Prophetic Attributes

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

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.

What is your stand on what Proud Hindu posted citing Islamic sources?

Do you approve what the Muslim sultans did?

Do you think they misunderstood the Quran?

Do you think they did all those acts under the Grace of Allah?

I need answers like 'Yes' or 'No'.

Then I will prove that Muslims today are acting like victims.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Budha was a great man as well, and shared many characteristics of Mohammed, but we dont believe in him either. You can live a great life and still be completely and totally wrong.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Budha was a great man as well, and shared many characteristics of Mohammed, but we dont believe in him either. You can live a great life and still be completely and totally wrong.

Like Mother Teresa??

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

What is your stand on what Proud Hindu posted citing Islamic sources?

Do you approve what the Muslim sultans did?

Do you think they misunderstood the Quran?

Do you think they did all those acts under the Grace of Allah?

I need answers like 'Yes' or 'No'.

Then I will prove that Muslims today are acting like victims.

Still no answer from my Muslim friends.
I just need a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Well, in the sense that she wasnt a prophet, or atleast in my case. In your case, yes, absolutely. But my point is that anyone can lead a great, noble life and still not be a prophet, even if they think themselves to be. I used Budha because he was a religous leader who lived a good life but the Muslims dont believe in him either. You catch my drift?

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Well, in the sense that she wasnt a prophet, or atleast in my case. In your case, yes, absolutely. But my point is that anyone can lead a great, noble life and still not be a prophet, even if they think themselves to be. I used Budha because he was a religous leader who lived a good life but the Muslims dont believe in him either. You catch my drift?

Why would Muslims believe Buddha?

Isn't it enough that the Budhhists believe him?

You catch my drift?

 

[SolomonVII]

The difference between the relationship between Mary and Joseph, and Mohammed and Aisha, is that Joseph never had sexual relationships with Mary. Hence Mary is known by the majority of Christians as the Virgin Mary.

So even if the alleged age of Mary at betrothal was 12, and this is neither supported Biblically nor through secular historic sources, this comparison is not valid at all.

Personally, anything that I have heard about Mohammed has left me pretty much unimpressed. As a general, the movement he started eventually achieved great success, but in that sense he is comparable to the likes of Alexander the Great, or Ghengis Khan, neither of whom were considered as prophets.

As pointed out by almost everybody, his sense of sexual morality was, at best, a product of his own cultural milieu. To the extent that some Moslem nations, such as Iran, still fashion their marriage laws and age of consent on this behavior, there is little chance that they will ever socially progress much further than the the time-frame in which Mohammed lived his life.

There are several indications in his biography that Mohammed was more motivated by opportunism than a sense of right of wrong. This would place him in direct constrast to such prophets as Isaiah, for example, whose advice to the kings of his time never made much sense from a purely stategic point of view.

Like Hitler, and unlike Churchill, Mohammed never drank, and if abstaining from pork could serve as an indication, shared with Hitler a concern with physical fitness to a much greater extent than Churchill did.
However,as the above example reveals, righteousness, or perhaps a sense of self-righteousness does not always a great leader make.

Perhaps what is most unfortunate about modern Moslems is the influence that Christianity is having on Mohammed. For Christians, because Jesus is God, his way is our way, for all time.
Traditionally, Moslems understood Mohammed to be a mere man. Nowadays, more and more, his way is becoming Christified and deified so that he is playing the role for Moslems that Christ plays for Christians.
Mohammed was far from perfect. To make him into the role model for Moslems is a mistake.

 

[Muslim]

The difference between the relationship between Mary and Joseph, and Mohammed and Aisha, is that Joseph never had sexual relationships with Mary. Hence Mary is known by the majority of Christians as the Virgin Mary.

So even if the alleged age of Mary at betrothal was 12, and this is neither supported Biblically nor through secular historic sources, this comparison is not valid at all.

Personally, anything that I have heard about Mohammed has left me pretty much unimpressed. As a general, the movement he started eventually achieved great success, but in that sense he is comparable to the likes of Alexander the Great, or Ghengis Khan, neither of whom were considered as prophets.

Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan were conquerors, they were not religious men. But the prophet Muhammad was not only a perfect man in morals and in prophetic stature, but he was also an excellent general and strategist.

As pointed out by almost everybody, his sense of sexual morality was, at best, a product of his own cultural milieu. To the extent that some Moslem nations, such as Iran, still fashion their marriage laws and age of consent on this behavior, there is little chance that they will ever socially progress much further than the the time-frame in which Mohammed lived his life.

There are several indications in his biography that Mohammed was more motivated by opportunism than a sense of right of wrong. This would place him in direct constrast to such prophets as Isaiah, for example, whose advice to the kings of his time never made much sense from a purely stategic point of view.

The prophet Muhammad was motivated by opportunism when it came to advancing Islam. Not in worldly gain. For instance when he went to preach Islam in the hilltop town of Taif, and the people there stoned him until he left. He was bleeding when the angel Gabriel came to him and asked him if he wanted him to destroy the town. But the prophet Muhammad refused and said that he would prefer that in the future one or more of the people in that town would become Muslim. And during his lifetime the entire town ended up becoming Muslim. Or like the time that the prophet Muhammad had a herd of sheep which were his, and a man asked him to give it to him. So the prophet Muhammad gave him all of the sheep and the man was so pleased and amazed by this that not only did he become Muslim, but he also convinced his tribe to become Muslim as well.

Like Hitler, and unlike Churchill, Mohammed never drank, and if abstaining from pork could serve as an indication, shared with Hitler a concern with physical fitness to a much greater extent than Churchill did.
However,as the above example reveals, righteousness, or perhaps a sense of self-righteousness does not always a great leader make.

Perhaps what is most unfortunate about modern Moslems is the influence that Christianity is having on Mohammed. For Christians, because Jesus is God, his way is our way, for all time.
Traditionally, Moslems understood Mohammed to be a mere man. Nowadays, more and more, his way is becoming Christified and deified so that he is playing the role for Moslems that Christ plays for Christians.
Mohammed was far from perfect. To make him into the role model for Moslems is a mistake.

We do not deify the prophet Muhammad. We follow his example because he was the perfect example to follow. Unlike Christians we do not deify him so we believe that since he was a man we can do the same things he did as well. That is why we try to immitate him as much as possible.

Holy Quran
Chapter 3, Verse 144. Muhammad is no more than an apostle: many Were the apostle that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then Turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah. but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.

Chapter 4, Verses 64. We sent not an apostle, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah.s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful. 65. But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.

 

[Montalban]

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.

You said

1) The primary purpose of sex is procreation.

And then went onto some detail to divorce love from sex and then say that Aisha had the 'capacity to have children'.
You attempted to disprove my position (a) to prove your position (b) (a- being the Christian ideal about sex = love, b- being you notion that sex is about being means to produce)

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.

Then what is it of a concern that she has a 'capacity to have children'? Surely then you're back to a 'capacity to have sex', and that can be any age. That is the illogical position you have taken. You have stated that the primary purpose of sex is procreation. You did this in an effort to justify Muhammad's rape (within marriage) of Aisha by suggesting she had a 'capacity to have children', and therefore was of marriageable age. Yet she didn't have children so your measure of when someone is ready for marriage - the 'capacity to have children' is faulty.

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

Do I have to spell everything out?

I am not a mind-reader and can argue only against the statements you make. You might prefer to argue against positions not stated, but I don't.

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.

This is double-talk. You are saying in more words than before that marriage is about procreation. If this is true, then what sort of marriage was it with Aisha and Muhammad. How was this about an 'interest of the community (to have) large families with many children'?

You really need to stop with these straw men.

You stated it, I argued against it. You need to know what a straw man is.

Another issue here, you've not considered is the mistake made that the moment a girl's age is such that she starts menstruating, 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?

Are you saying she wasn't physically an adult? Or, are you saying that quite remarkably, even at 9, she had her menarche much earlier than the 'consummation, of her marriage.

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, that is your function of a marriage stated above. Again, you need to know what a straw-man is. Not only did you state that 'baby-making' is the primary concern of marriage, you then say no, let me explain it better, and say that its' about 'baby-making' but using more words to state this same approach.

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 (sic?) 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.

What you don't seem to understand is the capacity you have to present an argument that counters another argument.
Muhammad = example for all time
Muhammad's marriage = belongs only to a particular time and place.
And also, if it's not about production of babies, but not about love (which you claim is my one-dimensional response), then it's about sex for sexual pleasure (perhaps), or some other thing. Maybe Muhammad was just after human companionship - nah, then why'd he consummate the marriage?

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.

No, you stated that I was dealing with a lack of knowledge with regards cultures. Secondly you stated (quoted above) that sex is PRIMARILY about procreation, then you accuse me of applying cultural imperialist norms. If it is about procreation, even in your more wordy version you say the same thing, then show me how you understand cultures to back up your argument (and this is your own relativist argument that you can't even back up; Aisha's own father was reluctant to hand her over; appealing that Muhammad was his 'brother')
So not only can you not back up your cultural relativist arguments by its own measure, it falls down to because you don't believe Muhammad's example is relative only to a particular time and place (otherwise you'd not be following his teachings now). That is the problem you face in trying to justify your own prophet's immoral behaviour.

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.

I know your argument is But that's the problem your position has...
Muhammad = example for all time
Muhammad's marriage = belongs only to a particular time and place.
Two mutually exclusive arguments. You would have done better not to argue that his rape (within marriage) of a child was culturally relevant only to a particular time and place, but that it was ordained by god, and thus is still valid today (which is in fact what my Islamic sites state). You don't try that tact because you know that such behaviour does not sit well with our values, and you are trying to fit immoral behaviour into a different mind-set. And you fail when resorting to 'just-so' statements.

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 .... 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,

Well it wasn't about
a) having children; because they had none
b) love (because you claim that was irrelevant)
c) politics alone, nor friendship, nor 'protection of her', nor inheritance issues, because he didn't just have a platonic relationship with her... the Hadiths are quite clear that when she was nine, he engaged in sex with her.

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.

You need to look up 'appeal to authority' too. If I appealed to evolutionist expert Richard Dawkins to his ideas on a subject he has no expertise in such as religion, that is an appeal to authority, to use the expertise of his name to give weight to any statement. The authorities to which I 'appealed' to are ones accepted by your own co-religionists. That is the funny (unintentionally) fact you just made; your own co-religionists appeal to them to give expert opinions in all matters Islamic. I simply accept that they too are experts in Islam, and quote from them on these Islamic ideas. For your version to be correct then hundreds, perhaps thousands of Muslims are being duped by Muslim cleric all around the world. This is another problem you've created for yourself.

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 equalled the mental capacity for the same; I even gave an example illustrating the opposite.

The example you gave; your grand-mother. You went to great lengths to describe her mental capacity as being mature. So in fact you tried to show how a young person is mature; and you did go on to argue this. If you can't manage to keep the one argument, then just say so.
Further, if you really believe that she wasn't mentally mature, then you agree that she was 'child-like' mentally, even though she might have been physically mature, therefore it was an act of rape against a child. Thank you for again arguing against yourself.

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.

You went to some length here to argue the relative states of marriage to people in different cultures in order to procreate.

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.

Nice one!
The Hadiths say quite clearly
a) Muhammad fantasised about her before the marriage (ie, before she was six)
b) He married her when she was six
c) He consummated the marriage when she was nine, and she had been called away from playing child-like games.
Your 'reading between the lines' would involve her maturing mentally somewhere aged nine (with the scope of that year); based on an assumption that as she had the 'capacity to have children' she was mentally mature, although you then state the opposite of this too!

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.

He was dreaming about her. That is what I said.

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 catalyse, accelerate, delay, or even handicap maturity; a subtlety you don't seem to appreciate.

Was Aisha a child? (a question to lead into how do you know she wasn't; to which you've already explained she had the 'capacity to have children'; which is the idea that when she is physically mature, she is ready for marriage). Something you have missed, and something repeated again and again by those Muslim authorities I cited.

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.

It's not the argument the Muslim experts I cited state. But then they aren't handicapped by double-talk.

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.

What life experience does a nine year old have that prepares her for marriage?

It is so horrid that you'd expend so much energy to defend a man sleeping with a child; when you know (at least by 'today's standards') such an act is abhorrent. The idea that abhorrent behaviour is a matter of cultural expediency is a novel one, considering it itself argues against the notion of Islamic laws being made for all time, by an all-knowing god, who revealed these eternal truths to a man who himself is an example of behaviour for all time. And that's one major problem for you; having your cake and eating it too.

 

[SolomonVII]

Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan were conquerors, they were not religious men. But the prophet Muhammad was not only a perfect man in morals and in prophetic stature, but he was also an excellent general and strategist.

and..

We do not deify the prophet Muhammad. We follow his example because he was the perfect example to follow. Unlike Christians we do not deify him so we believe that since he was a man we can do the same things he did as well. That is why we try to immitate him as much as possible.

Literally speaking, no, the modern Moslem does not deify Mohammed. The Koran makes this clearly wrong. But as your language reveals, the concept of Mohammed is becoming more, shall we say, Christ-like, in the Christian sense of the word. For Christians, Jesus is the Way. We try (but mainly fail) to follow in His footsteps. Prolonged contact with Christians in the past few centuries seem to have Christified the man Mohammed for Moslems so that now he has also become your Way, very similar to what Christ has always been for Christians. More than just a messenger and an apostle, he has become the example of perfected humanity.

 

[Paladin Dave]

Why would Muslims believe Buddha?

Isn't it enough that the Budhhists believe him?

You catch my drift?

Exactly. Why would Christians believe Mohammed?

 

[SolomonVII]

Exactly. Why would Christians believe Mohammed?

Mohammed contradicts the New Testament to the very core. Simpy put, Christians do not believe that Mohammed is a prophet. As a matter of diplomacy and political correctness, we refrain from calling him a false prophet nowadays, but the fact remains that if Mohammed was a prohet from God, then what Christians believe must be patently false, and vice-versa.

 

[Muslim]

Mohammed contradicts the New Testament to the very core. Simpy put, Christians do not believe that Mohammed is a prophet. As a matter of diplomacy and political correctness, we refrain from calling him a false prophet nowadays, but the fact remains that if Mohammed was a prohet from God, then what Christians believe must be patently false, and vice-versa.

It is true that Christians do not believe that the prophet Muhammad was a prophet. If they did they wouldn't be calling themselves Christians anymore. I think the concept of Trinity and Jesus being the son of God has been so ingrained into the lives of Chrisitians and their concept of religion that they cannot fathom that Jesus is just an ordinary man and not the son of God as proclaimed in the Quran.

Holy Quran
Chapter 4, Verses 170. O Mankind! The Messenger hath come to you in truth from Allah. believe in him: It is best for you. But if ye reject Faith, to Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth: And Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

171. O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

172. Christ disdaineth nor to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah.: those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).

Chapter 5, Verses 72. They do blaspheme who say: "(Allah) is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

74. Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.

75. Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

76. Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things."

77. Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.

 

[Muslim]

and..


Literally speaking, no, the modern Moslem does not deify Mohammed. The Koran makes this clearly wrong. But as your language reveals, the concept of Mohammed is becoming more, shall we say, Christ-like, in the Christian sense of the word. For Christians, Jesus is the Way. We try (but mainly fail) to follow in His footsteps. Prolonged contact with Christians in the past few centuries seem to have Christified the man Mohammed for Moslems so that now he has also become your Way, very similar to what Christ has always been for Christians. More than just a messenger and an apostle, he has become the example of perfected humanity.

I don't see how you can connect us calling the prophet Muhammad a perfect human being to Christians calling Christ God. The prophet Muhammad told us to follow in his example and God tell us in the Quran to follow his example as well. But by no means do Muslims consider him to be a God. When every human being is born they are born with two angels and one devil accompanying them. The angels record their actions and at times act as the person's conscience, putting good thoughts in their minds. And the devil constantly tempts the human being into doing evil things. But unlike other human beings, prophets are born with a devil which tells them to do good rather than evil. So they do not commit sins. Also every human being is stabbed by Satan when they are born and that mark is a mark of the evil which persists in that human being. But there are only two people whom God protected from that stabbing and they are Jesus and his mother Mary. They were born pure. The prophet Muhammad was stabbed as a baby but later on in his childhood two angels came to him and opened his chest up and removed that mark and washed his chest with zam zam water. That made him pure like Jesus and Mary. He could not commit a sin for the rest of his life.

 

[SolomonVII]

It is true that Christians do not believe that the prophet Muhammad was a prophet. If they did they wouldn't be calling themselves Christians anymore. I think the concept of Trinity and Jesus being the son of God has been so ingrained into the lives of Chrisitians and their concept of religion that they cannot fathom that Jesus is just an ordinary man and not the son of God as proclaimed in the Quran.

It is a matter of faith. to the extent that Christians place their faith in the words of Jesus, they believe He is who He says He is, and who He was prohecied to be in a myriad of Biblical writings, we believe.

To the extent that Moslems place their faith in the idea in Mohammed and his own claims about himself, then rest assured that we too think that you have been at least as well indoctrinated as you claim that Christians have. Yet the only book that supports the claims that Mohammed makes comes to us exclusively via his own tongue.

 

[Muslim]

It is a matter of faith. to the extent that Christians place their faith in the words of Jesus, they believe He is who He says He is, and who He was prohecied to be in a myriad of Biblical writings, we believe.

Take, by way of a random example, the prophecy of Daniel in which the messiah was promised to come 69 weeks, or 483 days after the redidicationof the Second temple. Understanding that the Temple can be archeologically shown to have been dedicated in 457 BC, and following the Bibilical prophetic formula of a day equalling a year, this would place the anointing of the Messiah right on time, in the year that He was baptised in AD 27.
Our Son of Man, time and again, is revealed to those who beleive, in prophecy.

To the extent that Moslems place their faith in the idea in Mohammed and his own claims about himself, then rest assured that we too think that you have been at least as well indoctrinated as you claim that Christians have. Yet the only book that supports the claims that Mohammed makes comes to us exclusively via his own tongue.

You are making the same claim that the pagan arabs made about the prophet Muhammad during his lifetime. But the challenge which Allah s.w.t. made in the Quran still stands today. No one has met the challenge of creating even one chapter just like the chapters in the Quran. The pagan arabs who were very into creating and reciting poetry and were also very good at it could not even create a single chapter like the Quran even though the shortest chapter in the Quran has only 10 words. So how could someone who could neither read nor write and never even wrote a single line of poetry in his life suddenly write the most beautiful and complex book in the arabic language?

Holy Quran
Chapter 4, Verse 82: Will they not ponder the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it.

 

[Montalban]

Ibn's away it seems, and no other resident Muslim apologist wants to touch this subject, so it seems

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.

Ibn_leroy's argued about Aisha's 'capacity to have children' as opposed to her 'capacity to have sex'. But his own views, flawed as they are, are not shared by expert Muslims...
"In summary, then, it is permitted to contract marriage with a young girl and to hand her over to her husband to stay with him before she reaches adolescence. As for consummating the marriage, this does not happen until she is physically able for it. Thus the matter becomes quite clear. Do you see anything wrong with a man living with his young wife in one house, bringing her up and teaching her, but delaying consummation until she is ready for it? We ask Allaah to show us truth and falsehood and to make each clear. And Allaah knows best"
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=1493&dgn=4

That is, not that she is 'able to have children', but 'able to have sex'. And who decides this? The husband! If a woman refuses her husband sex, then she is accursed...
"The prophet said: 'When a man calls his wife to bed and she does not come, the husband spends the night being angry with her, and the angels curse her until morning. The one who is in heaven is displeased with her until the husband is pleased with her.'"(Sahih hadith, chapter 558).

"The prophet of Allah said: When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, let her come to him though she is occupied at the oven."
Mishkat al-Masabih, English translation, Book I, Section 'Duties of husband and wife', Hadith No. 61


The woman is there, according to Islamic belief to provide the man with pleasure, which will probably mean having children for him... evnentually.



Women should be grateful to their husbands...

"The Prophet (Muhammed) said: 'I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.' It was asked, 'Do they disbelieve in Allah?' (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, 'They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favours and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you.'" (Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 1:2:28)