h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Who Was Mohammed? - A22009880
Author: SWL™ All science is either physics or stamp collecting - U1775547

Still adding footnotes, but I'd appreciate opinions as to tone and contentiousness.

The intent is to put forward as historically accurate a description of Mohammed as possible, without getting bogged down with theology.

The intent is *not* to offend, but to provide a starting point for those wishing to learn about the life and times of Mohammed. To that end, I only touch on Islamic theology where it is IMO crucial in the understanding of Mohammed the man.

This was interesting, and makes me realise how little I do know about Islam. I suspect I'd need to know a lot more than I do to actually make useful comments!

I found the tone about right, and the focus on historical facts keeps it that way, I think.

Only one point that springs to mind was "Mohammed spared the woman as she had indirectly confirmed his divinity" when you're talking about her attempt to poison him; had he claimed he was divine? Prophecy is kind of a "divine gifting" but doesn't make the prophet divine per se. Or at least, that's what I think...

Cheers Rains. I'll look at the point of divinity again. The problem is with the translations that often interpose divinity and prophethood.

I had a gander at this early this morning, it looks very interesting but it's lonnnnng, and I'll need quite a while to read it all. I hope I can say something more constructive soon.

It is a bit long, but I've tried to keep it clipping along at a decent pace. For such an important historical figure, given the general lack of knowledge about the man and white-washing Entries such as A311077, I think it's important to have a more accurate look at the guy.

As usual with yourself, the piece is well-written and informative (I'll take your word on the accuracy of the facts cuz I've no idea).

But as for contentiousness, the first para is.... very contentious. You're talking about the founder, 1400 years ago, of one of the world's great religions, and the first thing you read is about the most infamous terrorist attack of all time.

If you did a piece on Jesus would your first para be about the Spanish Inquisition?

Worth adding links to other edited entries about Islam where possible.

Can I suggest removing the first two sections, as I'm not sure that they're entirely relevent? If the entry is 'Who was Mohammed?', I don't see why September 11th needs mentioning. I'm sure I don't need to make the rather obvious point that there were plenty of Muslims who were also 'aghast'. As it stands, the entry implies the opposite.

I'd also suggest removing the bit about 'cult of personality'. That phrase is more usually associated with communism, and I wouldn't use the word 'cult' at all in relation to any mainstream religion. Also, it's not clear to me why Islam is any more of a personality cult than Christianity. Jesus too "was the perfect man" and Christians "strive in every way to emulate the example he set." Mohammed was just a man, of course - the last Prophet. Jesus was God incarnate, and without sin. So I think if we were to single out one religion for 'personality' cult status, it would be Christianity. (What Would Jesus Do?)

That's probably enough for now...

Hi Pedro, Otto. I'm particularly glad you've commented as this gives me a good chance of keeping this on the straight and narrow.

I'm still writing up the footnotes, but all the facts are from the leading Muslim contemporary sources, recognised as being authentic and authoritative. I will of course add in the links, as there is a veritable plethora of Entries about Islam. Which is why I've taken the route I have. There is no doubt that Islam extolls a cult of personality to a massive degree, far more so than Christianity IMO. After all, Jesus was only a religious figure, Mohammed was a politician and general in addition to the religious aspect.

I've started with 9/11 precisely because this is the very reason Islam & Muslims are on the lips of a significant proportion of the world's population. Were it not for 9/11, the world would be a vastly different place today and no-one but a few scholars (and Muslims themselves) would be at all interested in Mohammed. I take the point about Muslims also being aghast though.

I don't agree with the point of comparing Islam with Christianity. Why not Judaeism, Hinduism or Buddhism? The desire to make comparisons is entirely from a Christian-centric perspective and I want this piece to be relevant to a wider audience than just Christians. Besides which, is any historical account of Manchester United less relevant for not making comparisons with Chelsea?

Thank you though guys, keep it coming.

9/11 is topical, true, but it *is* still pretty contentious. And presumably this piece will be here for... decades? The overall feel is quite sharp, so this sets the tone quite forcefully.

When I say the tone is quite sharp, I don't mean to be critical. You obviously don't hold much with any supernatural occurances, and neither do I, but this takes away any justification for some of Mohammed's more, erm, 'exotic' actions. Again, nothing wrong with this, but it reads as if the first part is setting the scene for a negative look at of Islam, which overall is *not* the case.


(PS, after the 5th visit from Gabriel, I wondered why they didn't just give him a phone)

OK, I'll have a look at it again.

Never mind a phone, how come Gabriel didn't know Mohammed couldn't read?

Hi SWL,

Thanks for taking my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.


I wasn't suggesting that the entry should be written from a Christian viewpoint. The point I was trying to make was that what you're saying about Islam isn't unique or special to Islam.

There is a case to be made for Jesus as a political figure too, but I take your point. If it hadn't been for the survival of his religion, history would not remember him at all. Mohammed is different. This is a good point, and one worth making, but I don't think that 'personality cult' is appropriate - it's not a neutral expression. And perhaps we'll have to differ on this, but I can't see how Mohammed is more of a central figure or inspiration that Jesus is to Christians. Mohammed may have been a politician and general, but Jesus was *God made man*. I can see the point you're trying to make, but I think it needs to be made rather differently.

Funnily enough, what you say about not wanting the entry to be Christio-centric is actually a very good argument for dropping the 9/11 reference. It's true that non-adherents in the UK are more interested in Islam than Hinduism or Sikhism because of geopolitics, but Islam isn't some obscure sect that no-one on the outside would have bothered about. If you were writing about the Branch Davidians/David Koresh you'd start with Waco, because if it wasn't for Waco, no-one would care. Not so with Islam, which is a major world religion.

I appreciate that I need guiding hands with this entry as my antipathy towards the subject matter could easily turn it into a rant, which is boring and fruitless.

The 9/11 point is topical, but it will remain topical for at least the next 50 years - if not longer. Certainly it will have an immediacy long after the internet is history and we all communicate with brain implants The effects and aftermath are being felt and will continue to be felt, throughout the world. Those perpetrating the act felt themselves to be directly influenced by Mohammed. Without going into detail, the current rise in Islamic Extremism is a direct result of Muslim countries straying from Mohammed's instructions in the eyes of the extremists themselves. This is what inspired 9/11 and this in turn is what has inspired the current fascination in all things Muslim.

The professional commentators and writers IMO do not give a balanced or accurate view. The extremist Right portray Islam as inexorably expansionist, bloodthirsty and backward. The more moderate voices from the centre and within the Muslim community itself airbrush out the more embarassing episodes. Again IMO, this is like writing a history of the USSR without mentioning the Revolution.

The title is "Who Was Mohammed", but it could easily be "Why do you want to know about Mohammed?" and the answer to that is 9/11.

Mohammed differs from Jesus in that there is a full historical record of Mohammed. Over 300,000 witness testimonies were compiled and collated into a biography of his life. There is no historical certainty that Jesus lived, or certainly not the Jesus described in the Bible. It is against this wealth of detail that Muslims base a life of emulation. He gave details on everything from how to wipe your backside to dealing with empires. He is a fundamentally different entity than Jesus.

Sorry, got a bit windy there

Having said all that, I've now re-written the start.

The terrible events of September 11th, 2001 thrust one of the world’s great religions into the spotlight. As the attacks were carried out by Muslim extremists, it has made many people in the West interested in Islam, and therefore its founder, the prophet Mohammed. Millions of Muslims and non-Muslims were aghast that people could readily commit suicide in such a dramatic fashion in the name of religion.

How about that for the first bit? It's more emotionally neutral.


<< particularly when religion was becoming less important to ordinary people in the West.>>

I'd leave this out, because it's not true in the US (or here, it seems recently).

As for the second para, Muslims are called Muslims, not Mohammedans, while Christians religion is called after Christ, so it's debatable that Islam is more focused on its prophet than Christianity is on its god. I'd take it out, as the criticisms of his behaviour imply a criticism of Islam, which isn't the focus of the article.

This piece does seem to me to be pretty balanced and accurate, which makes even more necessary for you to be neutral about it.

Simulpost.

Spooky

But how many Christians call their sons Christ?

I understand what you're saying about the personality cult bit, and undoubtedly it will never make it to the Guide with that left in, (in all likelihood it won't make it to the Guide anyway), but Islam is an absolutely classic example of a personality cult.

When he died, there wasn't much fuss made. The main attention was upon who would succeed him. He was buried without ceremony or marker and the Muslims carried on following the instructions of the Koran. It wasn't until eighty years after his death that the first biography was written. The Ahadith and Sunnah were gradually accumulated and combined over the next five hundred years; yet Muslims are told it is impossible to understand the Koran without the accompanying Hadith. How did they manage for 80 years? IMO, Ibn Ishaq & Bukhari were the Arabic versions of Beria & his contemporaries. Beria and his rivals successively wrote & re-wrote Stalin's biography, each vying to present him in the most favourable light. The cult of personality that grew to surround Stalin echoed an example set 1300 years before.

To shy away from this is to deny the truth. Over 300,000 witness testimonies were gathered - only 4000 of the most flattering were used. Yet despite this self-censorship, there are still Hadith that are deeply embarassing to Muslims today.

>>But how many Christians call their sons Christ?

How many people from the latin countries call their children Jesus?

What about the Christophers of the world ?


Just asking that when this goes through, can it not be as the main entry of the day. I'm not sure anybody will be willing to do the blob for it

>>>But how many Christians call their sons Christ?<<

... and the Arabs who call their sons 'Issa'...

SWL, I have read the entry several times. I find something about the tone very disquieting but can't put my finger on why. I'll try to come back to it when my brain is working... One thing that strikes me is that most of the references seems very strongly related to the 'Dhimmi Watch' movement... actually, perhaps that is what is bothering me about it. It is not balanced (just as the other entry on Mohammad is not balanced). I would feel much happier if the other entry were updated with some of the information here, tbh.



W

Well, I've gone through it overnight and changed the phraseology where it was a little ... credulous.

As to balance, it's a dry historical account. I've tried to ascribe no motivations to the actions of Mohammed. I don't understand what you mean by Dhimmi Watch either. Every reference given is directly from the Hadith, Sura or the Koran.

Are there any historical events you would like included that would create a better balance?

This is good, although a little contentious in just one way:

"The words he spoke were given to him directly from God"
-->
"The words he spoke are said to have been given to him directly from God"

Alex