Prophetic Attributes

[ibn_leroy]

What is your opinion on people who have never tried to understand Hinduism besmirch their monkey Gods and eagle Gods etc. etc.
Muslims, please don't act like the victims here.
We victims are free now and be ready accept some of your own medicine.

I'm don't quite follow you, but my opinion is that people should try to understand other religions. How am I acting like a victim, and what does that have to do with anything in my post which you quoted? I don't consider myself a victim of anything having to do with religion. That last sentence of your's sounds really crazy.

 

[ibn_leroy]

I think what born to lose live to win meant was HE DIDN'T PROPHECY. A prophet speaks for God whether he foretells the future or not and Mohammed didn't.

You're mistaken here. The Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) definitely spoke of future occurrences, many of which have been fulfilled.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

You're mistaken here. The Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) definitely spoke of future occurrences, many of which have been fulfilled.

Like 9/11?

 

[markie]

You're mistaken here. The Prophet (salallahu 'alayhi wa salam) definitely spoke of future occurrences, many of which have been fulfilled.

Nostrudomus spoke of future events too but he sure wasn't a prophet of God. We don't condemn Islam, your own book does.

 

[ibn_leroy]

Like 9/11?

I don't know of any prophecies dealing with 9/11 specifically, no. But, there are some that are related to terrorism in general:

Narrated Abu Sa'id al Khudri:"I heard God's Messenger saying, 'There will appear some people among you whose prayer will make you look down upon yours, and whose fasting will make you look down upon yours, but they will recite the Qur'an which will not exceed their throats and they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out through the game whereupon the archer would examine the arrowhead but see nothing, and look at the unfeathered arrow but see nothing, and look at the arrow feathers but see nothing, and finally he suspects to find something in the lower part of the arrow.'"Bukhari, #4726

Narrated Abu Musa: "The Prophet, salallahu 'alayhi wa salam, said, 'Time will pass rapidly, good deeds will decrease, stinginess will be cast in people's hearts, tribulation will appear, and there will be much al harj.' They (i.e., the Companions present) asked, 'God's Messenger, what is al harj (harj is an Ethiopic word)?' He said, 'The killing, the killing.'" Bukhari

Narrated Hudhayfa ibnul Yaman: "The people used to ask God's Messenger, salallahu 'alayhi wa salam, about good, but I used to ask him about evil for fear that it might overcome me. Once I said, 'O God's Messenger, we were in ignorance and evil until God, the Exalted, bestowed on us this present good. Will there be any evil after this good?' He said, 'Yes.' I asked, 'Will there be good after that evil?' He said, 'Yes, but it will be tainted.' I asked, what will its taint be?' He said, 'There will be some people who will lead according to other than my way. You will see their actions and disapprove of them.' I said, 'Will there be any evil after that good?' He said, 'Yes, there will be some people who will invite others to the gates of hell, and whoever accepts their invitation will be thrown in it.' I said, 'O God's Messenger, describe those people for us.' He said, 'They will belong to us and speak our language.' I asked, 'God's Messenger, what do you order me to do if such a thing should take place in my life?' He said, 'Adhere to the group of Muslims and their leader.' I asked, 'If there is neither a group or a leader?' He said, 'Keep away from all those different sects, even if you had to bite the root of a tree, till you meet God while you are still in that state.'" Bukhari

 

[ibn_leroy]

Nostrudomus spoke of future events too but he sure wasn't a prophet of God. We don't condemn Islam, your own book does.

You lost me with this. Are you saying that the Qur'an condemns Islam? Please explain.

 

[ibn_leroy]

What do you think a messiah or a Christ is? You call Jesus, Christ but you don't think he saved us from our sins. Why do you reject the whole new testament but consider Mohammed a true prophet? Mohammed was only one man, the new testament writers were many.

'Messiah', or moshiach in Hebrew, is a term used in the Bible to refer to Israelite kings, who were customarily anointed when they assumed power. I believe the Persian king Cyrus the Great was also called moshiach.

As far as the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Jesus (peace be upon him) is called al Masih, which very loosely translates to 'Christ'. Arabic is a language of triliteral roots, and al Masih is derived from the root meem, saad, haa. All words with this root indicate touching. For example, mamsuh, i.e. "one who is touched". So, Jesus' title of 'al Masih' is actually ambiguous. He could be understood as being touched by God, as a miraculous healer who touched the sick, or as an itinerant preacher whose feet frequently touched the ground traveling to and fro. All of these meanings are applicable to him.

I reject the New Testament for a couple of reasons. First, the transmission of the Gospels cannot be verified; the authors are anonymous and make many mistakes in their interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and Judaism (but don't take my word for it; ask a qualified rabbi, preferably of the Chabad Lubavitch variety). Secondly, there's no objective reason to put confidence in Paul. In supposedly his own letters, there is evidence of sectarian controversy amongst Christians. Why should he be believed over those others with whom he had beef with, when their sides and possible refutations of Paul have never been heard? To me, that's unacceptable.

I would go on to say why I believe Muhammad to be a prophet (I converted to Islam by the way), but not now, because I don't want this post to be too long. Actually, the authors of the New Testament aren't that many because the bulk of it consists of (supposedly) Paul's letters. There definitely aren't as many New Testament writers as there are narrators of ahadith, who number in the thousands.

 

[Bevlina]

I reject the New Testament for a couple of reasons. First, the transmission of the Gospels cannot be verified; the authors are anonymous and make many mistakes in their interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and Judaism (but don't take my word for it; ask a qualified rabbi, preferably of the Chabad Lubavitch variety). Secondly, there's no objective reason to put confidence in Paul. In supposedly his own letters, there is evidence of sectarian controversy amongst Christians. Why should he be believed over those others with whom he had beef with, when their sides and possible refutations of Paul have never been heard? To me, that's unacceptable.

I would go on to say why I believe Muhammad to be a prophet (I converted to Islam by the way), but not now, because I don't want this post to be too long. Actually, the authors of the New Testament aren't that many because the bulk of it consists of (supposedly) Paul's letters. There definitely aren't as many New Testament writers as there are narrators of ahadith, who number in the thousands.

Do you still believe Jesus was the Son of God?

 

[ibn_leroy]

Do you still believe Jesus was the Son of God?

Not anymore than I would believe God had a Daughter, Brother, Sister, Aunt, Uncle, Cousin, Neice, or Nephew. That notion is anathema to Muslims.

 

[markie]

You lost me with this. Are you saying that the Qur'an condemns Islam? Please explain.

That's what I said, somewhat like the old testament condemns Christianity. The difference is Praise God we have a new testament you all don't.

 

[Bevlina]

Not anymore than I would believe God had a Daughter, Brother, Sister, Aunt, Uncle, Cousin, Neice, or Nephew. That notion is anathema to Muslims.

I see. Thankyou.

 

[ibn_leroy]

That's what I said, somewhat like the old testament condemns Christianity. The difference is Praise God we have a new testament you all don't.

I don't see how the Qur'an condemns Islam. For that matter, I don't see how the Hebrew Bible (not the "Old Testament") condemns Christianity either. Please give an example.

 

[Bevlina]

http://www.submission.org/islam/faq9.html

There's a link you can look at.

 

[Montalban]

This is false. The primary purpose of sex is to take part in love.

Actually, that's false. The concept of love, or more precisely romance, is not prevalent in many cultures. But, if you've never studied other cultures it figures you'd believe that. Hey, what does it matter, they're all savages anyway, right? White man's burden indeed . . .

I have, indeed stated a Christian 'ideal'. I have already stated why your assumption is false, if it was only about procreation then even all societies would call for sex only when a woman is capable of having children.
But what you mix up is that many societies are male-orientated, and that his pleasure alone is dominant in the idea of when to have sex.
Further your argument is exceptionally weak in that you are saying "If only you knew the evidence", and you present none. You have argued against my 'ideal' as if you believe that if you disprove 'a' it proves 'b'.

Here it is then 'the capacity' argument. The idea being, Aisha had the capacity for sex, therefore she was 'ready' for sex.

Yes, she did have 'the capacity.' But since there seems to be some confusion on your part let me spell it out explicitly - she had the capacity to bear children.

How many children did she have? What was her 'capacity to have children'? I already know the answer to how many she had, and so do you, but you're not the only one reading this. I'd like to see how you can have a 'capacity to have children'. Considering that you said earlier that the purpose of sex is to solely procreate, so we're not talking about 'capacity' in the sense of two adults who have a 'capacity to have children' and choose to have none (because that itself is not having sex for the purposes you propose!) (nor are we talking about 'capacity' and total abstention).
You made this illogical assumption quite clear... sex is about procreation. The argument being that as soon as Aisha had the ability to have children (and this itself is not proven yet by you), she was okay for sex.
Not only did this union, when she was 9 produce no children, we quite clearly know that Muhammad had no children with her, ever. If either party had no 'capacity' to have children, then the sex that they had was not for procreation, as you pretend that it is. Therefore the sex that they engaged in is either out of 'love' as according to the Christian ideal, or out of lustful pleasure (pleasure can come from love).
Abandoning the 'sex for procreation ONLY' fallacy, your argument must then rest on some notion that even at nine, she was capable of reciprocal pleasure... as in an adult to adult situation. And you've only made just-so statements about a link between physical and psychological maturity; in that you believe that they match at all times. Don't forget, we call this transitional period 'adolescence', but for you it doesn't exist. Someone goes straight from child to adult.
Another issue here, you've not considered is the mistake made that the moment a girl's age is such that she starts mensturating, that she's able to have children!
"There is a mis-conception that when a young girl has her first menarche, she is capable of getting pregnant"
http://www.exmuslim.com/com/science_&_puberty.htm
(note again you believe sex is solely related to a procreation). There is nothing to say that one absolutely relates to the other. And even if she is 'able' to have children, it is also known about the risks to younger mothers in issues of health (risks both to her and the baby).
See: "Fact Sheet No.23, Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children" (see also Appendix below)
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm
What in effect you are arguing also is that women are baby-machines, who's capacity to be considered an adult rests on a 'capacity to have children'.

False. A child of any age has the capacity for sex

Wrong. This is a straw man. You knew very well (or should have known) that when talking about sexual capacity, I was speaking in biological terms about one's ability to reproduce.

No, you made an assumption that sex is only about reproduction based on a problem you have with my idea of 'love'.
Even if you can disprove the 'sex=love' idea, you've not proved the 'sex=reproduction' idea (which as stated is falsified by the fact that there are not universal taboos against having sex with a woman incapable of having children; due to any reason (pregnancy, old age, medical incapacity, etc.).
It is true I have stated the "Christian ideal", but even if you don't accept this, your argument is still not proven. Therefore the 'capacity to have sex' issue remains.
How many children did Aisha have? How was her 'capacity to have children'?

False again, refer above to the issue of oral sex. The ability to gratify does not mean that sex is allowed.

Straw man, straw man, straw man. I simply wasn't talking about sexual gratification, and you know it.

You should then show me how through your extensive knowledge of 'the world's cultures' how many have taboos on sex that can't lead to children. Then, how this relates to the Arab practices. Then how this relates to all the children Muhammad had (or didn't have). And then, why this practice, from a specific time and place is justifiable for all time, and cultures. Thanks in advance.

It is not a relative standard, as shown, there is and always has been a widespread ban against having sex with a partner, simply based on the capacity of that partner to provide sexual gratification.

Str-str-str-straw man . . .

So you say. See above.
What was Aisha's 'capacity to have children' aged 9?

According to morality. A girl, who doesn't have the capacity to make a judgment for herself on whom she would like to have relationships with, (not just 'sex'), is given away by her father for political motives. If anyone else did it, it would still be wrong..

According to morality? Right, and so is mongrelization . Arranged marriages are absolutely wrong? PLEASE. Civilize those savages why don't you! By the way, their marriage had nothing to do with politics.

Straw-man to you. Note in my previous post I talked of love between those who are equally able to reciprocate.
Secondly, for someone such as yourself who believes in Koranic law, you've just over-turned it's universality, because you now would have to argue you have no right to seek to impose Islamic laws on other cultures.

Child labour laws did not make child labour immoral, only illegal. It was immoral before and still is. The expression of society may have changed, but the issue of morality is still one of absolutes.

What does child labour have to do with anything?

You seem to want to have two arguments at once. Both that Muhammad is an example of morality for all time, but that his behaviour was of a certain time and place. A logical conclusion to this is you'd want us all to adopt the morals of that particular time and place, but then you just argued against that with the cultural imperialist argument.

Like I said in my first post, you're oblivious to your own frame of reference. What will it take for you to realize, "CHILDHOOD" IS RELATIVE! (Oh yes, it is). In reality, there's no such thing as a "legal age" for adulthood. Actual childhood as defined by biology/physiology is absolute. However, again, "CHILDHOOD" AS DEFINED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL MATURITY IS RELATIVE!. I think I'll say that again: "CHILDHOOD" AS DEFINED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL MATURITY IS RELATIVE!

Tell me why is the physical capacity to have children equal to the mental capacity to have children.
Read these first
"Child marriage 'violates rights'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1206979.stm
And note...
"Moreover, child brides are pressured to bear a child within the first year of marriage, making girls susceptible to an increased risk of death and injury. Studies indicate that girls between 10 and 14 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth than women aged 20-24"
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/181142_child08.html
The 'capacity to have children' argument is flawed, because even when a girl has the 'capacity to have a child' she is likely to have the 'capacity for an early death'. But hey, it's all relative!

One more time . . . just kidding. Now, let's break this down with an example, shall we? My grandmother was married at 14, and had all her children before she was 20. So, we have two questions to answer here according to the two absolute and relative definitions of childhood. First, was she a child in the biological sense? Obviously not, she bore children. As for sexual gratification, well, you'd have to ask my grandfather . Second, was she a child in the psychological/emotional/practical/etc. sense? Again, the answer is no; there wasn't a "childish" bone in her body. I mean, not one. But can the same be said for the 8th or 9th grader wearing glitter lip-gloss? Of course not. But why is that, Montalban? Could psychological/practical maturity, and thus, "childhood", be relative? Yes, sir, it sure can. So don't try me with this, "sleeping with a 'child' is absolutely wrong" garbage, when the 'child' in question is relative.

How very odd that you compare a 14 year old capable of having children (your own criteria) to that of Aisha at nine, where there's no proof that she had the 'capacity to have children'. In fact we know she was still 'childish'. Let's look at Islamic evidence...
Bukhari vol. 5, #234 says:

"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."
So, while she was still doing childish things, playing with girlfriends on the swings, she was taken by Muhammad.
'I used to play with dolls in the house of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). I had friends who used to play with me. When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came in, they would hide themselves, then he would call them to join me and play with me.'
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=e...e&QR=9473&dgn=4
And while doing this... he fantasised about her...
"...[T]he Prophet (Muhammad) said to her (Aisha), 'You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me). 'This is your wife.' When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said, 'If this is from Allah, it will be done.'" (Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 5:58:235). Remember, that she was only a child. He is fantasising about a little girl.

To wrap it up, human beings do have the capacity ( ) to function as independent, responsible, and yes, mature wives, mothers, husbands, and fathers at very young ages.

For you this is an issue that as soon as your physically beginning to be an adult, the biology carries everything else with it.

There's simply no logical way to argue against that, and there's surely no way to debate biological facts. The only way your point will hold is if you argue that psychological and practical maturity is determined by an absolute standard. But there's no way you can believe something that far fetched.

If you can show that we are mentally adults the moment we reach puberty, you'd be on your way to some sort of argument.

 

[Montalban]

Conclusion:
Sex is NOT just about procreation. If it were, then there'd be myriads of taboos against sexual unions that are childless, and of sex continuing between husband and wife, after the issue of procreation has long past. Further to that, it denies all forms of sexual contact between adults that is not related to procreation (such as oral sex).
If the issue of Muhammad's lust for Aisha was about furthering his line, then where are the children? Did he stop having sex with her, simply because she ceased to show a 'capacity to have children'?

Was Aisha an adult? We don't know that she was capable of having children; she had none. Did she behave like a child? Yes, she played with girlfriends on swings. And, evidence of her behaviour later in life confirms the idea of 'abuse'. (see Appendix).

The resident Muslims here, such as ibn_leroy argue for both the notion that there's an absolute; re: Muhammad's exemplar behaviour for all time, but also that his behaviour was merely the product of a particular time and place.

APPENDIX - proofs of the harm on Aisha...
From Bukhari 7.192:
Narrated 'Ubaid bin 'Umar:

I heard 'Aisha saying, "The Prophet used to stay for a long while with Zanab bint Jahsh and drink honey at her house. So Hafsa and I decided that if the Prophet came to anyone of us, she should say him, "I detect the smell of Maghafir (a nasty smelling gum) in you. Have you eaten Maghafir?' " So the Prophet visited one of them and she said to him similarly. The Prophet said, "Never mind, I have taken some honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I shall never drink of it anymore." So there was revealed: 'O Prophet ! Why do you ban (for you) that which Allah has made lawful for you ... If you two (wives of Prophet) turn in repentance to Allah,' (66.1-4) addressing Aisha and Hafsa. 'When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to some of his wives.' (66.3) namely his saying: But I have taken some honey."

She was a ringleader in the first Muslim civil war... the first time Muslims took arms up against other Muslims. According to the Hadith, Muslims went to hell for fighting in support of her. In the "Battle of the Camel", thousands of Muslims were killed fighting against each other. Aisha's side lost, and she was basically put under house arrest by Ali.

From Bukhari 9.204:
Narrated Al-Hasan:
(Al-Ahnaf said I went out carrying my arms during the nights of the affliction (i.e. the war between 'Ali and 'Aisha) and Abu Bakra met me and asked, "Where are you going?" I replied, "I intend to help the cousin of Allah's Apostle (i.e., 'Ali)." Abu Bakra said, "Allah's Apostle said, 'If two Muslims take out their swords to fight each other, then both of them will be from amongst the people of the Hell-Fire.' It was said to the Prophet, 'It is all right for the killer but what about the killed one?' He replied, 'The killed one had the intention to kill his opponent.'"

5.116:
Narrated Abu Wail:
When 'Ali sent 'Ammar and Al-Hasan to (the people of) Kufa to urge them to fight, 'Ammar addressed them saying, "I know that she (i.e. 'Aisha) is the wife of the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter (world to come), but Allah has put you to test, whether you will follow Him (i.e. Allah) or her."

So not only did Aisha help cause the death of thousands of Muslim men, she is pictured as acting against the very will of Allah.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/islamchild.htm

 

[markie]

I don't see how the Qur'an condemns Islam. For that matter, I don't see how the Hebrew Bible (not the "Old Testament") condemns Christianity either. Please give an example.

1. "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive) and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship (Namaz) and pay the poor due, then leave their way free. Lo ! Allah is Forgiving Merciful." (10 Para 9 Sura 5 Ayat).
2. "O ye who believe ! The idolaters only are unclean... " (10-9-28)
3. "In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you." (5-4-101)
4. "O ye who believe ! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you ... " (11-9-123)
5. "Lo ! those who disbelieve our revelations. We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed. We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste, the torment. Lo ! Allah is ever Mighty Wise." (5-4-56)
6. "O ye who believe ! Choose not your fathers, nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Who so of you taken them for friends such are wrong doers." (10-9-23)
7. "Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk." (10-9-37)
8. "O ye who believe ! Choose not for friends..., any of the disbelievers. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true believers."
9. "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." (23-33-61)
10. "Lo ! ye (idolaters) and that which ye worship beside Allah are fuel of hell. There unto ye will come." (17-21-98)
11. "And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the relvelations of his Lord, then turneth from them. Lo ! We shall requite the guilty." (21-32-22)
12. "Allah promiseth you much boot that ye will capture... " (26-48-20)
13. "Now enjoy what ye have won as lawful and good." (10-8-69)
14. "O prophet ! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stem with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." (28-66-9)
15. "But verily we shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom, and verily we shall requite them the worst of what they used to do." (24-41-27)
16. "That is the reward of Allah's enemies : the Fire. Therein is their immortal home, payment for as much as they denied our revelations." (24-41-28)
17. "Lo ! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs : they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain... " (11-9-111)
18. "Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them and their is lasting torment." (10-9-68)
19. "O Prophet ! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred steadfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence." (10-8-65)
20. "O ye who believe ! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo ! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (6-5-51)
21. "Fight against such of those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbiddert by His messenger and follow not the religion of truth, untill lthey pay the tribute readily, being brought low." (10-9-29)

22. "Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork." (6-5-14)
23. "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them." (5-4-89)
24. "Fight them ! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers." (10-9-14)

I know there are a lot of verses in the old testament that condone and even promote war. I think the law was given to show us that we need a savior. We are so arrogant as to think that we can reach God through our own actions so God gave us a set of rules to follow which only 1 that I know off kept perfectly, if there was another it was probably Moses who gave it in the first place. Maybe it was just on the TV show but I kind of thought Moses said "Those who won't live by the law will die by the law." Not very many people lived by the law. There's a show called The Ten Commandment's, but anyway Jesus kept the law It's through accepting Him as son of God anni believing that God raised Hem from the dead. John 3:16 says For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever believeth on him shall not perish but have everlasting life. To believe on him means to believe in him and the work that he did, including belong crucified and the restriction. I'm not saying don't submit, that's good but you need to believe in the cross or it's all in vain. This is not a free ticket like you all seem to think, why did you say Paul was at odds with some of the oootherr writers? They sound like theet're in agreement to me.

 

[ibn_leroy]

I have, indeed stated a Christian 'ideal'. I have already stated why your assumption is false, if it was only about procreation then even all societies would call for sex only when a woman is capable of having children.

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I never said sex was ONLY about procreation. I simply stated that the concept of love (romance) is not a primary concern in many cultures.

How many children did she have? What was her 'capacity to have children'?

She didn't have any children. But not having children doesn't mean infertility. Give me a break.

You made this illogical assumption quite clear... sex is about procreation.

Do I have to spell everything out? I never said that sex is strictly about procreation. What I said was that the primary purpose of sex is procreation; admittedly, that statement isn't the most eloquent, so let me explain more clearly. A better way to put it is that marriage was motivated by the prospect of family; in ancient times most marriages served as the bond for family and tribal alliances. In societies/cultures with primitive economies (e.g., agrarian), it was in the interest of the community that people had large families with many children. Romance and the prospect of 'making love' were largely irrelevant. You really need to stop with these straw men.

Another issue here, you've not considered is the mistake made that the moment a girl's age is such that she starts mensturating, that she's able to have children!.

When did I ever say this, and what gave you the impression that 'Aishah's marriage was consummated immediately after her menarche?

What in effect you are arguing also is that women are baby-machines, who's capacity to be considered an adult rests on a 'capacity to have children'.!.

Now you're really stretching these straw men.

No, you made an assumption that sex is only about reproduction based on a problem you have with my idea of 'love'.

Here you go again. No, sex isn't only about reproduction, and no, I don't have a problem with your idea of love. What's problematic is you don't seem to appreciate your own frame of reference, and with this one-dimensional thinking, over and over again you continue to decontextualize cultural variations of marriage, and project your focal point of "marriage is for lovemaking" onto a time and place in which that perspective was merely peripheral.

You should then show me how through your extensive knowledge of 'the world's cultures' how many have taboos on sex that can't lead to children. Then, how this relates to the Arab practices. Then how this relates to all the children Muhammad had (or didn't have). And then, why this practice, from a specific time and place is justifiable for all time, and cultures. Thanks in advance.

Taboos on sex that can't lead to children is totally irrelevant, and is premised on the straw man you persistently prop up.

Secondly, for someone such as yourself who believes in Koranic law, you've just over-turned it's universality, because you now would have to argue you have no right to seek to impose Islamic laws on other cultures.

Pure nonsense.

You seem to want to have two arguments at once. Both that Muhammad is an example of morality for all time, but that his behaviour was of a certain time and place. A logical conclusion to this is you'd want us all to adopt the morals of that particular time and place, but then you just argued against that with the cultural imperialist argument.

The Prophet's (peace be upon him) marriage to 'Aishah is not a moral issue as you're making it out to be. What you've done is decontextualized it, and then redefined it as if in his mind the goal was to score with a nine year old, then to top it all off, you fallaciously appeal to authority with articles addressing the issue of child marriage in modern times, knowing (or maybe not) that the definition of a child is relative.

Tell me why is the physical capacity to have children equal to the mental capacity to have children.

I wonder how you manage to twist my words like this. Never did I even imply that the physical capacity to bear children equaled the mental capacity for the same; I even gave an example illustrating the opposite.

The 'capacity to have children' argument is flawed, because even when a girl has the 'capacity to have a child' she is likely to have the 'capacity for an early death'. But hey, it's all relative!

Risk factors of pregnancy have nothing to do with what I've been saying. Not to mention that risk factor isn't a ruler to measure morality.

How very odd that you compare a 14 year old capable of having children (your own criteria) to that of Aisha at nine, where there's no proof that she had the 'capacity to have children'. In fact we know she was still 'childish'. Let's look at Islamic evidence...

How very odd that you seemed to miss that three years of her life are summarized in one short paragraph. The marriage, the wedding (which is inaccurately translated as "the marriage" in what you posted), playing at the Prophet's house, and eventually being entrusted to his care wasn't a one-day episode. Try reading between the lines.

And while doing this... he fantasised about her... Remember, that she was only a child. He is fantasising about a little girl.

Sorry, but, "revelatory dream" and "sexual fantasy" are not synonymous.

For you this is an issue that as soon as your physically beginning to be an adult, the biology carries everything else with it.

Sorry again. . .man, you really know how to put words in my mouth. For me, this was about distinguishing between absolute childhood, which is determined by biology, and relative childhood, which is determined by social experiences (which are drastically variable) that can either catalyze, accelerate, delay, or even handicap maturity; a subtlety you don't don't seem to appreciate.

If you can show that we are mentally adults the moment we reach puberty, you'd be on your way to some sort of argument.

That is the argument: 'mental adulthood' doesn't necessarily coincide with puberty. You simply won't acknowledge the opposite of that: 'mental childhood' doesn't necessarily coincide with youth. Non-biological (i.e., the kind determined by life experience) maturity (or the lack thereof) is relative.

 

[ibn_leroy]

markie, isolating verses is not the wisest thing to do, especially when the vast majority of them have historical contexts.

This is not a free ticket like you all seem to think,

Muslims definitely don't believe in a 'free ticket'.

why did you say Paul was at odds with some of the oootherr writers? They sound like theet're in agreement to me.

I wasn't speaking of other writers, but that's problematic too. I was referring to other self-proclaimed apostles like Paul who actually contended with him:

"For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do no think I am in the least inferior to those 'super-apostles.' . . . And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ." 2 Cor. 11: 4, 5, 12, 13

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have said, so now again: if anybody is preaching to a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" Gal. 1: 6-9

Obviously, there were other self-proclaimed Christian apostles like Paul who were actually adversaries of his. I'm sure that they had their things to say about Paul just as he had something to say about them. Yet, all we have is Paul's side. It'd be interesting to hear what his enemies had to say, but we simply can't for lack of any sources.

 

[ibn_leroy]

Montalban, 'Aishah (radi Allahu 'anha) was one of (if not the) most brilliant scholars and teachers in Islam's history. To blame the Battle of the Camel on her marriage is just ludicrous. It was a tragic error on her part, yes, but if you don't know the actual reasons that led her to the position she took, you really shouldn't be talking about her. Nice try at a slippery slope, but sorry.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Since ancient times, man and woman had sex due to attraction towards each other. The result of it happened to be a baby. The baby is not necessarily the goal of sex. If there is no love or attraction, sex won't happen. And some cultures since ancient times have elevated these feelings of love and romance to a divine level.