al-Nur-al-Muhammadi (The Muhammadan Light) & al-Insan-al-Kamil (The Perfect Man)

[SalamKhan]

Yes, because we all know that news of genocide never travels far, and that the Jews weren’t known for maintaining an oral history of their people. /sarcasm

Wa-hey! Let’s start taking stories of Jesus from the Talmud then. Or maybe it’s better to take them from the apocryphal Gospels since their authors at least presumably believed in Jesus. After all, the Church Fathers never actually demonstrated that the four canonical Gospels are eye witness accounts. I mean, Augustine of Hippo basically just said that he believes the Gospels are inspired, just because the church says so.

They also had the right to leave, and were not slaves.

Just gives away the fact that you didn’t watch the video. Because the Prophet gave a captive Jewish woman the option to leave, but once she realised his noble character, she chose to marry him.

Sex with slaves, while certainly practiced by people in the OT, was never promoted as a right, or even as morally licit.

And the Prophet commanded his followers not to refer to their slaves as slaves. You also don’t understand the difference between mustahab & mubah. Sexual intercourse with slaves in a society where slavery is commonplace, would be mubah, not mustahab.

Then don’t call me a liar.

The signs are all there mate.

You see them as tests. We see them as guides.

We see them as both.

Moral Laws like the Ten Commandments.

The Sabbath is a ceremonial law.

Once again, the OT is not the culmination of God’s revelation; the NT is. Certain laws served specific purposes.

See the opening post on my Ramadan thread. I’d like to say it’s been nice chatting to you, but it really hasn’t. Have a good day/evening!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

apocryphal Gospels since their authors at least presumably believed in Jesus

You’re welcome to believe in them if you chose to, but there is reason not to. Many of them were rejected simply because authorship could not be established, or because there is a lack of records for them prior to a given date, which was long after the death of the apostles. Since their authorship couldn’t be verified, they were not included in Biblical cannon. I believe Third James falls under this category, of having nothing explicitly problematic, but whose authorship couldn’t be verified. Others were rejected because they gave teachings which directly contradicted the four synoptic Gospels, all of which had been in circulation since the earliest years of the Church.

None of this undoes the point of my post though. You are dismissing these accounts strictly because of the potential source of information. There’s no question of authorship, no question of when it was written, nothing like that. There is nothing inherently problematic in the text beyond the fact that it paints your prophet in a bad light. Your only reason given was because the information came from Jews.

And, once again, it is irrelevant to the question, as the examples I gave are included in multiple of Mohammad’s biographies.

Just gives away the fact that you didn’t watch the video. Because the Prophet gave a captive Jewish woman the option to leave, but once she realised his noble character, she chose to marry him.

Once again, I watched your video. Stop accusing me of not doing so, or I will continue to treat you like an idiot, because you are behaving like one. I have reference various, specific examples given in the video, which I could not have done were I not familiar with it’s content.

Mohammad gave aJewish woman a choice, and she chose to stay with him. That does not change the fact that sex with slaves was not only permitted, but encouraged by your so-called prophet.

And the Prophet commanded his followers not to refer to their slaves as slaves.

A rose by any other name.

You also don’t understand the difference between mustahab & mubah. Sexual intercourse with slaves in a society where slavery is commonplace, would be mubah, not mustahab.

Twisting of words to attempt to circumvent reality, just like every other relativist. Sex is sex. If you have sex with someone who is not your wife, you are committing adultery, or at the very least fornication. Mohammad had sex with slave women who were not his wife, or even one of his plural wives, and as such is an adulterer. What’s more, he promoted the behavior among his followers, making adulterers, or at the very least fornicators, out of them. His justification is the same as every other cult leader who seeks to set himself above the law of God.

I’d like to say it’s been nice chatting to you, but it really hasn’t. Have a good day/evening!

The same to you.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Sarcasm…

Not really. You are free to believe in the apocryphal gospels, as you are an individual possessing of free will. It would not be intelligent to believe in them, but that doesn’t mean you can’t.

There is reason for their rejection beyond simply not liking what they have to say about Jesus.

I said scholars such as Imam Malik (of very high calibre compared to…) distrusted Ibn Ishaq because he would transmit from Jews, Ibn Ishaq didn’t just transmit one story, I thought you already knew that.

And obviously you didn’t read my post, because you just conformed my point. The author got information from Jewish people, and that is why your scholars distrust it. That is not a reason, that is an excuse. There is nothing inherent in the story which makes is unworthy of belief.

So you’re an idiot as well as a liar.

Now you’re moving to the realms of actual defamation. You keep it up and you will be reported. Not by me, I couldn’t care less what you think of me, but there are plenty of people on these forums who will not allow that sort of comment to go unreported.

The Prophet encouraged fasting or temporary marriage (which the Shiahs still practice) for those who were not married or on long journeys from their wives. He was simply indifferent to sex with slaves, because that was the time they lived in; however he expilicitly forbid the abuse of slaves.

So, “marry” a woman, have sex with her while you’re away from your wife, and then divorce her when you get back, or just add her to your ever-growing cadre of sexual targets.

Seriously, every time I think I’ve heard the worst of your prophet’s teaching, here comes another little gem of awfulness to disabuse me of that notion.

I’ll grant, promotion may have been a bit strong of a word, but he certainly seems to have engaged in the practice quite a bit for someone who was indifferent to it.

Okay, then in the OT, sex is sex, none of this “it was practiced but not encouraged” nonsense.

I agree, sex was sex, and those who had sex with their slaves were just as morally culpable for it as your prophet. However, there is a vast difference between it being present in the OT, and it being permitted by the social laws. The OT records the good and the bad of the Jewish people’s history.

 

[SalamKhan]

Not really

I meant it was sarcasm from me.

The author got information from Jewish people, and that is why your scholars distrust it

Again, it’s not just that specific story, it’s his stories in general. Reading is your friend. There are other reasons why scholars distrusted Ibn Ishaq, not simply because he narrated from the Jews at times. In fact, the scholars actually distrusted the early biographers in general, not just Ibn Ishaq. Most of the time the early biographers just collected information without testing it, as admitted by the historian al Tabari.

Also, because I wasn’t sure who you were even talking about when referring to the assassinated poet (way to be ambiguous), I decided to look it up. The Jewish poet in question didn’t just attack the Prophet, he also attacked Muslim women and incited retaliation against Muslims for their victory at the battle of Badr, all while he was bound to the constitution of Madina; that is called sedition. So obviously you do ignore context.

You keep it up and you will be reported…

I’m just reciprocating:

or I will continue to treat you like an idiot, because you are behaving like one

To act arrogantly with an arrogant person is a modesty. If you don’t like it, I could care less. From the get go, you attacked the Prophet without attempting to engage in a civilised dialogue about it, instead voicing your conclusions in the strongest terms possible, i.e. labelling the Prophet a murderer and an adulterer. Imagine if I were to attack the Catholic Church & its saints like that…

Seriously, every time I think I’ve heard the worst of your prophet’s teaching, here comes another little gem of awfulness to disabuse me of that notion

Temporary marriage means the marriage will terminate after a certain period, not that the two parties get a divorce when they’re finished with each other. Shiah Muslims encourage it for those who struggle to be chaste, but have no means of maintaining a ‘permanent’ marriage. Again, sex is not evil, and marriage is just a social contract. You may say that Jesus considered it sacred, but Jesus also said not to call any man father; it’s called hyperbole. Something the Protestants & Orthodox Christians seem to have understood as they allow divorce; well, Catholics allow it too but they just call it ‘anulments’.

but he certainly seems to have engaged in the practice quite a bit for someone who was indifferent to it.

You don’t even know how much he practiced it.

However, there is a vast difference between it being present in the OT, and it being permitted by the social laws

It was permitted, as I originally stated. Again, this is one of the reasons why atheists attack the OT.

 

[Kei]

While I would agree he may be too gun slingin’, annulments are not divorces, which is why they can be denied. It is a pronouncement that the marriage never happened due to factor (s) inhibiting one or both parties from truly entering into the marriage, which is a Sacrament.
We Catholics may find the teachings of Islam concerning marriage as deplorable because our Lord raised it to a Sacrament, a holy thing indeed. We would see temporary marriages akin to base prostitution, and a mockery of marriage, which is for life “'til death”. Further, the allowance of multiple wives offends the great tradition of the Faith, whereby marriage is by one man and one woman, who become one flesh. Herein, the bond of marriage is strengthened by the sexual act, which is open to life. This is why it is so very offensive to his eyes/ears to hear such, as it goes against our Lord (perhaps as well against interior understanding of the sacredness of the sexual act, wherein we are, in effect, acting sort of like God: by love we bring forth life).

I do not mean to say this as an argument, but as an explanation why it may be so very offensive to Catholic ears, as an affront to good morals.

 

[SalamKhan]

I do understand that, but I just didn’t appreciate how imposing he was being about it. Thank you for your reply.

 

[SalamKhan]

If anyone wants to know why no Muslim scholars/theologians/philosophers/mystics were moral absolutists, except the Mu’tazilites of the past and the Wahhabis of today (although the latter have a love/hate relationship with reason); I suggest reading Ibn Tufail’s novel ‘Hayy Ibn Yaqdhan’, which is available for free online in PDF format.

If you don’t have the time, then try a thought experiment. Consider the case of a human being, who since childhood, lives aloof/in isolation from human civilisation and other human beings; what conclusions could he come to from exercising his reason alone?

 

[Niblo]

What an interesting religious voyage you’ve had so far: Baptist, Catholic, Muslim…and maybe next, Jewish?

Shalom Aleichem.

Please accept my apology for the delayed reply.

I agree with much that Judaism teaches, for example: That there is only one God; who is not a trinity; who does not have a body; who is omnipresent and omnipotent: who is beyond time; and who is forgiving, personal and accessible.

I share the conviction that one can have an individual and personal relationship with Him; that each of us has a covenant with Him, and that keeping this covenant – in a manner that is pleasing to Him – is itself an act of worship.

That said, I’m certain that I have – at long last – found the Way that He wishes for me. Time to stop searching!

May HaShem bless you and your family, and keep you close to Him.