Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

freza wrote:Don't be silly Shafique, I am obviously not asking why did he get married, I am asking why with so many women? For charity?

To show there is no stigma in marrying divorcees and widows. Some marriages - such as with Safiyyah, from a Jewish tribe, were political. However they were all marriages - where the women consented.

freza wrote:Was this the only way to show charity towards a widow? At least one of his wives widowed because her husband was killed by Mohammad's army. So she was a war captive turned wife.

No, it was not the only charity - but to make a widow the wife of the leader of a religion and empire is not without its merits. Same goes for the wife who was a widow as a result of war (which one were you thinking of?)

freza wrote:Was Aisha really that happy in the marriage?

To my knowledge, yes. It was a normal marriage with some touchingly normal sides - the Prophet used to mend his own clothes and do the chores. He used to have a race with Aisha each year (running race) - he won in the early years, but later on she beat him. He used to ask permission from her to spend the night in prayers - she used to admonish him for praying too hard.

freza wrote: Aren't there accounts that state that there was some serious discord between the wives due to an increasing household? That Aisha was unhappy and resentful at times and even plotted against Mohammad?

Yes, there are these reports. Bear in mind that certain sects of Islam see Aisha as a hate figure. However, it is also instructive to read that even the best marriages have their ups and downs and isn't a fairy tale.

freza wrote: Btw, do you think that a nine year old girl has reached maturity? She was nine when Mohammad was in his 50s and the marriage was consummated, right?

Yes, there was a big age difference. Aisha was the daughter of his best friend and later his first successor. The marriage was consumated when Aisha was mature and not when she was 9.

The facts do not support the accusation that the Prophet, pbuh, was a s.e. xual predator or paedophile. He was faithful to one wife during the prime of his life - when he achieved power he did not marry nubile young women, but divorcees and widows. He did marry the daughter of his closest friend and she was his closest companion after marriage. Yes she was young, but by all accounts it was a public marriage and one full of love.

If you want, I'll get some quotes from historians for you - but I think the facts speak for themselves.

Can we perhaps now move on to the criteria for prophethood?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:To show there is no stigma in marrying divorcees and widows. Some marriages - such as with Safiyyah, from a Jewish tribe, were political. However they were all marriages - where the women consented.

So instead of just SAYING that one should not stigmatize widows and divorcees Mohammad marries many of them...to set an example. hhmmm. You previously said that he didn't have any social or political aspirations, I stated that I think he did and marrying a rich widow (Khadeejah) was his first such aspiration, you disagreed, here you state that he married Safiyyah for political reasons. So I guess he did have political/social aspirations, can we agree on this?

If at least two of Mohammad's marriages were to war captives, how does war captive marriage = consent?
marry me or end up as loot for my soldiers or flogged and made slave, your choice.
ok, I'll marry you.
this type of consent?

shafique wrote:No, it was not the only charity - but to make a widow the wife of the leader of a religion and empire is not without its merits. Same goes for the wife who was a widow as a result of war (which one were you thinking of?)

right. the women that were "made" the wives of an influential self-proclaimed prophet should have been grateful of their new found status. As a result of war, yes, what war was this?

shafique wrote:To my knowledge, yes. It was a normal marriage with some touchingly normal sides - the Prophet used to mend his own clothes and do the chores. He used to have a race with Aisha each year (running race) - he won in the early years, but later on she beat him. He used to ask permission from her to spend the night in prayers - she used to admonish him for praying too hard.

so it is perfectly normal for a 50-something year old man to marry a 9 year old child? Mohammad mended his own clothes and prayed a lot - wonderful, these are good traits yes I agree, BUT you seem to say these things as if it makes the whole old man marrying a child excusable.

shafique wrote:Yes, there are these reports. Bear in mind that certain sects of Islam see Aisha as a hate figure. However, it is also instructive to read that even the best marriages have their ups and downs and isn't a fairy tale.

yeah, I imagine that a marriage involving 11+ wives to an older man could have its up and downs.

shafique wrote:Yes, there was a big age difference. Aisha was the daughter of his best friend and later his first successor. The marriage was consumated when Aisha was mature and not when she was 9. The facts do not support the accusation that the Prophet, pbuh, was a s.e. xual predator or paedophile. He was faithful to one wife during the prime of his life - when he achieved power he did not marry nubile young women, but divorcees and widows. He did marry the daughter of his closest friend and she was his closest companion after marriage. Yes she was young, but by all accounts it was a public marriage and one full of love. If you want, I'll get some quotes from historians for you - but I think the facts speak for themselves.

What do you consider mature? do you think that a girl who has started menstruating is mature no matter what her age? Re: Aisha's age. The most trustworthy Hadiths state the same thing - Aisha was 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. The most respected Islamic old-school scholars (Ibn Hanbal, Tabari etc.) state the same thing. Encyclopedia Britannica states that she was 18 years old when the prophet died. She remained with him 9 years until his death, that would make her 9 when he married her. So...what exactly are you disagreeing with?

freza wrote:So instead of just SAYING that one should not stigmatize widows and divorcees Mohammad marries many of them...to set an example.

Yes.

freza wrote:You previously said that he didn't have any social or political aspirations, I stated that I think he did and marrying a rich widow (Khadeejah) was his first such aspiration, you disagreed, here you state that he married Safiyyah for political reasons.

When he was a political leader, he did political things. I said that before his call to prophethood he had no political and social aspirations. The facts speak for themselves.

I don't see anything wrong in politically motivated marriages - goes on today.

freza wrote:So I guess he did have political/social aspirations, can we agree on this?

No - once he was a political leader, he had to act like a political leader. As Jesus said, when I was a child, I acted like a child..

freza wrote:If at least two of Mohammad's marriages were to war captives, how does war captive marriage = consent?
marry me or end up as loot for my soldiers or flogged and made slave, your choice.
ok, I'll marry you.
this type of consent?

No - it goes like this 'will you marry me - the choice is yours'. The Quran is clear on this point - you can't force women into marriage. The choice is therefore to be a widow of a defeated army, or to become a wife. It is a choice.

Safiyyah, for example, proposed to the Prophet after she had a dream.

And remember that women in Islam have full rights of divorce, so marriage is not seen as making a woman the property of the husband (and Christians used to criticise Islam for being too liberal for this very point - and it took over 1000 years for Europe to catch up and give women these same rights).

freza wrote:right. the women that were "made" the wives of an influential self-proclaimed prophet should have been grateful of their new found status. As a result of war, yes, what war was this?

Please look up the word 'choose' and contrast it with 'made'. You seem to have a dim view of the institution of marriage. Marrying someone is not the same as having a girlfriend - but sometimes we lose sight of this fact.

freza wrote:so it is perfectly normal for a 50-something year old man to marry a 9 year old child? Mohammad mended his own clothes and prayed a lot - wonderful, these are good traits yes I agree, BUT you seem to say these things as if it makes the whole old man marrying a child excusable.

You seem to characterise this a paedophillia. It was common practice for royalty and high class people to marry/bethrow their children very young. It is not a common or even a recommended practice. In this case it was a loving relationship and I see nothing wrong with how it turned out.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Yes, there are these reports. Bear in mind that certain sects of Islam see Aisha as a hate figure. However, it is also instructive to read that even the best marriages have their ups and downs and isn't a fairy tale.

yeah, I imagine that a marriage involving 11+ wives to an older man could have its up and downs.

Indeed. But hardly shows he isn't a prophet - if you recall this is the purpose of this thread

freza wrote:Aisha was 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. The most respected Islamic old-school scholars (Ibn Hanbal, Tabari etc.) state the same thing. Encyclopedia Britannica states that she was 18 years old when the prophet died. She remained with him 9 years until his death, that would make her 9 when he married her. So...what exactly are you disagreeing with?

She was past puberty when the marriage was consumated. Some reports have her as young as 6 when she married, some say 9. There aren't clear reports as to the age when the marriage was consumated - but extensive hadith by Aisha herself about the marriage.

I'm disagreeing with the characterisation that Muhammad, pbuh, was a s.e.xual predator for marrying the daughter of his best friend when he was in his 50s and the ruler of the whole of Arabia and by Arab tradition could have any woman he wished.

And as luck would have it, the one relationship that detractors of Islam will focus on, is the one relationship where we have the words of the lady herself. She was no shrinking violet - she led an army against the 4th Khalifa, so she did not hold her tongue - and therefore we can judge the Prophet's (pbuh) and her marriage from her perspective.

Perhaps I am wrong for trusting the word of the lady herself?

So, can we now have a criterion for prophethood that Muhammad did not meet (and show that the criterion comes from former scripture).

Cheers,
Shafique

your replies are jaw-dropping unfreakinbelievably disturbing...

We've established (well you've only admitted this half-way) the common sense things: Mohammad had political motivations, sure. Nothing wrong with marrying a rich widow which would die before he did and would leave him a fortune upping any future political aspirations. Common sense here. He was a political leader - some of this motivations might have more to do with politics than religion.

shafique wrote:Safiyyah, for example, proposed to the Prophet after she had a dream.

wow....I'm sure it's supported by the Quran or a Hadith, right? So if she would have dreamt of stabbing Mohammad in the heart while he slept, it would have been ok? We are also to understand that Mohammad first "had a dream" of marrying Aisha when she was practically a baby. And he justified this by saying it was Allah's will. Why would God ever tell a dirty old man to think of marrying a little girl? Why? Can you find a plausible explanation? I can. God never advised him such an ugly thing. But when a self-proclaimed prophet needs to get away with something which is despicable to many..God is convenient. Otherwise, why even come up with an explanation?
You also leave out the reports that Aisha's own father was not too happy about Mohammad's request for his daughter, even though he was friends with Mohammad, the best of friends from what I understand. This to me indicates that this child marriage was not as acceptable back then as you want to make it out to be. Sure it happened, but it wasn't considered a wonderful thing by everyone.

shafique wrote:No - it goes like this 'will you marry me - the choice is yours'. The Quran is clear on this point - you can't force women into marriage. The choice is therefore to be a widow of a defeated army, or to become a wife. It is a choice.

ooohhhhhh. that's how it goes. So what would be her fate if she said: "no"? Please tell. If women had so many choices, did she have a choice not to have her family killed by Mohammad's soldiers making her a widow in the first place?

MOST Islamic and Quranic sources CONFIRM that Aisha was a child when Mohammad married her. Just accept it dude, your vagueness doesn't cut it in this case. You are saying that this is fine. We shouldn't think of Mohammad as a pedophile. Amazing. But it's not recommended now a days. OK, do as Mohammad, err, God tells you, not as Mohammad does. Got it. Other do as I say not as I do:

You can only have up to four wives according to the Quran but Mohammad had 11+.
According to the Quran: marrying your daughter in law is a no-no. but Mohammad not only desired his adopted-son's wife, he married her. But conveniently Mohammad received this little message by way of that famous divine revelation saying that he can in fact marry his adopted son's wife, because why? because his son was adopted and not biological? why exactly?

You see, Shafique, anyone with common sense would deduct that there is a serious disconnect in the ways of Mohammad. Can you see it without accusing them of being anti-Quranic or anti-Islamic? Can you understand what is so obviously lacking about Mohammad's basic human character just within this context here?

You can't, you won't, why do I even bother.

freza wrote:your replies are jaw-dropping unfreakinbelievably disturbing...

I love you too.

freza wrote:We've established (well you've only admitted this half-way) the common sense things: Mohammad had political motivations, sure.

Not before he was a prophet, and even then some years after he was called to the prophethood.

freza wrote:Nothing wrong with marrying a rich widow which would die before he did and would leave him a fortune upping any future political aspirations.

You seem to be ignoring the facts here. She proposed to him. He gave away her fortune.

freza wrote:Common sense here. He was a political leader - some of this motivations might have more to do with politics than religion.

He became a political leader and acted like one - no question about this. The point I made early on was that prior to being told to proclaim his prophethood he eschewed the material trappings and stayed away from politics.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:Safiyyah, for example, proposed to the Prophet after she had a dream.

wow....I'm sure it's supported by the Quran or a Hadith, right?

Do you have a different source of information?

freza wrote:So if she would have dreamt of stabbing Mohammad in the heart while he slept, it would have been ok? We are also to understand that Mohammad first "had a dream" of marrying Aisha when she was practically a baby.

I'm not sure what you are objecting to - is it wrong for a woman to propose?

freza wrote:And he justified this by saying it was Allah's will. Why would God ever tell a dirty old man to think of marrying a little girl? Why? Can you find a plausible explanation? I can. God never advised him such an ugly thing.

Ok - we get you are ed.

freza wrote:But when a self-proclaimed prophet

Is there another sort of prophet? Has there ever been a prophet who hasn't declared himself a prophet?

freza wrote:...needs to get away with something which is despicable to many..God is convenient. Otherwise, why even come up with an explanation?

Yes - this is a problem shared by many Biblical prophets, including Moses. In the Bible he is portrayed as a murderer/manslaughterer and fugitive from justices and condoning the killing of innocent Egyptian boys by God, as well as leading his people for 40 years around the desert. His sister-in-law chastises him for marrying an Eithiopian lady. His armies commit slaughter of innocents - yet he is a true prophet according to you.

freza wrote:You also leave out the reports that Aisha's own father was not too happy about Mohammad's request for his daughter, even though he was friends with Mohammad, the best of friends from what I understand.

Really? I did mention she is a hate figure to some. There are some very unsavoury 'hadith' about her - but the question really should be what did she say about the marriage.

freza wrote:This to me indicates that this child marriage was not as acceptable back then as you want to make it out to be. Sure it happened, but it wasn't considered a wonderful thing by everyone.

You are entitled to your view and you have made it well.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:No - it goes like this 'will you marry me - the choice is yours'. The Quran is clear on this point - you can't force women into marriage. The choice is therefore to be a widow of a defeated army, or to become a wife. It is a choice.

ooohhhhhh. that's how it goes. So what would be her fate if she said: "no"? Please tell. If women had so many choices, did she have a choice not to have her family killed by Mohammad's soldiers making her a widow in the first place?

What do you think their fate would be if they said no? It would be the same fate as the other widows who weren't proposed to.

freza wrote:MOST Islamic and Quranic sources CONFIRM that Aisha was a child when Mohammad married her. Just accept it dude, your vagueness doesn't cut it in this case. You are saying that this is fine.

Yes - I have not denied she was a child when they were married. The marriage was only consumated after puberty.

freza wrote: We shouldn't think of Mohammad as a pedophile. Amazing. But it's not recommended now a days. OK, do as Mohammad, err, God tells you, not as Mohammad does. Got it. Other do as I say not as I do:

No - I think you are free to consider Muhammad, pbuh, as whatever you want. I'll just state the facts as I know them.

freza wrote:You can only have up to four wives according to the Quran but Mohammad had 11+.

Yes.

freza wrote:According to the Quran: marrying your daughter in law is a no-no. but Mohammad not only desired his adopted-son's wife, he married her. But conveniently Mohammad received this little message by way of that famous divine revelation saying that he can in fact marry his adopted son's wife, because why? because his son was adopted and not biological? why exactly?

Because he was adopted, you are right.

freza wrote:You see, Shafique, anyone with common sense would deduct that there is a serious disconnect in the ways of Mohammad.

I'm still waiting for the 'basic criteria' - so far we haven't had any but just some re-hashed accusations about who he married and why.

freza wrote: Can you see it without accusing them of being anti-Quranic or anti-Islamic? Can you understand what is so obviously lacking about Mohammad's basic human character just within this context here?

You'll have to help me understand what was lacking in his conduct as a groom and a husband.

freza wrote:You can't, you won't, why do I even bother.

I wonder why you bother as well with these old accusations- you stated that Muhammad, pbuh, failed 'basic criteria' for prophets. To date you have not given me one criterion that Muhammad, pbuh, failed that other prophets passed.

The Bible clearly states how we can judge whether a prophet is true or not. My contention is that Muhammad, pbuh, meets these criteria (re-read the title of this thread).

You have consistently deferred discussion on the point you yourself raised.

I'm not angry, I'm not disappointed and I'm not surprised. The religion he brought you call 'beautiful', you accept he had a happy relationship with Aisha but you think it despicable he married someone so young. If this is your only criterion for rejecting him, fair enough, come out and say so - but this isn't a 'basic criteria' according to the Bible.

You also seem to have a problem with women choosing to marry and become Queens of an empire. This somehow is to you a punishment or a way of a man satisfying his carnal desires. You discount the responsibilities that go with a marriage and equate it with servitude (which it was in Europe until relatively recently).

Anyway - can we now move to some criteria?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:You seem to be ignoring the facts here.

I hear an echo. Seriously Shafique, didn't you feel a little weird writing this line?

OK, so to run down the factoids.

Aisha was a tiny child when the old man started desiring her and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. You excuse this act because they led a happy marriage according to you and because it was not entirely unusual for old men to marry kids back then. This is like sooo convincing - that kids like to be with old men, Aisha's happiness is palpable through-out the Hadiths, isn't it? So s e x with children is ok as long as the girl has started menstruating and as long as it was a long time ago and as long as he made up a nifty though ridiculous excuse. Got it. Makes perfect sense!

Moses was a man who did great things but also committed offenses against men and against God. God punished him - do you forget these things? Have I ever said that Moses was a white dove? I've never said this of him. I actually find some of the things he did quite disturbing and I'm not blind to reality even if it's reality which I'm fond of. What is pretty clear is that he erred, he admitted his offenses, he eventually admitted his short-comings. I'm not excusing him in any way, why should I? but I'm saying that this guy actually took some level of responsibility towards his actions. Mohammad never did.

I never said it is wrong for a woman to propose, don't start with your silliness Shafique. And I don't hold any dim view of marriage - ridiculous assumption on your part. Marriage is a very good thing -I may sound like a lil bastard but I'm actually a product of a wonderful marriage - shocking I know!

Marriage to widows is an even better thing apparently. Have you ever considered practicing extreme charity Mohammad-style by marrying a bunch of widows? (serious question). I wonder why this "example" didn't take off in the Muslim world...

speaking of.., well a hypothetical question:

Just to go on the "logic" of this example. Let's say Mohammad would have decreed that homosexuals should not be stigmatized by society. What example do you think he would give to get his point across? OH. I guess he didn't actually have to illustrate examples did he? yikes.

But it's pretty clear that Mohammad preached what he didn't practice starting in his marriages and his preoccupation with plural marriages and perfumes when he should have been preoccupied with winning wars and spreading the religion of peace around. *cough* Seriously though, prophet of a great religion - concentrate on the religion. Makes sense. How on earth did he have the time...unless...

I haven't differed any question. I wanted to start off by seeing the true nature of Mohammad. Which as been established. You're the one that came up with this topic, remember?

A flawed prophet - entirely normal. An immoral and hypocritical one - God wouldn't have chosen him or God would not have let him go further.

Strike 1 against his prophethood: voices in his head were just that, voices in his head. His dreams were soaked but not with spirituality. Strike 2: he was way too flawed and he was quite hypocritical.

now please continue. why don't you list his prophet-like qualities.

(I will be back next week, inshallah)

I listed 3 criteria in a previous post:

1. Declare yourself a prophet of God.
2. Make prophecies in the name of God.
3. Prophecies come true.

According to my reading of the Bible, only true prophets of God can fulfil these 3 criteria together.

Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils these.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:
I haven't differed any question. I wanted to start off by seeing the true nature of Mohammad. Which as been established. You're the one that came up with this topic, remember?

A flawed prophet - entirely normal. An immoral and hypocritical one - God wouldn't have chosen him or God would not have let him go further.

Totally agree with you that the nature of Prophet should be moral and unhypocritical.

The facts as I see them is that Muhammad, pbuh, meets these criteria.

It is interesting that you believe prophets can be flawed - Muslims believe prophets are sin-less, but can and do make mistakes.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:You seem to be ignoring the facts here.

I hear an echo. Seriously Shafique, didn't you feel a little weird writing this line?

OK, so to run down the factoids.

Aisha was a tiny child when the old man started desiring her and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. You excuse this act because they led a happy marriage according to you and because it was not entirely unusual for old men to marry kids back then. This is like sooo convincing - that kids like to be with old men, Aisha's happiness is palpable through-out the Hadiths, isn't it? So s e x with children is ok as long as the girl has started menstruating and as long as it was a long time ago and as long as he made up a nifty though ridiculous excuse. Got it. Makes perfect sense!

Moses was a man who did great things but also committed offenses against men and against God. God punished him - do you forget these things? Have I ever said that Moses was a white dove? I've never said this of him. I actually find some of the things he did quite disturbing and I'm not blind to reality even if it's reality which I'm fond of. What is pretty clear is that he erred, he admitted his offenses, he eventually admitted his short-comings. I'm not excusing him in any way, why should I? but I'm saying that this guy actually took some level of responsibility towards his actions. Mohammad never did.

I never said it is wrong for a woman to propose, don't start with your silliness Shafique. And I don't hold any dim view of marriage - ridiculous assumption on your part. Marriage is a very good thing -I may sound like a lil bastard but I'm actually a product of a wonderful marriage - shocking I know!

Marriage to widows is an even better thing apparently. Have you ever considered practicing extreme charity Mohammad-style by marrying a bunch of widows? (serious question). I wonder why this "example" didn't take off in the Muslim world...

speaking of.., well a hypothetical question:

Just to go on the "logic" of this example. Let's say Mohammad would have decreed that homosexuals should not be stigmatized by society. What example do you think he would give to get his point across? OH. I guess he didn't actually have to illustrate examples did he? yikes.

But it's pretty clear that Mohammad preached what he didn't practice starting in his marriages and his preoccupation with plural marriages and perfumes when he should have been preoccupied with winning wars and spreading the religion of peace around. *cough* Seriously though, prophet of a great religion - concentrate on the religion. Makes sense. How on earth did he have the time...unless...

I haven't differed any question. I wanted to start off by seeing the true nature of Mohammad. Which as been established. You're the one that came up with this topic, remember?

A flawed prophet - entirely normal. An immoral and hypocritical one - God wouldn't have chosen him or God would not have let him go further.

Strike 1 against his prophethood: voices in his head were just that, voices in his head. His dreams were soaked but not with spirituality. Strike 2: he was way too flawed and he was quite hypocritical.

now please continue. why don't you list his prophet-like qualities.

(I will be back next week, inshallah)

i couldnt have worded it better myself. 10 points


shafique, the fact that you believe all your defences, which like freza said 9/10th of them are assumptions, especially in the marriage forcing part - is very amusing.

FYI:


the "ma malakat aymanohom" aya caused a muslim muhajaba woman to question this in public on TV, clerics failed to explain what was "God's wisdom" in that aya

of course with the pretence of saying crap like "well it is the literal word of god, so it must be true"

she took the liberty in saying OPENLY "people do not believe, and need the proof that it is the literal word of god, i for one, do not believe it"


after that TV show

she took off the hijab, and denounced islam - now a christian.

but it doesnt stop there

they planted a bomb, in her car, which successfully exploded, sending her a chilling message that she's not welcome in her own country anymore, now she's left and gone into hiding fearing for her life. over 3 words in the quran........ imagine all the other things she doubted in it.

so what you dismiss as "normal aya, they can marry whoever they wish with consent" - if far from that, muslim women question that aya on a daily basis, and frankly, no god would EVER say that - thats logically speaking.

but i still understand you are completely blind with faith. i dont know if its a good or a bad thing really, bit of both.

Thanks ebonics.

As I said in my first post, this thread is about whether Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria of prophethood contained in the Bible.

The answer is yes.

If you (or freza) disagree, please post the relevant criteria from the Bible and show why Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet these.

I understand both of you do not like Muhammad, pbuh, and you are free to do so and give your reasons, but this is not a 'Do I like Muhammad, pbuh', thread.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Thanks ebonics.

As I said in my first post, this thread is about whether Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria of prophethood contained in the Bible.

The answer is yes.

If you (or freza) disagree, please post the relevant criteria from the Bible and show why Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet these.

ill correct you again, the answer is yes to you, and no to me and freza...... refer to the blind by faith comment.

ebonics wrote:ill correct you again, the answer is yes to you, and no to me and freza...... refer to the blind by faith comment.

I thought that you didn't believe in following the Bible (and in any case the Coptic Bible has more books than the one freza uses).

It is quite instructive though that neither you nor freza has once referred to the Bible in this thread in terms of a criterion. Now, what was that about 'blind' faith?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

ebonics wrote:ill correct you again, the answer is yes to you, and no to me and freza...... refer to the blind by faith comment.

I thought that you didn't believe in following the Bible (and in any case the Coptic Bible has more books than the one freza uses).

It is quite instructive though that neither you nor freza has once referred to the Bible in this thread in terms of a criterion. Now, what was that about 'blind' faith?

Cheers,
Shafique

you're correct in me following no bible,

you're compltely incorrect in assuming that muhammad has prophet like qualities - he's far from it, as i already said in the start of the thread, regardless of who says what.... because yet again, common sense prevails.

ebonics wrote:you're correct in me following no bible,

you're compltely incorrect in assuming that muhammad has prophet like qualities - he's far from it, as i already said in the start of the thread, regardless of who says what.... because yet again, common sense prevails.

So, whilst Muhammad, pbuh, meets Biblical criteria for being a prophet, he does not meet common sense criteria (in your view).

Therefore the Bible is not compatible with common sense according to you. Is this why you don't follow the Bible?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

ebonics wrote:you're correct in me following no bible,

you're compltely incorrect in assuming that muhammad has prophet like qualities - he's far from it, as i already said in the start of the thread, regardless of who says what.... because yet again, common sense prevails.

So, whilst Muhammad, pbuh, meets Biblical criteria for being a prophet, he does not meet common sense criteria (in your view).

Therefore the Bible is not compatible with common sense according to you. Is this why you don't follow the Bible?

Cheers,
Shafique

you're an expert in creating your own logic - whimsical logic.


i dont believe muhammad meets the biblical criteria of being a prophet.. nor does he meet mine.

muhammad declared himself a prophet of god

anyone can do that

his teaching after that are corrupt, and justify his personal agenda - i dont see how that in any way is "foreseeing the future" and "these claims came true"

on the contrary, i find the quran full of contradictions, even though you seem to think otherwise, full of things that are completely against logic, and full of things placed by him, to justify his actions.


"we ma malakat aymanohom" prime example.

so please, do not place words into my mouth, using your strange logic..

my nets freaking out

ebonics,

Sorry, I didn't see a quote from the Bible in your post. So do you agree that the Bible isn't compatible with your view of 'common sense'?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:ebonics,

Sorry, I didn't see a quote from the Bible in your post. So do you agree that the Bible isn't compatible with your view of 'common sense'?

Cheers,
Shafique

and sorry i dont see the point that you're trying to make to yourself, that makes 0 sense...


you're making claims that the bible says muhammad passes the test of prophethood, when it doesnt do such a thing by a long shot.

where you're heading with this argument of yours, other than to validate your own argument to your own brain, im not entirely sure?

I don't see how you can argue Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet Biblical criteria without referring to the Bible.

Is there a flaw in my logic?

Why the reluctance to quote from the Bible?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I don't see how you can argue Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet Biblical criteria without referring to the Bible.

Is there a flaw in my logic?

ill let you answer your own question.....

Shafique, why do you insist on having us state comparisons between prophets of the Bible to Mohammad when you will undoubtedly end up doing what you have been doing up to now, completely ignoring some of the blatant facts of the Quran while slicing away with your little wooden knife at the Bible. When I state these things about Mohammad it's not that I'm making them up, or that I hate him. What I and other state is what he really was. What you're making up are excuses that shouldn't fit an intelligent but very biased grown man who brings out every conceivable and inconceivable judgment against other religions but buries his head in the sand when it comes to his own.

2 Peter 1:19-21 states: "Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Prophecies are meant not for the prophet. No, they're NOT self-serving they're not for the prophets own human impulses but rather for spiritual revelations. A prophet is a vessel in which God communicates to humans. But unless the prophet is enlightened - he can Not enlighten his message to mankind. Makes sense, doesn't it?

How did Mohammad's wet dreams-via God benefit mankind? They didn't benefit anyone but himself. Furthermore some of his actions are not considered acceptable per Islamic practices and were not even considered acceptable per his own "moral code" back when he lived. Without sin and perfect? Hardly and doesn't even make sense when applying it TO A WHOLLY HUMAN PROPHET.
Men/women are by their very nature flawed! (((hello))) Or are Muslims perhaps implying that Mohammad was a divine being? Only divine beings are "sinless". Shafique, get with it. When choosing prophets God didn't necessarily choose the most perfect, virtuous and accomplished people. But he also didn't choose morally destitute people.

1John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. hhmmm

I donot have any quotes from the Bible, just some remarks, notes and personal thoughts. Yes, I also do have problems with the way Mohammed behaved and his relationships with many women. I donot think even one Muslim is completely 100% comfortable with the relationship with Aisha. Sure, they can talk around it or make excuses. Hey, I have a daughter now who is almost six years. I just might loose my temper when a guy knocks on my door and says he wants to marry her, but will wait with consuming it after menstruation, puberty or whatever. Last week I read a article about a new world record. In KSA two cousins around 10 years old married, and it was all according to the Sharia.
I am not a Christian or Mulsim (obviously) (I am one freza doesn´t like), but I do identify much more with the teaching of Jesus. He was non-violent, lived by his own code, never denied himself and even died for his convictions. Didn´t Mohammed agree during the Hudaibiya treaty to change his signature from "Mohammed, Messenger of God" to "Mohammed , son of Abdullah". Isn´t that denying himself? Didn´t Mohammed break the peace treaty? Thereby coming back from a previous oath? Would a prophet do that?
Anyways, I have a theory (and it´s just a theory). I stated before that I think that self-confident people donot resort to violence. Why is it then, that as soon somebody comes closes to Mohammed (with pictures and negative storied about him) Muslims resort to death threats and violence? I think it´s because they are uncomfortable...

freza - you fail to address the simple fact that according to the Bible only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God will have their prophecies fulfilled.

I am not asking for a comparison with other prophets, but criteria from the Bible stating how to recognise a prophet. I direct you to Deuteronomy 18 - do you agree with the criteria laid out there or not?

As for 2 Peter 1:19-21 it does not say that there will be no true prophets in the future. My contention is that Muhammad's revelations (which constitute a beautiful religion in your opinion) weren't just from his imagination.

The reason I make this statement is that the Bible (and the Quran) says that only God has knowledge of the future and that only true prophets can make prophecies in the name of God that come true (the crux being that the prophecies are claimed to be from God).

Your criteria of only accepting a prophet if he is 'enlightened' is not one I have read in the Bible - but surely a beautiful religion is a sign of enlightenment? If a person committing manslaughter and war crimes is 'enlightened' - what is an un-enlightened person?

Let me turn it round - can a false prophet claim to be from God, make prophecies in the name of God and these prophecies come true? If you say yes - then please confirm that you disagree with what is written in Deut 18.

FD - yes, I have no issue with people questioning Muhammad's (pbuh) conduct - be it his marriages, wars, revelations etc.

However, this thread was started when a statement said he failed the basic criteria of prophethood.

Given that Biblical prophets are recorded as committing adultery and even sleeping with their own daughters (David, Lot respectively) - I was curious as to what criteria Muhammad, pbuh, was accused of not meeting.

I too would balk at my young daughters being married off. I am also horrified at the stats of my home country, the UK, as to the age of teen and even pre-teen pregnancies. In the 6th century and for many centuries onwards, it was not uncommon to marry off royals very early. This took place in Europe and Asia alike. So, why it is unthinkable today - I say we need to look at the marriage holistically.

However distasteful the multiple marriages were, I cannot see how a believing Christian would point to this as a reason to reject a claim of prophethood. It certainly will not be because of the Bible.

That said, freza has said she does not consider Abraham, David, Solomon, Lot etc as prophets - so that is another part of the Bible she does not take literally.

Cheers,
Shafique

FD - I totally agree with you last comment about death threats coming from people who are not totally self confident. Remember though that these mobs get disproportionately more coverage. I refer you to the press statement I posted recently which addressed the cartoons.

Also recently the Deobandi school of Islam issued a clear edict signed by all its scholars which denounced terrorism.

The ultimate irony is that the Prophet, pbuh, was insulted to his face - knew the hypocrites around him, and yet did not punish anyone for just insulting him or having a belief contrary to Islam.

Religion has always been misused for ulterior means - the cartoons issue was one that was artificially stoked (it was a number of months before any uproar occured, and that was only after leaflets including invented cartoons that weren't published were distributed).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
That said, freza has said she .........
Shafique

Is Freza a she?

shafique wrote:However, this thread was started when a statement said he failed the basic criteria of prophethood.

I know, couldn´t help myslef to give my two cents...

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:However, this thread was started when a statement said he failed the basic criteria of prophethood.

I know, couldn´t help myslef to give my two cents...

No probs - we haven't talked about the basic criteria from the Bible in the thread so far, so why not look at other questions?

spoonman - I've always thought freza was a 'she', can't remember why though.

Cheers,
Shafique

spoonman wrote:

shafique wrote:
That said, freza has said she .........
Shafique

Is Freza a she?

Yeh Freza is a "she" even though she discusses like a guy...

Flying Dutchman wrote:I am not a Christian or Mulsim (obviously) (I am one freza doesn´t like)

FD, I hope you didn't take all of what I said about disliking certain people that seriously!

Shafique, get this in your head and make sure it stays there. I did not say that Islam is beautiful because of Mohammad. I said I find it beautiful in a mostly superficial way ("it photographs well"), it's visually stunning. and not too superficially in this way: I find that some of what it has become does stand for good things. So I find it beautiful in spite of Mohammad and the faulty Quran which as I have said before I believe to be a combination of inventions, stories: truthful and not, things that were added to it along the years but I do not think it was inspired nor original. I see it as based on Jewish and Christian influences. (I actually think its more Jewish than Christian.) mkay, got it? So next time you want to quote my "beautiful" reference, make sure you actually know what I meant.

shafique wrote:Your criteria of only accepting a prophet if he is 'enlightened' is not one I have read in the Bible - but surely a beautiful religion is a sign of enlightenment? If a person committing manslaughter and war crimes is 'enlightened' - what is an un-enlightened person?

A prophet must be enlightened to the message of God in order to pass them on to people. What messages did Moses get from God that he kept for his own benefit? And why don't you tell us why God saw fit to punish some of the Hebrew prophets? Repeat after me: Because they committed offenses. David actually said "“I have sinned against the Lord!”" He admitted his sins and repented sincerely (it took him a year but he finally did). God forgave him BUT he didn't go unpunished. God punished Moses on more than one occasion and sometimes for what can be considered a very small offense (for what amounted to losing his temper). Mohammad never admitted his sins! So we're to believe that towards Mohammad God was completely different - not only didn't God point out Mohammad's sins, he didn't punish him but actually encouraged and found excuses for his sins. Yeah, right.

shafique wrote:That said, freza has said she does not consider Abraham, David, Solomon, Lot etc as prophets - so that is another part of the Bible she does not take literally.

say whaaaaat? lol! WHERE DID I STATE THIS? Lot - I don't consider a prophet but the rest I do of course! Please show me where I stated these things so I can reprimand myself! Unless you seriously took my words out of context...again.

Matthew 7, 12 "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets. Did Mohammad treat everyone the way he wanted to be treated himself?

You ignore what really counts against Mohammad's prophethood: 1 John 2:18-19 Says that that there will be wanna-be prophets who will take things from the Bible and make them their own, who will not accept Jesus as the true Messiah. This applies to Mohammad! I mean, how much more clearer do you want things to get?

The Bible also states that the Prophets know the Law. Mohammad bungled the OT and didn't even know enough of the NT. He got Mary and the Holy Spirit confused!! Mohammad who claimed to be of Abrahamic descent should have known the laws. And should have known that they had been fulfilled in the NT.

Flying Dutchman wrote:I am not a Christian or Mulsim (obviously) (I am one freza doesn´t like), but I do identify much more with the teaching of Jesus. He was non-violent, lived by his own code, never denied himself and even died for his convictions. Didn´t Mohammed agree during the Hudaibiya treaty to change his signature from "Mohammed, Messenger of God" to "Mohammed , son of Abdullah". Isn´t that denying himself?

I don't see it as such - he didn't deny he was a prophet of God but agreed to not use the term as the opponents objected. Had he agreed to write 'Muhammad, not Messenger of God' that would be a denial.

Flying Dutchman wrote: Didn´t Mohammed break the peace treaty? Thereby coming back from a previous oath? Would a prophet do that?

Yes, had he personally broken an oath that would be against the conduct of a prophet of God. However the treaty was broken when a tribe from among the muslims fought with a tribe allied with the Quraish. The Quraish were offered 3 alternatives and chose to agree that the treaty was dissolved.

I don't think Muhammad, pbuh, ordered the fighting to break the truce. The analogy I would draw is of the disobedience of the tribes of Israel against Moses when they made a cow of gold to worship - they went against a prophet's will.

Tellingly, there was no bloodshed in the conquest of Mecca - largely because Islam had spread so much in the two years of ceasefire that where he had to accept the terms of the Quraish at Hudaibiyya with a few hundred supporters, two years later he had an army 10,000 strong.

Cheers,
Shafique