Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 5 Votes - 4.2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2012, 08:25 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
By the way, thanks for your replies. I still haven't read the linked information, but the content of the posts was very interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 11:11 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(11-05-2012 09:47 AM)Internet Mullah Wrote:  
(09-05-2012 03:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi, Mullah,

firstly, thanks for the effort you have put in, and for not avoiding questions. It must have taken you many hours. I have read all your replies. I congratulate you for your persistence. I have also got half way through Karen Armstrong's book about Mohammed and have watched another documentary on him, so I have been trying to remain open minded.

I'll share my impressions with you and invite your response.

Mark, thank you for your effort as well.

Also, I don't know if you actually read Karen Armstrong's book about Muhammad, but if you did, then that's good. I am more inclined toward believing you.

Now, I'm going to respond to some of the things that you said about Muhammad in your post along with this post. So, first, here's an outline of what you said:

- Muhammad was a little tyrant. He was controlling, manipulative, and power hungry.
- He killed a lot of people.
- He was delusional/hallucinatory/psychotic.
- He was a liar.
- He was a pedophile because he married a 9-year-old girl named Aisha while he was 50.
- And that he had multiple wives which indicates a strong sexual desire.

Here's my response to them:

Argument # 1: Muhammad was a little tyrant. He was controlling, manipulative, and power hungry.

First of all, I know that you may disagree with me on this, Mark, but from a biographical perspective, I find it very contradictory to think that Muhammad did all of this just for the sake of wealth and power. The reason is because the way he did it was one of the most life-threatening way. From the time that he started preaching Islam, he was gaining many enemies and they started to hate him after his prophethood, and he was mocked and ridiculed by the non-believers who were all around him (just like many people are doing today). Many of the Meccans and hostile pagan tribes even tried to kill him, but they couldn't, because we believe that God was protecting him. Thus, why the need to fabricate a religion while making himself suffer so much?

Also, Muhammad was financially wealthier before his prophethood. He was already financially well off while he was trading with his first wife, Khadija, before he started preaching Islam. However, after his Prophethood, he became poorer, and he had to go through years of persecution in Mecca, endure years of humiliation, and his reputation was ruined amongst his friends and relatives. Yet, he didn't ask for money and he still gave charity to others even though he became poorer. He used to wear simple clothes and he lived in a simple house. He used to eat on the floor with the poor. These are not the qualities of a rich/wealthy person nor of someone who is seeking power.

Furthermore, one time, the Quraish in Mecca once offered Muhammad a great amount of wealth and fame only if he would stop preaching Islam. The Quraish went to Abu Talib, a higly respected elder who was the Prophet's uncle and tribal protector, and demanded that he put an end to Muhammad's behavior, whom they accused of cursing their gods, denouncing their forefathers, and insulting their religion. After hearing that, Abu Talib became distressed and thus he conveyed his nephew of the grievances of his people. To this, Muhammad replied:

"O my uncle, by Allah, if they were to put the sun on my right hand and the moon on my left to abandon this thing, I would not, until Allah shows me otherwise or I die trying for its sake." (Ibn Hisham, As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah, Volume 1, page 265).

So, if Muhammad's reason for creating Islam was just for his own wealth/power/material gain, as you claim, then wouldn't he have taken the deal instead of outright refusing it?

Even in the Quran itself, there is a verse which says: "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: 'This is from God' to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for what they earn from it" (2:79). So, this verse is condemning those who wrote something with their own hands and then claim that this is from God, just to make some money out of it. But, unfortunately, whatever money that they earned from writing those books were completely haram (unlawful) money, which is a huge sin. If Muhammad himself was doing this (i.e. making up the whole Quran) - for a worldly gain - then it's as if he was cursing himself in his own book.

Argument # 2: Muhammad killed a lot of people.

Yes, that is true, but the only time where killing was allowed was when the enemies of Islam were attacking the Muslims or when they broke treaties between them. If you know the history, there used to be pacts between the Muslims and non-Muslims to not to start a battle as long as they remain peaceful as mentioned in the Quran, which says, "And if they incline towards peace, then incline to it (also), and trust in Allah" ( 8:61). If the non-Muslims from an opposing tribe did break a treaty, or if they started to plot against the Muslims, then that is the only time when wars and executions were allowed for the Muslims. Why? So that they are able to defend themselves. Also, Muhammad never killed nor advocated killing anyone who was innocent and harmless. This is what God strictly forbids, as He says in the Quran, "He who kills a person without (the latter) having killed another person, it is as if he has killed all of humanity, and he who makes one person survive, it is as if he has caused all humanity to survive" (5:32).

Similarly:

"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them." (4:90)

Argument # 3: Muhammad was delusional/hallucinatory/psychotic.

Okay, I disagree with that for two main reasons. The first reason is that there is no hard proof that Muhammad was delusional or that he was imagining things in his head. The second reason is that I doubt that he could have been self-deceived for a span of 23 years and yet hear specific words being recited to him in such a poetic and orderly fashion as the words in the Quran. I mean, the verses came to him in many different places and times, not only in the cave. He heard these messages when he was at home, when he was praying, when he was fasting, when he woke up from sleep, when he was speaking to a crowd, when he was eating, walking, standing, etc.

So, how could Muhammad not be sane, if he was doing all these activities without having any problems at all? And, again, the verses are not just a meaningless string of words. Rather, the verses in the Quran make perfect sense and they are presented in a linguistic style which is considered to be unmatchable even for the most literate person alive today.

Also, take a look at the information at the link below. In it are included verses from the Quran that talk about many of the scientific facts that are known today such as the water cycle, the creation of life, the stars, planets, the shape of the earth, the expansion of the universe, embryology, cosmology, and many other things.

Quran and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible?

The question is: If you think that Muhammad was receiving these verses as a result of some kind of a mental illness, or through hallucinatory episodes, then how is it possible that all these verses are scientifically accurate? To put it differently, do you think that him getting all these things right was just a coincidence? And, as I asked earlier, how is it possible that he wrote a book that is unmatched in literary merit and even so for the Arab poets and orators of the highest caliber throughout history while operating under a "delusional" state of mind, in addition to the fact that he was illiterate (which you said it yourself)?

Similarly, Maurice Bucaille, a French medical doctor, said on this topic:

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?" (Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, 1978, p 125)

Argument # 4: Muhammad was a liar

Well, again, there is no proof that he ever told a lie, and no one actually knows whether he lied or not. So, that argument is easily refuted.

If Muhammad was a liar (for argument's sake), Mark, then tell me how could the multitudes of his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, how could they believe in his truthfulness if they had the slightest doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers without bothering to give them any credit? Muhammad was constantly surrounded by his companions, surrounded by his wives, and even surrounded by severe enemies, and yet, how is not possible for them to prove to the masses that his claim of revelation was a sheer fabrication?

The more I learn about the life of Muhammad, the more I strongly disagree with the idea that he was a liar or an imposter, as many tend to believe unknowingly. I think that all the ill notions about Muhammad are presented only by those who are not knowledgeable about the history of Islam and the life of the Prophet (pbuh). There are many biographies written about Muhammad that were written by both Muslims and non-Muslims which show how much of a good character and compassion he had. For example, here's a quote from from a non-Muslim scholar, who said:

"His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad ... Thus, not merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with difficulty" (W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford, 1953).

More beautiful statements from some of the non-Muslim scholars of the past who testify Muhammad's great character and his honesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOs3uDMUDsk

Argument # 5: Muhammad was a pedophile because a married a 9-year-old girl named Aisha while he was 50.

First of all, according to my knowledge, the "child," Aisha - although it is widely disputed amongst scholars about her exact age when she consummated her marriage - was believed to be past her puberty and thus she was legally ready for marriage. In Islam, a female is considered a woman and fit for marriage after the time she undergoes puberty. That is the age of consent for marriage for a Muslim female. More importantly, we know that Aisha was willing to be married. So, I will not argue about her exact age because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not Aisha was capable of and willing to consummate her relationship with the Prophet. In a society with no restrictions and complete freedom, after reaching sexual maturity, children naturally become sexually active, and need an outlet for these feelings. Islam recognizes that, and takes the moderate path - i.e. you do not have to suppress your feelings as wrong/dirty - but you also should not go around having insecure/promiscuous sex. That is the reason why marriage after puberty is recommended.

Secondly, another important thing to remember is that Aisha's marriage to the Prophet was an open marriage. It was approved by her parents and relatives, and it is recorded that her mother, Um Ruman, called her and entrusted her to a few Ansari women who then prepared her for the marriage. Even Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, was pleased with the marriage and he became one of Muhammad's closest and most trustworthy companions. This means that the whole process was happening within the cultural standards of that time since she was being prepared for the marriage (by her parents and others). None of these events which are mentioned in the narration indicate that this was a case of rape or child abuse.

Also, early marriage does not necessarily indicate pedophilia. In Arabia, it was a common practice for women to get married at an early age during those times. Early marriages frequently occur in many other societies as well (even today), and I'm not saying that this a good thing nor a bad thing, but just that it is a practice that is culturally and socially sanctioned in some parts of the world. See this article.

So, we need to realize that our times are considerably different with terms of societal life with the life of the Arabs 1,400 years ago. Marriages at young age was the norm rather than an anomaly in certain societies during that time. For those who live in the west, we may be used to seeing 10 year old's playing with barbie dolls, but this is not the case in other countries. In poor rural areas, children from the age of 6 and onwards are taught to work, to clean, and to cook. This means that by the time they reach the age of 13 getting married and having sex is considered as something normal for them because of their situation. Children would mature at a faster rate than children of today and would be taking care of their entire family at an age where kids nowadays are still running around carefree busy with fun and games.

In the years after the marriage, Aisha did not show any signs of physical or mental problems while living with Muhammad nor become depressed about her life (unlike many of the victims of rape and child abuse). In fact, she became a role model for many Muslim women during that time. She was known to be a respectful woman and also knowledgeable in regard to Islamic issues. And she never even expressed a feeling of dissatisfaction towards Muhammad. She was happy with him, and she loved him, and he loved her as well. Thus, Aisha - like any other normal young girl, got married - to the best of men at that time, willingly.

The main concern here is state of mind, agreement, and situation. Putting numbers on the age of marriage and sex is unrealistic to those who want to marry young. The marriage contract, like any other contract, is validated and legitimate in Islam when both parties consent and are in a state of full comprehension of the situation. For example, supposing a 16 year old wants to marry a 17 year old, there should be no problem. Likewise, supposing an 18 year old wants to marry a 50 year old, again there should be no problem and under an Islamic state this is a legitimate practice. It is important to recognize that when we talk of any form of marriage, be it to a 10 year old or to a 80 year old, we are strictly speaking of consensual marriage with comprehension.

Argument # 6: Muhammad had multiple wives and this means that he had strong sexual desires.

In addition to Aisha, Muhammad had 10 other wives who were all 17 years or older. His first wife was a 40-year-old merchant, Khadija, and Aisha was his second, not the first. He remained with Khadija for 25 years until her death without marrying anyone else. After she died, only then did Muhammad marry again (upon the suggestion of Khawlah bint Hakim). Furthermore, all of his wives were elderly widows except Aisha and Maria. So, this is yet another thing that refutes the previous argument that Muhammad was a pedophile.

However, the fact that Muhammad had multiple wives does not mean that he was sexually hyperactive nor anything like that. On the contrary, that has nothing to do with it because most of the wives that he had were widows whom he married during times of war to protect them. The latter life of the Prophet consisted of years of wars for the emerging Muslim nation, when Muslims had to fight in self-defense to protect their lives and their religion. Consequently, hundreds of his companions were killed, leaving behind widows and orphans without anyone left to care for them. So, that's why Muhammad set an example for the surviving companions by remarrying the widows in order to support them.

Another reason for Muhammad's multiple marriages was to cement alliances between different tribes of Arabia. His marriages to Juwairiyah and Safiyah, for example, were to bind warring tribes to avoid future violence and bloodshed. The Arabian Peninsula was once distraught by decades of war. Tribes used to fight for revenge over petty instances for years and it was extremely difficult to strike truces between them. Through the acceptance and spread of Islam, peace was struck between warring tribes, but many might have still harbored ill feelings, especially those who had not yet accepted Islam. So, through marriage, tribes had to honor their truces, and many of these ill feelings were resolved due to pride in the marriage of a member of the tribe to the Prophet. By marrying into the families of key allies and vanquished enemies, he laid the ground work for cooperation between the different tribes.

So, if you carefully and honestly study the history of Muhammad's marriages - especially the events which led to them - you would know that the reason for his marriages was clearly meant to strengthen the Muslim community whether by the spread of knowledge, the protection of widows, or cementing alliances between the tribes of Arabia.

I am only here to comment on the liar and delusional parts.

Interent Mullah, if lets say He was self delusional, he could have had a mental illness. People hear voices everyday, even in present times. Does it matter if it is poetic or not, it all was in his head. There would be no hard proof for this because their was no way, back in that time that they could conclusivly prove that he was fucking bonkers.

He could have been a liar. Saying that there is no hard proof for him telling a lie is not a good arguement. There is no proof that Jesus ever told a lie ( hard proof) so, by your standards, that would be an arguement for Christianity.

I value your responses, but these were somthing that I saw issue with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
19-05-2012, 03:58 PM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Hey Internet Mullah, got another question for you:

Do you think of Allah as the equal of Shaytaan? In other words, in the struggle between good and evil, is Allah guaranteed to be triumphant, or if enough people turn away from Islam, does evil win?

I suspect that like the Christian Satan, Islamic Shaytaan is doomed to defeat eventually...

Next question, is your guys concept of hell the same as the Christian one? As in people getting tortured for their evil sins forever, or what happens if you die and are not a good person?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2012, 06:16 PM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
I still have not heard a reply to why the punishments have to be so incredibly cruel.

It is what hurts Muslims the most in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it deserves some thought from you.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2012, 01:29 AM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2012 01:45 AM by TheArcticSage.)
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(19-05-2012 06:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  I still have not heard a reply to why the punishments have to be so incredibly cruel.

It is what hurts Muslims the most in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it deserves some thought from you.
Dom, it is not religion that makes people cruel, but rather how they were raised. Plus the definition of cruelty can be subjective. You see executing a woman for adultery as cruelty no doubt?

Yet to the Muslims they could see it as a form of rape, with the woman seducing the man Drooling 'majority of the time that is the case' adultery to them and even us, is a form of impurity. Yet we for the most part do not execute our rapists, but instead release them, and many do the same crime again. Who then is the worse person. Now do I think stoning is excessive? Yes. If you do not believe a woman can rape a man without any instruments or devices. You sir are then being sexist. Like I said before, morals are subjective.

I had this thought while mowing a lawn, it was kind of like an epiphany.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheArcticSage's post
20-05-2012, 02:08 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(20-05-2012 01:29 AM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  
(19-05-2012 06:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  I still have not heard a reply to why the punishments have to be so incredibly cruel.

It is what hurts Muslims the most in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it deserves some thought from you.
Dom, it is not religion that makes people cruel, but rather how they were raised. Plus the definition of cruelty can be subjective. You see executing a woman for adultery as cruelty no doubt?

Yet to the Muslims they could see it as a form of rape, with the woman seducing the man Drooling 'majority of the time that is the case' adultery to them and even us, is a form of impurity. Yet we for the most part do not execute our rapists, but instead release them, and many do the same crime again. Who then is the worse person. Now do I think stoning is excessive? Yes. If you do not believe a woman can rape a man without any instruments or devices. You sir are then being sexist. Like I said before, morals are subjective.

I had this thought while mowing a lawn, it was kind of like an epiphany.
You can not compare adultery to rape.
Rape is forced.
Adultery, just like sex, takes two to tango.

To suggest that adultery is rape is sick.

How are the men punished? I bet they're not. Typical Islamic countries. And they wonder why they are frowned upon?


In general terms I think the fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity has matured with the times while Islam seems to have stopped maturing around the time of the Crusades.

So what makes me think Christianities moral views are better the Islams? Because at one point in time they were pretty much the same. But as times progress, man becomes more aware, man grows, man changes, so did Christianity while Islam stayed stuck in its ways.
Think of it like two people, both in their 40's. Christianity has matured and grown up, where as Islam still thinks girls have kuddies.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
20-05-2012, 02:38 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(20-05-2012 02:08 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You can not compare adultery to rape.
Rape is forced.
Adultery, just like sex, takes two to tango.

To suggest that adultery is rape is sick.

How are the men punished? I bet they're not. Typical Islamic countries. And they wonder why they are frowned upon?
The only difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christianity happens to be in more 1st world countries which tend to be more lenient in the first place. I think you'll see if you go to third world countries Christianity is still it's normal old self, which is pretty much just like the Muslims in that country. The more advanced these countries with a majority of muslims become, I think you'll see their laws becoming more lenient. Unless they're ruled by a dictator...

To us adultery is not rape no, but this isn't to us now is it? It's what they think. You should try to understand others more. If it's any consolation, the women in the adultery mile high club knew the consequences for their actions should they be caught. And while some of them still do it anyways, they probably have a lot lesser adultery rate than we do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2012, 05:56 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(20-05-2012 01:29 AM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  
(19-05-2012 06:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  I still have not heard a reply to why the punishments have to be so incredibly cruel.

It is what hurts Muslims the most in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it deserves some thought from you.
Dom, it is not religion that makes people cruel, but rather how they were raised. Plus the definition of cruelty can be subjective. You see executing a woman for adultery as cruelty no doubt?

Yet to the Muslims they could see it as a form of rape, with the woman seducing the man Drooling 'majority of the time that is the case' adultery to them and even us, is a form of impurity. Yet we for the most part do not execute our rapists, but instead release them, and many do the same crime again. Who then is the worse person. Now do I think stoning is excessive? Yes. If you do not believe a woman can rape a man without any instruments or devices. You sir are then being sexist. Like I said before, morals are subjective.

I had this thought while mowing a lawn, it was kind of like an epiphany.
Re "Dom, it is not religion that makes people cruel, but rather how they were raised." HUH? Surely that's a bit too simplistic. Their religious belief is often the very source of the cruelty.


Consider our mate here. On the surface a nice chap, yet he thinks its ok to murder someone for adultery.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2012, 06:01 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
Mohammed is the Prophet, yo.

Motherfuckers be judging him outside his context need a foot in the ass, what I'm saying. I'm saying it because I'm a prophet, and if I had to go forward from just those Semite pantywaists, life would suck. There it is. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
20-05-2012, 07:33 AM
RE: Ask a Muslim [split from introductions]
(20-05-2012 01:29 AM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  
(19-05-2012 06:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  I still have not heard a reply to why the punishments have to be so incredibly cruel.

It is what hurts Muslims the most in the eyes of the rest of the world, and it deserves some thought from you.

Dom, it is not religion that makes people cruel, but rather how they were raised. Plus the definition of cruelty can be subjective. You see executing a woman for adultery as cruelty no doubt?

Yet to the Muslims they could see it as a form of rape, with the woman seducing the man Drooling 'majority of the time that is the case' adultery to them and even us, is a form of impurity. Yet we for the most part do not execute our rapists, but instead release them, and many do the same crime again. Who then is the worse person. Now do I think stoning is excessive? Yes. If you do not believe a woman can rape a man without any instruments or devices. You sir are then being sexist. Like I said before, morals are subjective.

I had this thought while mowing a lawn, it was kind of like an epiphany.


I'm not even arguing against the execution, although that is harsh too, I am arguing against stoning to death. Can you imagine the agony?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: