[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Belgian thought]

yes it should be a discussion about the faults of all religions and not a diatribe against one of them.

for the record I do not believe in a deity of any kind also I do not believe in using catch all nostrums about one faith to cast whole groups of people in a bad light simply because I do not accept their faith.

To present Islam as one homogenous block of beliefs, denies history and is deeply dishonest.

Show me the true agenda.

This thread is not about comparative religion, it is about Islam which I now have understood to be perfect.

 

[tsig]

yes it should be a discussion about the faults of all religions and not a diatribe against one of them.

for the record I do not believe in a deity of any kind also I do not believe in using catch all nostrums about one faith to cast whole groups of people in a bad light simply because I do not accept their faith.

To present Islam as one homogenous block of beliefs, denies history and is deeply dishonest.

Show me the true agenda.

I always thought that there were some core beliefs in Islam, Muhammad as a messenger of god and the Koran is his message but I wouldn't want to be a history denier so I guess I was wrong.


It's a mystery how such an amorphous religion ever gained popularity.

What kind of true agenda do you think others have?

 

[Brainache]

I always thought that there were some core beliefs in Islam, Muhammad as a messenger of god and the Koran is his message but I wouldn't want to be a history denier so I guess I was wrong.


It's a mystery how such an amorphous religion ever gained popularity.

What kind of true agenda do you think others have?

Is Islam somehow different from every other religion ever practiced by humans?

Why would you think that it is monolithic when no other religion is like that?

Who are these Sunnis and Shi'ites I keep hearing about in the news? Do they agree on the One True Islam?

 

[tsig]

Is Islam somehow different from every other religion ever practiced by humans?

Why would you think that it is monolithic when no other religion is like that?

Who are these Sunnis and Shi'ites I keep hearing about in the news? Do they agree on the One True Islam?

So there's no Islamic core belief, any Muslim can believe whatever they want and it's OK?

As far as the Sunnis and Shi'ites, I am not concerned with the esoterics of sectarian beliefs.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

As far as the Sunnis and Shi'ites, I am not concerned with the esoterics of sectarian beliefs.

How can you say that when sectarian violence is one of the major problems facing the Islamic world today? It's not that hard to find out where and why the schism occurred.

The historic background of the Sunni–Shia split lies in the schism that occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community spread across various parts of the world, which led to the Battle of Siffin. The dispute intensified greatly after the Battle of Karbala, in which Hussein ibn Ali and his household were killed by the ruling Umayyad Caliph Yazid I, and the outcry for his revenge divided the early Islamic community. Today there are differences in religious practice, traditions, and customs, often related to jurisprudence. Although all Muslim groups consider the Quran to be divine, Sunni and Shia have different opinions on hadith.

So the Shi'ites believe in a bloodline succession whereas the Sunnis believe in an elected leadership. The point, which you disregarded, is completely relevant to the topic, as it demonstrates that Islam is not a single monolithic entity. It is, in fact, split into sects with different beliefs, practices, histories, and political views. This is why the argument raised earlier by Humes Fork, that all Muslims believe in the same God and should just get along, doesn't work.

 

[Brainache]

So there's no Islamic core belief, any Muslim can believe whatever they want and it's OK?

As far as the Sunnis and Shi'ites, I am not concerned with the esoterics of sectarian beliefs.

They all believe the same thing?

Or: They don't all believe the same thing?

Which is it?


You seem to want it both ways.

Catholics and Protestants share a core belief, but that doesn't stop them from disagreeing about lots of "esoteric beliefs", do you think Muslims are different?

Are Muslims some distinct variety of humans who have a special sort of religion that precludes differences of opinion on matters of interpretation?

 

[Dissolution]

Considering the todays legal age for marriage in most muslim countries it seems evident that they had not much problems arguing against child marriage. Sure there still is today the problem of childmarriage inmany countries, but to is rather a cultural problem unrelated to religions.

What are you basing this claim on? A lot of countries where Islam is prevalent seem to have either very low ages of consent or a large problem with lawless marriages involving children.
Yemen and Saudi Arabia don't even have a minimum age.

And the controvery about her age comes from moslems since a very long time.

And seems to have very little basis, barring the fact that most people feel rather dodgy about a man in his fifties marrying a child and then consummating the relationship.
It seems that all references to Aisha's age in the Hadiths indicate that she was very, very young.

Because your arguments are predicated on there being one coherent connected story: "Muhammad was shown a vision of six year old 'A'isha". And I'm trying to explain to you that there are different, separate lines of tradition, which is why different groups of Muslims interpret those traditions differently.

I'm well aware of the attempts by various people to cloud the issue, but they don't seem to be based upon anything.

The visions don't mention her age at all; like rtved, you're adding your own interpretation to the stories of the vision.

The vision was of Aisha at the time. They don't have to mention her age, as she was of that age. If they mentioned another age for the visions, then you'd have a point.
Is there some reason that you believe that this vision is of Aisha when she was older? I can't see one.

Ok, one more time: The Sunnah is what Muslims are supposed to follow. Muslims don't consider everything Muhammad did and said to be part of the Sunnah. So, yeah, the fact that some Muslims don't consider it to be part of the Sunnah is entirely meaningful, and it's why the argument that Muslims have to be in favor of modern child marriage because Muhammad did it holds no water whatsoever for those Muslims who don't consider it part of the Sunnah.

That some Muslims don't see this as part of the Sunnah is utterly irrelevant, despite your protests.
This was an act committed by the prophet on the orders of god. No Muslim is going to see it as an atrocity, are they?

So why do you insist on making it harder for those who speak out against it by insisting that they're wrong and those who promote the practice of child marriage are right?

Seriously, I will never understand why so many non-Muslim "critics of Islam" insist that the worst interpretation of Islam is the most right one and the Muslims who believe that interpretation are simply doing what their religion tells them to do , and when shown the example of Muslims who are fighting against that interpretation start arguing that those Muslims are getting their own religion wrong (often using the exact same religious arguments as those Muslims who promote that worst interpretation).

I'm not making the worst interpretation of Islam, only the one that appears to be correct to me.
I'd do exactly the same with Christian and/or Jewish scripture, so why should this be any different?

Finding out unpalatable truths about their faith is often a way for someone to break away from such superstition or at least examine the whole thing more carefully.
Most people are moral enough to see that a grown man marrying a young child is very, very wrong.
Going along with some other, apparently baseless version of what happened to appease groups that don't want to face up to a clash between their morality and their faith holds no interest for me.
I'd find it dishonest, to be frank.

Don't get me wrong, there's equally horrific aspects to other religions, especially those of the Abrahamic persuasion.
Islam isn't special in that regard.
I don't ignore the stoning of disobedient children, war rape or massacres in their canons, though.
I have no intention of starting such behaviour for their sequel.

 

[A'isha]

The vision was of Aisha at the time.

The stories of the vision don't say that.

They don't have to mention her age, as she was of that age.

The stories of the vision give zero indication of her age.

Is there some reason that you believe that this vision is of Aisha when she was older? I can't see one.

It has nothing to do with what I think 'A'isha's age in the vision was, but how Muslims interpret those stories of the vision, and whether they use those stories to promote the modern practice of child marriage, like you implied they did when they brought it up.

And the fact is, even among those Muslims who promote the modern practice of child marriage, the stories of the visions aren't used as part of the justification. The vision stories aren't anything to do with Muhammad's behavior, but are part of the Sunni/Shia polemical war over the character of 'A'isha.

That some Muslims don't see this as part of the Sunnah is utterly irrelevant, despite your protests.

For ****'s sake, Dissolution. If Muslims are to follow the Sunnah, but Muhammad's marriage to 'A'isha is not part of the Sunnah, then that's pretty *********** important to the issue of the modern practice of child marriage among Muslims.

This was an act committed by the prophet on the orders of god. No Muslim is going to see it as an atrocity, are they?

Whether they see the Sunni historical traditions of Muhammad's marriages as an atrocity is pretty small potatoes compared to whether they think it means the modern practice of child marriage is something to be permitted or even encouraged. That's why it's such a critical matter that there exists a mainstream interpretation that Muhammad's marriage to 'A'isha is not part of the Sunnah.

I'm not making the worst interpretation of Islam, only the one that appears to be correct to me.

The one interpretation that appears correct to you is the one where Muslims have to believe that adult men marrying young girls is an accepted, even encouraged, practice in the modern day, despite the fact that a significant chunk of Muslims and a major theological institution disagree.

I'd call that "making the worst interpretation of Islam and insisting that said worst interpretation is the only valid one", yeah. Particularly when you label the alternate interpretations as "baseless" below.

Finding out unpalatable truths about their faith is often a way for someone to break away from such superstition or at least examine the whole thing more carefully.

Except they're not "finding out" anything. The whole "Muhammad was a filthy pedo!" thing is one of the most common and widespread and common "criticisms of Islam" out there.

And it doesn't make Muslims go "oh, ****, you're right! I need to stop being Muslim!", particularly when couched in the terms it usually is.

Going along with some other, apparently baseless version of what happened

More "all those Muslims who dare to have an interpretation of their own religion which isn't this particular terrible interpretation are objectively wrong".

to appease groups that don't want to face up to a clash between their morality and their faith holds no interest for me.
I'd find it dishonest, to be frank.

It has nothing to do with any kind of nonsense about "appeas[ing] groups that don't want to face up to a clash between their morality and their faith", but about recognizing those who have not only faced that clash, but come down on the side of morality.

And calling their interpretation wrong and "baseless", and declaring that the fundamentalist ******** who are pushing modern child marriage are the ones who are correct is worse than merely dishonest, to me, because declaring that you're against the modern practice of child marriage while supporting the position of those who promote it and attacking the position of those who are against it is counterproductive at best and viciously hypocritical at worst.

 

[DC]

What are you basing this claim on? A lot of countries where Islam is prevalent seem to have either very low ages of consent or a large problem with lawless marriages involving children.
Yemen and Saudi Arabia don't even have a minimum age.



And seems to have very little basis, barring the fact that most people feel rather dodgy about a man in his fifties marrying a child and then consummating the relationship.
It seems that all references to Aisha's age in the Hadiths indicate that she was very, very young.



I'm well aware of the attempts by various people to cloud the issue, but they don't seem to be based upon anything.



The vision was of Aisha at the time. They don't have to mention her age, as she was of that age. If they mentioned another age for the visions, then you'd have a point.
Is there some reason that you believe that this vision is of Aisha when she was older? I can't see one.



That some Muslims don't see this as part of the Sunnah is utterly irrelevant, despite your protests.
This was an act committed by the prophet on the orders of god. No Muslim is going to see it as an atrocity, are they?



I'm not making the worst interpretation of Islam, only the one that appears to be correct to me.
I'd do exactly the same with Christian and/or Jewish scripture, so why should this be any different?

Finding out unpalatable truths about their faith is often a way for someone to break away from such superstition or at least examine the whole thing more carefully.
Most people are moral enough to see that a grown man marrying a young child is very, very wrong.
Going along with some other, apparently baseless version of what happened to appease groups that don't want to face up to a clash between their morality and their faith holds no interest for me.
I'd find it dishonest, to be frank.

Don't get me wrong, there's equally horrific aspects to other religions, especially those of the Abrahamic persuasion.
Islam isn't special in that regard.
I don't ignore the stoning of disobedient children, war rape or massacres in their canons, though.
I have no intention of starting such behaviour for their sequel.

I can't post links, but look up legal age of marriage and the UN report on child marriage.

 

[Chaos]

Also, to start in the beginning: do you have any evidence that the purported statement of an Ex-Muslim you brought up in the opening post is in fact genuine?

 

[Dissolution]

The stories of the vision don't say that.

They don't need to. Mohammed recognised her from the vision and there's absolutely no reason to think that some other image of her was used.
It could've been of her as an elephant, but there's no reason to believe that.
It's also utterly irrelevant.

The stories of the vision give zero indication of her age.

The same collection of Hadiths does, though.

It has nothing to do with what I think 'A'isha's age in the vision was, but how Muslims interpret those stories of the vision, and whether they use those stories to promote the modern practice of child marriage, like you implied they did when they brought it up.

And the fact is, even among those Muslims who promote the modern practice of child marriage, the stories of the visions aren't used as part of the justification. The vision stories aren't anything to do with Muhammad's behavior, but are part of the Sunni/Shia polemical war over the character of 'A'isha.

The marriage of Mohammed to Aisha is clearly a major part of the argument in favour of child marriages, though.
This vision is merely a part of it, as it connects the whole thing to Allah, rather than it just being a choice made by the prophet.

For ****'s sake, Dissolution. If Muslims are to follow the Sunnah, but Muhammad's marriage to 'A'isha is not part of the Sunnah, then that's pretty *********** important to the issue of the modern practice of child marriage among Muslims.

Given the prevalence of child marriage in a lot of Islamic countries, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Whether they see the Sunni historical traditions of Muhammad's marriages as an atrocity is pretty small potatoes compared to whether they think it means the modern practice of child marriage is something to be permitted or even encouraged. That's why it's such a critical matter that there exists a mainstream interpretation that Muhammad's marriage to 'A'isha is not part of the Sunnah.

Yet the opposite view remains in the majority.

The one interpretation that appears correct to you is the one where Muslims have to believe that adult men marrying young girls is an accepted, even encouraged, practice in the modern day, despite the fact that a significant chunk of Muslims and a major theological institution disagree.

I'd call that "making the worst interpretation of Islam and insisting that said worst interpretation is the only valid one", yeah. Particularly when you label the alternate interpretations as "baseless" below.

Rubbish.
You're merely trying to find the most beneficial and preferable view, no matter how fringe it is, whereas I'm following the evidence and the majority.
You're looking for a get-out clause. I'm addressing the actual scripture.

Except they're not "finding out" anything. The whole "Muhammad was a filthy pedo!" thing is one of the most common and widespread and common "criticisms of Islam" out there.

And it doesn't make Muslims go "oh, ****, you're right! I need to stop being Muslim!", particularly when couched in the terms it usually is.

You're focusing on the delivery of the message, rather than the message itself and picking out fringe groups of Islamophobes using it as propaganda.
Perhaps if the message came from someone like yourself and was approached in a sensible and moderate manner, then perhaps it might be addressed properly?
Instead you choose to avoid it entirely, make excuses and allow all kinds of obfuscation to get around it.

More "all those Muslims who dare to have an interpretation of their own religion which isn't this particular terrible interpretation are objectively wrong".

Not at all. All of the evidence seems to go against their conclusions, though.
The same is true of Christians who avoid dealing with the more dubious parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament parts about slavery, rape marriage and genocide.

It has nothing to do with any kind of nonsense about "appeas[ing] groups that don't want to face up to a clash between their morality and their faith", but about recognizing those who have not only faced that clash, but come down on the side of morality.

And calling their interpretation wrong and "baseless", and declaring that the fundamentalist ******** who are pushing modern child marriage are the ones who are correct is worse than merely dishonest, to me, because declaring that you're against the modern practice of child marriage while supporting the position of those who promote it and attacking the position of those who are against it is counterproductive at best and viciously hypocritical at worst.

I'm being hypocritical by pointing out that it's difficult to be against child marriage while promoting the idea that the messiah was a man married to a child?
I think it's pretty clear that you've got that one completely back to front.

I don't support their position at all, as I think that their religion is utterly false and that this is one clear point against the moral structure of the faith, which most people would find to be pretty appalling.
You don't seem to want to point this out, though I think you're well aware of it.

I can't post links, but look up legal age of marriage and the UN report on child marriage.

I have. Most of the 10 worst countries for child marriage that the report listed have a Muslim majority.
All of the remainder of these problem countries also have a sizeable Islamic minority.

 

[Chaos]

They don't need to. Mohammed recognised her from the vision and there's absolutely no reason to think that some other image of her was used.

But how does that prove she was six years old?

If she was six, the vision showed her as six, and Mohammed recognized her afterwards.

If she was, say, twenty, the vision showed her as twenty, and Mohammed recognized her afterwards.

How does the fact that she looked like the vision prove she was six years old, when there is no proof she looked six years old in the vision?

 

[Dissolution]

But how does that prove she was six years old?

If she was six, the vision showed her as six, and Mohammed recognized her afterwards.

If she was, say, twenty, the vision showed her as twenty, and Mohammed recognized her afterwards.

How does the fact that she looked like the vision prove she was six years old, when there is no proof she looked six years old in the vision?

I didn't say that it did prove that she was six.
There are various other Hadiths that suggest that this was the case though, including one from later the same collection.
There aren't any that suggest that she was significantly older either, to my knowledge. I'm happy to be corrected on that fact.

As you suggest, if she was six, which appears to be the case, then it's only logical to conclude that the vision showed her at that age, on the balance of probabilities.
I completely agree.
A'isha's suggesting that this isn't necessarily the case, as it's not explicitly mentioned.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

The marriage of Mohammed to Aisha is clearly a major part of the argument in favour of child marriages, though.
This vision is merely a part of it, as it connects the whole thing to Allah, rather than it just being a choice made by the prophet.

Where's your evidence of this argument in favor of child marriages? Do you have quotes from modern day Islamic authorities and religious lawmakers mandating the practice?

Given the prevalence of child marriage in a lot of Islamic countries, this doesn't seem to be the case.

http://www.icrw.org/child-marriage-facts-and-figures
So not only is there a wide variety of factors, which you are apparently ignoring, but also, "No one religious affiliation was associated with child marriage, according to a 2007 ICRW study. Rather, a variety of religions are associated with child marriage in countries throughout the world."

Yet the opposite view remains in the majority.

Are you claiming a statistical majority? Then show the statistics.

Not at all. All of the evidence seems to go against their conclusions, though.
The same is true of Christians who avoid dealing with the more dubious parts of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament parts about slavery, rape marriage and genocide.

It's no secret that I disagree with the tenets of Christianity as well, but there are better ways to criticize it than by attacking a strawman. It should be obvious to anyone who has spent more than a minute studying comparative religion that Christianity =/= Old Testament literalism. Would you argue that the Westboro Baptist Church got it right because they're honest about their literalism of the Old Testament? Most civilized people consider them to be the bad Christians.

I'm being hypocritical by pointing out that it's difficult to be against child marriage while promoting the idea that the messiah was a man married to a child?
I think it's pretty clear that you've got that one completely back to front.

This goes to show you didn't bother to research what you're talking about. Muhammad is not the messiah, or madhi, in Islam. He is simply the last great prophet in their beliefs. So not everything he did is instructional, or to be emulated. Different Muslims will disagree on which parts of his life and lifestyle are supposed to be part of their religious or cultural practices.

I don't support their position at all, as I think that their religion is utterly false and that this is one clear point against the moral structure of the faith, which most people would find to be pretty appalling.

Maybe not, but you're certainly taking those who hold this position and painting the entire Islamic world with their brush.

I have. Most of the 10 worst countries for child marriage that the report listed have a Muslim majority.
All of the remainder of these problem countries also have a sizeable Islamic minority.

They also have other factors, like poverty, lack of education, and lack of employment opportunities for women.

 

[Dissolution]

Where's your evidence of this argument in favor of child marriages? Do you have quotes from modern day Islamic authorities and religious lawmakers mandating the practice?

I've already posted one link, which A'isha had used elsewhere herself.
Here it is again:
http://www.ibtimes.com/child-marriage-should-be-legal-pakistani-legal-advisory-body-1560767

http://www.icrw.org/child-marriage-facts-and-figures
So not only is there a wide variety of factors, which you are apparently ignoring, but also, "No one religious affiliation was associated with child marriage, according to a 2007 ICRW study. Rather, a variety of religions are associated with child marriage in countries throughout the world."

I'm not ignoring any factors. Other people seem to want to ignore this one, though.
That study uses the same UNICEF top ten that I've already addressed, yet claims the opposite of what the statistics it provided tell us.
There's no explanation as to how they came to their conclusion.

Are you claiming a statistical majority? Then show the statistics.

I'm not claiming anything. A'isha stated that she was using minority views.

It's no secret that I disagree with the tenets of Christianity as well, but there are better ways to criticize it than by attacking a strawman. It should be obvious to anyone who has spent more than a minute studying comparative religion that Christianity =/= Old Testament literalism. Would you argue that the Westboro Baptist Church got it right because they're honest about their literalism of the Old Testament? Most civilized people consider them to be the bad Christians.

It's not a strawman and you've done nothing to show that it is. Baseless claim.
Claiming that I've suggested that Christianity =/= Old Testament literalism is one, however.

As for the Westboro Baptists, they're bad people, but not necessarily bad Christians anymore than those who choose to ignore vast swathes of scripture in favour of their own personal morality.

This goes to show you didn't bother to research what you're talking about. Muhammad is not the messiah, or madhi, in Islam. He is simply the last great prophet in their beliefs. So not everything he did is instructional, or to be emulated. Different Muslims will disagree on which parts of his life and lifestyle are supposed to be part of their religious or cultural practices.[./QUOTE]

Mohammed is the dictionary definition of a messiah. Semantics.

Different Muslims may well disagree about aspects of his life, as he told them to, but they won't disagree about the morality of something that he was ordered to do by Allah.
That's what we're discussing here.

Maybe not, but you're certainly taking those who hold this position and painting the entire Islamic world with their brush.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that those who do support child marriage appear to be well backed by scripture.

They also have other factors, like poverty, lack of education, and lack of employment opportunities for women.

Of course. I haven't claimed otherwise.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It's not a strawman and you've done nothing to show that it is. Baseless claim.
Claiming that I've suggested that Christianity =/= Old Testament literalism is one, however.

You were responding to A'isha when she said this:

More "all those Muslims who dare to have an interpretation of their own religion which isn't this particular terrible interpretation are objectively wrong".

Christianity is not based on those parts of the Old Testament that you brought up, therefore it's an invalid criticism of Christianity to accuse them of not dealing with those passages. Even Jews don't follow the examples set in those passages.

As for the Westboro Baptists, they're bad people, but not necessarily bad Christians anymore than those who choose to ignore vast swathes of scripture in favour of their own personal morality.

Are you arguing that Christians, and Muslims, who ignore certain parts of scripture or don't take all of their scripture literally are bad? Why?

Mohammed is the dictionary definition of a messiah. Semantics.

This is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Islam

Different Muslims may well disagree about aspects of his life, as he told them to, but they won't disagree about the morality of something that he was ordered to do by Allah.That's what we're discussing here.

The fact that different Muslims today disagree over the issue of child marriage demonstrates that you're wrong.

Let me give you an example of how interpretations of the hadiths differ. One of them includes the story of how Muhammad was in the middle of prayer when his wife (his first wife) noticed he was bleeding, so she came to wipe the blood off his face. Muhammad then started his prayer session over from the beginning. This has led Muslims to debate whether he had to restart his prayers because he was bleeding, or because a woman had physical contact with him and therefore distracted him.

 

[Dissolution]

You were responding to A'isha when she said this:


Christianity is not based on those parts of the Old Testament that you brought up, therefore it's an invalid criticism of Christianity to accuse them of not dealing with those passages. Even Jews don't follow the examples set in those passages.

Christianity is based upon the whole of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Those parts wouldn't be in there if they weren't relevant.
People finding ways around scripture that they don't like or agree with was my point.

Are you arguing that Christians, and Muslims, who ignore certain parts of scripture or don't take all of their scripture literally are bad? Why?

I'm arguing that people who choose to follow the scriptures of their religions aren't bad Christians, Muslims, Jews or whatever they happen to be.
This may make them bad people in some instances, as with your example of the Westboro Baptists, but it doesn't make them bad theists.

This is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Islam

No, it isn't:
2. A leader regarded as the saviour of a particular country, group, or cause.

Dictionary definition, as I already pointed out.

The fact that different Muslims do in fact disagree over the issue of child marriage demonstrates that you're wrong.

No, it demonstrates the way that people avoid facing unpalatable truths.
Muslims disagree about child marriage, but I've not heard of an Islamic group claiming that the union of Mohammed and Aisha was wrong.

Let me give you an example of how interpretations of the hadiths differ. One of them includes the story of how Muhammad was in the middle of prayer when his wife (his first wife) noticed he was bleeding, so she came to wipe the blood off his face. Muhammad then started his prayer session over from the beginning. This has led Muslims to debate whether he had to restart his prayers because he was bleeding, or because a woman had physical contact with him and therefore distracted him.

I'm well aware of the ways in which people can interpret scripture, thanks.
Your example doesn't seem at all relevant to the quote that you were answering, though.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Christianity is based upon the whole of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Those parts wouldn't be in there if they weren't relevant.
People finding ways around scripture that they don't like or agree with was my point.

Yet Christian doctrine doesn't say to follow every single part of the Old Testament to the word.

No, it isn't:
2. A leader regarded as the saviour of a particular country, group, or cause.

Dictionary definition, as I already pointed out.

Thank you for completely ignoring my link. Islam believes in other messianic figures, like Jesus or the al-Madhi, but Muhammad is their prophet. Going by your definition, every single religious or political leader since Muhammad must also be regarded as a messiah.

No, it demonstrates the way that people avoid facing unpalatable truths.
Muslims disagree about child marriage, but I've not heard of an Islamic group claiming that the union of Mohammed and Aisha was wrong.

You keep arguing that child marriage is an inextricable part of Islamic doctrine, and that Muslims who don't follow this are somehow wrong. The Quran says that marriage is only valid between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. Besides, if Muhammad was really a pedophile, then Aisha's father Abu Bakr was equally to blame for offering up his underage daughter for marriage.

I'm well aware of the ways in which people can interpret scripture, thanks.
Your example doesn't seem at all relevant to the quote that you were answering, though.

It has to do with the fact that not everything in Muhammad's life is prescriptive for Muslims today.

 

[Jono]

Yet Christian doctrine doesn't say to follow every single part of the Old Testament to the word.

Well, when the doctrine considers the writ as coming out of divine inspiration, i.e manifesting 'The Word of God', the leap is not that big for those who would be inclined toward fundamentalism.

Meh, it takes a discussion of Islam (usually) for some to make an off-shot point of there being no real fundamentalists out there. E.g as Belz said; "Since when do fundamentalists of any religion or creed stick to the actual fundamentals of that religion or creed, instead of keeping the stuff that agrees with their preconceived notions and throwing out the rest?" Now, Belz's point is accurate on its own but it only means that fundamentalism and fundamentalists are habitually hypocritical with their own fundamentals (whish is news to no one). It doesn't really negate that the fundamentals of the abbrahemic religions (yes, it does include Islam as well) are cluttered with notable violence through equally notable fascist creeds to be upheld. This, at least I used to think, wasn't news to the folks here either.

Islam believes in other messianic figures, like Jesus or the al-Madhi, but Muhammad is their prophet. Going by your definition, every single religious or political leader since Muhammad must also be regarded as a messiah.

Yes, the same deal with Christianity and Judaism except with minor differences on what prophet gets to go into the "prophet-roster". Islam (like Christianity) do have their own specific "leading man" for the prophet with the big 'P', in Islam it is Mohammed. There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet. The abbrahemic hubs of religion all share that archaic, totalitarian scriptural base loaded with homicidal sentiments. Through (mostly) secular thought, many societies forged under and out of that yoke have progressed beyond much of that harsh and cruel doctrinal climate. We've not all progressed at an equal rate or to a similar degree though, for many different reasons. [if progress here is defined as the secularisation of society inspiring a greater personal liberty for individuals and a decrease of violence within those societies]

 

[Humes fork]

Any thoughts on this?