• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Prophetic Attributes

Muslim

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,271
26
✟1,547.00
Faith
Muslim
Proud Hindu said:
That's kind of a cheap shot though... I mean every religion has crackpots who do crazy stuff like that.

We should focus on Muhammed, providing evidence to prove he wasn't a 'Prophet' (which you presented plenty of :))
I don't know how you can say you've proved he wasn't a prophet. This topic has been explained countless times to different people in different times as well. But I will briefly summarizes as to why the prophet Muhammad married Aisha. After the death of the prophet Muhammad's first wife he married another woman named Sawda bin Zama. There was great surprise in Mecca that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would choose to marry a widow who was neither young nor beautiful. The Prophet, however, remembered the trials she had undergone when she had immigrated to Abyssinia, leaving her house and property, and crossed the desert and then the sea for an unknown land out of the desire to preserve her deen. So he married her and consumatted his marriage with her. It was Sawda who first suggested to the prophet Muhammad that he marry Aisha. But the prophet Muhammad declined because of her young age. But later on he had a dream in which the angel Gabriel showed him Aisha wrapped up in a green sheet, and said that this will be your wife. So the prophet Muhammad went to her father Abu Bakr, and asked him if he would consider marrying his daughter to him. So after Abu Bakr happily accepted, the prophet Muhammad married her and waited three year until she has reached puberty, and then she moved into his house. But I might also add that during this time both men and women alike married early. This was nothing suprising to the arabs as well as the Christians and Jews of that time. No one thought it odd at all. And this marriage served as an example to the Muslims of the age which someone can be married as we see that all of the prophet Muhammad's marriages served as an example. Aisha was also his only wife who was a virgin. All of his other wives had been previously married, and they were all past the age of 20 when he married them. Also, most of the night which he would spend with Aisha he would spend in the graveyard of the Muslims praying. He was the kindest of husbands, as you will find in accounts by Aisha herself. She said that he was the best at controlling his sexual desires as well. If you want more information on this marriage I have plenty links I can provide you which would clear all of your doubts as to the correctness of this marriage..
 
Upvote 0

Muslim

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,271
26
✟1,547.00
Faith
Muslim
Montalban said:
Without going into a Hindu -v- Christian debate on the nature of Jesus Christ, I will concentrate on the evidence on the life of Muhammad so far.

I have presented tonnes of Islamic sites that confirm he slept with a nine-year old. It is easy to say a great many people have done bad things. King John (of England) had a 13 year old wife. However, we don't look to King John as the example for how we should live our lives. Muslims look to Muhammad. And not only did he sleep with a child, he also gleefully applauded political killings and approved of the deaths of over 600 defenceless (they were PoWs) former allies

There's a Christian saying "Ye shall know the tree by the fruit it bears", and this seed of Islam is poisoned. It's fruit is seen in places like NY on 9/11.
As for your post I will answer it as soon as I have time, don't worry. I'm just busy studying for my finals at the moment.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Muslim said:
As for your post I will answer it as soon as I have time, don't worry. I'm just busy studying for my finals at the moment.
Please take your time. It will be interesting to see how you reconcile the various Islamic sites cited with a view about what is 'right' with regards under-age sex
 
Upvote 0

Arthra

Baha'i
Feb 20, 2004
7,060
572
California
Visit site
✟86,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Montalban:

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a Moslem and i don't approve of child marriages in this day and age.

But if you're truly interested in exploring this area Montalban I'd be willing to share a few things with you but posting large amount of negative materials as you do tells me you may not be truthfully willing to explore the issues...

For one thing, let me say that the marriage of Prophet Muhammad with Aisha was not pathological... even using the standards and criteria today... Let me explore that with you a bit..

It's often popular to besmirch historical figures of long ago using very shaky grounds.

Back to the pathology though and looking at this case... Therapists today have accumulated a lot of experience on child molestation and one factor that is in common in most cases is secrecy.... The molester and child are bound by secrecy of the acts...

So one of the first things you do is expose the molester and deal with his criminality and the other thing you do is treat the child who has been traumatized...

Do you know a common kind of trauma experienced by molested children? I'll tell you, it's common to find the child's memory is blocked.

So looking back over fourteen hundred years ago are you going to say that there's evidence that the marriage of Aisha with Prophet Muhammad was pathological?

The marriage was public and known to the entire community. There was no secrecy involved.

Also Aisha retained an excellent memory probably better than most of her contemporaries and that says something to me, that she had an intact memory and what's more she was known to have an independent personality for a young woman of that age.

Another aspect i find rather odd about this interest in the desparate ages of Aisha and Prophet Muhammad is that in the Bible it's pretty clear that the advanced age of Abraham was around eighty five or so when He married Hagar. Any quess how old Hagar was? I'd speculate that she was a young woman anywhere between twelve and twenty years old and yet i have yet to read one article critical of that age desparity between Abraham and Hagar.

Another case also can be made that according to tradition Joseph was a good deal older than Mary who most believe was in her early teens... we really don't know for sure but it wasn't unusual for women to start their families at very early ages in those times.

So with these desparaties in age for Abraham and Hagar and Joseph and Mary, how is it that an arranged marriage between Prophet Muhammad and Aisha receives so much attention from some people?

Another point about this that i find really distasteful even mentioning here on a public forum... is that whose business is it to know when a marriage is consummated anyway?

and what gives people the gall to be critical of that when our marriages in most Western countries are in so much trouble today...

I have some more to share on this but will let it pass for now...

- Art
 
Upvote 0

Muslim

Well-Known Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,271
26
✟1,547.00
Faith
Muslim
Arthra said:
Montalban:

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a Moslem and i don't approve of child marriages in this day and age.

But if you're truly interested in exploring this area Montalban I'd be willing to share a few things with you but posting large amount of negative materials as you do tells me you may not be truthfully willing to explore the issues...

For one thing, let me say that the marriage of Prophet Muhammad with Aisha was not pathological... even using the standards and criteria today... Let me explore that with you a bit..

It's often popular to besmirch historical figures of long ago using very shaky grounds.

Back to the pathology though and looking at this case... Therapists today have accumulated a lot of experience on child molestation and one factor that is in common in most cases is secrecy.... The molester and child are bound by secrecy of the acts...

So one of the first things you do is expose the molester and deal with his criminality and the other thing you do is treat the child who has been traumatized...

Do you know a common kind of trauma experienced by molested children? I'll tell you, it's common to find the child's memory is blocked.

So looking back over fourteen hundred years ago are you going to say that there's evidence that the marriage of Aisha with Prophet Muhammad was pathological?

The marriage was public and known to the entire community. There was no secrecy involved.

Also Aisha retained an excellent memory probably better than most of her contemporaries and that says something to me, that she had an intact memory and what's more she was known to have an independent personality for a young woman of that age.

Another aspect i find rather odd about this interest in the desparate ages of Aisha and Prophet Muhammad is that in the Bible it's pretty clear that the advanced age of Abraham was around eighty five or so when He married Hagar. Any quess how old Hagar was? I'd speculate that she was a young woman anywhere between twelve and twenty years old and yet i have yet to read one article critical of that age desparity between Abraham and Hagar.

Another case also can be made that according to tradition Joseph was a good deal older than Mary who most believe was in her early teens... we really don't know for sure but it wasn't unusual for women to start their families at very early ages in those times.

So with these desparaties in age for Abraham and Hagar and Joseph and Mary, how is it that an arranged marriage between Prophet Muhammad and Aisha receives so much attention from some people?

Another point about this that i find really distasteful even mentioning here on a public forum... is that whose business is it to know when a marriage is consummated anyway?

and what gives people the gall to be critical of that when our marriages in most Western countries are in so much trouble today...

I have some more to share on this but will let it pass for now...

- Art
Your right, Mary is supposed to have married Joseph at the age of 12. But Christians turn a blind eye to these writtings in their religion and instead attack the prophet Muhammad for doing something which was totally normal for his time. No one alive during his time thought it was child molestation or that he was taking advantage of her in anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Arthra

Baha'i
Feb 20, 2004
7,060
572
California
Visit site
✟86,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Let me say that as a Baha'i, I am opposed to war and believe Jihad or Holy War was abrogated by Baha'ullah. But lets consider history:

Scott wrote:

"Muslim's defend Mohammed's violence by saying that it was in self defence. Where's the self defence in his first 20 or so years? He started all the wars because the "infidels" criticised him. The same thing is happening today."

My comment:

If you examine the early history of Islam before the Prophet moved to Medina you will find ample evidence of persecution of Moslems by the Pagans of Mecca ...this was a one sided persecution until the Moslems regrouped and began defending themselves in Medina. It was the Pagans who attempted to eradicate the Moslems ...so Muslim was correct in my view in explaining this as self defence.

In time I believe the concept of Jihad was misused and there were more aggressive ventures into various territories but this was a misuse of the concept of Jihad.

We could also focus on the brutality and massacre of people after Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire and what happened to people if they didn't convert to the True Church in those days on up to the crusades against the Cathars and Albigenses

Proud Hindu wrote:

"If Muhammed was so great, why did he kill so many people?... let me guess, to save them from the all compassionate Allah?..."

It seems to me that Lord Rama engaged in battle and slew his share of "demons" but he is also regarded as pious and worthy of worship.

Moses and Joshua were involved in campaigns and later when the children of Israel campaigned against the Philistines you have battles and yet how many say that because Moses slew the Egyptian taskmaster he could not therefore have been a Prophet?

So it seems to be this argument lacks much merit.

- Art
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Arthra said:
Montalban: Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a Moslem and I don't approve of child marriages in this day and age.
Nor do I. What makes it right for you, because it happened 1400 years ago? How does Al-lah, who knows all allow for this not only to happen but to allow this kind of behaviour to be a model for all time?
Arthra said:
But if you're truly interested in exploring this area Montalban I'd be willing to share a few things with you but posting large amount of negative materials as you do tells me you may not be truthfully willing to explore the issues..
Thanks for the 'projection'; honi soi qui mal y pense.
However, yes I am guilty of posting a great deal of material. It seems that you ignore the small fact that more than 90% of this 'negative material' as you put it is from Islamic sources.
Arthra said:
For one thing, let me say that the marriage of Prophet Muhammad with Aisha was not pathological... even using the standards and criteria today... Let me explore that with you a bit..
I never claimed that he was addicted to sex with children. I would say he was addicted to sex, hence he had many more wives than allowed for his own followers, plus concubines... including one woman from a tribe he had wiped out; Raihana Bint Amr who witnessed him preside over the killing of all the men of her tribe, including her husband. (see Appendix below). Other enemies he had liquidated include:
Ka`b bin al-Ashraf
Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi)
Al-Nadr bin al-Harith
`Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt
`Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-`Aufi
Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan
`Amr b. Jihash
An anonymous man
Ibn Sunayna
Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
Abu `Afak
`Asma' Bint Marwan
Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl
Habbar Ibn al-Aswad
Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi
Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
Al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh
Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami
Hind Bint Utbah
Sarah the mawlat of `Amr Ibn Hashim
Fartana
Qaribah
See links at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/index.html
Arthra said:
It's often popular to besmirch historical figures of long ago using very shaky grounds.
Interesting you'd say this, as the 'shaky grounds' used by moi were Islamic sources. But let's continue to ignore that small fact, and pretend it's just me -v- Islam.
Arthra said:
Back to the pathology though and looking at this case... Therapists today have accumulated a lot of experience on child molestation and one factor that is in common in most cases is secrecy.... The molester and child are bound by secrecy of the acts...
So one of the first things you do is expose the molester and deal with his criminality and the other thing you do is treat the child who has been traumatized...
Not always was it in secret, as stated above, those who spoke out, were killed.
Arthra said:
Do you know a common kind of trauma experienced by molested children? I'll tell you, it's common to find the child's memory is blocked.
I don't mean to quibble. But I am not making an argument that he was 'only a child molester'. In fact he was much much worse. But let's move on...
Arthra said:
So looking back over fourteen hundred years ago are you going to say that there's evidence that the marriage of Aisha with Prophet Muhammad was pathological?
Did I say this? I would say he was a monster, yes, indeed, forcing himself on women.
Arthra said:
The marriage was public and known to the entire community. There was no secrecy involved.
That's not the issue. Muhammad was a man of some power. Much of what he did do was in public. No one spoke out (and lived). There are many known cases of people who lampooned him and ended up dead. That an absolute ruler does foul deeds in public means nothing other than an indication of his power, and the contempt he has for those around him.
Arthra said:
Also Aisha retained an excellent memory probably better than most of her contemporaries and that says something to me, that she had an intact memory and what's more she was known to have an independent personality for a young woman of that age.
And she says he has sex with her when she was nine. What is your point?
Arthra said:
Another aspect I find rather odd about this interest in the disparate ages of Aisha and Prophet Muhammad is that in the Bible it's pretty clear that the advanced age of Abraham was around eighty five or so when He married Hagar. Any guess how old Hagar was? I'd speculate that she was a young woman anywhere between twelve and twenty years old and yet I have yet to read one article critical of that age disparity between Abraham and Hagar.
Are you....?
a) telling me for sure how old Hagar was
b) saying that one bad deed is okay because someone else did another equable bad deed
c) suggesting that although Christians don't claim to follow the teachings of Abraham (instead of Christ), that they actually are setting him (Abraham) up as an example for all time (we should get back to OT laws?)
Arthra said:
Another case also can be made that according to tradition Joseph was a good deal older than Mary who most believe was in her early teens... we really don't know for sure but it wasn't unusual for women to start their families at very early ages in those times.
Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. The Orthodox maintain the teaching that she always was. What then is the similarity between two people who love each other and marry, to a child who is married to an ageing man who not only has sex with her when she's still a child, but has at least eight other wives, and numerous concubines?
Arthra said:
So with these disparities in age for Abraham and Hagar and Joseph and Mary, how is it that an arranged marriage between Prophet Muhammad and Aisha receives so much attention from some people?
I thought I'd made this clear. Muslims set Muhammad up as the example of model behaviour for all time.
Arthra said:
Another point about this that I find really distasteful even mentioning here on a public forum... is that whose business is it to know when a marriage is consummated anyway?
The Islamic sources state when it was consummated.
Arthra said:
and what gives people the gall to be critical of that when our marriages in most Western countries are in so much trouble today...
I have no 'gall'. I don't believe that one bad situation is a way of negating another bad situation. Your attempts at a relativist argument are flawed. It's akin to saying one person has committed a murder, but hey, murders happen every day. Let's forget the whole 'it's a crime' thing and stop laying a guilt trip on them!
Arthra said:
I have some more to share on this but will let it pass for now...
- Art
Can't wait.

But the crux of your argument rests on a few faulty points
a) that it's behaviour that's relative, which is odd because you also lean to the fact that she's not a victim anyway, so what's the point in suggesting it's relative, if nothing happened, anyway.
b) that Aisha has a sound knowledge therefore she wasn't 'molested' even though its her own sound knowledge that is a source for this, funny that! In fact there's a whole 'science of haddith' that any Moslem worth his salt will inform you about... it makes logic that they rely on the accuracy of their own holy books. Which is the small point you happened to ignore. I quoted extensively from Islamic sources, setting up an argument in a logical way to look at
a) how they view Muhammad
b) how they view the sources of Muhammad
c) what the sources say about Muhammad and Aisha
and to make sure it's not just my interpretation
d) what Muslim sites say about the issue.

Other than that your argument has.... ? :)


APPENDIX
Muhammad approves the destruction of his enemies...

Primary sources...

"And He has caused to descend from their strongholds the Jews that assisted them. And he struck terror into their hearts. Some you slaughtered and some you took prisoner"

Sura 32.25



"Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought, so the Prophet (Muhammad) exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places. He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa', the tribe of 'Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina."

(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari 5:59:362)



Surah Muhammad

47.4 So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, I.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (I.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,

http://www.quraan.com/index.aspx?ta...tabid=27&bid=47

Secondary sources

"The members of the last surviving Jewish tribe in Medinah, Banu Qurayzah, were even less fortunate. Muhammad offered the men conversion to Islam as an alternative to death; upon their refusal, all 900 were decapitated in front of their enslaved women and children. The women were subsequently raped; Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana Bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier."

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February1999/0299Trifkovic.htm
 
Upvote 0

Arthra

Baha'i
Feb 20, 2004
7,060
572
California
Visit site
✟86,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Montalban wrote:

I never claimed that he was addicted to sex with children. I would say he was addicted to sex, hence he had many more wives than allowed for his own followers, plus concubines...

My reply:

I think your bias are pretty clear "Montalban" and that they preclude any careful consideration of the historical evidence.

But here's some things for readers to consider:

Pagan Arabs practised polygamy ands were allowed many wives... yet Prophet Mohamamd lived monogamously during His youth.

So Prophet Muhammad was married for twenty five years to Lady Khadijah and there was no evidence for this "addiction to sex".

The marriages after the death of Khadijah were for state reasons and to cement alliances among the tribes.. Most of the women were widows.

There's no real evidence they were anything really but ceremonial in nature.

Generally let me also say that the ordinance for the limit of wives to four was revealed after many of these marriages were contracted.

Once again i would ask why this preoccupation slandering Prophet Muhammad as a "sex addict"?

It would seem to me in this age when sexual addiction is at it's height and sex is exploited to the utmost commercially and in many other ways that many would rather slander the Prophet than draw attention to their own foibles.

The Lord Jesus made mention of this when He alluded to the beam in our own eye.

- Art
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Arthra said:
Montalban:

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a Moslem and i don't approve of child marriages in this day and age.

But if you're truly interested in exploring this area Montalban I'd be willing to share a few things with you but posting large amount of negative materials as you do tells me you may not be truthfully willing to explore the issues...

For one thing, let me say that the marriage of Prophet Muhammad with Aisha was not pathological... even using the standards and criteria today... Let me explore that with you a bit..

It's often popular to besmirch historical figures of long ago using very shaky grounds.

Back to the pathology though and looking at this case... Therapists today have accumulated a lot of experience on child molestation and one factor that is in common in most cases is secrecy.... The molester and child are bound by secrecy of the acts...

So one of the first things you do is expose the molester and deal with his criminality and the other thing you do is treat the child who has been traumatized...

Do you know a common kind of trauma experienced by molested children? I'll tell you, it's common to find the child's memory is blocked.

So looking back over fourteen hundred years ago are you going to say that there's evidence that the marriage of Aisha with Prophet Muhammad was pathological?

The marriage was public and known to the entire community. There was no secrecy involved.

Also Aisha retained an excellent memory probably better than most of her contemporaries and that says something to me, that she had an intact memory and what's more she was known to have an independent personality for a young woman of that age.

Another aspect i find rather odd about this interest in the desparate ages of Aisha and Prophet Muhammad is that in the Bible it's pretty clear that the advanced age of Abraham was around eighty five or so when He married Hagar. Any quess how old Hagar was? I'd speculate that she was a young woman anywhere between twelve and twenty years old and yet i have yet to read one article critical of that age desparity between Abraham and Hagar.

Another case also can be made that according to tradition Joseph was a good deal older than Mary who most believe was in her early teens... we really don't know for sure but it wasn't unusual for women to start their families at very early ages in those times.

So with these desparaties in age for Abraham and Hagar and Joseph and Mary, how is it that an arranged marriage between Prophet Muhammad and Aisha receives so much attention from some people?

Another point about this that i find really distasteful even mentioning here on a public forum... is that whose business is it to know when a marriage is consummated anyway?

and what gives people the gall to be critical of that when our marriages in most Western countries are in so much trouble today...

I have some more to share on this but will let it pass for now...

- Art

In a similar way it is very easy to besmirch the worship of idols for example without knowing the meaning. Arthra, don't try to tell me no Hindu blood was spilled in Hindu places of worship when the pious armies came for a holy visit.
As Montleban says, Islam is known by the fruit it bears. Its fruit is Mohammed. Its fruit is Osama. Its fruit is SAddam. Its fruit is Taliban.
Its fruit is not sufi, its fruit is not Bhahai. Because Islam deliberately tries to shed these fruits and only wants to keep its evil fruits, of which I have no doubt that Mohammed was one of them.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Muslim said:
Dinomite!!! :clap:

I am sorry i have to explain to you. If I believe my Avatar is Allah, I will believe Muhammad was a prophet. Since I don't believe the former, I also don't believe the latter. Notiece the use of believe in a number of places. Even the world is rotating on its own axis believing that it won't fall down. Believe me when I say this. You believe Mohammed is prophet. I don't believe. Why try to prove me?
 
Upvote 0

Bookofknowledge

Senior Veteran
Sep 8, 2004
4,913
29
✟27,821.00
Faith
Muslim
Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win said:
Its fruit is not sufi, its fruit is not Bhahai. Because Islam deliberately tries to shed these fruits and only wants to keep its evil fruits, of which I have no doubt that Mohammed was one of them.
If what you are saying is true, then this world would not have had any peace treaty.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) free the prisoner of war, the penalty set for them was those who know how to read and write (teach the new muslims).

Please read some history when you come outside of speak to the world.
 
Upvote 0

Iron Lion

Veteran
Feb 18, 2004
1,622
42
✟2,649.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
Muslim said:
Your right, Mary is supposed to have married Joseph at the age of 12. But Christians turn a blind eye to these writtings in their religion and instead attack the prophet Muhammad for doing something which was totally normal for his time. No one alive during his time thought it was child molestation or that he was taking advantage of her in anyway.

Even if this was true, and there isnt alot of proof she was that young, we never claim Joseph to be a prophet or a great man that lived a great standard of life. So im sorry but that argument doesnt compare to Mohammad at all.
 
Upvote 0

Blackmarch

Legend
Oct 23, 2004
12,221
325
43
Utah, USA
✟40,116.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Muslim said:
Even though most of the people on these forums do not believe that the prophet Muhammad was not a prophet of God, you indeed have to admit that he displayed all of the characteristics of a prophet. I think the Christians recognize this the most but they do not believe in him as well. But answer this question. If the prophet Muhammad was not a prophet, why would he have gone through all of what he did throughout his life until he died. He never lied, he never drank alcohol, or ate pork or gambled, or done anything which is considered a sin. Even though he was considered to be the most noble man in arabia when it came to his blood line, and he was offered many times to become the leader of Mecca during the time of Paganism, he refused. He lived a simple life, and never liked to eat more than one meal a day. He prayed all night, and spent all of the day time attending to the needs of his people and teaching them to be good worshippers of God. Even in his dieing words he was praying for God to save his people from hellfire. If he was indeed a liar than once he had gained the power over almost all of arabia, why wouldn't he have done what he wanted and misued that power? In fact he wouldn't even let his people kiss his hand out of modesty. He told everyone to consider him as their equal. So why can't everyone muslim and non-muslim alike see these attributes as a sign that he was indeed a prophet of God?
Actually the more I read about him, the more I am inclined to agree that he was a prophet.
 
Upvote 0
B

Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win

Guest
Bookofknowledge said:
If what you are saying is true, then this world would not have had any peace treaty.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) free the prisoner of war, the penalty set for them was those who know how to read and write (teach the new muslims).

Please read some history when you come outside of speak to the world.

Maybe I have to read more history.
But I plead you to reread what you've read all these years without the Islamic glass.
You will feel nauseated at what your ancestors and Muslim brothers of today have done and are continuing to do.
 
Upvote 0

Arthra

Baha'i
Feb 20, 2004
7,060
572
California
Visit site
✟86,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Thanks "born to lose" for your note...

I have no illusions about wars in India between various factions... Were Hindu and Buddhist temples destroyed... I would say definitely... Was cruelty displayed? Most likely...

In time religions lose their spiritual elan vital and become exploited by those unscrupulous elements which is why the Spirit of Truth needs to be reborn from age to age...

Moslems I know are not terrorists... and yet there are terorists whop exploit theior religion and in doing so seek to destroy it and use it for their own ends...

have some exploited Hinduism for their own purposes? I would suspect so...

Every religion has been so exploited and misused.

What we need to remember i think is that the Divine Bestowals are always before us if we seek them...

- Art
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Arthra said:
Montalban wrote:
I never claimed that he was addicted to sex with children. I would say he was addicted to sex, hence he had many more wives than allowed for his own followers, plus concubines...
My reply:
I think your bias are pretty clear "Montalban" and that they preclude any careful consideration of the historical evidence.
Is this then your debate... that I'm biased therefore no argument would suffice anyway? How odd that you don't actually address the historical evidence I gave from Islamic sources
Arthra said:
But here's some things for readers to consider:
Pagan Arabs practised polygamy ands were allowed many wives... yet Prophet Mohammad lived monogamously during His youth.
So Prophet Muhammad was married for twenty five years to Lady Khadijah and there was no evidence for this "addiction to sex".
The marriages after the death of Khadijah were for state reasons and to cement alliances among the tribes.. Most of the women were widows.
There's no real evidence they were anything really but ceremonial in nature.
Generally let me also say that the ordinance for the limit of wives to four was revealed after many of these marriages were contracted.
Once again I would ask why this preoccupation slandering Prophet Muhammad as a "sex addict"?
I think it would stem from the fact that in his adult life he kept so many wives.
Arthra said:
It would seem to me in this age when sexual addiction is at it's height and sex is exploited to the utmost commercially and in many other ways that many would rather slander the Prophet than draw attention to their own foibles.
This is all very nice, Arthra, and it's cool of you not to address the evidences from Islamic sources that show that during his career of prophet he had many wives. Even Adolf Hitler was a decorated war hero in his youth. But please, just ignore the Islamic sources, you need to do this as your own faith is a spin-off of theirs.
Arthra said:
The Lord Jesus made mention of this when He alluded to the beam in our own eye.
- Art
Clearly you misunderstand the passage, for no where did Jesus command men to stay silent while sin takes place.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Bookofknowledge said:
If what you are saying is true, then this world would not have had any peace treaty.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) free the prisoner of war, the penalty set for them was those who know how to read and write (teach the new muslims).

Please read some history when you come outside of speak to the world.

Muhammed allowed the execution of over 900 PoWs (all former allies of his, and instrumental in his early victories).

"The members of the last surviving Jewish tribe in Medinah, Banu Qurayzah, were even less fortunate. Muhammad offered the men conversion to Islam as an alternative to death; upon their refusal, all 900 were decapitated in front of their enslaved women and children. The women were subsequently raped; Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana Bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier."
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February1999/0299Trifkovic.htm

Further, you can make PoWs your slaves...

Sura an-Nisa' 4:24
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.”
 
Upvote 0

Proud Hindu

Veteran
Feb 10, 2004
1,018
41
✟1,394.00
Faith
Hindu
Please read some history when you come outside of speak to the world.

Maybe you should read some history... like the history of the glorious deeds of Muhammed:

---------------------------------------------------

Name Of The Book: Hindustan Islami Ahad mein (India under Islamic Rule)
Name Of The Historian: Maulana Abdul Hai.
About The Author: He is a highly respected scholar and taken as an authority on Islamic history. Because of his scholarship and his services to Islam, Maulana Abdul Hai was appointed as the Rector of the Darul Nadwa Ullum Nadwatal-Ulama. He continued in that post till his death in February 1923.

Qawwat al-Islam Mosque at Delhi: "According to my findings the first mosque of Delhi is Qubbat al-Islam or Quwwat al_Islam which, Qutubud-Din Aibak constructed in H. 587 after demolishing the hindu temple built by Prithvi Raj and leaving certain parts of the temple outside the mosque proper; and when he returned from Ghazni in H. 592 he started building, under orders from Shihabud -Din Ghori, a huge mosque of inimitable red stones, and certain parts of the temple were included in the mosque..."


The Mosque at Jaunpur: "This was built by Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi with chiselled stones. Originally it was a Hindu temple after demolishing which he constructed the mosque. It is known as the Atala Masjid.."


The Mosque at Qanauj: "It is well known that this mosque was built on the foundations of some Hindu temple that stood here. The mosque was built by Ibrahim Sharqi in H. 809 as is recorded in Gharbat Nigar"


Jami Masjid at Etwah: "This mosque stands on the bank of the Jamuna at Etawah. There was a Hindu temple at this place, on the site of which this mosque was constructed.."


Babri Masjid at Ayodhya: "This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ayodhya which Hindus call the birth place of Ramchandraji... Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque in H.963 "


Mosque at Benaras: "Mosque of Benares was built by Alamgir Aurangzeb on the site of Bisheshwar Temple. That temple was very tall and held as holy among Hindus. On this very site and with those very stones he constructed a lofty mosque, and its ancient stones were rearranged after being embedded in the walls of the mosque. It is one of the renowned mosques of Hindustan."


Mosque at Mathura: "Alamgir Aurangzeb built a mosque at Mathura. This mosque was built on site of the Govind Dev Temple which was very strong and beautiful as well as exquisite.."



Name Of The Book: Futuhu'l-Buldan
Name Of The Historian: Ahmed bin Yahya bin Jabir
About The Author: This author is also known as al- Biladhuri. He lived at the court of Khalifa Al- Mutawakkal (AD 847-861) and died in AD 893. His history is one of the major Arab chronicles.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:

Ibn Samurah (AD 653)
Siestan (Iran)
"On reaching Dawar, he surrounded the enemy in the mountain of Zur, where there was a famous Hindu temple." "...Their idol of Zur was of gold, and its eyes were two rubies. The zealous Musalmans cut off its hands and plucked out its eyes, and then remarked to the Marzaban how powerless was his idol..."


Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahili (AD 705-715)
Samarkand (Farghana)
"Other authorities say that Kutaibah granted peace for 700,000 dirhams and entertainment for the Moslems for three days. The terms of surrender included also the houses of the idols and the fire temples. The idols were thrown out, plundered of their ornaments and burned..."


Mohammed bin Qasim (AD 712-715)
Debal (Sindh)
"...The town was thus taken by assault, and the carnage endured for three days. The governor of the town, appointed by Dahir, fled and the priests of the temple were massacred. Muhammad marked a place for the Musalmans to dwell in, built a mosque, and left 4,000 Musalmans to garrison the place..."
"...'Ambissa son of Ishak Az Zabbi, the governor of Sindh, in the Khilafat of Mu'tasim billah knocked down the upper part of the minaret of the temple and converted it into a prison..."

Multan (Punjab)
"...He then crossed the Biyas, and went towards Multan...Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as ministers of the temple, to the number of 6,000. The Musalmans found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad..."


Hasham bin 'Amru al-Taghlabi
Khandahar (Maharashtra)
"He then went to Khandahar in boats and conquered it. He destroyed the Budd (idol) there, and built in its place a mosque."

Name Of The Book: Tarikh-i-Tabari
Name Of The Historian: Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir at-Tabari
About The Author: This author is considered to be the foremost historian of Islam. The above mentioned book written by him is regarded as the mother of histories.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Qutaibah bin Muslim al-Bahili (AD 705-715)
Beykund (Khurasan)
"The ultimate capture of Beykund (in AD 706) rewarded him with an incalculable booty; even more than had hitherto fallen into the hands of the Mohammedans by the conquest of the entire province of Khorassaun; and the unfortunate merchants of the town, having been absent on a trading excursion while their country was assailed by the enemy, and finding their habitations desolate on their return contributed further to enrich the invaders, by the ransom which they paid for the recovery of their wives and children. The oranments alone, of which these women had been plundered, being melted down, produce, in gold, 150,000 meskals; of a dram and a half each. Among the articles of the booty, is also described an image of gold, of 50,000 meskals, of which the eyes were two pearls, the exquisite beauty and magnitude of which excited the surprise and admiration of Kateibah. They were transmitted by him, with a fifth of the spoil to Hejauje, together with a request that he might be permitted to distribute, to the troops, the arms which had been found in the palace in great profusion."

Samarkand (Farghana)
"A breach was, however, at last effected in the walls of the city in AD 712 by the warlike machines of Kateibah; and some of the most daring of its defenders having fallen by the skill of his archers, the besieged demanded a cessation of arms to the following day, when they promised to capitulate. The request was acceded to the Kateibah; and a treaty was the next day accordingly concluded between him and the prince of Samarkand, by which the latter engaged for the annual payment of ten million of dhirems, and a supply of three thousand slaves; of whom it was particularly stipulated, that none should either be in a state of infancy, or ineffective from old age and debility. He further contracted that the ministers of his religion should be expelled from their temples and their idols destroyed and burnt; that Kateibah should be allowed to establish a mosque in the place of the principal temple...."
"...Kateibah accordingly set set fire to the whole collection with his own hands; it was soon consumed to ashes, and 50,000 meskals of gold and silver, collected from the nails which had been used in the workmanship of the images."


Yaqub bin Laith (AD 870-871)
Balkh and Kabul (Afghanistan)
"He took Bamian, which he probably reached by way of Herat, and then marched on Balkh where he ruined (the temple) Naushad. On his way back from Balkh he attacked Kabul..."
"Starting from Panjhir, the place he is known to have visited, he must have passed through the capital city of the Hindu Sahis to rob the sacred temple -- the reputed place of coronation of the Sahi rulers -- of its sculptural wealth..."
"The exact details of the spoil collected from Kabul valley are lacking. The Tarikh [-i-Sistan] records 50 idols of gold and silver and Mas'udi mentions elephants. The wonder excited in Baghdad by baghdad by elephants and pagan idols forwarded to the Caliph by Ya'qub also speaks for their high value."

Name Of The Book: Tarikhu'l-Hind
Name Of The Historian: Abu Rihan Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni al-Khwarizmi.
About The Author: This author spent 40 years in India during the reign of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (AD 997 - 1030). His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the 11th century.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Jalam ibn Shaiban (9th century AD)
Multan (Punjab)
"A famous idol of theirs was that of Multan, dedicated to the sun, and therefore called Aditya. It was of wood and covered with red Cordovan leather; in its two eyes were two red rubies. It is said to have been made in the last Kritayuga .....When Muhammad Ibn Alkasim Ibn Almunaibh conquered Multan, he inquired how the town had become so very flourishing and so many treasures had there been accumulated, and then he found out that this idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place a mosque was built. When the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban, the usurper, broke the idol into pieces and killed its priests..."


Sultan Mahmud of Gazni (AD 997-1030)
Thanesar (Haryana)
"The city of Taneshar is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the cakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in Ghazna, together with the Lord of Somnath, which is a representation of the penis of the Mahadeva, called Linga."

Somnath (Gujrat)
"The linga he raised was the stone of Somnath, for soma means the moon and natan means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! --AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroided garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with Cakrasvamin , an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Taneshar. Another part of the idol from Somnath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet."

Name Of The Book: Kitabu'l-Yamini
Name Of The Historian: Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Jabbaru'l-Utbi.
About The Author: This author's work comprises the whole of the reign of Subuktigin and that of Sultan Mahmud down to the year AD 1020.
The Muslim Rulers He Wrote About:


Amir Sbuktigin Of Ghazni
Lamghan (Afghanistan)
"The Amir marched out towards Lamghan, which is a city celebrated for its great strength and abounding wealth. He conquered it and set fire to the places in its vicinity which were inhabited by infidels, and demolishing idol temples, he established Islam in them. He marched and captured other cities and killed the polluted wretches, destroying the idolaters and gratifying the Musulmans."


Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (AD 997-1030)
Narain (Rajasthan)
"The Sultan again resolved on an expedition to Hind, and marched towards Narain, urging his horses and moving over ground, hard and soft, until he came to the middle of Hind, where he reduced chiefs, who, up to that time obeyed no master, overturned their idols, put to the sword the vagabonds of that country, and with delay and circumspection proceeded to accomplish his design..."

Nardin (Punjab)
"After the Sultan had purified Hind from idolatry, and raised mosques therein, he determined to invade the capital of Hind to punish those who kept idols and would not acknowledge the unity of God...He marched with a large army in the year AH 404 (AD 1013) during a dark night..."
"A stone was found there in the temple of the great Budda on which an inscription was written purporting that the temple had been founded 50,000 years ago. The Sultan was surprised at the ignorance of these people, because those who believe in the true faith represent that only seven hundred years have elapsed since the creation of the world, and the signs of resurrection are even now approaching . The Sultan asked his wise men the meaning of this inscription and they all concurred in saying that it was false, and no faith was to be put in the evidence of a stone."

Thanesar (Haryana)
"The chief of Tanesar was...obstinate in his infidelity and denial of God. So the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors, for the purpose of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry.."
"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously, that the stream was discoloured, not withstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it...The victory gained by God's grace, who has established Islam for ever as the best religions, notwithstanding that idolaters revolt against it...Praise be to God, the protector of the world, for the honour he bestows upon Islam and Musulmans."

Mathura (Uttar Pradesh)
"The Sultan then departed from the environs of the city, in which was a temple of the Hindus. The name of this place was Mahartul Hind... On both sides of the city there were a thousand houses, to which idol temples were attached, all strengthened from top to bottom by rivets of iron, and all made of masonry work..."
"In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and firmer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan thus wrote respecting it: --'If any should wish to construct a building equal to this, he would not be able to do it without expending an 100,000,000 red dinars, and it would occupy 200 years even though the most experience and able workmen were employed'... The Sultan gave orders that all temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground."

Kanauj (Uttar Pradesh)
"In Kanauj there were nearly 10,000 temples, which the idolaters falsely and absurdly represented to have been founded by their ancestors two or three hundred thousand years ago...Many of the inhabitants of the place fled and were scattered abroad like so many wretched widows and orphans, from the fear which oppressed them, in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Many of them thus effected their escape, and those who did not fly were put to death."

http://p081.ezboard.com/fhinduunityfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2.topic
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Proud Hindu this is one point we can agree on (other than on Cricket)

Recently in Spain some Muslims have been crying to the media that they aren't able to visit a church to pray. (as detailed in a recent edition of "Annals: The Journal of Catholic Culture")

There intent might seem harmless, excepting that they actually want to re-claim the site, because it was once a mosque. THey are quite happy to tell this point; how it was stolen from Islam, but forget to point out that before it was a mosque, it was a church!
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Arthra, aside from you attempt at ad hominem (that I wouldn't be willing to listen to a debate) your own stance still is rather weak, being as it's resting on what Muhammed was in his youth (selective use of evidence).

If you could actually address any of the facts I presented, rather than making a 'just-so' statement, that would be great.

Thanks in advance.
 
Upvote 0