[split] Assalamo alaikum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Hello Big Grin
Yes, i believe there was definitely an original male called Adam. He was a human in every sense and was a physical and literal being.

Um.. okay.

So, and I am sorry if I missed it (Your thread moves rather fast) but then what is your take/ideas on Human evolution then?

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Yes, I think i speak for all Muslims.

Allah knows best.

Right... that seems to be a rather broad brush you're using, perchance....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 09:32 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 09:23 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  So those who do not support killing of apostates are justified in doing so.
Those who do support their killing are also justified in doing so. They are not misguided. I hope I answered your query.

Are there any other sources for morality other than the Quran and the hadiths?

There is no way one book can cover precisely every single situation. This is the problem with obtaining one's morality from a book. Humans have an innate sense of morality. We don't actually need to be taught that murder is wrong to know it is (though, apparently you argue that Muslims do need this?). If we did need this teaching, humanity wouldn't have lasted long enough for the Quran to come about.

If the Quran were perfect, as Muslims claim, then what need is there for the hadiths? Why should there be such confusion about such an important topic as the taking of a human life if the Quran were the last, perfect, and complete word of god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
07-08-2015, 09:35 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 09:23 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  As i mentioned, its a debated matter.
Are those who do it misguided? Absolutely not. There are sayings attributed to Prophet that do mention it.
What I asked was how *you* feel about it. into which camp do *you* fall?

Quote:I just read your username and realized this whole post addressing you will be waste but still i'll finish it regardless.
Ah yes, ye olde username Rolleyes Can't tell you how many dickheads have commented on the same. Every one of them seems to think they're being original for some reason Consider

Quote:Let me explain it in simpler terms. In terms of Islamic Law, there are two sources.
1. Quran - Word of Allah ( it is certainly the word of God and no muslim questions it)
2. Hadith - Sayings ATTRIBUTED to the Prophet. (he may or may not have said them, there is a whole field of study behind verifying hadith and their compilation)

Quran has infinitely more authority than the hadith. And if a hadith is found to contradict Quran, it is disregarded immediately as being untrue or fabricated.

Quran says "there is no compulsion in religion", and yet you find hadith proposing killing of apostates when you find no such thing in quran. For certain reasons, those hadith have not been disregarded. And hence the debate.

So those who do not support killing of apostates are justified in doing so.
Those who do support their killing are also justified in doing so. They are not misguided. I hope I answered your query.

To an extent. Like I said, I want to know *your* opinion an this matter. Not whether or not people can justify stuff with scripture. You can justify pretty much anything with scripture. But whether or not you are a compassionate human being is the question that is at issue here, from my point of view.

Another thing, do you dare to have an opinion that differs from the Prophet himself on any topic? Or if it's in the Quran then by definition it is right and just?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
07-08-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  There are no embryology "bits wrong" in Quran. As I study biology, you can trust me.

Oh, OK. I guess you haven't got to that bit of your course yet.

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
My medical degree covers evolution? Sorry, it doesn't. You are confusing two different subjects, evolutionary biology and doctorate in medicine.
...

Well, I bow to your wisdom but I am surprised, nay aghast, that Cell Theory is not part of a medical degree.

Ohmy

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
The so-called shift is of no relevance to me, i only speak for myself.
...

Other than that it nullifies your claim to speak for every muslim, does it not?

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
No, quran is same as it was during prophets time. There are no variations of quran. You are clearly either misinformed or blatantly lying. Just few weeks ago the oldest version of quran was found. Here: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

It's from BBC, not brainwashed islamic propaganda as you would like.

Prof Thomas says that some of the passages of the Koran were written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels - and a final version, collected in book form, was completed in about 650.
He says that "the parts of the Koran that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad's death".
"These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed."

So when it comes to history, i'd rather listen to the experts and professors who earn their bread and butter through history rather than armchair-archeologists like yourself, no offense.
...

No offence taken. This is a delightfully civilised conversation and I'm enjoying it.

But ... way to prove my point (no pun intended) for me. Thank you.

Actually, I don't know whether I am misunderstanding you or you misunderstanding me, at this point (no pun intended).

The article (or more specifically the video of the text) blatantly reveals the script to be "point"-less (pun intended that time).

But I really do appreciate you linking to that. I had no idea.

It's slightly pleasing to see that my birthplace is in the news for good reasons for a change.

A small correction, if you will allow...
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  No, quran is same as it was during prophets time.

I'm sure that was just a slip and that you know that there was no quran during the prophet's time.

Please note that the article states:
Quote:supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration

"little or no" does not equal "same".

I, for one, can't wait to see a comparison between this copy and other copies of the time. I hope there is great similarity. The decision to destroy all the non-Medinan codices was probably the best decision the canonisers (is that a word?) ever made ... i.e. not making the same mistake as christianity.


(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
Oops @ your 14 Qurans.
...

Please note, for future reference, that I did not say 14 Qurans as though there were 14 versions in print; I said 14 different readings.
I would be happy to list them if you are unaware of them.

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
As for using bible as historical document, it is indeed true. There was no historical evidence except the bible's reference to the kingdom of David. But your point about Quran not being a historical document has no relevance.
What you are pointing out about similarity between quran and bible is a 1400 year document. Whatever you have to say has already been said 1400 years ago. All are stale arguments and been heard again and again.
The prophet is a poet. The prophet has authors studying bible locked up in the room. He is possessed. He is a magician. He has authored it himself. Manifest truth will indeed be eventually known, and then it will be too late.
...

Ah! Good. I am delighted that we agree that the Quran is categorised as literature and, yes, some of it (when recited) should be regarded as poetry. I do find it quite moving when read aloud in Arabic.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
07-08-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 07:10 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Being an accessory to murder would give you no guilt...great...

(07-08-2015 07:14 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  He mentioned himself before i brought it up that he is a non muslim living in a muslim majority country. Hell you can go to see his profile and it mentions Malaysia. What a ridiculous argument.

If a non-Muslim cannot have safety of the person and the ability to speak freely in a Muslim country, there is something quite obviously broken in Islam and the line "There is no compulsion in religion" is meaningless twaddle.

Another atheist blogger has just been murdered in Bangladesh. If you want us to have any respect at all for your religion, Pi, it must cease such barbaric behaviour.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Astreja's post
07-08-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 08:13 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 08:04 AM)morondog Wrote:  If it is OK, how can you justify it?
If it's not OK, what's with all the other Muslims whom you speak for? Are they misguided?

He's given about as much answer he ever will:
(06-08-2015 03:52 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  I am unsure on the issue so I don't know what to tell you.

So, he's unsure.

Maybe it's good to kill people for disagreeing with you, maybe it's not. He claims to speak for all muslims, yet acknowledges that most muslims think it is okay. But personally he's not sure, you see. Not sure whether killing people for disagreeing with him is a good thing. And let's give him credit for being reticent. I can see where the difficulty lies. It's just so complex an issue: should people who disagree with him be summarily killed? Gosh, what a stumper.

And of course:
(06-08-2015 03:52 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  As for killing non Muslims who are not apostates, a big no. No believer supports bloodshed, and Allah hates it too.

It is utterly trivial to present examples of muslims who embrace killing in the name of their religion.

But we all know that no true Scotsman would do a thing like that, don't we?

I think you've just used up you sardonicism allowance for the year.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 09:42 AM)Astreja Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 07:10 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Being an accessory to murder would give you no guilt...great...

(07-08-2015 07:14 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  He mentioned himself before i brought it up that he is a non muslim living in a muslim majority country. Hell you can go to see his profile and it mentions Malaysia. What a ridiculous argument.

If a non-Muslim cannot have safety of the person and the ability to speak freely in a Muslim country, there is something quite obviously broken in Islam and the line "There is no compulsion in religion" is meaningless twaddle.

Another atheist blogger has just been murdered in Bangladesh. If you want us to have any respect at all for your religion, Pi, it must cease such barbaric behaviour.

You did not read the thread. It has to do with apostates and not non-muslims.

(07-08-2015 09:36 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  There are no embryology "bits wrong" in Quran. As I study biology, you can trust me.

Oh, OK. I guess you haven't got to that bit of your course yet.

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
My medical degree covers evolution? Sorry, it doesn't. You are confusing two different subjects, evolutionary biology and doctorate in medicine.
...

Well, I bow to your wisdom but I am surprised, nay aghast, that Cell Theory is not part of a medical degree.

Ohmy

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
The so-called shift is of no relevance to me, i only speak for myself.
...

Other than that it nullifies your claim to speak for every muslim, does it not?

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
No, quran is same as it was during prophets time. There are no variations of quran. You are clearly either misinformed or blatantly lying. Just few weeks ago the oldest version of quran was found. Here: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

It's from BBC, not brainwashed islamic propaganda as you would like.

Prof Thomas says that some of the passages of the Koran were written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels - and a final version, collected in book form, was completed in about 650.
He says that "the parts of the Koran that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad's death".
"These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed."

So when it comes to history, i'd rather listen to the experts and professors who earn their bread and butter through history rather than armchair-archeologists like yourself, no offense.
...

No offence taken. This is a delightfully civilised conversation and I'm enjoying it.

But ... way to prove my point (no pun intended) for me. Thank you.

Actually, I don't know whether I am misunderstanding you or you misunderstanding me, at this point (no pun intended).

The article (or more specifically the video of the text) blatantly reveals the script to be "point"-less (pun intended that time).

But I really do appreciate you linking to that. I had no idea.

It's slightly pleasing to see that my birthplace is in the news for good reasons for a change.

A small correction, if you will allow...
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  No, quran is same as it was during prophets time.

I'm sure that was just a slip and that you know that there was no quran during the prophet's time.

Please note that the article states:
Quote:supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration

"little or no" does not equal "same".

I, for one, can't wait to see a comparison between this copy and other copies of the time. I hope there is great similarity. The decision to destroy all the non-Medinan codices was probably the best decision the canonisers (is that a word?) ever made ... i.e. not making the same mistake as christianity.


(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
Oops @ your 14 Qurans.
...

Please note, for future reference, that I did not say 14 Qurans as though there were 14 versions in print; I said 14 different readings.
I would be happy to list them if you are unaware of them.

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
As for using bible as historical document, it is indeed true. There was no historical evidence except the bible's reference to the kingdom of David. But your point about Quran not being a historical document has no relevance.
What you are pointing out about similarity between quran and bible is a 1400 year document. Whatever you have to say has already been said 1400 years ago. All are stale arguments and been heard again and again.
The prophet is a poet. The prophet has authors studying bible locked up in the room. He is possessed. He is a magician. He has authored it himself. Manifest truth will indeed be eventually known, and then it will be too late.
...

Ah! Good. I am delighted that we agree that the Quran is categorised as literature and, yes, some of it (when recited) should be regarded as poetry. I do find it quite moving when read aloud in Arabic.

Thumbsup

Cut the sarcasm. I will simply stop responding. I don't owe you any reply. Always remember that.

Yes, they do teach "cell theory". On what makes a cell, and how it works. I believe you are taking the conversation towards biogenesis? You can't apply it to the very first Human Being. Appreciate the attempt.

Little or no does mean same for now until we know the details.

Yes, destroying the other copies was definitely the right decision. As Islam's territory expanded, it was important to establish the Quran that was known to the companions of the prophet. best decision.

Arab society was an oral society. So Quran did exist back then, just not in a completely written form compiled in one book. Stop semantic acrobatics.

(07-08-2015 09:23 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Hello Big Grin
Yes, i believe there was definitely an original male called Adam. He was a human in every sense and was a physical and literal being.

Um.. okay.

So, and I am sorry if I missed it (Your thread moves rather fast) but then what is your take/ideas on Human evolution then?

(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Yes, I think i speak for all Muslims.

Allah knows best.

Right... that seems to be a rather broad brush you're using, perchance....

I believe either Adam was the first homo-sapien Or Noah's progeny were the first homosapiens.

(07-08-2015 09:32 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 09:23 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  So those who do not support killing of apostates are justified in doing so.
Those who do support their killing are also justified in doing so. They are not misguided. I hope I answered your query.

Are there any other sources for morality other than the Quran and the hadiths?

There is no way one book can cover precisely every single situation. This is the problem with obtaining one's morality from a book. Humans have an innate sense of morality. We don't actually need to be taught that murder is wrong to know it is (though, apparently you argue that Muslims do need this?). If we did need this teaching, humanity wouldn't have lasted long enough for the Quran to come about.

If the Quran were perfect, as Muslims claim, then what need is there for the hadiths? Why should there be such confusion about such an important topic as the taking of a human life if the Quran were the last, perfect, and complete word of god?

Yes. There are other sources of Law.
1. Quran
2. Hadith
And the others are equal to each other :Qiyas and Ijtehad. These cover the topics not covered in Quran and hadith. Mostly analogies are used, how did quran and hadith resolve a problem, and then problems are resolved in a similar manner. They cannot oppose Quran and authentic hadith.

Quran is indeed perfect. Hadith are needed for the finer details on how to carry out Qurans orders. If Quran says prayers, how should one pray? etc etc. Quran itself asks muslims to obey the prophet, so in essence, obeying hadith is obeying Quran. The only issue is verifying the hadith.
(07-08-2015 09:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 09:23 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  As i mentioned, its a debated matter.
Are those who do it misguided? Absolutely not. There are sayings attributed to Prophet that do mention it.
What I asked was how *you* feel about it. into which camp do *you* fall?

Quote:I just read your username and realized this whole post addressing you will be waste but still i'll finish it regardless.
Ah yes, ye olde username Rolleyes Can't tell you how many dickheads have commented on the same. Every one of them seems to think they're being original for some reason Consider

Quote:Let me explain it in simpler terms. In terms of Islamic Law, there are two sources.
1. Quran - Word of Allah ( it is certainly the word of God and no muslim questions it)
2. Hadith - Sayings ATTRIBUTED to the Prophet. (he may or may not have said them, there is a whole field of study behind verifying hadith and their compilation)

Quran has infinitely more authority than the hadith. And if a hadith is found to contradict Quran, it is disregarded immediately as being untrue or fabricated.

Quran says "there is no compulsion in religion", and yet you find hadith proposing killing of apostates when you find no such thing in quran. For certain reasons, those hadith have not been disregarded. And hence the debate.

So those who do not support killing of apostates are justified in doing so.
Those who do support their killing are also justified in doing so. They are not misguided. I hope I answered your query.

To an extent. Like I said, I want to know *your* opinion an this matter. Not whether or not people can justify stuff with scripture. You can justify pretty much anything with scripture. But whether or not you are a compassionate human being is the question that is at issue here, from my point of view.

Another thing, do you dare to have an opinion that differs from the Prophet himself on any topic? Or if it's in the Quran then by definition it is right and just?

My opinion on the matter is already mentioned in the thread. Go find it.

No, I dare not have any such opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 10:01 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 09:42 AM)Astreja Wrote:  If a non-Muslim cannot have safety of the person and the ability to speak freely in a Muslim country, there is something quite obviously broken in Islam and the line "There is no compulsion in religion" is meaningless twaddle.

Another atheist blogger has just been murdered in Bangladesh. If you want us to have any respect at all for your religion, Pi, it must cease such barbaric behaviour.

You did not read the thread. It has to do with apostates and not non-muslims.

(07-08-2015 09:36 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh, OK. I guess you haven't got to that bit of your course yet.


Well, I bow to your wisdom but I am surprised, nay aghast, that Cell Theory is not part of a medical degree.

Ohmy


Other than that it nullifies your claim to speak for every muslim, does it not?


No offence taken. This is a delightfully civilised conversation and I'm enjoying it.

But ... way to prove my point (no pun intended) for me. Thank you.

Actually, I don't know whether I am misunderstanding you or you misunderstanding me, at this point (no pun intended).

The article (or more specifically the video of the text) blatantly reveals the script to be "point"-less (pun intended that time).

But I really do appreciate you linking to that. I had no idea.

It's slightly pleasing to see that my birthplace is in the news for good reasons for a change.

A small correction, if you will allow...

I'm sure that was just a slip and that you know that there was no quran during the prophet's time.

Please note that the article states:

"little or no" does not equal "same".

I, for one, can't wait to see a comparison between this copy and other copies of the time. I hope there is great similarity. The decision to destroy all the non-Medinan codices was probably the best decision the canonisers (is that a word?) ever made ... i.e. not making the same mistake as christianity.



Please note, for future reference, that I did not say 14 Qurans as though there were 14 versions in print; I said 14 different readings.
I would be happy to list them if you are unaware of them.


Ah! Good. I am delighted that we agree that the Quran is categorised as literature and, yes, some of it (when recited) should be regarded as poetry. I do find it quite moving when read aloud in Arabic.

Thumbsup

Cut the sarcasm. I will simply stop responding. I don't owe you any reply. Always remember that.

Yes, they do teach "cell theory". On what makes a cell, and how it works. I believe you are taking the conversation towards biogenesis? You can't apply it to the very first Human Being. Appreciate the attempt.

Little or no does mean same for now until we know the details.

Yes, destroying the other copies was definitely the right decision. As Islam's territory expanded, it was important to establish the Quran that was known to the companions of the prophet. best decision.

Arab society was an oral society. So Quran did exist back then, just not in a completely written form compiled in one book. Stop semantic acrobatics.

(07-08-2015 09:23 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um.. okay.

So, and I am sorry if I missed it (Your thread moves rather fast) but then what is your take/ideas on Human evolution then?


Right... that seems to be a rather broad brush you're using, perchance....

I believe either Adam was the first homo-sapien Or Noah's progeny were the first homosapiens.

(07-08-2015 09:32 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Are there any other sources for morality other than the Quran and the hadiths?

There is no way one book can cover precisely every single situation. This is the problem with obtaining one's morality from a book. Humans have an innate sense of morality. We don't actually need to be taught that murder is wrong to know it is (though, apparently you argue that Muslims do need this?). If we did need this teaching, humanity wouldn't have lasted long enough for the Quran to come about.

If the Quran were perfect, as Muslims claim, then what need is there for the hadiths? Why should there be such confusion about such an important topic as the taking of a human life if the Quran were the last, perfect, and complete word of god?

Yes. There are other sources of Law.
1. Quran
2. Hadith
And the others are equal to each other :Qiyas and Ijtehad. These cover the topics not covered in Quran and hadith. Mostly analogies are used, how did quran and hadith resolve a problem, and then problems are resolved in a similar manner. They cannot oppose Quran and authentic hadith.

Quran is indeed perfect. Hadith are needed for the finer details on how to carry out Qurans orders. If Quran says prayers, how should one pray? etc etc. Quran itself asks muslims to obey the prophet, so in essence, obeying hadith is obeying Quran. The only issue is verifying the hadith.
(07-08-2015 09:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  What I asked was how *you* feel about it. into which camp do *you* fall?

Ah yes, ye olde username Rolleyes Can't tell you how many dickheads have commented on the same. Every one of them seems to think they're being original for some reason Consider


To an extent. Like I said, I want to know *your* opinion an this matter. Not whether or not people can justify stuff with scripture. You can justify pretty much anything with scripture. But whether or not you are a compassionate human being is the question that is at issue here, from my point of view.

Another thing, do you dare to have an opinion that differs from the Prophet himself on any topic? Or if it's in the Quran then by definition it is right and just?

My opinion on the matter is already mentioned in the thread. Go find it.

No, I dare not have any such opinion.

lol this jackass still here?

lets look at the qu'ran and hadith, the source of delusion from their pedophile prophet child rapist murdering piece of shit "gods messenger".

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)

"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)

""Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)

"Forbidden to you are...married women, except those you own as slaves." (Surah 4:20-, 24-)

Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)


Allah managed to hand down quite a few "revelations" that sanctioned Muhammad's personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him. Interestingly they have become part of the eternal, infallible word of the Qur'an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no possible relevance.

Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed." No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur'an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a "revelation" of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - a state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse "commands" Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband's gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God...?

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " This is another special command that Muhammad handed down to himself that allows virtually unlimited sex, divinely sanctioned by Allah. One assumes that this "revelation" was meant to assuage some sort of disgruntlement in the community over Muhammad's hedonism.

Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" This is in reference to a situation in which Muhammad's wives were grumbling about his preference for sleeping with a slave girl (Mary the Copt) instead of them. Accordingly, Muhammad may sleep with whichever wife (or slave) he wishes without having to hear the others complain... as revealed in Allah's literal and perfect words to more than a billion Muslims.

Qur'an (66:1-5) - "O Prophet! Why ban thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?..." Another remarkable verse of sexual convenience concerns an episode in which Muhammad's wives were jealous of the attention that he was giving to a Christian slave girl. But, as he pointed out to them, to neglect the sexual availability of his slaves was against Allah's will for him!

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Allah even permitted Muhammad and his men to have sex with married slaves, such as those captured in battle.

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.

Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

This is just a sample of the early Muslim traditions reporting Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, but it is sufficient to show that she certainly wasn’t fifteen years old at the time of the consummation, as some Muslims claim.

here is an educational link for you showing the Islamic proof that his wife was 9yo upon marriage/sex.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/prepubescent.htm

Muslims are quick to point out immorality around the world, especially in the West. It seems, then, that they are suggesting a very inconsistent message. When confronted with an immoral practice in another culture, Muslims cry out in one accord, "We condemn these practices, for they are against the eternal, perfect, and unalterable Law of God!" Yet, whenever the moral character of Muhammad is being scrutinized, Muslims suddenly say, "Don’t judge Muhammad! You should remember that he was from a different culture! Marrying young girls was common in Arabia, and it still is, thanks to Muhammad’s precedent. Different people have different moral standards, so no one should worry about Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl."

This convenient switch from moral absolutism to moral relativism is logically unacceptable. If it is wrong to judge the practices of another culture, then both Muhammad and the Qur’an were wrong for condemning immoral practices in Arabia. But if condemning immoral practices is acceptable, then Muslim apologists need a better response to criticisms of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha.

"Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He married a 9-year-old girl and even his adopted son's wife. On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army."

So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history.

From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given.

Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house (something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.

Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an "older woman" instead of opting to fondle a child.

Bukhari (4:232) - Muhammad's wives would wash semen stains out of his clothes, which were still wet from the spot-cleaning even when he went to the mosque for prayers. Between copulation and prayer, it's a wonder he found the time to slay pagans.

Bukhari (6:300) - Muhammad's wives had to be available for the prophet's fondling even when they were having their menstrual period.

Bukhari (93:639) - The Prophet of Islam would recite the 'Holy Qur'an' with his head in Aisha's lap, when she was menstruating.

Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Muhammad also said that it was impossible to treat all wives equally - and it isn't hard to guess why.

Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' "

Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly).

Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which a leering Muhammad orders a clearly startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become "unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together.

Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty." Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him.

Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself.

On the other hand, Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur'an (65:4) relates rules for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is established to determine that the woman is not pregnant. But the same rule applies to "those too who have not had their courses," meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate.

Thanks to Muhammad's extremely poor judgment (at best) and explicit approval of pedophilia, sex with children became deeply ingrained in the Islamic tradition. For many centuries, Muslim armies would purge Christian and Hindu peasant villages of their menfolk and send the women and children to harems and the thriving child sex slave markets deep in the Islamic world.

When it comes to child marriage, contemporary clerics warn fellow Muslims against succumbing to the disapproval of the Christian West: "It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”

The Ayatollah Khomeini, who married a 12-year-old girl, even gave his consent to using infants for sexual pleasure (although warning against full penetration until the baby is a few years older).

Some clerics show relative mercy on underage girls by advocating a process known as "thighing" (also known as child molestation in the West). According to a recent fatwa (number 23672), an imam answers this question: "My parents married me to a young girl who hasn't yet reached puberty. How can I enjoy her sexually?" by telling the 'man' that he may "hug her, kiss her, and ejaculate between her legs."

A prominent member of Saudi Arabia's highest religious council said in 2012 that girls can be married "even if they are in the cradle," then went on to explain that intercourse may occur whenever "they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the man."

stop the bacha bazi tradition, you know the hiring and raping of little boys...or the marrying of 9 yo girls, raping them the night of the wedding and then when the child dies from bleeding, not even holding the man accountable, the mutilation of girls genitals so that she doesnt feel pleasure, the stoning of women accused of adultery, the honor killing of daughters who had the audacity to allow themselves to be raped...etc etc you know, all those great islam traditions.

Sounds legit, truly, sounds like the perfect person a universe and life creating god would choose to be his prophet, his messenger. Rolleyes

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
07-08-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 05:21 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Don't waste my time with stupid questions.

Maybe when you stop wasting our time with your stupid assumptions we'll consider it.

(07-08-2015 07:14 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  He mentioned himself before i brought it up that he is a non muslim living in a muslim majority country. Hell you can go to see his profile and it mentions Malaysia. What a ridiculous argument.

He's British.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
07-08-2015, 10:32 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 10:01 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 09:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  Another thing, do you dare to have an opinion that differs from the Prophet himself on any topic? Or if it's in the Quran then by definition it is right and just?

No, I dare not have any such opinion.

That I find extremely disturbing on many levels. Why would you grant such control over your mind to a book, especially one produced centuries ago from a provincial, tribal culture?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: