Brussels Under Attack

[Crypto2015]

A couple of main bases:

1) They do not accept the historicity of Muhammad having sex with a nine year old, they accept those hadiths which say she was a young adult in her late teens or higher.

2) They recognise it as having been normal at the time, but no longer being acceptable.

Crypto, given my clearing up your misconceptions about Hinduism, I think it would be nice for you to retract your 'disgusting religion' allegation.

(1) However, the hadiths that assert that Muhammad had sex with child Aisha are all sound hadith from the best available collections of hadith. If these hadith are unreliable, all hadiths are unreliable and, therefore, Islam cannot exist (many of the core doctrines of Islam come from the hadith and not from the Qur'an). (2) This is simply an untenable position. The Qur'an is, according to Islam, an eternal book, and the Qur'an states that Muhammad is the role model for all Muslims. If Muhammad is not a perfect role model today, the Qur'an is not valid today and, therefore, Islam is false.

OK, I retract about my "Hinduism is a disgusting religion" statement. I was confused about Hinduism. I am sorry.

 

[Crypto2015]

Going to church every day and giving money and time to the organization that STILL to this day employ, pay and protect the dirtbag priests who like to diddle small children.

WRONG! Catholics demand justice. They are not OK with child sex abuse. If there were a poll, I am sure that 99.99% of Catholics will say that child sex abuse is wrong.

 

[Kirran]

(1) However, the hadiths that assert that Muhammad had sex with child Aisha are all sound hadith from the best available collections of hadith. If these hadith are unreliable, all hadith are unreliable and, therefore, Islam cannot exist (many of the core doctrines of Islam come from the hadith and not from the Qur'an). (2) This is simply an untenable position. The Qur'an is, according to Islam, an eternal book, and the Qur'an states that Muhammad is the role model for all Muslims. If Muhammad is not a perfect role model today, the Qur'an is not valid today and, therefore, Islam is false.

Well there are Muslims who would dispute their being from the best available collections, and there are Muslims who reject hadith altogether.

Fair enough - but the point isn't whether you or I think these positions make sense - the point is whether the Muslims who hold them feel they do, and many do. So the fact is that you can have Muslims who reject child sexual abuse, on either of these two bases.

OK, I retract about my "Hinduism is a disgusting religion" statement. I was confused about Hinduism. I am sorry.

It's cool man! Thanks for your fairness

 

[Crypto2015]

Well there are Muslims who would dispute their being from the best available collections, and there are Muslims who reject hadith altogether.

Fair enough - but the point isn't whether you or I think these positions make sense - the point is whether the Muslims who hold them feel they do, and many do. So the fact is that you can have Muslims who reject child sexual abuse, on either of these two bases.



It's cool man! Thanks for your fairness

They cannot dispute that the hadiths about Muhammad having sex with Aisha come from the best and more trustworthy hadith collections in Islam. They are lying to you. This alone proves it. They are telling you this because they are not in a Muslim country and hence they need to protect themselves. Lying under these circumstances is perfectly OK according to Sharia law.

 

[Kirran]

They cannot dispute that the hadiths about Muhammad having sex with Aisha come from the best and more trustworthy hadith collections in Islam. They are lying to you. This alone proves it. They are telling you this because they are not in a Muslim country and hence they need to protect themselves. Lying under these circumstances is perfectly OK according to Sharia law.

Taqiya is a Shi'ite doctrine and applies in life-or-death situations.

The Ahmadis reject the idea that Aisha was underage, and that's a whole sect. And the Qur'anist movement does exist. It is a movement, or set of movements, in Islam which reject the hadith as a valid source, and go by the Qur'an only. There are also Muslims who take the hadith as very fallible, and so may or may not abide by them.

Also, just deciding that they're lying because what they say doesn't suit your understanding of Islam is something that can't be proved wrong, but doesn't get anybody anywhere, as it can't be proved right.

I don't know the truth, but to show that there is variation within the Islamic scholarly community on this:
Tarikh Sahih Islam, Muhammad Niknam Arabshahi & volume 1 page 197

According to these sources, we can conclude that Aisha was much older than what she claimed and narrated in some hadith... and she was 17 or 19 years old when she got engaged and she would be 20 or 22 when she had sex. (Original: از اين روايات می توان چنين نتيجه گرفت که عايشه بسيار بزرگتر از آن چيزی است که خودش ادعا می کند و در روايت ها نقل شده است؛...و در هنگام ازدواج 17 يا 19 ساله و در هنگام دخول 20 يا 22 ساله خواهد بود)

Also, we must remember the importance of Aisha in the power dynamics of the early Muslim community was great (she was leading battles, political confrontations etc) and the nature of the society at the time - it would have been very important for these Islamic scholars who compiled hadiths a couple centuries later to confirm her virginity at the time of marriage, and thereby her legitimacy as a wife of Muhammad. To lean towards those sources indicating her youth would serve to do so implicitly.

So it's not reliable, and this is why there is genuine diversity among Islamic scholars on this.

 

[Underhill]

On the basis of what do they condemn it? Muhammad had sex with a child and the Qur'an says that Muhammad is the perfect example of a human being. Hence, those Muslims that condemn child sex abuse do it not because of Islam, but in spite of Islam.

By that logic Christians have a problem too. David killed a woman's husband so he could have her and was called "a man after God's own heart".

 

[Crypto2015]

Taqiya is a Shi'ite doctrine and applies in life-or-death situations.

The Ahmadis reject the idea that Aisha was underage, and that's a whole sect. And the Qur'anist movement does exist. It is a movement, or set of movements, in Islam which reject the hadith as a valid source, and go by the Qur'an only. There are also Muslims who take the hadith as very fallible, and so may or may not abide by them.

Also, just deciding that they're lying because what they say doesn't suit your understanding of Islam is something that can't be proved wrong, but doesn't get anybody anywhere, as it can't be proved right.

I don't know the truth, but to show that there is variation within the Islamic scholarly community on this:
Tarikh Sahih Islam, Muhammad Niknam Arabshahi & volume 1 page 197

According to these sources, we can conclude that Aisha was much older than what she claimed and narrated in some hadith... and she was 17 or 19 years old when she got engaged and she would be 20 or 22 when she had sex. (Original: از اين روايات می توان چنين نتيجه گرفت که عايشه بسيار بزرگتر از آن چيزی است که خودش ادعا می کند و در روايت ها نقل شده است؛...و در هنگام ازدواج 17 يا 19 ساله و در هنگام دخول 20 يا 22 ساله خواهد بود)

Also, we must remember the importance of Aisha in the power dynamics of the early Muslim community was great (she was leading battles, political confrontations etc) and the nature of the society at the time - it would have been very important for these Islamic scholars who compiled hadiths a couple centuries later to confirm her virginity at the time of marriage, and thereby her legitimacy as a wife of Muhammad. To lean towards those sources indicating her youth would serve to do so implicitly.

So it's not reliable, and this is why there is genuine diversity among Islamic scholars on this.

The Ahmadis and the Quranists barely make 1% of the Muslim population of the world. What they believe or do not believe does not have a significant impact on the non-Muslim population of the world. Taqiyya is not only a Shia doctrine, but also a Sunni doctrine. Just read the "Reliance of the Traveller", a Sunni Sharia law manual:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression..."

The alternative sources that you present as an evidence for an Aisha that was older at the time she was defloured by Muhammad are ridiculously less reliable than Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bukhari. These last two collections, which are the most trustworthy Islamic texts after the Qur'an assert numerous times that Aisha was nine when she was defloured by Muhammad. That's why I am telling you that those Muslims are lying to you. No devout Muslim would ever put Sahih Bukhari at the same level as Sa'd al-Baghdadi (who the hell is him?). There is no genuine discussion about the age of Aisha within the Muslim community. All of them know that she was a child when Muhammad raped her.

 

[Kirran]

The Ahmadis and the Quranists barely make 1% of the Muslim population of the world. What they believe or do not believe does not have a significant impact on the non-Muslim population of the world. Taqiyya is not only a Shia doctrine, but also a Sunni doctrine. Just read the "Reliance of the Traveller", a Sunni Sharia law manual:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression..."

The alternative sources that you present as an evidence for an Aisha that was older at the time she was defloured by Muhammad are ridiculously less reliable than Sahih Muslim or Sahih Bukhari. These last two collections, which are the most trustworthy Islamic texts after the Qur'an assert numerous times that Aisha was nine when she was defloured by Muhammad. That's why I am telling you that those Muslims are lying to you. No devout Muslim would ever put Sahih Bukhari at the same level as Sa'd al-Baghdadi (who the hell is him?). There is no genuine discussion about the age of Aisha within the Muslim community. All of them know that she was a child when Muhammad raped her.

Thanks for the correction on taqiya!

Anyway, there are lots of Muslims who are against sex abuse for various reasons, so these things aren't intrinsic to Islam. That is enough for me - proof is in the pudding, and the pudding isn't all bad.

 

[Crypto2015]

Thanks for the correction on taqiya!

Anyway, there are lots of Muslims who are against sex abuse for various reasons, so these things aren't intrinsic to Islam. That is enough for me - proof is in the pudding, and the pudding isn't all bad.

You are welcome, my friend. Of course that there are decent Muslims. I believe that the majority of Muslims are decent. The problem is that Islam is indecent. Decent Muslims are not as devout as Islamic terrorists are.

 

[godnotgod]

No was explaining relationdhips and standoffs in Abrahamic religions as a family unit as fact .
Whether god exists on not
As reality of mythologen

You talked about 'Father' as if he were real.

 

[godnotgod]

You are welcome, my friend. Of course that there are decent Muslims. I believe that the majority of Muslims are decent. The problem is that Islam is indecent. Decent Muslims are not as devout as Islamic terrorists are.

I would hardly call them 'devout'! Brainwashing/indoctrination is not devotion.

 

[Underhill]

And he was rebuked and punished by God for killing that man, genius. I love how you regressive suicidal loonies embarrass yourselves every time you open your mouths.

Rebuked or not, David was a murderer whom the bible says is a man after gods own heart. But if that isn't good enough for you, Lot was the only person spared in Sodom because he was a godly man, and yet not long before that, had sent out his daughters to be raped by a crowd. Not exactly an exemplary record. And no, he was never rebuked for it.

 

[Marsh]

Looking at the commentary from ISIS, the slogan, "The religion of peace", is becoming an unfortunate joke.
I know most Muslims are peaceful, but it would be best to find a different slogan.

... or a different religion.

 

[First Baseman]

By that logic Christians have a problem too. David killed a woman's husband so he could have her and was called "a man after God's own heart".

Yeah and God punished him severely for it, too. Or did you not read that part?

 

[Marsh]

Burke said that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Religion is full of many good people, but also many bad. I refuse to believe that Islam (or any other religion) is powerless to prevent significant portions of its membership to murder, rape and torture in its name.

Unfortunately 'would-be' Islamic reformers take their very lives into their hands. There are far more Islamic fanatics than there are Muslims reformers who are brave enough to speak out against the barbarism.

 

[First Baseman]

Rebuked or not, David was a murderer whom the bible says is a man after gods own heart. But if that isn't good enough for you, Lot was the only person spared in Sodom because he was a godly man, and yet not long before that, had sent out his daughters to be raped by a crowd. Not exactly an exemplary record. And no, he was never rebuked for it.

Note that the promises were only made to Abraham. Lot was excluded. I guess you have to wonder why.

But you don't have to wonder so much if you read Genesis 19 and find out that Lot's daughters were the mothers of Moab and Ammon. Not Israelites and not children of promise.

 

[Marsh]

I would hardly call them 'devout'! Brainwashing/indoctrination is not devotion.

Cryto is correct. I've read much of the Koran. ISIS is devoutly following the Koran's commandments. They are not brainwashed. They are devout followers. Moderate Muslims are ignoring many of the commandments of Mohamed; like Christians who ignore the barbarisms found in the Old Testament.

 

[Marsh]

He's referring to those not so wonderful historical crusades and of course the inquisition. Of course the Catholic Church has come a long way since then. I have no idea why they contradicted Jesus' teachings and did those things.

That's the telling thing, isn't it? The Inquisition did not get its operating orders from the New Testament, but ISIS is taking its guidance from the Koran.

 

[Grumpuss]

Note that the promises were only made to Abraham. Lot was excluded. I guess you have to wonder why.

But you don't have to wonder so much if you read Genesis 19 and find out that Lot's daughters were the mothers of Moab and Ammon. Not Israelites and not children of promise.

Only because the Sodomites rejected Lot's offer. They preferred to rape what they thought were men, rather than take Lot's offer of his virginal daughters. For the time period Genesis was written in, Lot's proposed offer was not barbaric, as young girls were often used as chattel in this way. Placing the lense of 21st Century and its sensitivities upon history is grossly unfair, particularly when you consider that Lot's daughters were not raped, as they were under the protection of the Lord.

 

[Crypto2015]

I would hardly call them 'devout'! Brainwashing/indoctrination is not devotion.

Following the principles of your faith and dying for your faith qualify as devotion.