Australian Muslim man travels to Syria to carry out suicide bombing (4 Viewers)

[yasminee96]

So it was the "norm of the time", but everything in the Qur'an is absolute and unchanging and most be adhered to exactly, regardless of changing norms, right?

in all religions i love the "norm of the time" excuse. Catholic church condoned slavery, but then again it was the "norm of the time." I thought gods morals were supposed to be timeless and absolute, so much for that shit aye.

I love how this is all you can pick on lol.

The rule stands as in Islam, there is no teenager, there's only child and adult. Someone reaches adulthood when they reach the age of puberty. So, essentially, Aishah (r) was at an age where she was able to make her own decisions. Personally, at 9 years old no i wouldn't get married, not only because there's so much more to live for imo, but because it's looked down upon. However, if i'm considered an adult at that age, then essentially, there's nothing forbidden about it. It's strange when you think of it now, a Man of much greater age marrying her, however back in those days, it was okay. There was nothing wrong with it and no one was doing anything out of their own will. It wasn't child abuse. It wasn't sexual abuse either.

If you want to talk about slavery, people were forced into slavery and had no choice. That obviously is abuse. And thus clearly is wrong. And way off topic.

 

[SylviaB]

The rule stands as in Islam, there is no teenager, there's only child and adult. Someone reaches adulthood when they reach the age of puberty. So, essentially, Aishah (r) was at an age where she was able to make her own decisions.

hahahahahahahahaha

however back in those days, it was okay. There was nothing wrong with it and no one was doing anything out of their own will. It wasn't child abuse. It wasn't sexual abuse either.

WOW

 

[SylviaB]

then why did you bring the Qur'an up if the norm of the time thing has nothing to do with it lol?

duh because muslims say that the Qur'an's rules are absolute and non-changing even though they were written a long time ago when thigns were different

and yet mohammed being a pedophile is okay because "things were different back then"

 

[SylviaB]

a 9 year old married a a much older, violent warlord and it was 100% voluntary

yeah okay totally nothing wrong with muslims

 

[Magical Kebab]

duh because muslims say that the Qur'an's rules are absolute and non-changing even though they were written a long time ago when thigns were different

and yet mohammed being a pedophile is okay because "things were different back then"

You really should inform yourself to why he married her, instead of calling him a pedophile.

You, like many others unfortunately hate Islam just because you can.

 

[SylviaB]

You really should inform yourself to why he married her, instead of calling him a pedophile.

right, a man with multiple sex slaves married a child out of compassion

 

[Magical Kebab]

right, a man with multiple sex slaves married a child out of compassion

So is that why you hate Islam?

 

[SylviaB]

So is that why you hate Islam?

i dont think i ever said i hate islam

 

[Magical Kebab]

i dont think i ever said i hate islam

You haven't, but even if a donkey see's your comments he would get the impression you have an issue with it. If you do that's your choice, but I just want to know why.

 

[Kiraken]

duh because muslims say that the Qur'an's rules are absolute and non-changing even though they were written a long time ago when thigns were different

and yet mohammed being a pedophile is okay because "things were different back then"

i like how you completely ignored yasmine's post that brought up a point frequently ignored. Aisha's age is not mentioned in the Qur'an and only in the Hadiths. Considering that there are actually contradictions as to her age in the Hadith and contradictions in the timeline (namely between her apparent prepubescent age and her age at the time of her death calculated with respect to others) her age can be as high as 19, which is certainly not pedophilic so it's actuallly factually incorrect to definitively assert Muhammad was a pedophile at all

 

[funkshen]

1. wasn't a blood-thirsty warlord, his entire city went against him and the few followers he had. He simply would defend himself.

Muhammad was a warlord, and no Islamic scholar will tell you otherwise, and ordered the killings of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, Al-Nadr Bin Al-Harith and Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq, among many, many others, for simply mocking him. He was blood thirsty and ruthless.

3. genies and magic? These are prohibited in Islam because they are based on lying, cheating, ill-gotten moneys, and neglecting reason and religion. Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) said, ‘He, who learns something of magic whether little or much, disbelieves…’
Imam Ali (a.s.) said, ‘A diviner is like a fortune-teller, and a fortune-teller is like a magician, and a magician is like an unbeliever, and the unbeliever will be in Fire.'

Sorry, you should read your Quran again, because humans, angels, and jinn (الجن‎), otherwise known as genies, are one of the three sapient creations of Allah (swt).

4. He had, I believe, 7 wives at once, but this is not exempt from Islam as Islam suggests that if you can love each and every one of your wives with the exact same amount of love, and they are all treated exactly the same, and all of them are okay with it, then there's nothing wrong with that. And there are hadiths of his wives at the time that suggest his love was equal. But who are we to compare with him - nowadays a man can't even treat his one wife properly lol.

No, he did exempt himself from Islamic law - he had a 'revelation' (probably after people were like why can't I have 9 wives) stating في قوله تعالى:{وَمَا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تُؤْذُوا رَسُولَ اللهِ وَلا أَنْ تَنْكِحُوا أَزْواجَهُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ أَبَدًا}ا - that the Prophet's wives shall never remarry, and يقول تعالى لنبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم:{لَا يَحِلُّ لَكَ النِّسَاءُ مِنْ بَعْدُ، وَلَا أَنْ تَبَدَّلَ بِهِنَّ مِنْ أَزْوَاجٍ، وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكَ حُسْنُهُنَّ - that the prophet can marry no more women, but that 9 was just fine. It is not that he was capable of equally sharing his love between his 9 wives (in contravention of Islamic law) - he had a special exemption due to being Allah's mate.

5. I have never heard this story, and haven't heard this evidence. Enlighten me with this evidence, please.

How the hell is it that a kafir like me knows more of the Quran and the life of the prophet (pbuh) than you? They're called the Satanic Verses. Satan, whose cunning was supposedly "weak" (Quran 4:76), managed to trick Muhammad into worshiping false idols; al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat (Surah 53:19-22).

 

[Kiraken]

wait, having read those verses in question i don't really see how it implies Muhammad was tricked into worshipping them? Nothing in the context says so either, noting the verses in question go as follows

So have you considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza?

And Manat, the third - the other one?

Is the male for you and for Him the female?

That, then, is an unjust division.

They are not but [mere] names you have named them - you and your forefathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance.

Although yes, your point is correct that Muhammad (pbuh) is acknowledged to be uneducated and completely illiterate

 

[nerdasdasd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Here are many examples/acts of Christian terrorism. For those saying that Muslims are violent , here are examples of violent Christian acts of terrorism. In addition the KKk, a violent group which hated blacks, was Christian had undertaken acts of violence and murder against black Americans.

 

[Kiraken]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Here are many examples/acts of Christian terrorism. For those saying that Muslims are violent , here are examples of violent Christian acts of terrorism. In addition the KKk, a violent group which hated blacks, was Christian had undertaken acts of violence and murder against black Americans.

i think we have to acknowledge that islamic extremism is a problem that is currently more widespread in terms of damage and violence than other forms of religious extremism

 

[funkshen]

wait, having read those verses in question i don't really see how it implies Muhammad was tricked into worshipping them? Nothing in the context says so either, noting the verses in question go as follows

So have you considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza?

And Manat, the third - the other one?

Is the male for you and for Him the female?

That, then, is an unjust division.

They are not but [mere] names you have named them - you and your forefathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance.

Although yes, your point is correct that Muhammad (pbuh) is acknowledged to be uneducated and completely illiterate

Read all about it m8. On the other hand, it does not surprise me in the slightest that Muslims are not educated on the Satanic Verses, because they profoundly undermine the authority of Mohammad and Allah.

 

[Kiraken]

Read all about it m8. On the other hand, it does not surprise me in the slightest that Muslims are not educated on the Satanic Verses, because they profoundly undermine the authority of Mohammad and Allah.

Again those claims are based on Hadith, many of which are filled with historical contradictions, according to that article you linked

Almost all modern Muslim scholars have rejected the story. Proposed arguments against the historicity of the incident can be found in Muhammad Abduh's article “Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt”, Muhammad Husayn Haykal's "Hayat Muhammad", Sayyid Qutb's "Fi Zilal al-Quran", Abul Ala Maududi's "Tafhim al-Quran" and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's "Nasb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq".[2] Haykal points out the many forms and versions of the story and their inconsistencies and argues that "the contextual flow of Surah 'al Najm' does not allow at all the inclusion of such verses as the story claims". Haykal quotes Muhammad Abduh who pointed out that the "Arabs have nowhere described their gods in such terms as 'al gharaniq'. Neither in their poetry nor in their speeches or traditions do we find their gods or goddesses described in such terms. Rather, the word 'al ghurnuq' or 'al gharniq' was the name of a black or white water bird, sometimes given figuratively to the handsome blond youth." Lastly, Haykal argues that the story is inconsistent with Muhammad's personal life and is completely against the spirit of the Islamic message.

"Although there could be some historical basis for the story, in its present form it is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication. Sūra LIII, 1-20 and the end of the sūra are not a unity, as is claimed by the story; XXII, 52, is later than LIII, 21-7, and is almost certainly Medinan (see Bell, Trans., 316, 322); and several details of the story- the mosque, the sajda, and others not mentioned in the short summary above- do not belong to the Meccan phase. Rubin also claimed that the supposed temporary control taken by Satan over Muhammad made such traditions unacceptable to early hadith compilers, which he believed to be a unique case in which a group of traditions are rejected only after being subject to Qur'anic models, and as a direct result of this adjustment"

I think the best argument in it though is that contextually, that story makes no sense as the Surahs it comes from are talking about an entirely different situation of how idol worshipping is bad and make no mention of Muhammad being tempted etc. at all

 

[sylent]

Funkshen,clearly you're on a first name basis with islamic scholars, all of whom have told you that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH was a blood thirsty warlord.
I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore, simply because all the 'facts' you guys quote are just lies created by those that seek merely to trash the name of the Prophet PBUH. The prophet PBUH never ordered the execution of people that were mocking him. Yes, Muslims believe in Jinn being one of gods creations however they are not known as genies. Before receiving revelations from God/the beginning of islam as you know it today, the Prophet did NOT worship Idols, he still beleived in one God. Muhammad PBUH never worshipped Idols and these so called Satanic Verses do not exist. The Quran has remained unchanged ever since it was revealed to the prophet PBUH.
If anyone's interested in learning about the life of Muhammad PBUH, I recommend "MUHAMMAD his life based on the earliest sources" by MARTIN LINGS. Lings uses authentic sources that if you wish you could follow up yourself to validate.
No-ones telling you to convert to islam but making up lies about Islam and the Prophet PBUH is wrong. Please keep this in mind.
May God make us all better people and open our hearts to the truth~

 

[funkshen]

Again those claims are based on Hadith, many of which are filled with historical contradictions, according to that article you linked

Almost all modern Muslim scholars have rejected the story. Proposed arguments against the historicity of the incident can be found in Muhammad Abduh's article “Masʾalat al-gharānīq wa-tafsīr al-āyāt”, Muhammad Husayn Haykal's "Hayat Muhammad", Sayyid Qutb's "Fi Zilal al-Quran", Abul Ala Maududi's "Tafhim al-Quran" and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's "Nasb al-majānīq li-nasf al-gharānīq".[2] Haykal points out the many forms and versions of the story and their inconsistencies and argues that "the contextual flow of Surah 'al Najm' does not allow at all the inclusion of such verses as the story claims". Haykal quotes Muhammad Abduh who pointed out that the "Arabs have nowhere described their gods in such terms as 'al gharaniq'. Neither in their poetry nor in their speeches or traditions do we find their gods or goddesses described in such terms. Rather, the word 'al ghurnuq' or 'al gharniq' was the name of a black or white water bird, sometimes given figuratively to the handsome blond youth." Lastly, Haykal argues that the story is inconsistent with Muhammad's personal life and is completely against the spirit of the Islamic message.

"Although there could be some historical basis for the story, in its present form it is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication. Sūra LIII, 1-20 and the end of the sūra are not a unity, as is claimed by the story; XXII, 52, is later than LIII, 21-7, and is almost certainly Medinan (see Bell, Trans., 316, 322); and several details of the story- the mosque, the sajda, and others not mentioned in the short summary above- do not belong to the Meccan phase. Rubin also claimed that the supposed temporary control taken by Satan over Muhammad made such traditions unacceptable to early hadith compilers, which he believed to be a unique case in which a group of traditions are rejected only after being subject to Qur'anic models, and as a direct result of this adjustment"

I think the best argument in it though is that contextually, that story makes no sense as the Surahs it comes from are talking about an entirely different situation of how idol worshipping is bad and make no mention of Muhammad being tempted etc. at all

There's no doubt that the authenticity of the Satanic Verses are contested, but the historical source of the veracity of the Satanic Verses is al-Tabari who, with Ibn Hisham, is considered the authoritative bibliographer of Muhammad as he had access to Ibn Ishaq's bibliography of Muhammad. The verses are also recorded by Ibn Sa'd and Wakidi, and indirectly related to in Bukhar's Hadith. Without a satisfactory explanation of why the mufassir al-Tabari (or any others) would fabricate such a thing, it is inconclusive to say the least. Furthermore, Haykal's 'al gharniq' argument has no weight, as it is a reference to the Crane, and implies the three gods are high flying.

Most Muslim scholars prefer to discredit al-Tabari on this one account (everything else he wrote is authoritative though, which is convenient) and concoct conspiracy theories about Christian missionaries spreading falsities. In light of the fact that the Qu'ran allows for the abrogation of verses (2:100), how anyone can conclude that the Satanic Verses are a complete fabrication is absurd - but why Muslim scholars do so is quite obvious.

Funkshen,clearly you're on a first name basis with islamic scholars, all of whom have told you that the Prophet Muhammad PBUH was a blood thirsty warlord.
I'm not going to reply to this thread anymore, simply because all the 'facts' you guys quote are just lies created by those that seek merely to trash the name of the Prophet PBUH. The prophet PBUH never ordered the execution of people that were mocking him. Yes, Muslims believe in Jinn being one of gods creations however they are not known as genies. Before receiving revelations from God/the beginning of islam as you know it today, the Prophet did NOT worship Idols, he still beleived in one God. Muhammad PBUH never worshipped Idols and these so called Satanic Verses do not exist. The Quran has remained unchanged ever since it was revealed to the prophet PBUH.
If anyone's interested in learning about the life of Muhammad PBUH, I recommend "MUHAMMAD his life based on the earliest sources" by MARTIN LINGS. Lings uses authentic sources that if you wish you could follow up yourself to validate.
No-ones telling you to convert to islam but making up lies about Islam and the Prophet PBUH is wrong. Please keep this in mind.
May God make us all better people and open our hearts to the truth~

read your Hadiths mate, otherwise shut the fuck up

 

[SylviaB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Here are many examples/acts of Christian terrorism.

 

[funkshen]

but what about the DRONES