Fresh start :D

[Montalban]

Secundulus: Muslims think Muhammad is spotless.
Me: Actually they don't believe Muhammad was spotless in everything he did.
You: I've not heard any Moslem criticise Muhammed
Me: Muslims do acknowledge faults if you press them on it. They don't make it a habit to criticise their greatest prophet however.
You: Really? Cite me some criticism...
Me: Did the Prophet (pbuh) Ever Commit a Mistake?

I never said that 'none do'. I didn't say that no Muslim criticised Muhammad, I said that they didn't make it a habit. Do you have some reading comprehension problem or do you make a habit out of misrepresenting other people's arguments?

You: Muslims criticse Muhammed
Me: Hardly ever
You: Muhammed's admonished
Me: Hardly worth menitoning - an 'admonishment' over a blind-man, but all those evils allowed
You: Ah but he was admonished...

You seem to want to make a 'point' that's not really worth it. Maybe you have a habbit of announcing mole-hills as mountains. Congratulations then!

 

[Nooj]

You: Muslims criticse Muhammed
Me: Hardly ever
You: Muhammed's admonished
Me: Hardly worth menitoning - an 'admonishment' over a blind-man, but all those evils allowed
You: Ah but he was admonished...

You seem to want to make a 'point' that's not really worth it. Maybe you have a habbit of announcing mole-hills as mountains. Congratulations then!

You've got the chronology wrong. 'Muslims criticise Muhammad' comes in page 2. 'Muhammad's admonished' comes in page 1. The latter is supposed to come before the former.

You: Muslims criticse Muhammed
Me: Hardly ever

Stop right there. You didn't say hardly ever. You said you didn't know of any instances:

I've not heard any Moslem criticise Muhammed

Just admit it man, you were wrong. You didn't know that Muslims criticised Muhammad.

Me: Hardly worth menitoning - an 'admonishment' over a blind-man, but all those evils allowed
You: Ah but he was admonished...

I had a good laugh at your twisting of facts.

The fact that Muhammad was rebuked was the only thing I was driving at. I wasn't trying to white-wash Muhammad's other actions, because that wasn't part of Secundulus' argument.

You seem to want to make a 'point' that's not really worth it. Maybe you have a habbit of announcing mole-hills as mountains. Congratulations then!

My point, which still remains, is that Muhammad was not spotlessly clean in everything. Religious affairs, yes. Not so on other matters.

 

[Montalban]

You've got the chronology wrong. 'Muslims criticise Muhammad' comes in page 2. 'Muhammad's admonished' comes in page 1. The latter is supposed to come before the former.

And what happened to Muhammed. What 'admonishment did he suffer?

Stop right there. You didn't say hardly ever. You said you didn't know of any instances:

Indeed. Beacuse I didn't know of any. I still don't, because you now cite that he was 'admonished' but as you can't say anything more than that it's such a hollow claim that it's not even worth you pursuing. Except you think it means something so you press on.

I've already congratulated you on your non-point. What more do you want?

It's like in Muhammed's own life his close kin 'protested' when Muhammed had designs on his wife. Muhammed came back the next day and said he had a revelation from his god that it was okay for Muhammed to marry her.

I recognise this 'event'. But for me to make something out of this to the effect that Muhammed was 'rebuked' would be quite pathetic, because it didn't mean anything.

So close to 0 it is (for all intents and purposes) 0

It's as much to it as when Moslems say that the Hadith are less than the Koran, because the Koran is from their god and the Hadith isn't, but there's a whole 'science of hadith' that proves the authenticity of a great deal of Hadith meaning that they believe it, just as much at the Koran.

You're simply trying to create the same 'point'.

 

[Nooj]

And what happened to Muhammed. What 'admonishment did he suffer?

He got told off by God, presumably in one of his visions.

Anyway, our discussion has taken up two full pages, I don't think it's really what warghaha wanted. I'll leave it to other readers to establish who was in the wrong.

 

[Montalban]

He got told off by God, presumably in one of his visions.

We have different perspectives on this. I want it to actually mean something more concrete. I've no evidence that all the evils he performed were ever punished so for me the fact as you establish here that he was admonished is meaningless... given you've also shown no consequences.

It's like someone saying Hitler's generals admonished him in 1940, and yet he continues on to perpetrate eviles, even more evils in fact than he had ever done. Or like when Caesar assumes full powers but someone whispers in his ear "Remember, you're only a man"

I shall say nothing more on this matter

 

[peaceful soul]

Secundulus: Muslims think Muhammad is spotless.
Me: Actually they don't believe Muhammad was spotless in everything he did.
You: I've not heard any Moslem criticise Muhammed
Me: Muslims do acknowledge faults if you press them on it. They don't make it a habit to criticise their greatest prophet however.
You: Really? Cite me some criticism...
Me: Did the Prophet (pbuh) Ever Commit a Mistake?

I never said that 'none do'. I didn't say that no Muslim criticised Muhammad, I said that they didn't make it a habit. Do you have some reading comprehension problem or do you make a habit out of misrepresenting other people's arguments?

Hi, Nooj. Here is what I see: Mohammad does not get criticized by true Muslims because of Mohammad's position in their religion, Islam. In a way, Islam is Mohammad and vice versa. He set the standards of and for Muslims, and since no other Muslims got signs and messages from Allah, Mohammad's actions and decrees are final. There is no room for discussion for any true Muslim to even give the possibility of contradicting anything he did. Muslims are forced by default to honor anything Mohammad said and did; thus, we have the Qu'ran, Sunnah and to a lesser degree, the Hadiths. There is no other way of Islam without the pecking order of Mohammad & Qu'ran, Sunnah, and Hadiths.

All of the Muslims that I have encountered both in person and here on the Internet do accept Mohammad as pure. The key is that everything that he did after his pronounced prophethood is acceptable to Alllah-- no exceptions that I know of. This helps to explain why they will argue moral and social relativism as well as tu quoques. They have been taught to justify his actions rather than think independently and confront his actions in a logical and moral way, IMO. The threat that has been passed on to them from Mohammad's teachings is to trust Allah's messenger and not offer criticism to them since the threat of hellfire will be on their consciences. To me, this is definitely an abuse of prophethood as well as independent moral thought. The are in a bad position in their ability to truly evaluate his morality, IMO.

I don't know if you understand that to Question Allah and therefore, Mohammad is an insult to their religion. That is way they will go to great measures to riot when Mohammad's reputation is on the line. They put their entire faith on Mohammad, even if outsiders see this as over-the-top or unwarranted.

 

[peaceful soul]

We have different perspectives on this. I want it to actually mean something more concrete. I've no evidence that all the evils he performed were ever punished so for me the fact as you establish here that he was admonished is meaningless... given you've also shown no consequences.

It's like someone saying Hitler's generals admonished him in 1940, and yet he continues on to perpetrate eviles, even more evils in fact than he had ever done. Or like when Caesar assumes full powers but someone whispers in his ear "Remember, you're only a man"

I shall say nothing more on this matter

I concur, Montalban, that I have not seen where Mohammad is truly disciplined by Allah and told to change is actions and admit that he was wrong on any action. What I do see is that Allah allowed him clearance to do many things, some of which you and I detest as a status of presumed prophethood. Ultimately, the problem with this discussion lies in what do we call evil and unrighteous. Muslims and some non Muslims will disagree with a Christian stance, unfortunately.

 

[anatolian]

I really don't know why you're trying to attribute an argument to me that I'm not using..

This is his 'style' of debate ..."These are my 'facts' and I want you to debate with me based on them.!If you don't, this means you run,you coward!"

 

[anatolian]

I concur, Montalban, that I have not seen where Mohammad is truly disciplined by Allah and told to change is actions and admit that he was wrong on any action...

Are you honest? Just in the first page Nooj has given you an ayah in which the Prophet was diciplined by Allah..And you still don't talk about my answer to your accusations towards the Prophet about morality...

 

[peaceful soul]

Are you honest? Just in the first page Nooj has given you an ayah in which the Prophet was diciplined by Allah..And you still don't talk about my answer to your accusations towards the Prophet about morality...

I did post a reply, but it did not get posted and I did not save it. I will post another version of it later today. Nooj gave one circumstance that if true, is rather meaningless in the big picture. We don't see any of Mohammad's actions in his ravaging of merchants along various trade routes, murdering of people who had already surrendered, and ordering murder on those who wrote poetry decrying him and his actions against non Muslims. This is where we truly define Mohammad and Allah's morality.

I am honest. You don't have to question that if you read my posts, hopefully. Contrary to what you may think, I am more interested in understanding your POV. I already have a good understanding, but the more that you communicate via posts, the more that I can understand you. That doesn't mean that I agree with you in most cases, though.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I did post a reply, but it did not get posted and I did not save it. I will post another version of it later today

I have learned to copy/paste a typed post to wordpad before I hit the post button.

John 18:37 Said then to Him, the Pilate: "Not then a king art Thou"? Answered the Jesus: "Thou are saying that a king am I. Into this I have been born, and into this, I have come into the world, that I should be testifying to the Truth. Every the one being out of the Truth, is hearing of Me the voice".

 

[Montalban]

This is his 'style' of debate ..."These are my 'facts' and I want you to debate with me based on them.!If you don't, this means you run,you coward!"

If it were true, at least it's not a 'straw-man' style others prefer

 

[peaceful soul]

Are you honest? Just in the first page Nooj has given you an ayah in which the Prophet was diciplined by Allah..And you still don't talk about my answer to your accusations towards the Prophet about morality...

Anatolian, you have not posted anything in this thread for me to comment on before this. I think that you are confusing this thread with another one. If you read my responses to warghaha, you will get some answers.

I think that you are referring another thread. You should point me to that one. I did remember responding to you, but as I said, I don't think that the message got posted.

 

[Montalban]

Anatolian, you have not posted anything in this thread for me to comment on before this. I think that you are confusing this thread with another one. If you read my responses to warghaha, you will get some answers.

I think that you are referring another thread. You should point me to that one. I did remember responding to you, but as I said, I don't think that the message got posted.

I think that's what a lurker is

 

[warghaha]

warghaha believes in starting a thread to selectively deal with argument presented before.

I'm sorry I didn't view all the posts in that thread because of times constraint. So I make a summary and select posts(which I'd viewed) which are interesting to this discussion.

If a Moslem girl upon reaching puberty is considered 'responsible' (ie. an adult) why then don't Moslem nations give her the right to drive, or to vote AT THE SAME TIME?

The reason is simple, she's considered to be an adult simply so she can be married off (I choose to say this rather than saying so an older man can have relations with a girl).

In Islam, puberty marked to the adulthood, means we're responsible to anything we do, not to our guardian anymore. But, in Sura Women 4:6, even they'd reached puberty, their maturity (mentally) is the mark when they can take up larger responsiblity.

Sura 4:6: And test the orphans [in your charge] until they reach a marriageable age; then, if you find them to be mature of mind, hand over to them their possessions; and do not consume them by wasteful spending, and in haste, ere they grow up. And let him who is rich abstain entirely [from his ward's property]; and let him who is poor partake thereof in a fair manner. And when you hand over to them their possessions, let there be witnesses on their behalf – although none can take count as God does.

The word used aboved is ("until they reached marriagable age") but not "until they reached puberty" because to take larger responsibility, they should have "to be mature of mind". There's no certain age when a human get to be mentally matures.

Further you've offered no evidence that a person who has just begun a process (puberty) by which she CAN have babies SHOULD have babies.

Therein is a difference your religion doesn't account for. You immediately confer upon her 'responsibility' she may not yet be ready to accept.

As above.

You don't take into account that we are also mental and emotional beings - for you peg her 'adulthood' solely on her being three months past her first period. Nothing there about her emotional/psychological/mental readiness to be married. Your god simply didn't consider that.

As above.
Besides from Sura 4:6, if they're not mentally ready, that will jeoperdize her and the marriage itself, then it's haram(forbidden).

 

[Montalban]

Thank you warghaha for not addressing what's said

 

[warghaha]

Just as Montalban has stated, we would have to examine this one for being factual.

In semitic culture, the age of marriage "usually at the outset of puberty or around the age of 13"[/quote]

You are confusing what God tolerated opposed to what God's standards are.

Maybe I am. May I ask you, what's God's standard to you?

Throughout the OT, people had harems and plenty of concubines. These were not God's allowances; rather man's implementation of acceptable relationships. This is precisely why Christians and Jews are told not to emulate prophets or any other people who may look pious in our eyes. That is why Christians have issues with Mohammad. Muslims don't have that kind of compass guiding them. Muslims are more compliant to obedience through actions, whereas Christians are to be more discerning of the actions that they practice because all people are imperfect in their spiritual nature, so, we should examine them by God's standards--not by what a presumed prophet says necessarily.

What a messenger of God do is to deliver God's message.
Often in Quran, God invite us to think and use our judgement. (e.g: to be modest; how modest? It depends on our needs and judgment unless God specified what is called as exessive/out of bound). Prophets example is example. It's up to us to take their example but it should depends on our situation, needs, etc.
In Islam The basic is permissable and it can be changed to haram(fprbidden), wajib(obligation), etc depends on revelation, situation,etc.

We must have an outside means of judging. This is lacking in Islam. It is either follow Mohammad or else suffer the consequences of not being obedient to his example. In my eyes, that is not something that I would trust.

Muslims are free not to take Muhammad's example(unless certain things like how to perfom Solat, etc). We're not considered guilty to eat dhab(a desert lizard) just because Muhammad didn't eat dhab.

The main difference here is that Christians don't emulate what men do, even if that person is considered a prophet. We follow Jesus, who is God incarnate. Even when following Jesus, we not seek to emulate his actions; for, that would be just what you do with Mohammad. We follow his teachings which are relational to God and man. They are not based on customs and traditions.

From I'd learned, Christians should follow Jesus example and actions (e.g: 1 Peter 2:21-24, John 13:14-15). For example. Jesus drank wine. But what kind of wine that Jesus drank that is consider permissable? Most Christians will use Jesus' example and actions on that particular matter along with other matters .
About customs and tradition, we didn't fully follow Arab's tradition(since Muhammad was an Arab). Chinese Muslims will do the wedding based on their traditions likewise other races. Like wearing turban, it's up to individual to wear turban if they feel like wearing it. So they adopted wearing Arab's garment. But that's how the world goes. We assimilate others traditions and customs. But Muslims are aware what is Muhammad's traditions and what is God's command.

There lies the problem--you get to pick and choose what actions you can partake in. You can selectively choose what is politically correct for a specific time and ignore his other actions that are not in good taste today. Regardless, those other actions are still part of Mohammad's example. They can be practiced if chosen.

That's what examples are. When Muhammad said, practice swim and horseback riding for health, what we've learned? Only swimming and horseback riding are permissable in islam? Of course not.

Like I said in my previous post, they can be practised. But after some serious considerations. We don't blindly marry our child when the reached puberty because that's what Muhammad do. We should consider their maturity, their readiness, what mostly the outcome of the marriage, etc because one of the purpose in mariage is to gain tranquility. I don't think it'll be a happy marriage if they're not ready.

As Montalban has stated, puberty is not the sign that a woman or man is mature for marriage and other decisions that a more mature adult should be equipped to make. There is also the emotional/psychological and spiritual aspects that need to be mature.

And I agreed. And Islamic teachings agreed too.

The bottom line is that you are left with Mohammad's examples to follow; so, there is a lot of gray area to use to practice exactly what he did. Is there anywhere in the Qu'ran where Allah tells you not to follow Mohammad's actions and use scrutiny as well as use your best or better judgment on issues of life? Does Allah allow you to ignore any of Mohammad's actions?

Allah often invite us to think and use reasonable judgement. For example in Sura 42:38
and who respond to [the call of] their Sustainer and are constant in prayer; and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves; and who spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance;

Yup, Allah allow us to not follow Muhammad's actions as long as it's not against Islamic teachings(which why they're are called sunnah, not obligations). But Muslims will always looked up Muhammad as their role model. That's for certain.

I don't discount that times are different, but my issue has to do with your perfect example for all time, Mohammad. As far as I can see, there is no distinction between his actions and Allah's moral standards. Allah's standards are restricted to a large degree by an imperfect creature--Mohammad.

There is more that I could say, but I will let this be it for now. I am looking forward to your responses once you get time, of course.

Allah's standard is in Quran and Hadith Qudsi (this is merely my POV).
For example Sura 42:39-41:

and who, whenever tyranny afflicts them, defend themselves.
But [remember that an attempt at] requiting evil may, too, become an evil: hence, whoever pardons [his foe] and makes peace, his reward rests with God – for, verily, He does not love evildoers.
Yet indeed, as for any who defend themselves after having been wronged – no blame whatever attaches to them:

And from hadiths, sometimes Muhammad will defend himself and sometimes he'll pardon.

Or in hadith Qudsi:
"Where are those who love one another through My glory? Today I shall give them shade in My shade, it being a day when there is no
shade but My shade."

Love through His glory. But sometimes, imperfect Mr.A loves Mr.B because he's his relative.

Or loves a cat because it's cute and adorable .

 

[warghaha]

Thank you warghaha for not addressing what's said

I replied based on my understanding of your arguments.
Pardon me if I'm not addressing what you'd posted.

 

[Montalban]

I replied based on my understanding of your arguments.
Pardon me if I'm not addressing what you'd posted.

You missed about how Islamic nations make her an 'adult' for the purposes of marrying her off, but not in other ways, where she might still have to wait until she's 18 to vote and to drive

 

[warghaha]

You missed about how Islamic nations make her an 'adult' for the purposes of marrying her off, but not in other ways, where she might still have to wait until she's 18 to vote and to drive

Oh that ...
If you meant 'physically and mentally matured' when you said 'adult', then yes. If the spouse is not ready, there's no way the marriage will be happy ending.

As for allowing them to drive and vote, this is dificult. I mean, the guardian(their wali) will certainly knew when they're ready to marry and can attest to it. And the spouse knew if they want to carry on with the marriage(no force marriage in Islam).

But if the wali said, 'my children is now ready to vote'. Who'll believe it? A nation is on stake. Not the private life just like their choice to marry. I'm not saying their marriage is not important anyway.
It goes the same way to driving issue also.

And this is my personal opinion.