Here is the question, How Do Muslims Deal with "Difficult" Parts of Prophet Mohammed's Life?

Should I remove my answer, edit the title to make it refer to that specific incident mentioned in the question ?

Or we should remove the specific incident and make it a general question that talks about dealing with hard parts in Islam ? then the user can create a different question regarding that incident...

3 Answers 3


I think keeping it with the original "how to deal with the difficult parts..." form makes the question either unclear or too broad, since there's so much out there that can be construed as "difficult". Anti-Islam websites such as the one linked in the post make a point of making things look as difficult to accept as possible, because that's in their best interest.

But they don't always use the same techniques. Sometimes they'll present questionable evidences as if they're authentic, sometimes they'll ignore piles of evidence and only use the single piece that supports their argument, sometimes they'll just twist words around to meet their needs, sometimes they'll just present seventh century Arabian mores through the filter of twenty-first century American ideals.

And sometimes things are just difficult to accept because you don't know all the details involved in the issue (the tale of Al-Khidr in the Qur'an being a prime example).

As I see it, there's two forms that this question can take to be constructive, depending on what the questioner himself actually wants:

  • Focussing on the specific situation (i.e. the killing of Umm Qirfa), where it becomes objectively answerable either by tearing down the arguments made by the linked website, or providing authentic evidences in a more neutral manner to clarify the actual incident.
  • Focussing on how to deal with anti-Muslim rhetoric in general, which isn't so much about dealing with "difficult parts" (as the original title and example would imply) as it is about critical reading on the whole.

Given the comments made by the questioner, I suspect the second form is more likely what he's actually seeking an answer for at this point.


My opinion on this, keep the title and edit the question to remove the part that talks about Um qurfa. I say this because

  • OP agreed to create another question.
  • OP was not satisfied with the answers and he/she wants to know more. Hence, a new question were he/she can be more precise so we can help him inshlah.

Question was has been improved.

I suggest the answer be deleted or address the question specifically and completely.

The question's title was is not in sync with the question itself.

The question seems better-off being specific to that particular incident.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .