At Your Service, Oh Mohammad

TNC, you're really just illustrating my point.  An attack on Muhammad (oh sorry, Muhammad's integrity) is an attack on Allah's Deen, and is defended with the same often deadly fervour, often with deadly consequences.  Sacrifices for Muhammad are in reality sacrifices for Allah.  Obedience to Muhammad is obedience to Allah, and the words of Muhammad have the same kind of authority as the words of Allah.  And now, apparently even prayer to Muhammad is excused somehow, presumably as a proxy appeal to Allah.

Honestly, I don't see any practical difference between (many) Muslims' relationship with Muhammad and their relationship with Allah.  You may claim that you're not actually worshipping Muhammad, but you behave in every way exactly as if you were.

Ghazzali wrote: Dignity, veneration and honor were the words used by Hassan Nasrallah. He never said he wants to protect the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He would sacrifice to protect his dignity, veneration and honor. As a humanist who does not believe in life after death, you personally might not have any respect for a dead man, but as muslims, we always have respect for dead people, more so for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

I can have respect for the memory of a dead man; but yes, I value life more than death.  I would never sacrifice a human life (my own or anyone else's) for the sake of a dead man.

All the time you are interpreting Sharia through humanism. According to Sharia, obeying Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not partnering to Allah. Full stop.

So what do you think it would mean to make Muhammad a partner of Allah?  If you believed that, would you live your life any differently?  Would you pray differently?  Would you obey Muhammad any differently?  Would your understanding of Sharia be any different?

Common sense should tell you that a man might be dead, but his commands might not be. If your dad told you, "Son, after I die, never rape a woman", then even after his death, his command remains.

I don't need my dad to tell me not to rape, and neither do you.  You can find such basic principles of natural justice in the Quran, and I can derive them from my faith in the inherent worth of humanity.  But try to think of a command that a father might give his son, which is not a matter of natural law, but would still apply a thousand years later.  You can't, can you?  There is no such thing.

Ghazzali wrote: This topic is about whether Hassan Nasrallah has done shirk. If you want to discuss about the effect of making Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) a partner to Allah, start another topic, and we can discuss it there. Please don't put all eggs in one basket.

Quite right, the topic is whether Nasrallah has done shirk, i.e. whether he is treating Muhammad as a partner to Allah.  You say he has not.  I am asking how you can tell.  It certainly looks to me exactly like the kind of prayer one would offer to a partner of Allah, and not to any mortal man.  If he had treated Muhammad as a partner to Allah, then what might he have said or done differently?

The example itself has drawn your attention more than the reason for which it was used. Concentrate on the reason Mr. Ron, not the example. A man might die, his ideas don't necessarily. A leader might die, but his teachings don't have to. These ideas and teachings can be applied for thousands of years. Confucius told that the elderly should be respected. It still holds true, and it will hold true as long as there are elderly people in any society.

I am indeed concentrating on the reason.  The reason that we respect our elders is not because Confucius said it, but because anyone who ponders how best to meet the needs of humanity will conclude that the elderly should be respected.  If Confucius had taught that grass is green, then grass would continue to be green for thousands of years -- not because Confucius commanded it, but because it is universally and objectively true. 

Ghazzali wrote: Ron Webb wrote: If he had treated Muhammad as a partner to Allah, then what might he have said or done differently? 1. He would have drawn a picture of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and hung it in every mosque in Lebanon. 2. He would have made sculptures of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and installed them in every major intersection in Beirut. 3. He would have made idols of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and would have prostrated before it five times a day. 4. He would have issued a fatwa that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is the second son of God, after Jesus (peace be upon him).

Thank you, that is a helpful answer.

The first three examples are much the same, in that they all involve artistic representations of Muhammad.  Of course, nothing in the Quran says you can't have a picture of Muhammad.  The Quran only says you can't have idols, which by definition are representations of gods.  If that's your reason to forbid pictures of Muhammad, then you have already committed shirk, with or without the actual picture.  (It's ironic that Nasrallah has no problem with putting his own picture all over Lebanon.  I wonder why that isn't considered shirk.  Or maybe it is, I don't know.)

The fourth is essentially a verbal declaration of the divinity of Muhammad.  Pretty straightforward.

So from your examples, it seems that there are essentially two ways to commit shirk: to create a physical depiction of Muhammad, or to actually say that Muhammad is a partner to Allah.

Okay, suppose that a Muslim said the following: "O Confucius, my blood, family, wealth and everything I was given by God are sacrifices to your dignity, veneration and honor. Let the whole world hear these words, O Confucius, we die for you, my soul and my blood are at your service. Allah is a witness to what we say, the blood of our martyrs, the wounds of our injured, our demolished homes all witness, we will sacrifice everything for your sake O Confucius."

You say that, and again you start talking about Confucius. It's not about Confucius. It's not about the father or the son. The point I am trying to make is that everything is not over for a dead man. A dead man can still have a lasting effect on human civilization. This is what we are debating about. By always reminding muslims that Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, Muhammad(pbuh) is dead, you are trying to say that he has lost his relevance to muslims.

Obviously Muhammad has had a lasting effect on civilization, but I'm saying he has lost his relevance as a teacher and as a leader.  Teachers need to interpret the subject matter for a particular audience or apply it to a particular situation, and be available to answer questions from their students.  Leaders need to show how to respond to current events and adapt a strategy as events progress.  Muhammad can do none of those things.  All we have is his words and deeds, frozen on a printed page.  It is a sequel to the Quran, i.e. a "partner" to the Quran written by a different author.  IMHO it is shirk.