[Horus]

A few months ago, I watched an interview with an author regarding Islam. (I think it was a Steven Crowder video, but I can't find it now). This author offered a challenge. Pick up a copy of the Holy Koran, open it to any random page, and you will find at least one verse that you will find to be morally reprehensible, whether it be justification for violence, rape, slavery, subjugation of certain groups of people, or many other things which any sane, virtuous person would consider to simply be wrong. Do the same thing with the New Testament, and you will not find even one example of anything remotely comparable throughout the entire book. (Even though the Old Testament does contain many accounts of murder, rape and enslavement, they are merely accounts - there is nothing such as in the Koran that gives instructions or commandments on who/how to kill, who/how to rape or who/how to enslave, and which could easily be applied to the modern world).

So I did just that. I got my hands on a copy of the Holy Book, and it's an absolutely astounding text. It's like nothing I've ever read. I would encourage everyone else to do the same. Anyone who has ever touted the virtue and wisdom contained within the Koran, anyone who claims that Islam is a religion of peace, has simply never read the Koran. The only other possibility is that they are either stupid or are morally repugnant people themselves who love the idea of the killing or forced conversion of non-believers, who love the idea of slaughtering homosexuals and believe that the intellectual capacity of a woman is exactly one half of that of a man. It's all there in black and white and very clear in it's meaning and intent - it's certainly not anything which can be justified by saying that it's open to interpretation.

After beginning to examine the Koran, I messaged Roosh to get his blessing to start a Koran thread, with the intent of examining the content of this book and whether Islamic ideology is compatible with Western culture. However, my knowledge is still insufficient to do justice to such a broad topic.

So let's look at one of the most troubling aspects of the founder of the religion of Islam. Was the Prophet Mohammed a pedophile? Because when faced with the scriptures (in this case, the hadith, not the Koran) which repeatedly give accounts of Mohammed fucking a nine year old girl, even the most strident left-wing, progressive, multi-culturalists would have problems reconciling this with their principles of tolerance and inclusiveness.

The problem of Mohammed consummating his marriage with a nine year old girl is a very uncomfortable one for Muslims. When confronted with this problem, they either abruptly end the conversation by muttering something about how Mohammed should not be questioned and it was part of God's plan, or go through incredible mental gymnastics to try and justify it.

Just for reference, and so there is no question that Muslims are fully aware of the fact that Mohammed fucked a nine year old girl, here are translations of the passages from the hadith. (The hadith (plural) is a collection of books which is second only to the Holy Koran, and chronicles the life of the Prophet Mohammed). These are only the passages which specifically mention her exact age - there are many others which mention that she was very young.

Quote:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3896 — Khadija died three years before the Prophet (ﷺ) departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married `Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Quote:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158 — The Prophet (ﷺ) wrote the (marriage contract) with `Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Quote:

Sahih Muslim 3311 — 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Quote:

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116 — The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.

The last two accounts from Aishah herself, and especially the second to last one where she mentions taking her dolls with her while being "taken to his house" (which is a euphemistic term for getting fucked) sound like a cry out for help from a woman whose childhood was destroyed as a result of being repeatedly raped by a psychopathic pedophile.

When Muslims try to justify it, they will say something about how is was the prevailing custom of the time and that we should look at it in the context of the era. I find it very hard to believe that there was widespread acceptance of banging 9 year old girls in any culture in any time. Of course it happened and I'm sure people were aware of it, but it's difficult to believe that people at least didn't recognise that 9 years old is far too young. And even if this weren't the case, Mohammed was the most perfect man to ever walk this earth. If he was so universally perfect by the standards of morality, he should have known better than his fellow rag-heads - he should have kept himself busy banging his many other wives while he waited for Ayesha to at least begin puberty.

Another amazing justification - and no I'm not making this up - I have heard from three different people is a comparison between the Prophet Mohammed and King John of England (1166-1216), because apparently he also married a nine year old girl. (Actually, her actual age is uncertain - the lowest estimate is nine and the highest is fifteen, but let's presume she was actually nine for the sake of argument). I find it incredible that I have heard the exact same argument from three different people - they didn't mention many of the other kings throughout European history who married young girls, only King John. It's almost as if, I don't know, this isn't an argument they have come up with themselves, but something they have been taught to say in the face of the "Mohammed was a pedophile" problem. All three of them told me (with a straight face) that there is no widespread revulsion towards King John, so if we are not critical of King John, why do we criticise Mohammed for taking a nine year old girl, stripping her nine year old body naked, opening her nine year old legs and ramming his 55 year old penis into her nine year old vagina? Remember that this was in a time before the invention of KY jelly - we all enjoy a tight, smooth pussy, but the more acceptable approach is to move to Asia and buy your girl a razor, not rape an infant. (If you think that is a sick, inappropriate joke, then fuck you - I'm just highlighting the barbarity of an old man having sex with a little girl).

The appeal to cultural or moral relativism in response to this charge, and for that matter any of the charges towards Islam, is truly breathtaking. Islam is based around the perfection of God, the perfection of the Prophet and the perfection of the Book - if we are to follow these examples of perfection, then we have to conclude that all other examples are imperfect by nature. Muslims around the world are constantly condemning the immorality of other religions or ways of life. Mohammed himself justified his military campaigns based on the immorality, idolatry and corruption of the Arab people compared to his own chaste, pure and civilised ideology. So they might be a little inconsistent when they say we should put it into context and judge people's actions by the attitudes of the time - if something is bad, then it's universally bad regardless of the context. If you recognise that fucking a prepubescent nine year old girl in 2016 is bad, then you have to also recognise that fucking a prepubescent nine year old girl was also bad in the Year of our Lord 630.

Of course, it's not even worth mentioning the glaringly obvious problem that King John was not a founding figure of any religion. We don't hold him to be a moral authority and we don't consider him to be an example to live our lives by. Mohammed is all of those things for Muslims. The fact that they are trying to justify the evil actions of their Prophet by comparing him to an English king is mind-boggling.

There's another argument which, on the surface is slightly more compelling, but nonetheless completely invalid. I've not heard this in person, but only in articles I have read. The argument is that, according to Christian tradition, the Virgin Mary was between the age of 12 and 14 when she gave birth to Jesus. If it's okay for Joseph, why is it not also permissible for Mohammed.

When I first read that, I was surprised as I thought I had a pretty good knowledge of the New Testament and had never hear this before. After looking around, I could find nothing in the Bible or Christian tradition in general to back this up. I thought that this was perhaps mentioned in the Koran, since Mary (Maryam) and Jesus (Isa Ibn Maryam) are both major and honoured figures in Islam. However in the Islamic tradition, Joseph isn't mentioned (as far I can find) and Maryam gave birth to Isa as the result of immaculate conception as in the New Testament but with no husband present.

But even if it were true that Joseph married a 12 year old girl, so what? This is a completely child-like application of logic. It is similar to the argument that a six year old child makes when he says, "He did it something bad, so it must be okay for me to do it." Or when retards justify terrorist attacks by saying, "America killed some people so why shouldn't they respond by blowing up a train station in Brussels?" As the tired saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right, especially if one of those wrongs was committed by the most perfect man in history. It's also hilarious that by criticising Joseph for supposedly having sex with a little girl, they are also admitting by default that Mohammed was also wrong to do so.

Also, as in the example of the aforementioned King John, Joseph was not a founding or pivotal figure in Christianity. He is not held up as a moral example. He is simply a minor figure in the Gospel. If we were to stumble upon ancient Aramaic texts which prove beyond doubt that Joseph was a pervert with a fetish for Japanese tentacle porn and gimp masks, not much in Christianity would change - perhaps his sainthood would be revoked and he would be viewed as a flawed Biblical figure such as King David. If we were to find similar proof that Jesus were a pervert, then Christianity would be dead, since the life and moral teachings of Jesus are the basis for Christianity. And yet here we have written proof that Mohammed himself was actually a pervert. Consider the following passages, and ask yourself if Christianity would have as many followers if there were written accounts of Jesus similar to these of Mohammed.

Quote:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5080 - When I got married, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'

Quote:

Sahih al-Bukhari 299, 300, 301 - The Prophet (ﷺ) and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in I`tikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Quote:

Sahih al-Bukhari 302 - (on the authority of his father) `Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." `Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet (ﷺ) could.

So was Mohammed a pedophile? Perhaps. Did he have sex with a nine year old girl? According to the best sources, yes. Was it morally repugnant for him to have done so, even if the practice was common at the time? Absolutely.

And if you're still not convinced, watch this video about child brides in Yemen to see the modern day consequences of Muslims following the example of their prophet.

[Pride male]

Did he even exist?

[Horus]

(05-13-2016 03:25 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Did he even exist?

Whether or not he existed is irrelevant. The important thing is that 1.6 billion Muslims base their life and morality on his example.

[Phoenix]

Legally, probably not during the period he lived in. From what I've heard, this behaviour wasn't uncommon in Bedouin tribes etc. By definition, obviously yes.

On King John, the difference is that no one actually looks up to King John as an example of how to live. There is no "religion of King John". In fact apparently his contemporaries thought poorly of his sexual behaviour ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King...sonal_life ). It's also worth noting this was the king who's behaviour precipitated the Magna Carta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King...agna_Carta

[Sooth]

(05-13-2016 03:25 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Did he even exist?

Yes, there is no doubt he existed. If you want to be unbiased given the available historical documentation there is no doubt that both Mohammed and Jesus existed as people.

The hard part is believing the yarns they spun.

Is Mohammed a pedo? Short answer: He fucked a 9 year old...

Long answer by David Wood here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2013/10/...phile.html

[Alexandrian]

I am muslim. This is what we muslims think about it:

We don't know the exact age of Aisha. The ages of the wives of the prophet are documented in hadith. Hadiths are saying of the sayings and actions of the prophet that have been collected by people. The problems with hadiths is that there are mostly chains of narrators, and they have been collected 200 years after the death of the prophet in modern-day Uzbekistan. We follow them as long they have a 'strong' chain of narrators. The Koran mentions nothing about hadiths so they are to be regarded as a secondary source of legislation.

Child marriages were common all over the world in that time. Mohammad as a man of his time and place could have taken over common practices like these. We modern-day muslims are not really in a position to condemn it, because we are brought up with different norms and values. Basicly, there was no concept of pedophilia in that time.

[Horus]

Quote:

We don't know the exact age of Aisha. The ages of the wives of the prophet are documented in hadith. Hadiths are saying of the sayings and actions of the prophet that have been collected by people. The problems with hadiths is that there are mostly chains of narrators, and they have been collected 200 years after the death of the prophet in modern-day Uzbekistan. We follow them as long they have a 'strong' chain of narrators. The Koran mentions nothing about hadiths so they are to be regarded as a secondary source of legislation.

What's your point? That the hadiths are invalid and unreliable due to the amount of time that passed between the life of Mohammed and the collection of these writings? Then why are they still referred to as a source of information and morality by Muslim scholars? Are you saying that the five accounts that give the precise age of Aisha are incorrect and should be ignored? If so, then how much more of it is bullshit? This seems to be a case of cherry picking where only the good stuff is valid and all the bad stuff is somehow inaccurate. Just as some Christians are faced with an uncomfortable passage from the Old Testament.

The fact that these passages exist, explicitly stating that Mohammed fucked a nine year old girl, is extraordinary for writings which are representative of the second largest religion in the world and not just some obscure cult practised by a few nut jobs. It's amazing that these Uzbekistanis collecting this information would include this five times, and that nobody had the wisdom to omit this as it could possibly cast the Prophet in a bad light.

Let's acknowledge the Koran and the hadiths for what there really are. They are the incoherent, morally repugnant ramblings of unsophisticated, desert-dwelling savages 1400 years ago, who needed fuel to feed the zeal of military conquest. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that - all cultures were at some point made up of unsophisticated savages. The Old Testament is similarly not a particularly valuable source of morality, for the fact that it was also written by unsophisticated, desert-dwelling savages and that's the reason we no longer faithfully follow the instructions of Leviticus or Deuteronomy, (although these books are significantly less less insane than the Koran written many hundreds of years later). The Koran and the hadiths are simply not moral codes which can be universalized so as to be relevant to the modern world.

The New Testament, in comparison, was also written many years after the death of Jesus. This is the reason for the inconsistencies in four Gospels chronicling his life. However, unlike the Koran and the hadiths, there is nothing to cause you to believe that Jesus was an arsehole. There's not one instance where he gives instructions on who or how to kill, and there's certainly no mention of any weird sexual fetishes. It doesn't even matter if these accounts are true or not, since as a result of these writings we have a pretty decent moral code. Perhaps this is due to the New Testament in it's final form being compiled by Greeks and Romans who had a long history of examining the philosophy of morality, and therefore we have a moral code which can be universalized to still remain relevant 2000 years later. It's also the reason that Western countries are almost all great places to live, whereas there are only three majority Muslim countries in the world that aren't backward hell holes.

Quote:

Child marriages were common all over the world in that time. Mohammad as a man of his time and place could have taken over common practices like these. We modern-day muslims are not really in a position to condemn it, because we are brought up with different norms and values. Basicly, there was no concept of pedophilia in that time.

I've covered this in the OP. The dude fucked a nine year old. Just to be clear, most nine year old girls haven't even begun puberty. No normal man has any compulsion to fuck a nine year old girl - even disregarding the moral problems, there is no biological reason for a man to be sexually attracted to a child.

We know that slavery is wrong, despite the fact that it's been practised for thousands of years among all cultures. But just because it was the custom of the day, it doesn't make it right. You can't justify evil based on some bullshit excuse of cultural relativism, especially when the instigator of that evil is supposedly a morally perfect Prophet whose life is an example we should follow.

[Alexandrian]

(05-13-2016 07:03 AM)Horus Wrote:  

Quote:

We don't know the exact age of Aisha. The ages of the wives of the prophet are documented in hadith. Hadiths are saying of the sayings and actions of the prophet that have been collected by people. The problems with hadiths is that there are mostly chains of narrators, and they have been collected 200 years after the death of the prophet in modern-day Uzbekistan. We follow them as long they have a 'strong' chain of narrators. The Koran mentions nothing about hadiths so they are to be regarded as a secondary source of legislation.

What's your point? That the hadiths are invalid and unreliable due to the amount of time that passed between the life of Mohammed and the collection of these writings? Then why are they still referred to as a source of information and morality by Muslim scholars? Are you saying that the five accounts that give the precise age of Aisha are incorrect and should be ignored? If so, then how much more of it is bullshit? This seems to be a case of cherry picking where only the good stuff is valid and all the bad stuff is somehow inaccurate. Just as some Christians are faced with an uncomfortable passage from the Old Testament.

The fact that these passages exist, explicitly stating that Mohammed fucked a nine year old girl, is extraordinary for writings which are representative of the second largest religion in the world and not just some obscure cult practised by a few nut jobs. It's amazing that these Uzbekistanis collecting this information would include this five times, and that nobody had the wisdom to omit this as it could possibly cast the Prophet in a bad light.

Let's acknowledge the Koran and the hadiths for what there really are. They are the incoherent, morally repugnant ramblings of unsophisticated, desert-dwelling savages 1400 years ago, who needed fuel to feed the zeal of military conquest. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that - all cultures were at some point made up of unsophisticated savages. The Old Testament is similarly not a particularly valuable source of morality, for the fact that it was also written by unsophisticated, desert-dwelling savages and that's the reason we no longer faithfully follow the instructions of Leviticus or Deuteronomy, (although these books are significantly less less insane than the Koran written many hundreds of years later). The Koran and the hadiths are simply not moral codes which can be universalized so as to be relevant to the modern world.

The New Testament, in comparison, was also written many years after the death of Jesus. This is the reason for the inconsistencies in four Gospels chronicling his life. However, unlike the Koran and the hadiths, there is nothing to cause you to believe that Jesus was an arsehole. There's not one instance where he gives instructions on who or how to kill, and there's certainly no mention of any weird sexual fetishes. It doesn't even matter if these accounts are true or not, since as a result of these writings we have a pretty decent moral code. Perhaps this is due to the New Testament in it's final form being compiled by Greeks and Romans who had a long history of examining the philosophy of morality, and therefore we have a moral code which can be universalized to still remain relevant 2000 years later. It's also the reason that Western countries are almost all great places to live, whereas there are only three majority Muslim countries in the world that aren't backward hell holes.

Quote:

Child marriages were common all over the world in that time. Mohammad as a man of his time and place could have taken over common practices like these. We modern-day muslims are not really in a position to condemn it, because we are brought up with different norms and values. Basicly, there was no concept of pedophilia in that time.

I've covered this in the OP. The dude fucked a nine year old. Just to be clear, most nine year old girls haven't even begun puberty. No normal man has any compulsion to fuck a nine year old girl - even disregarding the moral problems, there is no biological reason for a man to be sexually attracted to a child.

We know that slavery is wrong, despite the fact that it's been practised for thousands of years among all cultures. But just because it was the custom of the day, it doesn't make it right. You can't justify evil based on some bullshit excuse of cultural relativism, especially when the instigator of that evil is supposedly a morally perfect Prophet whose life is an example we should follow.

Hadith chain 1 says: A
Hadith chain 2 says: A
Hadith chain 3 says: A
Hadith chain 10 says: A
Conclusion: A is a rule.

There is a whole study based on the authenticity of hadiths and we rely on our scholars to pick out the strong ones.

This thing with the age of Aisha hadiths is that islamophobes cherry-pick the most weird ones. I don't blame them, they have their own agenda to serve. It's not really a good agenda, but people are free to say what they want.
There are hadiths that state she was 19 years old. Also calculations based on other marriages state that she must have been 19 years old when she got married. She could have been 6, 9, 13, 19, 29 or whatever, the general consensus among us muslims is: don't know, don't care. Don't forget that the hadiths were collected in a time and place that was full of conflicts and sectarian wars. It might aswell have been fabricated by a butthurt Zoroastrian or Shi'ite Persian. Such hadiths have been discovered in the past.

The comparison with the Old Testament is invalid. The Old Testament is deemed the word of God. Hadiths are not the word of God. Hadiths are narrations which have been passed on for centuries. It's people-work and is bound to contain falsehoods and contradictions.

Also, for the sake of the credibility of your own arguments, don't exaggerate the state of the islamic world. The majority of islamic countries are good places to live in. Just look op the list of most well-doing nations. You'll find that the best of them are even the backwards bedouin nations, like Qatar and Kuwait. I live in Germany, but if Qatar offered me citizenship i'd be gone in a second.

We have our own jus in bello. Why does that make us assholes? Warfare is an integral part of human nature. Our God gave us instructions and guidance on how to wage war correctly.

Mankind is created as unsophisticated savages. We have been unsophisticated savages for the majority of history. Deep down inside the most civilised man is a savage, otherwise he'd be unfit for survival. That's why the Holy Books were revealed in times when man was primitive. It must be in touch with our inner nature.

[syrianguy]

The thing is you cannot treat the Koran as a standalone document. You are commanded to follow the example of the life of Mohamad and you can only learn about him in the Sunna and the Hadith. Those Hadith that are decreed "authentic" have to be read and followed the same as you would the Koran.

By the way, the official recording of Hadith started under Uthman. He also ordered the burning of the Korans as there were multiple contradicting version circulating around with people reciting them. The original koran was maintained by one of Mohamad's wives, Hafsah, also destroyed by muslim leaders after her death. The Koran you have is a compilation of hearsay passed down from Mohamad's companion ( many disagreed with the burning) and ultimately edited by Uthman. The purity of the Koran is under a huge question mark and requires blind faith to believe you have the uncorrupted word of Allah.

ps: the fear of Islam is completely logical and founded on 1400 years of war, terror and persecution. The term islamophobia is nonsensical, it is just common sense to be afraid of Islam.

[Alexandrian]

(05-13-2016 08:09 AM)syrianguy Wrote:  

The thing is you cannot treat the Koran as a standalone document. You are commanded to follow the example of the life of Mohamad and you can only learn about him in the Sunna and the Hadith. Those Hadith that are decreed "authentic" have to be read and followed the same as you would the Koran.

By the way, the official recording of Hadith started under Uthman. He also ordered the burning of the Korans as there were multiple contradicting version circulating around with people reciting them. The original koran was maintained by one of Mohamad's wives, Hafsah, also destroyed by muslim leaders after her death. The Koran you have is a compilation of hearsay passed down from Mohamad's companion ( many disagreed with the burning) and ultimately edited by Uthman. The purity of the Koran is under a huge question mark and requires blind faith to believe you have the uncorrupted word of Allah.

We are ordered to follow Mohammad as an example for mankind. That doesn't mean that every piece of information that is written about him is true. For centuries the scholars analyse which hadiths are authentic and which are not.

Osman compiled the Koran from written parchments which were collected over the time. He compiled and wrote them in different orders. When he picked the desired order he burned the rest. That's how the story is.

The hadiths are a compilation of hearsay, and ultimately written down by different writers.

[syrianguy]

Not just order, there are omissions and additions. Ultimately he edited text and compiled oral recitations, if that's not hearsay and human hand writing "godly" verses then I don't know what is.

No one said every piece of information, I said hadith that has been deemed "authentic" or even "good". If you are not going to acknowledge those then where are you going to learn about Mohamad from ? or can you at all have a reliable account of how he was like as a human being ? If not then this is a glaring hole in Islam. It is therefore an incomplete religion according to you.

[thoughtgypsy]

Alexandrian Wrote:

Child marriages were common all over the world in that time. Mohammad as a man of his time and place could have taken over common practices like these. We modern-day muslims are not really in a position to condemn it, because we are brought up with different norms and values. Basicly, there was no concept of pedophilia in that time.

This is not strictly true. While Judaism permitted pedophilia (as evidenced by the Talmud), sexual intercourse with pre pubescent children was generally forbidden in most societies. There is no biological justification for it, and it was considered deviant sexual behavior. Only if you take the modern definition of "child" (someone below the age of 18) could you argue your point. But in most societies, women were considered marriageable adults once they reached sexual maturity and could produce a husband an heir.

I explained this briefly in another thread:

Quote:

Menarche, or a woman's first menstrual cycle signifies that a woman has reached sexual maturity and may be capable of conceiving a child. Further signs of sexual development are the growth of breasts, and an increased ratio between the size of the waist and hips. This can vary based on their diet (if they are malnourished) and life history (those with absent fathers tend to reach menarche faster). Increased environmental exposure to (estrogenic) hormones may have sped up sexual development further.

In many if not most cultures in history, reaching menarche allowed a woman to enter into marriage. The age at which this occurred varied between women, but may have been reached by 12 years, and almost certainly by 15 years. If you are European and you look back in your genealogical record, I am almost certain you have female relatives that married at 15. In monogamous societies, the fertile window of the female partner limited the size of the family. Men wishing to build larger families would gain an advantage by finding a partner that was sexually mature and had a larger fertile window. Dangerous, physically burdensome tasks were often reserved for men, as women were physically weaker. The duties of women of ages past were much less physically burdensome compared to men. As such, the physical requirements to perform their expected duties as wives and mothers could be achieved shortly after reaching physical maturity.

[Horus]

Quote:

Hadith chain 1 says: A
Hadith chain 2 says: A
Hadith chain 3 says: A
Hadith chain 10 says: A
Conclusion: A is a rule.

Perhaps not a rule, but there are patterns we can see which would lead us to certain conclusions.

Quote:

There is a whole study based on the authenticity of hadiths and we rely on our scholars to pick out the strong ones.

So you need to rely on scholars to tell you what you should believe. Lazy.

Quote:

There are hadiths that state she was 19 years old. Also calculations based on other marriages state that she must have been 19 years old when she got married.

Please share these passages as I can't find them.

Quote:

She could have been 6, 9, 13, 19, 29 or whatever, the general consensus among us muslims is: don't know, don't care.

Lazy.

Quote:

Don't forget that the hadiths were collected in a time and place that was full of conflicts and sectarian wars. It might aswell have been fabricated by a butthurt Zoroastrian or Shi'ite Persian. Such hadiths have been discovered in the past.

So if the hadiths are so unreliable due to these reasons, it would make sense to discard them entirely as it's impossible to be certain which ones are valid. It's very easy to say that these were fabricated by those dastardly Persians (in which case, almost all the hadiths must have been written by those horrible meddling Shi'ites), and it's a lazy excuse for the moral bankruptcy of these texts.

Quote:

The comparison with the Old Testament is invalid. The Old Testament is deemed the word of God. Hadiths are not the word of God. Hadiths are narrations which have been passed on for centuries. It's people-work and is bound to contain falsehoods and contradictions.

It is obvious that the Old Testament is also the work of men. It is the work of ignorant ancient men trying to make sense of their world, and therefore has little use when applied to relatively enlightened modern civilisation. No sane person believes that adulterers should be stoned to death. No sane person believes that rape victims should be forced to marry their rapist. Therefore, we don't use the Old Testament as a moral code. The Koran and hadiths however are still used as moral codes in spite of the fact that they contain completely immoral teachings.

Quote:

Also, for the sake of the credibility of your own arguments, don't exaggerate the state of the islamic world. The majority of islamic countries are good places to live in. Just look op the list of most well-doing nations.

Quote:

You'll find that the best of them are even the backwards bedouin nations, like Qatar and Kuwait. I live in Germany, but if Qatar offered me citizenship i'd be gone in a second.

Qatar and Kuwait are both shit holes for the majority of its residents. They are wealthy in spite of Islam, not because of Islam. Something to do with oil under the sand I believe. Also there is no possibility for someone who isn't full-blooded Qatari to gain citizenship, so you're shit out of luck.

Quote:

We have our own jus in bello. Why does that make us assholes? Warfare is an integral part of human nature. Our God gave us instructions and guidance on how to wage war correctly.

And by following these instructions, in the modern world, non-believers are still beheaded, adulterers are still stoned to death, and homosexuals are still thrown from rooftops. Good job Allah!

Quote:

Mankind is created as unsophisticated savages. We have been unsophisticated savages for the majority of history. Deep down inside the most civilised man is a savage, otherwise he'd be unfit for survival. That's why the Holy Books were revealed in times when man was primitive. It must be in touch with our inner nature.

There is no reason to believe that the Holy Books were divine revelations. They are all clearly written by men and are reflective of the circumstances of their time. The difference between the books of the Islamic and Christian traditions is that the former is reflective of the philosophy of ignorant camel herders, which therefore has no relevant application to the modern world, while the latter is reflective of the enlightened traditions of Greco-Roman philosophy which is still relevant to this day, and will be for centuries to come.

I have a sincere question for you, and I ask for a sincere response. I have been highly critical of Islam and the Prophet in particular. So here is my question. Do I deserve to die for my beliefs? An honest answer is important - don't worry about being banned from RVF (as I assume death threats are a bannable offense) - the teachings of the Holy Koran are far more important than RVF membership.

[Horus]

(05-13-2016 08:18 AM)Alexandrian Wrote:  

We are ordered to follow Mohammad as an example for mankind.

Your use of language is important, and betrays the fact that Islamic thinking is incompatible with enlightened Western ideals. Who ordered you? Why were you ordered? What is the consequence of not following these orders? This attitude is antithetical to Western values that have been developed and refined over many hundreds of years, values which are unique to the West and have been protected in spite of centuries of attempted military incursions into Europe by barbarian Muslim invaders.

[Designate]

(05-13-2016 07:39 AM)Alexandrian Wrote:  

Our God gave us instructions and guidance on how to wage war correctly.

For anyone interested on how these "correct" instructions are carried out in real life, you can read more about them here: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com

[Comte De St. Germain]

Horus I'm going to stay out of this thread as all this will end up being is the usual one sided bashing that it was in "Is Islam redpill?" thread.

But don't use the word lazy or "So you need scholars to tell you how you should believe? Lazy". Talk about redundant for some trying to argue a logical point. We're not women here using ad hominem attacks.

The same kind of redundant argument can be made by talking about the 50,000 or so splinters of Christianity. I could just as easily say "You guys were so unsure of your beliefs that you had to break off and form splinter groups every time there was an issue.". The argument is about Muhammad and the beliefs of Muslims I believe, not about so called laziness in the faith. Also I have no dog in this fight as it is due to my deistic beliefs so don't jump on my ass as I'm not making a case for Islam.

[Horus]

(05-13-2016 10:17 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

But don't use the word lazy or "So you need scholars to tell you how you should believe? Lazy". Talk about redundant for some trying to argue a logical point. We're not women here using ad hominem attacks.

No, I stand by that statement, and it's not redundant. If people are unable to form their own position, and fanatically rely on scholars for the basis of their morality, they are lazy. This is not an attack, it is merely an observation.

[WeekendCasanova]

(05-13-2016 07:39 AM)Alexandrian Wrote:  

Also, for the sake of the credibility of your own arguments, don't exaggerate the state of the islamic world. The majority of islamic countries are good places to live in. Just look op the list of most well-doing nations. You'll find that the best of them are even the backwards bedouin nations, like Qatar and Kuwait. I live in Germany, but if Qatar offered me citizenship i'd be gone in a second.

And now you've lost me.

Qatar and Kuwait are destitute. You are fooled by their gdp per-capita, but the truth is that only the oil tycoons are rich, thus raising the per-capita amount. Not to mention that Kuwait was ranked the worst country for expats last year.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(05-13-2016 10:42 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:17 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

But don't use the word lazy or "So you need scholars to tell you how you should believe? Lazy". Talk about redundant for some trying to argue a logical point. We're not women here using ad hominem attacks.

No, I stand by that statement, and it's not redundant. If people are unable to form their own position, and fanatically rely on scholars for the basis of their morality, they are lazy. This is not an attack, it is merely an observation.

Yes what seems to be written in the Quran is that Muslims should emulate their prophet. So for that there's a chain of narrators playing telephone relaying the only source of that. So of course you're going to need scholars for that.

Not to mention the Hadith/Sunnah does not trump anything in the Quran itself therefore making the former more general guidelines than fanatical ways of life(like you could argue the book states). Holding loose guidelines as the equivalent of supposed moral law is redundant and lazy researching on your part. So yes your lazy argument still does not stand.

[Horus]

(05-13-2016 10:59 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  

Yes what seems to be written in the Quran is that Muslims should emulate their prophet. So for that there's a chain of narrators playing telephone relaying the only source of that. So of course you're going to need scholars for that.

Not to mention the Hadith/Sunnah does not trump anything in the Quran itself therefore making the former more general guidelines than fanatical ways of life(like you could argue the book states). Holding loose guidelines as the equivalent of supposed moral law is redundant and lazy researching on your part. So yes your lazy argument still does not stand.

And yet Sharia law has basis in not only the unalterable word of the Holy Koran, but also the the hadiths and Surah. These "loose guidelines" are the reason that the Islamic world, and Muslims in general, suck balls. My lazy argument does stand.

[Hannibal]

(05-13-2016 10:54 AM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 07:39 AM)Alexandrian Wrote:  

Also, for the sake of the credibility of your own arguments, don't exaggerate the state of the islamic world. The majority of islamic countries are good places to live in. Just look op the list of most well-doing nations. You'll find that the best of them are even the backwards bedouin nations, like Qatar and Kuwait. I live in Germany, but if Qatar offered me citizenship i'd be gone in a second.

And now you've lost me.

Qatar and Kuwait are destitute. You are fooled by their gdp per-capita, but the truth is that only the oil tycoons are rich, thus raising the per-capita amount. Not to mention that Kuwait was ranked the worst country for expats last year.

Yeah, no shit. If Islamic countries are so great, why are millions and millions of Muslims leaving on foot and by rickety-ass boat to get to white, historically Christian countries?

Why do you live in Germany?

Perhaps it is because the same societal structures and work ethic that allowed businesses, families, and communities to flourish for thousands of years which allows them the standard of living they now enjoy?

There are a number of Islamic nations that, no shit, literally struck gold, but they're too busy shitting on whores to better their communities or invest in actual infrastructure or education.

There's a video of an Islamic scholar bitching about how they import all these wonderful inventions from Western nations, but they have no idea how to build them and they don't even have one factory that could make one bolt to repair them.

[AboveAverageJoe]

I believe the bias on this forum is too heavily against Islam to truly debate whether Islam is congruent with Western Civilization. Historically Mohammed unified a massive region and many races and established a rule of law higher than the tribal blood-feud system. The caliphate which he started ultimately morphed into the Ottoman empire which ruled the center of the world until just a century ago. I think any man that has that large of an impact on Civilization deserves a certain modicum of respect. When people try to dismiss Hitler,Stalin or Mao, or even Hussein or Kaddahfi as "madmen" or "murderers" I always feel like a crazy person cant exert that much personal influence on so large an area without being shrewdly intelligent, calculating, charismatic and a host of other alpha traits. Mohammed had to be the definition of Alpha just to accomplish what he did.
As far as his religion goes, I dont need a 7th century Saudi micromanaging every single aspect of my life from when I can eat, sleep, fuck, shit, which hand I can wipe with, what pets I should have, etc. The amount of prescribed actions of Mohammed by the Koran and mostly hadiths is utterly astounding. I know Muslims who have to research every single action they take to make sure the Prophet would have approved. Talk about OCDC.
They take What Would Mohammed Do, to a whole nother level. The bottom line is Islam is about submission to Allah through copying the traditions of the Prophet. Way too many rules for me. I like to make my own decisions and I am fully confident in my ability. I can navigate my 21st century lifestyle without concerning myself with what either Jesus or Mohammed would do. Its the religion version of "is this beta?"

[Saweeep]

(05-13-2016 02:13 PM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  

Historically Mohammed unified a massive region and many races and established a rule of law higher than the tribal blood-feud system.

He didn't unify anything.

He conquered.

[AboveAverageJoe]

Semantics. One could argue that conquering is unifying or by its definition that something has to be separate to be conquered. In other words by emprical standards once you conquer a place you unify it with what you arrived with. He definitely united the disparate tribe of the Hijaz and the majority of the Arabian Peninsula. I guess the question at hand is whether he was a pedophile or not. I believe by todays' standards yes but by the standards of the time not. If it was considered pedophilia at the time it probably would have been not mentioned or at least downplayed. If he was the supreme moral being and a shining example to all (as he is portrayed in Islam) he should have came to the conclusion that there is no point in marrying a girl that young. Marrying women before their sexual maturity is not natural. How does a guy ruling an empire have the time or wherewithal to fondle a nine year old girl on her period? I cant even date women in their young twenties now because of how out of touch their "fresh out of high school experience" is with my reality.
Also it should be noted that Aishas meddling in political affairs at the Battle of the Camel had a defining effect on the Shia-Sunni divide. After her husbands death her meddling in political affairs essentially halved the empire he created. Fuck with young stupid bitches and suffer the consequences.

[cubanlinx]

Something shitty? Very obvious yes.

Pedophile? Then there'd be accounts of him having a harem of pre-pubescent girls. Of course, there is the possibility of these being glossed over. He had 11 wives. There was also controversy about him marrying a slave woman (freed) I believe.