Circumstances presented him with an opportunity such as few men have had, but the man was fully matched with the hour. Had it not been for his gifts as seer, statesman, and administrator and, behind these, his trust in God and firm belief that God had sent him, a notable chapter in the history of mankind would have remained unwritten.


    Name me on thing, besides monotheism that is. Which was not a new concept even, he simply eradicated polytheism.  And what harm has polytheism done? What harm has a Hindu ever done me? I simply choose not to believe in what a polytheist believes. Even back when I was a Muslim polytheism would have not worked out for me out of rational reasons, not simple emotional aversion.
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #4 - January 15, 2010, 12:36 PM

    Is Watt not a Muslim? I always thought he was

    Religion - The hot potato that looked delicious but ended up burning your mouth!

    Knock your head on the ground, don't be miserly in your prayers, listen to your Sidi Sheikh, Allahu Akbar! - Lounes Matoub
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #5 - January 15, 2010, 12:39 PM

    Quote
    WAS MUHAMMAD A PROPHET ?

    I would begin by asserting that there is found, at least in some men, what may be called ' creative imagination '. Notable instances are artists, poets and imaginative writers. All these put into sensuous form (pictures, poems, dramas, novels) what many are feeling but are unable to express fully. Great works of the creative imagination have thus a certain universality, in that they give expression to the feelings and attitudes of a whole generation. They are, of course, not imaginary, for they deal with real things; but they employ images, visual or conjured up by words, to express what is beyond the range of man's intellectual conceptions.


    Prophets and prophetic religious leaders, I should maintain, share in this creative imagination.
    They proclaim ideas connected with what is deepest and most central in human experience, with special reference to the particular needs of their day and generation. The mark of the great prophet is the profound attraction of his ideas for those to whom they are addressed.

    In Muhammad, I should hold, there was a welling up of the creative imagination, and the ideas thus produced are to a great extent true and sound. It does not follow, however, that all the Qur'anic ideas are true and sound. In particular there is at least one point at which they seem to be unsoundthe idea that ' revelation ' or the product of the creative imagination is superior to normal human traditions as a source of bare historical fact. There are several verses in the Qur'an (II. 5I; 3. 39; I2. I03) to the effect that ' this is one of the reports of the unseen which We reveal to thee; thou didst not know it, thou nor thy people, before this '. One could admit a claim that the creative imagination was able to give a new and truer interpretation of a historical event, but to make it a source of bare fact is an exaggeration and false.

    This point is of special concern to Christians, since the Qur'an denies the bare fact of the death of Jesus on the cross, and Muslims still consider that this denial outweighs the contrary testimony of historical tradition. The primary intention of the Qur'an was to deny the Jews' interpretation of the crucifixion as a victory for themselves, but as normally explained it goes much farther. The same exaggeration of the role of ' revelation ' has also had other consequences. The Arab contribution to Islamic culture has been unduly magnified, and that of the civilized peoples of Egypt, Syria, 'Iraq and Persia, later converted to Islam, has been sadly belittled.

    Too much must not be made of this slight flaw. Which of us, conscious of being called by God to perform a special task, would not have been more than a little proud ? On the whole Muhammad was remarkably free from pride. Yet this slight exaggeration of his own function has had grave consequences and cannot be ignored.

    Finally, what of our question ? Was Muhammad a prophet ? He was a man in whom creative imagination worked at deep levels and produced ideas relevant to the central questions of human existence, so that his religion has had a widespread appeal, not only in his own age but in succeeding centuries. Not all the ideas he proclaimed are true and sound, but by God's grace he has been enabled to provide millions of men with a better religion than they had before they testified that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God.


    There we go. Thank you Watt for enlightening perspective on Mohammed. Not confusing at all. He was a prophet, but one with SOME unsound ideas, he was a man of his time but yet produced a religion better than what the pagan arabs had before. Yet with this you don't say why God/Allah has not sent another prophet. Is there not a need for a prophet today with ideas better than what post-pagan Arabs had? Fucking insidious, insipid commentary  finmad

    I wonder what his last thoughts were? He died in 2006. He saw what 9/11 did to the world. What were your thoughts then Watt? When you heard Osama declare the Shahada? Did you feel a need to retract your thoughts about the divinity of Mohammed?s Message and Prophethood?
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #6 - January 15, 2010, 12:47 PM

    Is Watt not a Muslim? I always thought he was


    Quote
    Long before the recent wave of Islamophobia in the West, Watt advocated dialogue with Muslims, not demonisation of them. He doubted the appropriateness of conversion and felt that those of all faiths should collaborate in friendship to stem the tide of materialism and secularisation. Unlike certain Orientalist scholars of previous generations, Watt was indeed convinced that the Koran was divinely inspired and that Muhammad received true religious experiences directly from God. Watt roundly condemned those in the West who sought to perpetuate scurrilous medieval misconceptions about the Prophet of Islam.

    He was not afraid to express rather radical theological opinions - controversial ones in some Christian ecclesiastical circles. He often pondered on the question of what influence his study of Islam had exerted on him in his own Christian faith. As a direct result, he came to argue that the Islamic emphasis on the uncompromising oneness of God had caused him to reconsider the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which is vigorously attacked in the Koran as undermining true monotheism.

    Influenced by Islam, with its 99 names of God, each expressing special attributes of God, Watt returned to the Latin word "persona" - which meant a "face" or "mask", and not "individual", as it now means in English - and he formulated the view that a truer interpretation of the Trinity would not signify that God comprises three individuals. For him, the Trinity represents three different "faces" of the one and the same God.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-w-montgomery-watt-423394.html
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #7 - January 15, 2010, 03:01 PM

    Sorry, I was thinking of Maritn Lings!

    Religion - The hot potato that looked delicious but ended up burning your mouth!

    Knock your head on the ground, don't be miserly in your prayers, listen to your Sidi Sheikh, Allahu Akbar! - Lounes Matoub
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #8 - January 15, 2010, 04:12 PM

    Ya, the two of them are all around goofy, Karen Armstrong especially. These people just love religion in general, it's so tiring.
    I too agree, What the hell was sooooo wrong with polytheism. What makes eradicating polytheism such a great and noble thing? They talk about pagans like they were some great problem that needed to be done away with, because Monotheism is soooooooo much better.
    Hell, Civilization (both western and eastern) was friggen built by Polytheist Cultures! You know what the polytheists had that the monotheists took away? They let people from different cultures and religions get along, by offering a syncretic standpoint on religion...guess what changed that?

    Here is a question I'd like them to answer:
    If they believe that Muhammed was a prophet who talked to angels and took dictation from god....why are they not muslims?
    If Muhammed did not actually talk to angels and take dictation from god...then what? The options get a bit muggy. He was a Charlatan/Liar/Delusional/had a mental disorder/combination of those? What was his deal?

    I'd love to see them answer that, and not gobbly gook like:


    Quote
    Was Muhammad a prophet ? He was a man in whom creative imagination worked at deep levels and produced ideas relevant to the central questions of human existence


    What does that mean? He made it up? The guy is talking nonsense.
    Kind of cuts to the heart of it, dont it....


    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #9 - January 15, 2010, 04:22 PM

    Karen Armstrong is just like Reza Aslan. A sophistic and intellectually bankrupt apologist for Islam. What a clown, I can't believe there was a point where I took here seriously. She sees all these Abrahamic religions through rose-tinted goggles and probably has wet dreams over creating a hybrid of Christianity and Islam.

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #10 - January 15, 2010, 04:30 PM

    Here is my take...

    Karen Armstrong, Watt, and their ilk need to make money. They rely on religion to make money, books/talks/blah blah.
    So it is in their interest for there to be more religion....More religion = more money/fame/respect/ect
    less religion = less people caring what they think/nobody knowing who they are/people not buying their books.
      
    That is why the 'secularists' are the enemy, and religion is super awesome. Now buy my book.

    The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the
    superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition
    is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery.
    -Robert G. Ingersoll (1898)

     "Do time ninjas have this ability?" "Yeah. Only they stay silent and aren't douchebags."  -Ibl
  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #11 - January 15, 2010, 05:43 PM


    Karen Armstrong wrote a great book on Buddha which I respect her for. But she is ridiculous when it comes to Mo.

    Its kuffars like her that really help to impede a full and frank discussion of Mo's life and character and by extension, a full and frank confronting of Islam's inanity and in parts cruelties, because she is such a craven, off the scale apologist, and she contextualises any truthful discussion of Mo as being part of a big 'Islamophobic' conspiracy.

    I guess she has found her niche, she gets loved up by Muslims because of it.



    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #12 - January 15, 2010, 06:42 PM

    Watt roundly condemned those in the West who sought to perpetuate scurrilous medieval misconceptions about the Prophet of Islam.


    ie: tell the truth about him, and no whitewash and apologising and denial.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #13 - January 15, 2010, 06:46 PM

    Karen Armstrong wrote a great book on Buddha which I respect her for. But she is ridiculous when it comes to Mo.

    Its kuffars like her that really help to impede a full and frank discussion of Mo's life and character and by extension, a full and frank confronting of Islam's inanity and in parts cruelties, because she is such a craven, off the scale apologist, and she contextualises any truthful discussion of Mo as being part of a big 'Islamophobic' conspiracy.

    I guess she has found her niche, she gets loved up by Muslims because of it.


    I don't get how a person who has studied the life of a person like the Buddha can possibly become such a apologist for Mo. If one looks as the things Buddha did and said, and compare that to Mo... the philosophical, ethical and moral differences are really jarring. It's something that deeply affected me even when I was Muslim. Compared to other Prophets Mo was such a jerk!

    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #14 - January 15, 2010, 07:18 PM


    Yep I know Iblis, it makes me scratch my head too. Her book on Buddha is definitely worth reading though, its a very good introduction to his age and philosophy, one of the best I have read.


    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #15 - May 06, 2015, 05:33 PM



    Review of Karen Armstrong's Fields of Blood

    http://m.thenation.com/article/205649-power-and-piety
  • William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #16 - May 06, 2015, 09:02 PM

    a hybrid of Christianity and Islam.


    AKA Crosslam.
  • William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #17 - May 07, 2015, 12:07 AM

    Chrislam. Google it.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #18 - May 07, 2015, 04:54 PM

    wtf, i thought you were jock, this thing exist !!!!!, 
  • William Montgomery Watt & Karen Armstrong's love for Mohammed
     Reply #19 - May 07, 2015, 07:26 PM

    Chrislam. Google it.

    Bah. What a sucky name. Mine's better!  Tongue
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »