Sex and the Prophet

The recent terrorist attack in France has started a flurry of criticisms against Islamic fundamentalism and the intolerance that goes with it. While many people have strongly condemned the heinous acts perpetrated by three masked gunmen purportedly in the name of vengeance for the Islamic prophet Muhammad, there are people like former Democrat leader Howard Dean who refuse to make the connection between terrorism and the Muslim faith. This article does not intend to paint Islam with a broad brush nor does it intend to pander to Muslim sensitivities for the sake of political correctness. The intent of this piece is to provoke a discussion on the merits of criticizing one of the world’s major religion that seem to attract the most violence in today’s world. It aims to raise the question on what it is about Islam that may have contributed to the instability that goes with the mindset of the zealots amongst its fold.

charlie_hebdoSo where do we start? I certainly do not feel like delving into a very scholarly and cerebral approach. Sometimes we can get a glimpse of the answer in the simplest angle. In this case, perhaps sex has something to do with it! You see, Islamic tradition depicts Muhammad as a great Casanova; a loverboy who would be the envy of Hugh Hefner, Randy West, Peter North, even Ron Jeremy. This guy, as Islamic tradition says, is the superman of sex. I won’t be surprised if Islamic propagandists who claim Islam to be pioneers of science would also claim that they invented Viagra way before Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Corporation did.

From Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:

Qatada narrated:
Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

In Volume 1, Book 5, Number 282:

Anas bin Malik narrated:
The Prophet used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

Well now, how credible are these accounts? At that time, Muhammad was no longer a young stud. It would really be incredible for a 60 year old geezer to get it on with 9 ladies in one night. Muhammad was already around 60 at the time when he had 9 wives. Some of you may say that maybe Muhammad just got lucky one night and felt really randy! Well, unfortunately this was not a one night event. The accounts state that Muhammad did this regularly. So how are we to take these accounts? Was Muhammad really the superman of sex as Islamic traditions depict him to be? Did Allah grant his favorite apostle some sort of a spiritual pre-modern times Viagra? (a possible perk that came with the job) Or is it possible that there may be some other more plausible explanation to the accounts of the sexual prowess of the 60 year old Islamic icon?

It is interesting to note that in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660 and 661, Aisha, one of Muhammad’s girls (well, literally as she was 6 when Muhammad married her and she was 9 when he had sex with her) narrated:

Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not.

Maybe this hadith relating to Muhammad having imaginary romp sessions in the sack with his women is a commentary or explanation to the other depictions of him being a sex machine. Again, this is coming from Aisha’s words (her being Muhammad’s favorite sex partner).

Imaginary sex is not only the psychological kink in Muhammad, he also had other psychological issues. The following links show articles that talk about Muhammad’s psychological (in)stability:

1. “A Bewitched Prophet? : Examining Muhammad’s Psychological and Spiritual Stability – by David Wood

2. “Muhammad and the Demons” – by Silas

3. “Muhammad’s Suicide Attempts” – by Silas

Now, given that Muhammad may not really have been the super sex machine that Muslim apologists depict him to be (he may have probably been even a dud in the sack at 60 that’s why he often resorted to imaginary sex), this by no means, suggests that he was all a sexual sham. Sex was prominently on Muhammad’s mind and he had quite a huge sexual appetite!

Anyway, looking beyond Muhammad’s sex life, it is important to note that we have evidence that suggests that the hadiths that tell of Muhammad’s sexual prowess may have been reporting Muhammad’s sexual illusions and hallucinations as factual and not imaginary. So if that is the case, then how many more of the hadiths may have been compromised?

We have to realize here that many of the teachings of Islam are based on these hadiths. So could Islam be built on illusions and hallucinations of a psychologically unstable person? And if Muhammad’s illusions are to be taken as facts in the hadiths, then this seriously undermines the Quran’s credibility. What if some or all of the alleged visitations of the angel Gabriel and the “revelations” given to Muhammad by the angel are nothing more than creations of his unstable mind?

Is it any surprise then that a religion that may have been based on delusion foster a kind of deluded mindset as exemplified by Islamic terrorists?

print

70 Comments on “Sex and the Prophet”

  1. A friend calls Islam. Judaism and Christianity the three great desert religions. All have a history of violence, although I believe my current understanding of Christianity is that it is actually non-violent. But actual practice was otherwise. Perhaps these religions being born in the desert have been shaped by the harshness of desert life.

    But Islam seems particularly violent, because it’s likely shaped by Arab culture. Is it Bedouin culture? Not sure, but based on the virgins and Muhammad tales… that story of Muhammad seems to have gone through generations of padding stories, until it got ridiculous. But the possibility of psychological issues – schizophrenia, delusion disorder and the like with Muhammad, that’s an interesting possibility, too. Well, compared to Judaism and Christianity, Islamic lore seems… crazier, for lack of a better word.

    1. Regarding Christianity. The old testament has violence in it. Jesus Christ promoted peace, not violence. Christianity is based on Christ.

      1. you’re absolutely right. Christ is the promoter of peace and LOVE above all. stop violence for humanity’s sake…why behead those who won’t follow Islam …and everyone has the right to religion and everhe/she chose would be better for her/him.

      2. Hi Chris,

        Yes, the old testament has violence in it. Actually, the new testament has some objectionable things in it as well. However, Judeo-Christianity has gone through reforms in its faith. Islam just got stuck in the backward world. Thanks for reading!

      3. If it’s the Old Testamant that one only follow, it’s Judaism. The New Testament is more the basis of Christianity, and it certainly promotes non-violence. Like that “turn the other cheek” bit.

    2. Prior to the Age of Enlightenment all these “desert religions” were on the same path killing each other and going on bloody Crusades. However, Judeo-Christianity took a turn during the Enlightenment and went through reforms in its faith and pretty much abandoned fatal literalism. Unfortunately, Islam missed the chance and has remained in the dust (both figuratively and literally) behind Judeo-Christianity. Fatal literalism is alive and well in Islam whereas not so much (if at all) in Judeo-Christianity. All these religions have their respective fundamentalist bunch and all their respective religious texts have messages that justify homicide or even genocide. But in our present time we won’t hear any rabbi or pastor or priest calling for a murderous decree on, say, gays engaging in homosexual acts. We may hear biblical passages in opposition to gay marriage, for instance, but there would be no killing decrees. In Islam it’s different. You still get killing decrees and fatwas issued like parking tickets for “sins” like adultery and apostasy. Thanks for reading!

      1. My observation as well, Hector. One of my earlier readings also says the original purpose of Jihad was not to convert others, but to conquer, the secular way. They might impose religion afterwards, but that’s only an aftereffect of conquest. Who knows if the mindset of fundamentalists is like that.

        The case of the gunmen at Charlie Hebdo is more likely an isolated case, not really any reason to attack all of Islam. But who knows how many accomplices elsewhere the killers have.

    1. Which part? The improbable claims by your hadiths? The question of integrity of your Quran since it may be based on the delusions of your icon? The purported pedophilia of your prophet? We don’t need to be scholarly to dissect your religion. There are good and substantive reasons why your religion is hated by a lot of people in the west and that isn’t merely because of ignorance of your religion. Condemnation of the evil acts committed by the nutjobs amongst your fold isn’t enough. Talk is cheap. If the majority of your faithful is indeed peace-loving then you guys ought to band together, fight and weed out the rotten apples amongst yourselves. If you’re unsubscribing here then good riddance. Oh and by the way…. thanks for promoting hatred towards my article and our blog and for giving us the hits. 🙂

      1. your reply is not really surprising as it reflects your knowledge on abrahamic faiths, particularly on Islam. This also includes all your normative biased essays which are product of your figments of your imagination.

        1. Even the most sober philosophies can play the eager host to zealots who brook no alternatives, no consideration of values. See: the French Revolution. What more those religions with previous histories of bloody reprisals?

        2. You still here? Whatever happened to unsubscribing? A critique on your backwards ideology must really be eating you up, eh? Suck it up and keep your Muslim apologetic claptrap to yourself. It’s about time your ideology gets called for what it is. A backwards ideology that badly needs reform.

    2. Nassed Manabilang Adiong:

      I hope that this isn’t too late, at sana rin maintindihan mo ang Tagalog ko — I’m a man of whimsy, kaya ako naghahalu-halo. Ohohohohoho.

      Better to point out and eviscerate whatever is objectionable about benign0’s article rather than to say “Objection!” in so many words without saying why. Just because you believe in something doesn’t entitle that belief to immunity from skepticism. Your unspecified knowledge of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity doesn’t spare you from stating out those relevant to this discussion either.

      Wala rin namang kuwenta kung magbabalat-sibuyas ka — things like this call not just for just condemnation of the atrocities of al-Qaeda or ISIS or Boko Haram or whatever, but also a thoroughgoing re-evaluation of beliefs and assumptions without undue provocation, dahil alam naman nating lahat na importante rin ang buhay mo.

      1. One more thing, if you’re still reading — I clicked on your name just after typing the above. Perhaps this is all too sudden and too brusque, and this really isn’t the right venue for this, but I’m interested in Islam as a field of study, and I would like your help getting a degree under Islamic Studies. Not because I’m Muslim nor would want to — but if I can be of help in resolving the tensions between two worlds of belief and opinion, even a little —

        — feel free to disabuse me of my notion(s). I’m getting sick in the head.

  2. I think Catholic Religion has its equal share of delusions within and without the Bible. Just to remind everybody, at one point in time, the Irish Republican Army (IRA), was considered the most sophisticated terrorist organization on the planet and they were all Catholics.

    1. IRA’s action isn’t motivated by religion, no priest called for attacks on innocents and the Christians openly condemn them. However, Islam terrorism are propagated in the mosques and incited by imams even those who are living western countries. And the moderate Muslims are silenced with death threats.

      There is a big difference, I can easily provide you with Islamic terror orgs and I will heaving hard time giving you terrorists from other religions.

      1. Corect…and at least the phrase ” just to remind everybody, at one point in time” that means longtime ago…IRA’s action’s were actually condemned by all Christians and Catholics worldwide since they are promoting violence.they must be misguided and brainwashed by a leader full of hatred… and we’re so thankful with our unceasing prayers that it ended and that ugly chapter has its closure….Islam terrorism started way before and up to present…and what the heck, they would not allow anyone to talk anything against Islam. Talk and you will be punished with impunity but then they oftenly mock Christianity in prints and videos. hard to understand attitudes. very violent in character.

        1. It seems that ‘a long time ago’ is equal to forgetting about it? Remember the Crusades? For some reason the difference in times between the Crusaders and the IRA has led to the thinking yesterday’s mistakes is something that cannot be repeated today. Just what was prayed for is unclear because it took time for the conflict to end. Its funny because you apologize that the IRA must have been misguided and brainwashed by a leader full of hatred and YET you cannot seem to see the same situation for Islam. I for one will not allow anyone to talk against Christianity in a bad way which I think is the logical thing for a Muslim to do too. Just recently, Carlos Celdran was muzzled and given punitive action by the court for ‘talking’. None of the CBCP even cared to ask for charges to be dropped. Christians also mock our own Muslim Brothers. Do we have to do some kind of video and print accounting? And Christians are not violent? Check out TV Patrol and more often than NOT Muslim but more of Christians right?

          P.S. I am a devout Catholic but I also have enough sense to know when we are becoming Un-Catholic in our treatment of our fellow men. If the Good Samaritan had shown the same frame of mind it would not have made it to the bible.

      2. The IRA strove to gain independence or at least some form of it from a Protestant MAJORITY. So, it was in some way also motivated by religion. True… no priests called for attacks on innocents but a number surely supported them. I believe a majority of Muslims also condemn these attacks. A majority of Muslims are moderate.

        Its NOT the number of orgs on a list … My point is and was: No matter the religion, there are extreme forms of expression that lead to harm and death. The Jewish Movement that led to the Establishment of Israel was considered by the British as a terrorist movement that killed a number of Arabs & Englishmen.

      1. Whether or not the IRA killed in the name of God, you have to concede the fact that they wouldn’t have existed were it not for the historic enmities between northern Irishmen worshipping different gods.

        1. The IRA was born out of the sole objective to drive England out of Ireland. Don’t interject conjecture, stay with the facts if quoting history.

      2. Well, the Crusaders did KILL in the name of God. And they were Christian. So, just imagine how these Crusaders projected themselves as terrorists to the Arabs in Palestine…

        Is there really a difference between NOT KILLING IN THE NAME OF GOD and VIOLATING THE COMMANDMENT THOU SHALL NOT KILL?

    2. Hi Orlando,

      I’ve read comments before comparing Judeo-Christianity and their sacred texts with its Islamic counterpart. Personally, I think that’s a red herring. All these religions have their fundamentalists and their sacred texts have their share of objectionable passages. However, in our present times, Islam takes the cake when it comes to the level of violence and viciousness. Thanks for reading!

      1. Nice point but I have to point out that the Koran and Islam have been around as long as Christianity, to say that Islam is more violent now can be traced to the psychological make up of the individual terrorist rather than the religion itself.

        If we look at World War II on the European continent, Christians — most of the European powers at war were Christian and they had the most casualties. In short, Christians had killed more Christians than Muslims have killed Christians to date. I suggest you interview WWII veterans (at least the ones who are still alive) of the European continent and prove to them than their war was any less violent and less vicious. Remember the gas chambers?

  3. Suicide Bombers, Jihadists, Islamic fundamentalist; believe that, if they die for the Islamic cause: they will go to “Paradise” and will have sex with 72 Virgins…

    They really believe this…

    In my personal opinion. I believe Muhammad is a False Prophet. “You shall know them by their fruits”…is the great teaching of Jesus Christ…other “men of God”, in any religion; did not behave that way…nor they had encouraged: killings, murders, and other evil treatments to non-believers (infidels)..

    1. Muslims terrorist are so pathetic that they will join suicide missions on a promise of 72 fresh pussies in the afterlife.

    2. That 72 virgins thing is one of those questionable hadiths. For those who don’t know, the hadith are like a collection of the prophet’s sayings or proverbs with some being true and some others being controversial…..

      And that’s why I’d like to call it: “chika ng propeta” or chika in Muhammad

      1. The so-called Prophet Muhammad was an illiterate guy, who claimed to had a vision of the:Archangel Gabriel. So, these verses of the Koran, are supposed to be dictated to him, by the Archangel Gabriel.

        People who were literate compiled, these verses. and, it became the Koran.

        Satan, the Devil was a former Archangel called: Lucifer. He was cast off from Heaven, but retained his power. So, Satan can have the power to appear as an “Angel of Light’; like Archangel Gabriel.

    3. They believe in all sorts of crap! What you said totally makes sense…. “you shall know them by their fruits”. Muhammad had a history of bloodthirst…. it’s no wonder why a lot of his followers are the same. Thanks for reading!

  4. Some religion had been peaceful from the start, some abandoned violence centuries ago, but throughout history islam are anything but peaceful, ironically they decided call it religion of peace when they hack everyone to pieces at the slightest provocation.

      1. @Hector Gamboa:

        Submit to whom? To their God:Allah? Islamic Idiots…why do they kill, murder or mistreat people who do not submit to their God.

    1. Tell that to the Abbasids of Baghdad, or to the Umayyads of al-Andalus, or to Saladin’s forces, or to the Ottomans after the fall of Constantinople.

      Go humor me about the Muslims of earlier centuries being peculiarly intolerant and bloodthirsty in comparison to the zealots of other religions of the day. Go. Go and make my fucking day.

      1. Saladin was a Kurd, yet the Kurds are victimized first by the Ottomans, second by Saddam Hussein, and third by the ISIS/ISIL. So much for “Muslim brotherhood” this days.

        1. Were regional and national differences organized during Saladin’s time the way they are organized today? I don’t know, but I’m going to take a guess and suspect that they weren’t.

  5. Islam is a satanic religion. Using the devil’s formula of mixing beautiful truths with horrific lies has shaped this religion, hence you see the preaching of peace and murder in the same breath. I don’t know who Muhammed was talking with in that cave, but it sure wasn’t God.

    1. Well, if there aren’t enough virgins to go ’round I guess Mrs Palmer and her five daughters will ensure there’s plenty of knuckle shuffling going on.

      1. @wombat 1:

        The many Jihadists, Suicide Bombers,Radical Muslims,etc… that are now killed or killing themselves…I guess with 72 Virgins, required as prize for their martyrdom…there will be not enough Virgins left in Paradise…

    2. on the contrary, homosexuality is punishable by DEATH in sharia law. Funny coming from an organization that tolerates pedophilia because their super-stud had a 9 year old in his bridal roster.

  6. Whatever the reality of Muhammad’s ministry, it must be remembered that for vast swaths of history since the hegira, Islamic caliphates the world over were not filled to the brim with raging zealots seeking to convert everyone to Islam and killing those who resisted, whatever rhetoric was deployed in the name of Allah and his messenger.

    Now you have the Wahabbis and ISIS, but that’s hardly everyone ever, and each had their origins in imperialist geopolitics.

  7. As Paul walked to Damascus,Syria he had no water, was de-hydrated and may have been near death….and yet, Paul came upon a ‘burning bush’. Once upon a time,to assert that Paul was hallucinating was considered ‘HERESY’ and was cause for burning at the stake and other nasty forms of murdering the speaker of such ‘HERESY’.

    YO HECTOR, YOU GOT BALLS !

  8. “Nous sympathisons avec les persones Francaises dans cette tragedie.”

    Translation Tagalog:

    “Nakikiramay kami sa mga Frances sa trahediya na ito.”

    Translation English:

    We sympathize with the French people in this tragedy.

  9. Europe no longer knows what is black and what is white because of guilt of the past.

    http://goo.gl/hWsXjy

    #JeSuisCharlie

    The good out of Charlie Hebdo: the blowback and the questioning of political correctness. But, media and politicians are still afraid and not cooperating

    1. The bad out of the bloodletting at Charlie Hebdo? Why, the painting of all Muslims (immigrant or not, zealot or not, of every stripe and every persuasion) as terrorists or potential terrorists both by understandably incensed people and by far-right kooks like Le Pen, despite the fact that most countries with a majority of Muslims, and most that have sizable Muslim minorities, are staying out of the chaos ISIS and its allies bring, if not condemning them outright.

      News flash: not every Muslim is a terrorist or potential terrorist or even trigger-happy. If they aren’t today’s staid European churchgoer — if they believe in things that in other contexts would be inflammatory at the very least — if they would be offended by Charlie Hebdo’s satire if they get the chance to see it for themselves — they usually won’t take it to the next level and mow down magazine offices with the lethal force of their absolute certitude.

      tl;dr = Everyone calm the fuck down.

  10. In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the People.

  11. If you’ve been at the GRP FB group, someone suggested the book The Haj by Leon Uris, which is a novel, but implies that the culprit behind Islamic terrorism is Arab culture. That would reinforce GRP’s thesis that the problems of society could be traced to cultural sources most of all.

  12. “If in the darkness of ignorance, you don’t recognize a person’s true nature, look to see whom he has chosen for his leader”

    This may be going outside of the topic now, but could we list possible leaders within realm of PHL
    -Muhammad
    -Jesus
    -Moses
    -God
    -No God
    -Oneself
    -Pope/ Priest/ Pastor/ Imam
    -a teacher/ a supervisor/ a manager
    -a political leader (PNoy/ Binay/ Roxas/ Grace Po…)
    – a celebrity (DongYan/ …….)
    – a culture/ tradition/ …
    – a principle
    – a friend/ a lover
    – family/ husband/ wife/ children
    – possessions/ house/ car/ gadgets
    – wealth/ money/ stocks…
    – a career
    – an organization
    – a hobby/ sport
    – a dream
    – ….fill-in the blanks
    – a combination of any of the above (who and what drive/s us to do what we do is/ are our leader/s)

    Back to the topic, what drove the killers in Charlie Hebdo?

      1. What’s wrong with a junkie? Nothing. If you’re the junkie. 🙂

        Fred, instead of asking lame questions, if you have doubts with what I said, lay it on the table.

        You are very welcome. 🙂

  13. All I can see with history is, whenever there is some megalomaniac psychopath who thinks their religion or ideology makes them a superior race to everyone else, it ends badly. Hitler, Crusades, KKK, Jihadists, Communists, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc etc are all destined to go towards one thing— total degradation and ridicule of this so-called special culture.

    Honestly, history is printed out to read and patterns are there for a reason. Doesn’t anyone care to learn from this?

  14. Why all you guys always interested in Muslims and the places where Muslims lives and in the matters of the middle east and in Islam. Stop Obama interfering in Muslim nations
    . Why Jews are interested in Jordan philistine and Lebnon? Why You Christians testing your weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, etc?

    1. Well. You guys are trying to terrorise us all by cutting people’s heads off , burning people alive, and making sure we all know about it.

  15. Yes these are the terrorists and not the Muslims I’m not supporting them but I’m in full support of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his religion so please don’t say any thing to him as actually you don’t know who is he.
    We Muslims respect the Jesus (PBUH) and also respects the other religions.
    Thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.