Uswa Hasana: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
[checked revision][checked revision]
Line 2: Line 2:
In the mainstream theology of Sunni [[Islam]], the Prophet Muhammad is known as '''al-Insān al-Kāmil''' (the perfect human) and '''uswa hasana''' (an excellent model of conduct). This is taken to mean that his conduct in all things, from how he prayed, how he conducted himself in business and in war, his sexual relations with his wives, slaves and concubines, and even how he cleaned himself after defecation and urination is an exemplar and model for all humans to follow at all times, regardless of historical circumstance and independent of culture.  
In the mainstream theology of Sunni [[Islam]], the Prophet Muhammad is known as '''al-Insān al-Kāmil''' (the perfect human) and '''uswa hasana''' (an excellent model of conduct). This is taken to mean that his conduct in all things, from how he prayed, how he conducted himself in business and in war, his sexual relations with his wives, slaves and concubines, and even how he cleaned himself after defecation and urination is an exemplar and model for all humans to follow at all times, regardless of historical circumstance and independent of culture.  


==Historical Moral Relativism==
==Historical Moral Relativism vs Uswa Hasana==


Modern historians tend to approach the study of particular historical periods, governments and personages from a perspective of historical and cultural relativism. So when in the course of study it comes to light that for instance Julius Caesar sold the women and children of the Gaules he defeated into slavery and paraded his enemy, the Gualish king/warlord Vercingetorix,  like an animal through Rome before executing him (likely by strangulation), although not necessarily endorsing these actions historians will tend to offer context such as explaining that such actions were not at all unusual for other people at the time. On the other hand, when a leader such as Adolf Hitler ordered his soldiers entering the Soviet Union to specifically ignore international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war in order to brutalize and murder as many "sub-humans" as possible or to set up industrial killing camps with the objective of physically annihilating entire ethnic groups, a idea new to the entire history of mankind, historians tend to pass judgement on these actions as being worse for breaking the contemporary norms of the times these leaders lived in, exceeding even their contemporaries' expectations of human cruelty and viciousness.  
Modern historians tend to approach the study of particular historical periods, governments and personages from a perspective of historical and cultural relativism. So when in the course of study it comes to light that for instance Julius Caesar sold the women and children of the Gaules he defeated into slavery and paraded his enemy, the Gualish king/warlord Vercingetorix,  like an animal through Rome before executing him (likely by strangulation), although not necessarily endorsing these actions historians will tend to offer context such as explaining that such actions were not at all unusual for other people at the time. On the other hand, when a leader such as Adolf Hitler ordered his soldiers entering the Soviet Union to specifically ignore international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war in order to brutalize and murder as many "sub-humans" as possible or to set up industrial killing camps with the objective of physically annihilating entire ethnic groups, a idea new to the entire history of mankind, historians tend to pass judgement on these actions as being worse for breaking the contemporary norms of the times these leaders lived in, exceeding even their contemporaries' expectations of human cruelty and viciousness.  
Editors, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers
4,547

edits

Navigation menu