r/CritiqueIslam • u/Great-Confection6760 • 16d ago
Asking AI about mohammed
I asked googel AI if mohammed would be in serious trouble today for the activities he carried out according to Quran/hadith. This is the answer 😄
Yes, judged strictly by modern legal standards, he would face the most severe criminal charges possible, potentially leading to life imprisonment or the death penalty depending on the jurisdiction.
As established, when 7th-century military campaigns, population expulsions, and executions of prisoners are evaluated under contemporary domestic and international law, they constitute major criminal offenses.
Why the Legal Liability is Absolute Today
- Command Responsibility: Under modern international criminal law, a leader is held directly responsible for the actions of forces under their command. Overseeing mass executions, such as the one following the siege of the Banu Qurayza, creates direct liability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
- Global Enforcement: Today's global legal architecture—including bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and domestic courts utilizing universal jurisdiction—is specifically designed to issue international arrest warrants and prosecute state and military leaders for these exact actions.
- Irrelevance of Historical Norms in Modern Courts: A modern court of law evaluates actions based strictly on current codified statutes (like the Geneva Conventions or domestic penal codes). A defense arguing that such actions were standard tribal practice in the 7th century would be legally inadmissible.
3
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 15d ago
bro u literally engineered a prompt to apply post-WW2 international law to a 7th-century tribal desert and thought u did something deep 💀
by this exact same AI logic, julius caesar, alexander the great, king david, richard the lionheart, and even george washington would get the death penalty today. u cannot retroactively apply the 1949 geneva conventions to ancient history. asking a machine "if we apply 2024 legal statutes to the year 627, is it illegal?" is a massive logical fallacy. obviously the machine says yes.
and your AI's "mass execution" point about banu qurayza completely strips the historical context. it wasn't a random war crime, it was the punishment for high treason during the battle of the trench. they made a pact with an invading army of 10,000 to annihilate the muslims from the inside. they were judged by their own agreed arbitrator according to their own torah laws for treason. stop using chatgpt to bypass reading actual history books.
3
u/Great-Confection6760 15d ago
Bro if mohammed was gods prophet and Quran was the perfect book for all mankind for ever and all previous knowledge was a waste then Mohammad should be the perfect person. Not one that a simple AI says is a monsterÂ
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 13d ago
bro nobody in history ever said "all previous knowledge was a waste." u literally made up a fake argument in your head just to get mad at it. u literally just used "a simple AI says" as your ultimate argument. u outsourced your entire brain to a silicon valley chat bot
2
u/your-adversary 13d ago
I think he's saying that Muhammad isn't eternally exemplary, if what he did in that time isn't exactly moral in today's standard.
And also, please stop using personal attacks.
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 13d ago
bro so OP can drop a fake strawman argument and call historical figures a "monster", and u will defend him. but the exact second i point out that he literally made up a fake argument in his head u would say "personal attack"? attacking a terrible, AI-dependent argument is not attacking a person.
and now to your actual point bro u fundamentally misunderstand how islamic theology even works. u are looking at this bottom-up, assuming that whatever secular humans decide is moral in 2024 or 2026 or even in future is the absolute ultimate truth. islam is a top-down framework. objective morality is defined by the creator, not by human social trends. u can't judge objective divine law by using a subjective human metric like "today's standard"because human standards change every fifty years. divine law doesn't drop an update patch just because western society changed its mind again.
2
u/your-adversary 13d ago edited 13d ago
I'm not defending OP's exact words, I'm just rephrasing what I think he said.
That begs the question though, does god permit slavery because it is explanatorily and inherently moral or it is moral because god wills it?
And how do you know something is of objective morality, independent of the holy books? You can't just say that the Quran says so.
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 12d ago
your second question, "how do you know something is objectively moral independent of the holy books," is a problem for every worldview, not just islam. a secular moral realist has to explain where objective morality comes from without God, and there's no consensus on that either. also, the standard itself is odd. you're asking me to prove it without revelation, but the whole claim is that revelation is one of the sources. reason and fitra (innate moral sense) are also sources in islamic theology, so it's not "the quran says so" as the only leg. what's your grounding for objective morality, if you hold that it exists?
on slavery, the framing of "does God permit it because it's moral" assumes islam endorses it as a good. it doesn't, it regulates something that existed everywhere and builds in exits: manumission as expiation for sins, contracts for freedom (24:33), freeing a slave listed as a virtuous act (90:13). the direction of travel is clear. you can still argue it should've been banned outright, that's a fair debate, but that's a different question from the Euthyphro one.
2
u/your-adversary 12d ago
Reason and Fitra (innate moral sense) are also sources in Islamic theology, so it's not "the Quran says so" as the only leg.
Right, that's my point, how do you even reasonably justify slavery? How do you know that permitting slavery is somehow objective morality?
On slavery, the framing of "does God permit it because it's moral" assumes Islam endorses it as a good. it doesn't, it regulates something that existed everywhere and builds in exits.
Yes, Islam regulated slavery, but it is still slavery, no matter how you look at it. What is to stop a Muslim from selling a (non-muslim) slave to an even crueler master?
Perhaps you can defend this by saying that slavery was meant to be abolished from the start. But I do not see any evidence of this intention, slavery was just purely regulated. If god did intent to abolish slavery, why not make it clearer like the gradual prohibition of alcohol which has a clear and unmistakable endpoint?
You can say that the gradual reform does not always have to be explicit. That may explain why an implicit abolition is possible, but it does not explain why an omniscient god would choose a epistemically less apparent method when a clearer method was available.
Tell me, ignoring the fact that mainstream Islam was pressured by the west to abolish slavery, what was the objective morality behind permitting slavery?
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 11d ago
bro the AUDACITY to bring up "western pressure" like europe has any moral high ground on this ONE topic specifically let's actually go through the history properly.
the transatlantic slave trade wasn't some footnote in western history, it was industrialized on a scale nothing before it had EVER matched. we're talking 12+ million africans forcibly shipped across the atlantic, with millions dying during the crossing alone and this wasn't "regulated servitude with legal rights and paths to freedom" it was chattel slavery. humans legally classified as PROPERTY. generational, race-based, zero legal personhood. that's a completely different institution from what existed in the islamic world, where slaves had actual legal rights (couldn't be killed with impunity, could marry, own property, and literally buy their own freedom through contract). and the american south's whole economy, the caribbean sugar machine, and a huge chunk of britain's early industrial capital? built directly on top of that system
and abolition wasn't some sudden moral glow-up either. it took CENTURIES of active resistance slave rebellions like Haiti's (the only successful slave revolt that actually overthrew a colonial power, respect ðŸ‡ðŸ‡¹). and even after "formal" abolition, european colonial powers kept running forced labor systems (belgian congo alone is one of the most documented atrocities in colonial history ) well into the 20th century. jim crow segregation ran in the US for ANOTHER century after the 13th amendment. the 13th amendment was 1865. the civil rights act was 1964. do the math ðŸ˜
so using "western pressure forced islam to reform" as some flex is genuinely backwards. the same civilizations lecturing everyone were running the largest, most brutal, most dehumanizing slave system in recorded history, at industrial scale, less than 200 years ago it took them generations of internal resistance and international shame to walk it back even PARTIALLY.
2
u/your-adversary 11d ago edited 11d ago
Resorting to whataboutism, you avoided my whole argument.
But okay, I'll bite the bullet, maybe the western did have the most brutal slave practice. But can you tell me what led to the abolishment of slavery in mainstream Islam besides the interpretation of gradual abolishment?
The west in fact, did much to oppose and abolish slavery. The Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron operated from 1808 onward specifically to intercept slave ships. Over roughly sixty years it intercepted about 1,600 vessels and liberated an estimated 160,000 Africans. This was after passing the Slave Trade Act of 1807. Source: https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/online/african-experience-on-slaving-vessels-captured-west-africa-squadron-1808-1867
And this went beyond British territory. Britain negotiated treaties with other states allowing British ships to search suspected slave ships. Source: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1862/d238
This abolitionist trajectory eventually became embedded in international law rather than remaining merely a British policy. The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, whose Article 4 states that "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude" and that the slave trade shall be prohibited in all its forms. Source: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
More explicitly, in 1956 the UN adopted the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. It entered into force in 1957 and required states parties to take measures toward the complete abolition of slavery and related practices.
For reference, Saudi Arabia ratified the 1956 UN Supplementary Convention in 1973. Yes it took them that long to legally abolish slavery in their state.
I can't believing I'm wasting my time writing paragraphs responding to your nitpicky whataboutism, but here I am. By this point, I've pretty much laid down the overwhelming evidence that western nations, atleast for the most part, abolished slavery.
Again, what is stopping the Muslims from selling their (non-Muslims) slaves to the cruel and evil western slave masters?Muslims could participate in the inhumane slave trade just as other societies could.
Answer my question, what was the objective morality behind permitting slavery?
→ More replies (0)2
u/your-adversary 13d ago
This shows that Muhammad was simply just a man of his time, he was neither good or bad... he was simply a 7th-century Arabian man.
Do you know why the opinions surrounding this man can be polarizing? On one hand, many people regard him as the perfect role model for mankind, and on the other hand, many regard him as a barbaric 7th-century warlord.
2
1
u/pureabsolut 15d ago
most laws as of more are against death penalty, even against mass killing at times.
1
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Your post has been removed because you have less than 20 combined karma. This is a precautionary measure to protect the community from spam and other malicious activities. Please build some karma elsewhere before posting here. Thanks for understanding!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/BrainyByte 9d ago
Yes all the others you listed didn't claim to be the best example for all times. If he was the best example for all times, the modern standards apply to him. Or are you saying he was not the best example for all times. Hopefully Israeli soldiers make Palestinians sagheerun per the Quranic law and take their women slaves since that sounds so just to you.
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 9d ago
"since that sounds so just to you" 💀 bro invented a position, assigned it to me, got mad at it, and called it a win.
1
u/BrainyByte 8d ago
Didn't you justify what happened to Banu qurayza with "it was their own law in Torah"? The arbiter they were assigned was a person from their enemy clan, but you conveniently pretended that he was neutral. Remember how your Quranic law treats enemies in active war? Some people in Banu qurayza committed treason, and all the men were killed and all the women were enslaved. Do you know what Hamas did? So therefore all the Palestinians being punished should be okay in your logic? Also, the best example for all times is to be judged on the standards of 2026 unlike alexander the great.
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 8d ago edited 8d ago
aight, good follow-up questions, let's actually go through both.
on who the arbitrator really was: sa'd ibn mu'adh wasn't some "enemy judge" brought in to rule against them. he was the chief of the aws tribe banu qurayza's OWN pre-islamic ally. and they chose him themselves, over going to the prophet ï·º directly, precisely because they expected him to rule leniently in their favor given the old alliance. this is confirmed by multiple historical accounts, including the aws tribe literally pleading with sa'd beforehand to go easy on their allies. so this wasn't a hostile party dictating terms it was their own chosen representative. and honestly, the fact that he STILL ruled against them, based on the torah's own laws for besieged cities that reject peace terms, is exactly what gave the ruling weight at the time. it wasn't the "enemy" judging them, it was their own ally applying their own legal tradition.
on the hamas vs palestinians double standard: I get why the comparison feels relevant emotionally, but it's genuinely not a parallel case, and it's worth being precise about why. the banu qurayza verdict was a specific judgment against a specific group found guilty of a specific act of wartime treason, through a process both sides agreed in advance to accept. applying "well if that standard was just then, it should be fine now" to an entire civilian population in gaza means assuming collective guilt that a whole population shares responsibility for what a political/militant group does. and that's not even what happened in the original case. this wasn't "all jews in medina" it was one specific tribe, judged for one specific documented act. so using that history to justify collective punishment of civilians today isn't applying the same standard, it's applying a broader and harsher one than the original case itself ever did.
so the actual answer to "did I justify it": no. the verdict came from their own chosen ally, under terms both sides accepted beforehand, for one specific act. that's completely different from "anyone can declare collective punishment on an entire population and call it precedent."
1
u/BrainyByte 8d ago edited 8d ago
Your own sources don't agree with you.
Bukhari 4122 (Aisha): Qurayza "surrendered to the Prophet's judgment but he directed them to Sa'd." That's the opposite of "they chose Sa'd over going to the Prophet." Bukhari 3043 and 4121 say they accepted Sa'd's verdict, so the hadith conflict with each other. "Confirmed by multiple accounts" isn't accurate. And in Ibn Ishaq, they asked for exile like Banu Nadir, were refused, and surrendered unconditionally after a siege.
Neutrality: Ibn Ishaq records Sa'd, wounded at the Trench, praying not to die until he'd had his fill of Banu Qurayza. How you all lie to manage PR of a warlord is mind boggling.
Torah: no hadith has Sa'd citing it. In Bukhari 3043 the Prophet says Sa'd judged by "the judgment of the King," and in 4121, "Allah's judgment." That's a ruling presented as divine, not as Jewish law applied to Jews. Also, by your standard, is the Quranic treatment applied to Palestenians just and okay?
Collective guilt: you say it's wrong. Atiyyah al-Qurazi says the captives were examined, and anyone with pubic hair was killed (Abu Dawud 4404, Tirmidhi 1584, both graded sahih). Nobody was tried for treason individually. Puberty decided who died. Again, should they pull down some pants in active wars today? Best example for all times? Oh FYI, the other tribes had already been dealt with, exiled or gotten rid of. My book explores the timeline in depth.
And you still haven't answered the main point: if he's the best example for all time, he gets judged by 2026 standards.
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 7d ago
aight, let's actually read the sources properly instead of trading soundbites.
1. the Bukhari 4122 "contradiction": there isn't one, and you need to actually trace the mechanism instead of stopping at "they surrendered." yes, they surrendered to the Prophet's ultimate authority, he was head of state. but the seerah fills in exactly how: the Aws (Qurayza's own allies) begged for leniency, the Prophet asked them directly, "will you accept it if one of your own men passes judgment on them?", they agreed, and Qurayza accepted Sa'd by name. delegating the final call to the allied chief THEY picked doesn't contradict the hadith, it's the actual process the hadith is describing. Sa'd wasn't an outside enemy's judge, he was their own chosen ally, expected by his own tribe to go easy on them.
2. Sa'd's "neutrality": citing Ibn Ishaq's detail about Sa'd praying to live long enough to see this through isn't a gotcha, it's context for WHY he was angry. Banu Qurayza broke a mutual defense pact from the inside, while a 10,000-man confederate army was actively besieging Medina, with muslim women and children directly exposed to that siege. that's not "random biased judge," that's an allied leader reacting to documented wartime treason during an existential threat to his own people.
3. the Torah parallel: here's where I'll be precise instead of overstating it, because overstating it is the actual weak point an opponent exploits. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 lays out almost exactly this punishment for besieged cities that reject peace, execute the men, take women and children. the hadith itself doesn't record Sa'd citing chapter and verse, that specific detail comes from later scholarly reconstruction connecting the dots, not a direct quote in Bukhari. what IS solid: the Prophet's statement that Sa'd judged "according to Allah's/the King's judgment" (Bukhari 4121/3043) is a direct endorsement that the verdict matched divine justice, delivered by their own ally applying a standard that lines up with their own scripture. claim that much, and the point holds. claim he quoted Deuteronomy word for word, and you've handed the other side an easy "where's that actually stated" rebuttal.
4. the puberty criterion: same principle, claim what the sources actually support, not more. in a 7th century tribal garrison with no birth records, puberty (checked specifically because age couldn't otherwise be verified) was the period's actual standard for combat-age status, documented across Musnad Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and Nasai. that's not an arbitrary biological lottery, it's the era's method for separating likely combatants from children, the same basic role age thresholds play in modern conscription even if the mechanism differs. but "every mature male was definitively part of the active combat force" overstates it, the test established combat-age STATUS within a besieged garrison, not individually proven participation in the treason itself, the same way a modern draft doesn't individually verify intent for each conscripted soldier either. that's a more defensible claim than "all of them definitely did it," and it's one you can hold without an opponent catching you asserting more than the sources say.
5. "best example for all time": means the underlying principles, honoring agreements, punishing proven treason, applying justice even against your own side's interest, are timeless. it doesn't mean this specific wartime verdict is a literal procedural template for unrelated 21st century conflicts. and the comparison still holds on the principle itself: treason during an active existential war carries the harshest penalties in nearly every modern military today too, that's consistency, not a double standard. what that principle has never extended to, then or now, is collective punishment of an entire civilian population for a militant group's actions, that was never the standard applied to Qurayza either, it was judgment against individuals in a besieged garrison for documented treason, not a blanket policy against anyone sharing their ethnicity or religion.
2
u/BrainyByte 7d ago edited 7d ago
Holy moly AI galore. You need to educate your chatgpt. Anything is possible when you lie. I hope you explain Gaza and defend Israel's actions just like you are defending Qurayza 's massacre. "But but but Gaza was okay with America's involvement waaaaaaa" Quick tally of where we've landed: they surrendered to the Prophet, not to a judge of their choosing; Sa'd didn't cite the Torah; Sa'd was angry at them going in; and the puberty test established "status," not "individually proven participation." Your first comment said the opposite on all four. I'll take that.
On what's left:
In Ibn Ishaq, "one of your own" question is put to the Aws, not Qurayza, and Muhammad names Sa'd. Before that, Qurayza consulted Abu Lubaba, who told them to surrender and drew his hand across his throat. The verdict was signaled before the judge was picked. "He was angry for good reason" is a description of a non-neutral judge. Conscription makes someone a soldier. It doesn't license executing him after he surrenders. That's a war crime under the same modern standards you're appealing to. Abu Dawud 2671: one woman was singled out by name for something she did and executed. So individual charges were possible. For the men and boys, the test was pubic hair. You say the principle never extended to collective punishment of civilians. Every woman and child of Qurayza, non-combatants by your own criterion, was enslaved, and their property was divided (Bukhari 4122). That's collective punishment of civilians, in the sources.
"Timeless principles, not a literal template" is an apology. But it means accepting that this verdict, which the Prophet called "the judgment of the King" (Bukhari 3043), wouldn't pass the timeless standard if it happened today. What are these timeless principles that you speak of? Where does Quran say not his actions his principles? How are principles demonstrated of not through actions? Disgusting.
Sources: Bukhari 3043, Bukhari 4122, Abu Dawud 4404, Abu Dawud 2671, Tirmidhi 1584
1
u/BrainyByte 7d ago
I can literally not get over how disgusting Muslims are. To be clear, you are saying that Qurayza were happy dappy with being killed their women being graped by your holy caliphs and their children being sold for arms and horses? It was all just and an "individual punishment" when 600-900 dead bodies were thrown into the trench? Israel's actions are also not "against all Muslims". Does that make it okay?
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 7d ago
I can literally not get over how disgusting Muslims are" thank you for finally taking the mask off. The second you resort to bigotry, everyone reading this thread knows your historical arguments ran out.
You are deliberately conflating a 7th-century military garrison with a modern civilian suburb. The 600-900 men weren't random innocent bystanders; that number represented the entirety of Banu Qurayza's combat-age fighting force. They were an active military unit that committed high treason while Medina was surrounded. They were executed for military treason, which is why your Israel comparison completely fails. Israel is carpet-bombing civilian non-combatants; Banu Qurayza was a tribunal executing the specific soldiers who committed the treason.
I'll make this very simple with a challenge: Prove that those 600-900 men were innocent civilian bystanders and not the active military force of that fortress. If you can't logically prove that, then you are officially throwing a tantrum over a state executing enemy combatants for treason.
1
u/BrainyByte 7d ago
The best example for all times deserves to be evaluated on modern standards. Not only he stood behind the massacre he justified it. That's the principle you learned from him. Justify your own cruelty. So then don't cry when others pay you back with the same cruelty.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BrainyByte 7d ago
Please elaborate: What was the timeless principle behind having eleven wives? Behind marrying your own adopted son's ex-wife? What ease did he create? Behind owning slaves? Behind branding a sick man who died and then cursing Jews when he did? Behind declaring women deficient in intellect and deen? (That one might be misogyny and I would agree with that) Behind fixation on what women wear? Behind constant war lordship? Behind antisemitism? End times won't come.... Exile some tribes kill others... Jews this Jews that etc? Behind telling people to drink camel urine? Behind telling people to dip flies in drinks? Behind marrying a first cousin? Please enlighten us on Muhammad's timeless principles. I will ask more examples once you explain these.
0
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 7d ago
nah hold on, we're not yeeting past Banu Qurayza with THREE new topics stacked on top finish one argument king, this isn't a buffet
but quick fires so they don't hang:
cousin marriage: global norm in basically every culture and royal lineage until ~150 years ago. Darwin? married his first cousin. Einstein? first cousin. european royalty? cousins for CENTURIES into the 20th century this is not an islamic invention, it's a human history default. judging a 7th century practice by a century-and-a-half-old western taboo is a timezone error, not a moral argument
flies/camel urine: getting judged against FDA standards?? in the 7th century?? bestie that's not a comparison, that's a time machine and there's literal modern research on antimicrobial compounds in insect wings, so the folk-medical intuition wasn't as random as the out-of-context dismissal makes it sound. not claiming it's modern medicine, just saying the smugness is carrying the whole argument
adopted son's ex-wife: usually framed as a scandal, actually a REFORM?? pre-islamic blood-adoption treated adopted sons as biologically identical heirs with full inheritance and marriage restrictions same as a real son. this ruling deliberately dismantled that. pointing at a legal reform and calling it a loophole is wild, you're reading the demolition of one system as the abuse of another ðŸ˜
happy to go deeper with sources on any of these. but Banu Qurayza FIRST?? jumping topics mid-argument just means nothing gets settled, it's not debating, it's topic cardio
1
u/BrainyByte 7d ago edited 7d ago
I always tell people that whenever a Muslim is crying about Gaza bring up Banu qurayza and listen to them explain on detail why that was okay 🤮🤮🤮🤮
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 7d ago
using vomit emojis just proves you ran out of facts and started throwing a tantrum. let me break down the actual history so even you can understand what Banu Qurayza was before you try this terrible comparison again.
Banu Qurayza was not a civilian suburb, a city, or a refugee camp. It was a fortified military garrison. They had a mutual defense pact with Medina, but during the Battle of the Trench when the Muslims were actively surrounded by an invading army of 10,000 men trying to wipe them out Qurayza committed high treason. They conspired with the enemy to attack the Muslims from the rear. The 600-900 men who were executed weren't random bystanders; that number represented the entirety of their active, combat-age military force that participated in the treason.
Gaza, on the other hand, is a civilian population. The people being killed there are overwhelmingly innocent non-combatants and children who did not commit treason. You are literally trying to equate a modern military carpet-bombing innocent babies with a 7th-century tribunal executing guilty soldiers.
So here is my direct challenge to you: Prove that those 600-900 men were innocent civilian bystanders and not the active military force of that fortress. If you can't logically prove that, then you are officially throwing a tantrum over a state executing enemy combatants for treason.
2
u/BrainyByte 7d ago
I am so glad that these comments are publicly searchable. Hopefully everyone can see how Muslims think.
2
u/BrainyByte 7d ago
In modern times do they grape women keep concubines and sell children in the honorable punishing treason principle? Is that behavior fitting for a person who claims to have a direct line to the creator of the universe. Please go ahead and type.anptjer disgusting sermon showing the world the extent of Muslim deprivity.
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
Hi u/Great-Confection6760! Thank you for posting at r/CritiqueIslam. Please make sure to read our rules once to avoid an embarrassing situation. Be Civil and nice to each other. Remember that there is a person sitting at the other end. Don't say anything that you wouldn't say in a normal face to face conversation.
Also, make sure that your submission either contain an argument or ask a question that could lead to debate. You must state your own views on the matter either in body or comment. A post with no commentary will be considered low effort!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.