Muhammad.

[oldcatholicguy]

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.)

If people are tired of “well Christians do X,Y,Z” arguments, then we should really stop supporting or using “Muslims do X,Y,Z” arguments. How many comments have been made in regards to Muhammad having an arranged marriage with a 6 year old and being married to her when she was 9? Now how many of these comments actually bothered to go past the “Oh my goodness look how bad Muhammad was” shallow statement and actually discuss said event? Any discussion on how this arranged marriage differed from similar practices among Jews, Christians, and pagans? Nope, that would require actual scholarship. Any discussion on the differences between Islamic, Jewish, and Christian theology regarding marriage and marriage age? Nope, that would require actual scholarship and gasp actually learning something about Islam not easily found on a “Islam is evil” website.

In a completely different thread a couple of months ago someone was going on about the taxes Islam places on non-Muslims (in this case concerning Iberia). That was there argument. Islam is bad because it taxes non-Muslims. Thank you very much for the X,Y,Z argument. Easily countered ignored by pointing out the historical fact that similar taxes existed in Europe. X,Y,Z countered with X,Y,Z. Apparently it’s too hard for people to discuss how the specific taxes placed on non-Muslims under Islamic law are unjust and an example of an error in Islamic theology because said taxes are a form of unjust institutionalized discrimination built into a faith that a)claims to arise from two other faiths that don’t have a similar institutionalized discrimination b)claims to be the final fulfillment of these two prior faiths [whose followers are the primary victims of the unjust discrimination]. It was also apparently too hard for people to discuss how Christian theology didn’t actually support the unjust discrimination of non-Christians which took place at the same time as the unjust discrimination of non-Muslims which was supported by Islamic theology.

Complaining about people using “well Christians did X,Y,Z too” only works when you don’t start the discussion off with “Muslims did X,Y,Z.”

Now, would you like to discuss the double standard that seems to be accepted here in which on the one hand you have posters decrying governments built around or run by Islamic theology and on the other hand you have posters discussing how the government of the US was based on Judeo-Christian theology, Catholic based theocracies, and one discussion, I kid you not, about how we’d be better off under a Catholic monarchy than a secular democracy?

 

[josie_L]

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?

Catholicguy, it was allowable for a girl to be married at 12 (but not prior to this):

Weddings in the middle ages formed the groundwork for most of the modern wedding customs and traditions. Noble women typically married when they got to the age of 24 or older, compared to peasants who married at a younger age of 12 years. Overall, in Europe most people married by the time they reached 19 years.

thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/marriage-in-the-middle-ages.html

Moreover, Aisha was still playing with dolls when she was wedded and bedded by Mohammed, which is quite frankly disturbing. Unfortunately, because Mohammed is considered a person to be emulated we are witnessing some Muslims in some parts of the world marrying child brides.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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.

-The Church hasn’t always been a fan of democracies or democracy. I’m pretty sure at one time it was deemed incompatible with Christianity.
-The turmoil in the Middle East has more to do with international politics, colonialism, and the Cold War than they do with Islamic theology.

 

[openmind77]

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.

I don’t see any Sura # from the Koran. I want to be able to look it up in my copy of the Koran. I am not interested in any hadiths. You clearly said it was in the Koran.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Catholicguy, it was allowable for a girl to be married at 12 (but not prior to this):

Moreover, Aisha was still playing with dolls when she was wedded and bedded by Mohammed, which is quite frankly disturbing. Unfortunately, because Mohammed is considered a person to be emulated we are witnessing some Muslims in some parts of the world marrying child brides.

-I knew the answer. I asked that particular question in the hopes of forcing the discussion past the “oh noes a grandfather married someone young enough to be his granddaughter” point.

-The arranged marriage part really isn’t a discussion point. The practice of arranging marriages between young children and between a young child and an adult isn’t unique to Islam and similar practices can be found in Jewish and Christian societies.

-The key elements would be-
–the completion of the marriage if she was under 12 (12 seems to be the commonly shared minimum age for the completion of marriage which I believe is linked to puberty) and the theological justification for this
–any “more equal than equal” rules within Islam that allowed Muhammad to engage in actions that were forbidden to others (like the number of wives)
–and how these “more equal than equal” rules contrast with the prophets
–the origins of the marriage practices (pagan, Jewish, Christian, mixture of some or all) and theology behind them

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t see any Sura # from the Koran. I want to be able to look it up in my copy of the Koran. I am not interested in any hadiths. You clearly said it was in the Koran.

The Quran goes hand in hand with the hadiths. You can’t have a discussion about Islamic theology without being interested in the hadiths. That would be like trying to learn Christianity without bothering to be interested in Sacred Tradition.

 

[openmind77]

The Quran goes hand in hand with the hadiths. You can’t have a discussion about Islamic theology without being interested in the hadiths. That would be like trying to learn Christianity without bothering to be interested in Sacred Tradition.

But I understood that all hadiths are not accepted by all Muslims, only the original Koran is common to all. Isn’t that true?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

But I understood that all hadiths are not accepted by all Muslims, only the original Koran is common to all. Isn’t that true?

This is true. The common core of the various Islamic faiths (Sunni and Shia being the big two) is the Quran. However, I don’t know of any Islamic faith that just uses the Quran. They all use hadiths as well. The various Islamic faiths may use/exclude ones that other Islamic faiths exclude/use and may use the same ones, but they don’t just use the Quran. In a general discussion on general Islamic beliefs, using a hadith that is accepted by the majority of Muslims is valid. It would only be invalid if one cited a hadith used by an extreme and/or non-orthodox version of the Islamic faith as being what all Muslims believe.

 

[josie_L]

-The Church hasn’t always been a fan of democracies or democracy. I’m pretty sure at one time it was deemed incompatible with Christianity.
-The turmoil in the Middle East has more to do with international politics, colonialism, and the Cold War than they do with Islamic theology.

Not true, i.e., the Church was deeply concerned with being able to preserve truth and upholding justice, she faltered only when she failed to mesh the two into a compatible relationship. Islam however is an all encompassing theology/faith that affects every aspect of the adherers life through Sharia law, so no, it is not per se international politics, colonialism and/or the cold war that is causing the turmoil in the Middle East, it is the result of Islamic theology which when practiced in it’s purest form is incompatible with democracy.

Moreover in Islamic theology, God is considered pure will, i.e., there is no rhyme or reason as to why things are the way they are, they just are because God willed it, i.e., if tomorrow God should decide to make something halal into something haram, than so be it, it is God’s will. Here’s an excerpt from “The Closing Of The Muslim Mind” by Robert Reilly:

"If Allah is pure will, good and evil are only conventions of Allah’s - some things are halal (permitted/lawful) and others are haram (forbidden/unlawful), simply because He says so and for no reasons in themselves. Evil is simply what is forbidden. What is forbidden today could be permitted tomorrow without inconsistency. God, in short, is a legal positivist.

Al-Ash’ari expressed this view in a question and answer dialogue:

Since the Creator is subject to no one and bound by no command, nothing can be evil on His part.

Objection: Then lying is evil only because God has declared it to be evil.

Answer: Certainly. And if He declared it to be good, it would be good; and if He commanded it, no one could gainsay Him."

If God is then pure will and there is no rhyme or reason as to what He wills or why He wills it, i.e., what point is there in studying science when God wills gravity, God wills the earth to move around the sun . . . .etc. The answer to everything is “God wills it”.

 

[josie_L]

-I knew the answer. I asked that particular question in the hopes of forcing the discussion past the “oh noes a grandfather married someone young enough to be his granddaughter” point.

-The arranged marriage part really isn’t a discussion point. The practice of arranging marriages between young children and between a young child and an adult isn’t unique to Islam and similar practices can be found in Jewish and Christian societies.

-The key elements would be-
–the completion of the marriage if she was under 12 (12 seems to be the commonly shared minimum age for the completion of marriage which I believe is linked to puberty) and the theological justification for this
–any “more equal than equal” rules within Islam that allowed Muhammad to engage in actions that were forbidden to others (like the number of wives)
–and how these “more equal than equal” rules contrast with the prophets
–the origins of the marriage practices (pagan, Jewish, Christian, mixture of some or all) and theology behind them

Actually it was Roman (civil) law that no female could be married before the age of 12 and the Church adopted this law (so even during Mohammed’s time, being married at nine was not normative).

 

[dzheremi]

Now, would you like to discuss the double standard that seems to be accepted here in which on the one hand you have posters decrying governments built around or run by Islamic theology and on the other hand you have posters discussing how the government of the US was based on Judeo-Christian theology, Catholic based theocracies, and one discussion, I kid you not, about how we’d be better off under a Catholic monarchy than a secular democracy?

No. It’s not going to win me any friends here putting it this way, but it hardly surprises me that Roman Catholics have their own desire for theocracy, and I don’t find it in any way persuasive to appeal to European Christian wrongness in combating a completely fair assessment of Muhammad. Read Amma Syncletica’s sayings in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers sometime for a little glimpse into how certain forms of Christianity on the fringes of the Roman Empire (and others outside of it) have long had an anti-State Religion streak. Theocracy is by no means an explicit goal of Christianity in any fashion comparable to Islam, much less anything essential to it. Just ask any of our saints from before the Edict of Toleration, of which there were many living according to pure Christian doctrine and faith.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Not true, i.e., the Church was deeply concerned with being able to preserve truth and upholding justice, she faltered only when she failed to mesh the two into a compatible relationship. Islam however is an all encompassing theology/faith that affects every aspect of the adherers life through Sharia law, so no, it is not per se international politics, colonialism and/or the cold war that is causing the turmoil in the Middle East, it is the result of Islamic theology which when practiced in it’s purest form is incompatible with democracy.

Moreover in Islamic theology, God is considered pure will, i.e., there is no rhyme or reason as to why things are the way they are, they just are because God willed it, i.e., if tomorrow God should decide to make something halal into something haram, than so be it, it is God’s will. Here’s an excerpt from “The Closing Of The Muslim Mind” by Robert Reilly:

"If Allah is pure will, good and evil are only conventions of Allah’s - some things are halal (permitted/lawful) and others are haram (forbidden/unlawful), simply because He says so and for no reasons in themselves. Evil is simply what is forbidden. What is forbidden today could be permitted tomorrow without inconsistency. God, in short, is a legal positivist.

Al-Ash’ari expressed this view in a question and answer dialogue:

Since the Creator is subject to no one and bound by no command, nothing can be evil on His part.

Objection: Then lying is evil only because God has declared it to be evil.

Answer: Certainly. And if He declared it to be good, it would be good; and if He commanded it, no one could gainsay Him."

First, thank you for moving it past an “X,Y,Z” argument. I agree with your analysis in regards to why the Church was initially against democracy and the conflict between democracy and Islam (here you mention Sharia, I assume this also covers the inbuilt 2 classes of citizens- Muslims and non-Muslims and the different rights and protections they have).

As for the conflict in the Middle East, I disagree with your analysis for the causes, but that’s for another thread.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Actually it was Roman (civil) law that no female could be married before the age of 12 and the Church adopted this law (so even during Mohammed’s time, being married at nine was not normative).

-I believe it was also Jewish law that 12 was the minimum age, from which I assume it was a similar age for pagan Arabs and early Muslims.
-I assumed that 9 wasn’t the normative age given the defense based on her actually being older than 9, but my knowledge is so limited that I can’t dismiss the “she was older than 9” defense.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t see any Sura # from the Koran. I want to be able to look it up in my copy of the Koran. I am not interested in any hadiths. You clearly said it was in the Koran.

Hadiths are a very important aspect of a Muslim’s faith, it’s sort of our (Catholic) version of sacred tradition.

 

[josie_L]

-I believe it was also Jewish law that 12 was the minimum age, from which I assume it was a similar age for pagan Arabs and early Muslims.
-I assumed that 9 wasn’t the normative age given the defense based on her actually being older than 9, but my knowledge is so limited that I can’t dismiss the “she was older than 9” defense.

The hadiths state she is nine, if anyone is saying otherwise, would be historical revisionism.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The hadiths state she is nine, if anyone is stating otherwise would be historical revisionism.

If that’s the case the discussion goes from “Muhammad had an arranged marriage with a 6 year old and completed the marriage when she was 9” to-
-What are the theological foundations for Muhammad completing the marriage to some one under the accepted age (arranged marriages not really a point in this discussion)? Were his actions in this case moral and supported by the teachings in the Quran? If not, was he, like other central Biblical figures, punished for his immoral behavior? Is this an example of Muhammad doing something that is forbidden to everyone else and is this “prophets can do it, regular people can’t” something that is consistent with the prophets in the Bible?

It goes from an X,Y,Z accusation which can easily be countered with a counter X,Y, Z accusation to a point which needs to be addressed by our fellow Muslim posters.

 

[hasantas]

…
Even his devoted followers say that when he was over 50, he married a 6 year old girl, and consumated the marriage when the little girl was only 9, and he was 53. What can one think of that?

Most of İslamic scholars estimate marriage year of Aisha as 16 engaged and 19 married. There are many proofs according to records that show She was 19. That issue get confused because of Arab’s language. Because at that times Arabs had used to say for example 5 instead 15. İn Arabic language that issue can be understand more easier. İf someone insists on the year 6 and 9 then we have not certain reports. And also Companions desirous to try do every thing as like prophet Muhammad did. İf Muhammad had done somethink like that there would be countless samples like that. Muslims think doing like Muhammad is worhip for Allah and is a good deed even in common behaviours.

Although alls every one can believe and think freely. But the person being talked is a messenger of Allah and seal of prophet. İf someone thing bad things about Muhammad then it shows indeed he does not a believe that Muhammad is a prophet. İf some does not thing Muhammad is a prophet then he must disclaim all proofs about Muhammad.

Christians have a wish to denial Muhammad to save their religion but indeed they collapse their religion. Because Muhammad proved presence of God and all divine issues. Muhammad strengthened Christianity and all Muslims have a very certain believe about Christianity and accept Jesus with all other prophets. İf there is some conflicts and differents we must argue with proofs but not with detractions.

 

[dzheremi]

If that’s the case the discussion goes from “Muhammad had an arranged marriage with a 6 year old and completed the marriage when she was 9” to-
-What are the theological foundations for Muhammad completing the marriage to some one under the accepted age (arranged marriages not really a point in this discussion)? Were his actions in this case moral and supported by the teachings in the Quran? If not, was he, like other central Biblical figures, punished for his immoral behavior? Is this an example of Muhammad doing something that is forbidden to everyone else and is this “prophets can do it, regular people can’t” something that is consistent with the prophets in the Bible?

It goes from an X,Y,Z accusation which can easily be countered with a counter X,Y, Z accusation to a point which needs to be addressed by our fellow Muslim posters.

^^^ A good strategy – and one I try to use myself – but in my experience it doesn’t usually lead to in depth and thoughtful replies from Muslim interlocutors, who often fall back on what is essentially a more elaborate “Yeah, well…your prophets did it too!” type answer. Hopefully you and others here have better luck with it.

 

[hasantas]

You dont know islam.

I was Muslim
Now I am catholic

Muhammad had sex slaves and allowed other Muslims to have sex slaves.

Having slaves were not established wtih İslam but it was a historical fact. İslam cancaled and vitiated slaves by easy stage as İslam forbid to swig. First Allah said there are many damages in alcoholic beverages then Allah said do not approach Salat when you are in wine and finally banned totaly.

Like that Allah describe rights of slaves but remembered it will be better to release and free slaves.

(36. Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are of kin, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;- An-Nisaa:36)

(92. Never should a believer kill a believer, except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, An-Nisaa:92)

(…for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom… Al-Maida:89)

(33. Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (for emancipation), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them), An-Nur:33)

And there are many other verses and Hadiths to free slaves. By time slavery finished.

İt is not a good term using sex slaves for Ghareya. Ghareyas were women slaves and had some rights. İf slaver’s husband were alive their owners could not have any sexsual thing with them. And finally slavers(ghareya not sex slavers) got their freedom if they have any child.

So Muhammad did not bring slavery but regulated and finally destroyed it.

And one thing else it is so awful way to attack İslam so unfairly like clulesses. Please try to be more honest. İf you say something bad about others then others may will do same but a real Muslim does not. Salam!

 

[dolphinlove]

İf that were not really Jibril Muhammad would not know so much about religion, deity, other religious, prophets, high morality. That is so obvious. Some companions of Him also could see Gabriel. Gabriel can transform in any shape for example in shape of a compainon. And if companions did not see revelation when it came they would not believe so hardly.

Gabriel had came to all prophet with revelation for duty of prophethood but did not give scripture to all prophets. There are few prophets who were given scriptures.

The number one thing that the devil intended to achieve from creating a religion that looks ok on the surface is to deny the divinity of Christ. Once this has been done, he has stopped people believing in God’s one true religion. Therefore they are on a way ride in the wrong direction.