• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Is Islam an evil religion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANTPogo said:
You mean Muhammad ibn Abdullah Muhammad? That Muhammad?

There's no one like him today.
Click to expand...

There aren't people going around today hearing voices in their heads and attributing them to Angels or God?

I think there might be, only, we don't call them Prophets...
 
DC said:
How is your denial of the different interpretations of Islam not pethetic?
Click to expand...
That is simple. To answer your question, it is because your inability to differentiate between Islam, the Quran, Customs and Haddaths is pathetic.
 
DC said:
:boggled: but they are currently coexisting, how is that possible if they cannot coexist?
Click to expand...

Reeeally? Which one? Which article is right in line with Islam?

I love the fact that you are pretending to know what you are talking about. You make these statements that are baseless and not researched and you fall on your face.

It is like watching an episode of America's Funniest Videos where you are watching a poor soul slip on the ice and fall into a muddy bog only to get up and slip and fall again and again as you do with each new post of pretentiousness. Or some guy who throws a boomerang only to have it come back and it hits him in the groin and yet he does not learn and so he does it again and again and again.

You think the muslims in your country are like Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or Syria or Iran. I love it. Or maybe you think Universal Human Rights exist currently everywhere. I just love it. I wait for your next post eagerly.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
How is your denial of the different interpretations of Islam not pethetic?
Click to expand...

Because if that had been what I had said, and it wasn't exactly, it would not be nearly as pathetic as your relentless belief that by attacking me personally it will magicly make Islam good and the world a better place and everything is as you want it to be.
 
JudeBrando said:
No. I mean the Muhammad. Would you consider him good or evil?

I can't wait for your straight answer...
Click to expand...

Taking existing religions and beliefs and mixing them together does not make someone special. Smith and Hubbard both did that and perhaps even more effectively. Joe Smith had more imagination that Muhammed. And I think L. Ron Hubbard was more prolific (I saw a book once that was just a list of the books he has written). Also, Mohammed made a lot of silly mistakes in the Quran, like saying that the Pharaohs crucified people centuries before it was a Roman form of execution. That is almost certainly not true.

I remember reading in one of the Hadaths that at least one woman turned Mohamed (peace be upon him) down when he asked her to marry him. In that regard both Joesph Smith and Jim Jones have him beat. Smith seduced young girls and even seduced already married women all the time. I could not find any record of someone turning him down. And Jones could pick and choose any woman or man in his flock that he wanted.

So it depends on what sort of scale you want to judge him.

If it is on a sleaze scale, Mohammed wins. Marrying a 9 year old that you lusted for since she was 6.... you gotta say Mohammed beats Smith, Hubbard and Jim Jones. That is why it is ok to marry a prepubescent girl in Iran today.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
Because if that had been what I had said, and it wasn't exactly, it would not be nearly as pathetic as your relentless belief that by attacking me personally it will magicly make Islam good and the world a better place and everything is as you want it to be.
Click to expand...

I am really sorry then, i must have missunderstood you once again.
i had the impression you belief there are no different interpretations of Islam.

so to be sure, do you agree that Muslims do interpret Islam (the Koran, hadits etc etc) differently?
 
So, we can add both the discussion of the age of Ai'sha and the problem of child marriages in both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds to the list of subjects you know nothing about, Bill.

Wait...haven't I already corrected you regarding the child marriage issue? Why, yes. Yes I did. In fact, in that same thread, I also corrected you regarding Ai'sha's age.

Huh...and would you look at that. In that same thread, you're also repeating the same crap about Osama Bin Laden being a "champion of Islam" that you're spouting here.

And that was also the thread where you thought the Qur'an had Allah praying to himself, revealing just how little you knew about the Qur'an and Muhammad and Islam. Oh, and you also displayed your laughable ignorance regarding the Southern Baptist Convention in that thread, too.

It sadly doesn't appear that you've educated yourself at all in the intervening five months. Not that I'm surprised at all.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, this apologist web page tries to formulate that maybe possibly she was a teenager but it omits more direct evidence that she was not.

I did not respond to it because after reading the page you linked to, because I did not know you were actually serious in saying that it somehow "proved" she was not underage.

I am sorry. I did not know you were serious.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Sorry, this apologist web page tries to formulate that maybe possibly she was a teenager but it omits more direct evidence that she was not.

I did not respond to it because after reading the page you linked to, because I did not know you were actually serious in saying that it somehow "proved" she was not underage.

I am sorry. I did not know you were serious.
Click to expand...

It was the year 600 FFS! She's lucky he didn't try to cook and eat her.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Sorry, this apologist web page tries to formulate that maybe possibly she was a teenager but it omits more direct evidence that she was not.
Click to expand...

And by "direct evidence", of course, you mean "the terrible things I desperately want to believe about Islam and Muhammad even in the face of everything to the contrary."

I did not respond to it because after reading the page you linked to, because I did not know you were actually serious in saying that it somehow "proved" she was not underage.

I am sorry. I did not know you were serious.
Click to expand...

So, that means you have lots of scholarly and logical arguments that contradict and debunk those presented at the link I gave, right? So please, grace us with just a small sample!

Here, I'll even helpfully quote just a partial chunk here so you don't have to waste time expounding on your prodigious knowledge of Islam, since you mentioned how busy you'd be the rest of this week.

The Twelfth Argument

My twelfth argument was:

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

Ibn Hajar's original statement, its translation and reference follows:

imageB8F.gif


i.e. Fatimah (ra) was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old... she (Fatimah) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). (Al-isabah fi tamyizi'l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol 4, Pg 377, Arabic, Maktabatu'l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978)
Click to expand...

I eagerly await your critical response to the above, Bill.
 
ANTPogo said:
Here you go. An exhaustive analysis of Aisha's age at the time of her marriage to Muhammad, quoting a huge number of hadith and other sources and not just the ones giving her "commonly accepted" age), and concluding that Aisha was at least 15 or 16 at the time of her marriage (which, for perspective, is as old or older than Mary was at the time of her marriage to Joseph).

The linked article, so you know, is from a website whose mission statement is "This is an endeavour at a comprehensive but not complex information resource for Dawah and Islah." (ie, spreading and reforming the faith).

EDIT: And don't mistake their use of the word islah to think they're wishy-washy and liberal.
Click to expand...


It is an exhaustive analysis because, like a good legal argument, it tries to prove something that is not true.

Anyone can put together an good argument trying to prove something. I have seen documentation trying to prove some outrageous things.

Mormons have web sites trying to prove wrong things too in "exhaustive analysis". Try looking at some of the "Backyard Professors" youtube videos that go on for hours and try to say Joe Smith could translate Egyptian.

If she was not 9. You would not need an "exhaustive analysis" to prove she was not.

Then there is a book called "Darwin On Trial" written by a lawyer that "shows" that evolution is not true by taking all sorts of things out of context and ommitting other things.

That is good legal work. But that is bad science.

Going with what the perponderance of evidence points (that is how science works) she really was just 9 years old.

But if you want to have faith that she wants, you will dismiss the Hadaths that says she was 9 and you will embrace the ones that kind of says she was not. That is how faiths work, that is not how science and logic works.

if it is good for Islam, a Muslim will do all sorts of mental calisthenics to support one belief or dismiss something that makes Islam look bad. That is how faith works. That is not how science and logic works.

Mormons do the EXACT same thing. They point to Joe Smith doing this or that for a black person to "prove" he was not racist but they forget, overlook or just plain don't know of evidence that he thought black people were cursed and evil.

If Mohammed's bride was NOT 9 years old there wouldn't be ANY Hadath's that said she was.

There is more and more concrete proof that she was:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

By Ali Sina
The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

...
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not copy and paste lengthy tracts available elsewhere. Just post a short quote and a link to the source.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL


For conclusive evidence that Muhammad was a pedophile, please see this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is fun.

It is fun because I know for sure she was 9 just by doing the math.

I have heard Muslims talk with great pride how it was Allah's will that Mohammed have such a young bride because since she was so young after Mohammd's death it meant someone who was close to Mohammed continued to live on and spread Islam for many more years.

If she was not 9 and was 10 years older, she had some pretty good genes to live so much longer that it is noted today with pride by Muslims.

I await your response. This is fun.
 
Last edited:
Want to play dueling citations, Bill? Okay.

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.

It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.

Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)

Mizanu'l-ai`tidal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly. (vol 4, pg 301 - 302)

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am -- with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged -- and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.
Click to expand...

In short, the age of Ai'sha at the time of her marriage to Muhammad is not as settled and concrete as people like you would like to believe, Bill. Various sects and subsects of Islam have dueling interpretations (there's that word again) about it, based on numerous, often conflicting, sources.

Historically, this is due to the same division that split Sunnis from Shi'ites: Sunnis emphasized her youth and innocence in an effort to portray her as a proper successor to Muhammad's legacy and defend her from accusations of adultery because of her support for Uthman ibn Affan as Caliph, while Shi'ites sought to denigrate her position and legacy because they favored Uthman's opponent and successor Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom