O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
You do understand that the Church during the Middle Ages had no issue with 12 year old girls getting married and “bedded” by their husbands right?
- Status
P
Pythons
Guest
Do you have any examples, in that time period, of girls ages 6 to 9 getting thumped on?
…And that this was done with express blessing of the Catholic Church?
…I think NOT.
Islamic Teaching:
patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/14/islamic-advisory-council-in-pakistan-says-girls-should-be-permitted-to-marry-at-any-age/
M
Matthew_Light
Guest
Sadly, they do:
“Spare the rod and spoil the child”
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”
“I come not to bring peace, but a sword”
etc.
Where does it justify bedding down children in the Qur’an?
Where does it say “honor killings” are justified in the Qur’an?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Wait, so your cut off age for girls being married and “bedded” by men old enough to be either their father or grandfather is somewhere between 10 and 12 years old?!?!
P
Pythons
Guest
What are you saying oldcathicguy? That because some examples of girls being married off in the dark ages in Catholic areas exist that we shouldn’t really be concerned with 9 year old girls being married against their will - because in come cases it happend in Catholic controlled areas?Wait, so your cut off age for girls being married and “bedded” by men old enough to be either their father or grandfather is somewhere between 10 and 12 years old?!?!
Can you cite any examples of Christian controlled States which advocate 6 to 12 year old girls being married off to men of any age?
Am I reading you right here?
M
Matthew_Light
Guest
Aisha wasn’t nine. She was closer to 19, given other evidence about her life chronology:
muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
The only evidence we have that she was nine is from Aisha herself, who wanted to appear as young as possible, to cement her family’s control of the Islamic Caliphate after Muhammad’s passing.
You simply don’t have any good evidence that she was nine years old, other than Sunni Muslim belief that Aisha’s word is infallible, which meshes with anti-Islamic fear and loathing on the part of many westerners.
O
openmind77
Guest
Mr Dronald, please respond to the question. Surely you would not make such a serious allegation about the Koran without knowing the relevant passage?
P
Pythons
Guest
Then why do Islamic Clerics point to what Muhammad did as justification for 45 year old men taking 9 or 10 year old brides? You don’t really expect me to believe that Aisha was 19 do you?
M
Matthew_Light
Guest
Many Islamic clerics justify all kinds of appalling things. Look at how Baha’is are treated in most middle-eastern Muslim countries! Also, most of them find it impossible to question what Aisha said, for doctrinal reasons (Shiah being an exception to that!)
There is no question that Islam is in desperate need of the kinds of reform that Christianity went through centuries ago. But a Middle East in chaos isn’t evidence against Muhammad, any more than a Europe in the Dark Ages is evidence against Jesus.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Well first it wasn’t just some girls in the Middle Ages, it was the Church saying that girls of the age of 12 could be married and “bedded.” Second, it shouldn’t be too hard to find Christian states that allowed girls that young to marry. Like say pretty much every European country and the US allowing it at some point. Even modern legal standards in some US states allow girls as young as 13 and 14 to get married (avg lowest age for the 50 states being between 15 and 16). Third, “against their will”? We adding new charges since we can’t actually argue our original point now?
D
dronald
Guest
Be patient my friend, I can’t always be at a computer or on a phone.
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371
Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: “O Abu Said, did you hear Allah’s messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?” He said, “Yes”, and added: “We went out with Allah’s messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl” (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: “We are doing an act whereas Allah’s messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?” So we asked Allah’s messenger and he said: “It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born”.
Interesting that instead of telling the man, “Whoa! Sex with slaves is not okay.” He gives the law on whether or not it is permissible to pull out or not.
Here, according to Wiki:
Ma malakat aymanukum (What your right hand possesses)
After the Muslims executed the male members of the Banu Qurayza tribe,[6] the women and children were taken as slaves.[7] Muhammad himself took Rayhana as his slave.[8] He presented three women from the conquered Banu Hawazin as slaves to his key supportive close marital relatives in early 630: Reeta, to Ali; Zeinab, to Uthman; and an unnamed third to Umar.[9]
Sexual relations with captives[edit]
According to Muslim theologians, it is lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves,[10][11] regardless of whether or not the slave woman gives her consent.[12] Al-Muminun 6 and Al-Maarij 30 both, in identical wording, draw a distinction between spouses and “those whom one’s right hands possess”, saying " أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ" (literally, “their spouses or what their right hands possess”), while clarifying that sexual intercourse with either is permissible. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi explains that “two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession”.[13]
The term appears 14 times in the Qur’an and refers to those captured and brought into slavery. Of course against their will.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Thank you. This is the type of post we should be providing in regards to what Islam teaches or what Muhammad stated or did.
M
Matthew_Light
Guest
Regarding slaves, Islam describes how slaves are to be treated and gives them protection from abuse, and requires freeing them if mistreated.
The new testament also addresses slavery in a number of places, such as: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything…”
Of course, in this day and age, slavery has been abolished by the command of God, and everyone now knows in their mind and heart that slavery is wrong. But it was sanctioned in the old and new Testaments and the Qur’an.
The new testament also addresses slavery in a number of places, such as: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything…”
Of course, in this day and age, slavery has been abolished by the command of God, and everyone now knows in their mind and heart that slavery is wrong. But it was sanctioned in the old and new Testaments and the Qur’an.
J
jakasaki
Guest
Once again you continue to quote which is irrelevant to mainstream Islam:
The Lahore **Ahmadiyya **Movement
Sunni Muslims do not consider them “muslim”
M
Matthew_Light
Guest
I quote them because they have done high quality research on this topic. They are a community of distinction among all Muslims.
There is a vast gulf between Muhammad and many who claim to follow him ( the same for Christ and many of those who claim His name as well).
There are huge problems in much of the Islamic world - no fair observer can deny that.
D
dzheremi
Guest
First you’d have to find a so-called “Christian state” that enshrines Christianity as being the inviolable basis of the country’s law code in the way that, for instance, the Egyptian constitution does (“Egypt’s new draft charter maintains the original phrasing of Article 2, the essential text that cites that sharia law is the main source of legislation”), or the Pakistani constitution does (see especially Chapter 2, Article 31, which is even titled “Islamic way of life”), or the Mauritanian constitution does, or the Yemeni constitution does (see article 3), etc.
This is such a tired, worn out canard from Muslims and apparently their sycophants like the Baha’i. The reason why you can say that nominally Christian states are not representative of Christianity but would have a hard time honestly saying the same of Islamic ones is because Islamic states enshrine Islamic law/jurisprudence in their constitutions. They do that. They say what they’re doing is based on their religion. That’s not unfair Christians or other non-Muslims applying some sort of double standard to Islam that they won’t apply to Christianity. That’s us believing Islamic leaders/jurists in Muslim-majority societies when they say that they’re ruling according to Islam. If it’s somehow “not really Islam” even though they flat-out say it is in their own state constitutions, then whose fault is that? The non-Muslim who looks at these places and sees all the brutality by appointed Islamic authorities meting out Islamic rulings according to Islamic law, or the people who are doing this stuff themselves and saying that they are acting according to Islam of this or that school or interpretation?
Deal with your own problems for once, instead of trying to pass the buck onto Nazi Germany or some other aberration that doesn’t even exist anymore. You have no one to blame but yourselves and your religion if all of these actions are carried out by the state under the banner of “Islamic law”. Who decides what that is, and why is it that I can find some amazingly wonderful people like Bahraini Diyaa al-Musawi preaching tolerance and disentanglement of mosque and state, but apparently if you say the kinds of things he says to Muslims in the West or elsewhere, you’re being unfair to Islam? Actually, scratch that. Islam is not a person. You don’t have to be fair to it. Bottom line: Either get rid of the people who you insist are perverting your religion and replace them with something more fair and equitable (as Muslims are always claiming Islam to truly be…funny how we never see it), realize that your religion’s law code is the problem and work to either reform/neuter it or abolish it as the primary source of legislation that leads to these abuses in its name, or leave your religion entirely. But don’t whine about how other people are being unfair to your belief system and point at everybody else and pull this “What about when other people do X?” business, as though that deals with the problem. It doesn’t. Get Shari’a out of the courts of Muslim countries or stop pretending that there’s some kind of even playing field and we can treat places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Maurtania, etc. as though they’d really be liberal democracies or something if only people would recognize how truly fair and just Islam really is.
S
Servant19
Guest
You’re assuming incorrectly that Baha’is and Muslims are somehow united as the followers of the same religion. Baha’is love Muhammad and the Quran, and also love the human race. The similarities end there.
Saying that we should replace “your people” implies that
Muslims are not “our people”…they are human beings who need to be dealt with by the collective human race, justice is for all.
.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I’m not assuming that. Read the post again. “This is such a tired, worn out canard from Muslims and apparently their sycophants like the Baha’i.” Clearly if Baha’i were Muslims there would be no “and” there (maybe a “like” or a “for instance” instead). “You” in this case could be anyone who argues as you have, as certainly we may also find many outside of the Islamic religion who argue this way (“what about when X does Y”). Apologists for this sort of thing are many. My only point in saying “your” religion (and saying in that way on purpose, otherwise I couldn’t be making that point) is that, as the same possibility exists for everyone and has existed for other religions that are not Islam, when your religion is seen as a source of ill-treatment of others, you have a lot more options of how to deal with it than just sitting there any saying “You can’t blame my religion for X, Y, Z”. More to the point, especially in the case of Islam that is a hard defense to maintain given the fact that theocracy is its explicit goal, and many Muslim-majority states have seen fit to put that into practice in this or that way (as is seen in their constitutions, like the ones I linked earlier). I mean, I know it’s a different situation in the West, but in America, where I live, nobody forces me to vote for the candidate who mentions Jesus the most times in a speech, particularly if he or she follows up that speech with bills or ballot measures that I think are very anti-Christian. I’m not going to pass that responsibility off on other people, and certainly not while saying “Yeah, this might be bad, but look at when Muslims/Jews/Hindus/whatevers do X, Y, Z! That’s even worse than the thing I’m supporting!”
The only way to stop your religion getting a bad rap for fostering brutality is to stop supporting those people, schools of thought, and law codes that tie your religion to brutality (e.g., in Islam’s case, Shari’a). The problem of course for Islam is that it is remains an open question as to what Islam without Shari’a would actually be, or if it would even be Islam. But at any rate, none of this is anything that any non-Muslim should ever have to apologize for or defend. We don’t make Shari’a brutal towards us in order to make Islam look bad. Islam doesn’t need our help in that area anyway.
(And just on a personal level, I don’t understand how or why Baha’i would even recognize Muhammad, given how terribly they are treated in mainstream Islamic societies like Egypt and Iran. You may not be Muslims, but as you support and lionize the man who started the religion that now oppresses many of your coreligionists, I am at best very confused, and at worst am inclined to treat you according to the theological company that you keep, i.e., as an offshoot of Islam that shares in many of its negative qualities, and is at its heart no less oppressive and anti-Christ despite its seemingly enlightened exterior.)
The only way to stop your religion getting a bad rap for fostering brutality is to stop supporting those people, schools of thought, and law codes that tie your religion to brutality (e.g., in Islam’s case, Shari’a). The problem of course for Islam is that it is remains an open question as to what Islam without Shari’a would actually be, or if it would even be Islam. But at any rate, none of this is anything that any non-Muslim should ever have to apologize for or defend. We don’t make Shari’a brutal towards us in order to make Islam look bad. Islam doesn’t need our help in that area anyway.
(And just on a personal level, I don’t understand how or why Baha’i would even recognize Muhammad, given how terribly they are treated in mainstream Islamic societies like Egypt and Iran. You may not be Muslims, but as you support and lionize the man who started the religion that now oppresses many of your coreligionists, I am at best very confused, and at worst am inclined to treat you according to the theological company that you keep, i.e., as an offshoot of Islam that shares in many of its negative qualities, and is at its heart no less oppressive and anti-Christ despite its seemingly enlightened exterior.)
J
josie_L
Guest
There is no such thing as the “Dark Ages”, i.e., it was termed as such by “enlightened” thinkers who knew very little about Medieval times, in other words, it was ignorance which led them to refer to such a period as dark, when it was in fact very innovative (read medieval historians like Regine Pernoud).
And I believe the chaos in the Middle East is evidence against Islam because the theology it espouses is opposed to or conflicts with science/reason and democracy, things of which Christianity is amenable to.
R
robwar
Guest
:clapping: wow, this is a great answer and post.
- Status