Amica said:
Why are Jews and/or Christians so quick to judge prophet Muhammad pbuh and attack his character?
er... where are you getting that from? jews were jews for 2,000 years before muhammad arrived on the scene and, besides, you're begging the question - where have "jews" been so "quick to judge"? give me an example instead of generalising.
when both peoples believe in the truth of the Old Testament?
hang on - if that is the case, muslims should not accuse jews of "corrupting" the Torah, as has happened numerous times on this site alone (although i don't think you've ever done so) - our dear friend abdullah was good enough to lay out exactly how, in his view, there was no such thing as an "ahl al-qitab" jew these days, as by definition all the "good jews" were now muslims and were only "jewish" in their ethnic descent. either you believe that our adherence to the Torah is a genuine adherence to a genuine Divine Revelation or you don't - you can't say on one hand how we're all on the same side and at the same time attack us for "falsifications" and "corruptions" - that happens all too often and we are familiar with such tactics from the history of christianity. frankly, the only thing all three of us agree on is that the jews' Torah is a Divine Revelation!
The OT prophets are described as war like men who committed crimes of large proportions (e.g. genocides). Yet, if you were given option to judge a character you would attack Muhammad, citing character flaws as your rejection of the Message Muhammad pbuh delivered?
the question here is really whether the stuff in the Torah (and the Tanakh) really happened as described or not. if it didn't, then it's fiction and we cannot be blamed for something that didn't happen. if it did, then you also can't pick and choose - we are also therefore the beneficiaries of a Covenant with G!D and that must be respected. you cannot maintain on one hand that we eliminated the amalekites (and a nasty bunch they were too) but that we didn't receive Torah at sinai. either way, what makes the difference is how we behave as a result.
Take Moses pbuh for example. He ruled with iron fist, called and waged wars, and implemented lots of laws that you may not agree with today.
i wouldn't say he ruled with an iron fist. he had an advisory board of 70 elders, he took advice from joshua, his brother, his sister and his wife and insofar as he "ruled", he did so within a constitution governed by Torah law - this was not arbitrary diktat. similarly, we are not pacifists; any wars that were waged under his leadership were religiously sanctioned and done for good reason.
it is revealing, however, that muslims are (supposedly) enjoined to imitate muhammad as he was the "perfect man". however, we are not enjoined to imitate moses, but rather to imitate G!D, by resting on Shabbat and so on. moses is far from perfect, though he was the highest of all prophets. he made mistakes, he had a stutter, he got angry and so on. all our patriarchs, prophets and sages were human figures and they all have character flaws - it is not wrong to point out such things in muhammad, far from it; to do so humanises him, makes him more relevant to us - it should help us to understand ourselves. by trying to maintain that he was as sinless as jesus i think you do him no favours whatsoever.
many Christians are still quick to compare Jesus with Moses, claiming Jesus is a prophet like Moses foretold. Makes no sense to me at all.
nor to me. jesus is a very different figure, although still clearly a teacher of genius.
Etu Malku said:
The problem lies with religion itself. Religion is a meme, it's first objective is to survive, this is effectively carried out by eradicating all other 'false' religions (because there can only be one correct religion after all)
this is not our view. it is only the view of *conversionist* religions. we believe that jews should be jews, not that everyone should become jewish. it is entirely possible to be a good person whether you are jewish or not; in fact it is positively easier by some 606 less legal obligations. i cannot overemphasise the importance of the distinction between unversalist (and therefore conversionist, chauvinist and intolerant) religion, which cannot help but "share the good news" and covenantal religion, which is highly aware of its obligations, but strictly distinguishes between obligations incumbent upon those within the covenant and those without, who have different but no less critical importance. the problem comes when you think that different = special = better; this, however, is quite, quite wrong in our view.
b'shalom
bananabrain