Muhammed was a pedophile

[Chagos]

Chagos, I have a suggestion for you. Rather than continually searching for different ways to gratuitously deny what I say, why not just simplify your response to, "IS NOT!" It's concise, and it sums up your "arguments" perfectly.

How 'bout bovine manure? That's not only concise, it kind of adds a quality tag to the misrepresentations you spout.

 

[Chagos]

You would bury me in mitigating quotes in a heartbeat if any existed. Unless you can provide anything other than IS NOT, we're done.

Ah, "we" would constitute cooperation. Me, I'm done with YOU when I'm done with YOU.

 

[stevecanuck]

misrepresentation as usual

(33:26) Allah brought down from their fortresses those People of the Book who had supported the invading confederates and cast such terror into their hearts that some of them you kill and some of them you take captive.

وَاَوۡرَثَكُمۡ اَرۡضَهُمۡ وَدِيَارَهُمۡ وَ اَمۡوَالَهُمۡ وَاَرۡضًا لَّمۡ تَطَـــُٔوۡهَا​ ؕ وَكَانَ اللّٰهُ عَلٰى كُلِّ شَىۡءٍ قَدِيۡرًا

Guess who those people of the book are supposed to be

The trouble with that is, the Banu Quraiza did not support the Meccans. They were not in the fight.

 

[Chagos]

Sorry, but I will continue to be intolerant of genocide. But, being a Turk means you already have a lot of practice pretending genocides didn't happen.

non sequitur, tu quoque, ad hominem and false dichotomy.

Or, in short, lame to the point of being a pathetic response.

 

[Chagos]

The trouble with that is, the Banu Quraiza did not support the Meccans. They were not in the fight.

You have a historical source for your claim?

That categorically rules out the Banu Quraiza (or at least part of them) to have supplied the invaders with food and to have negotiated with them in secret?

 

[chromium]

Yes, such is your scholarship. Or perhaps the convenience of your half-truths. Heck, did I say "half"?

No mention of high treason.

Behold the "knowledge" of those pompously declaring themselves qualified to uninvitedly lecture others upon Islam and its history.

well i've read most of the arberry koran...

i have to say, the biblical jesus came across as a mostly cool dude, maybe even unique for his time, but this muhammed character....not so much. It's clear he was bloodthirsty and had his way with little girls

 

[Chagos]

well i've read most of the arberry koran...

i have to say, the biblical jesus came across as a mostly cool dude, maybe even unique for his time, but this muhammed character....not so much.

I'm not comparing them, quite apart from neither being of any relevance to me personally. Main concern being factuality, compiled either in the past by scholars of credible authority or, should we be so lucky, even today and on here.

It's clear he was bloodthirsty and had his way with little girls

You mean Aisha?

Incidentally, if the Qur'an were as much gospel as many would like (i.e. reading it equals understanding everything), there'd be no need for theologians to dwell on it at length. Pretty much the same thing can be said for the Torah, the Talmud and the Bible.

 

[chromium]

I'm not comparing them, quite apart from neither being of any relevance to me personally. Main concern being factuality, compiled either in the past by scholars of credible authority or, should we be so lucky, even today and on here.You mean Aisha?

Incidentally, if the Qur'an were as much gospel as many would like (i.e. reading it equals understanding everything), there'd be no need for theologians to dwell on it at length. Pretty much the same thing can be said for the Torah, the Talmud and the Bible.

there is the distanced historical research approach, which recent evidence has indicated key phrases may have been plagiarized during muhammed's time. Other scholars seek cultural and linguistic context, but holy books contain lessons meant to apply to all times and places

but the problem is adherents need to take a side and be able to defend it, else it's not worthy of worship

so there's the ethical approach of whether the 'prophet' and his message, even if authentic, are a worthy guide to life for a billion people in 21st century. People can debate what that message is, but if i don't find their interpretation convincing, like them i'll reach my conclusions and condemn what i find objectionable

and my conclusion is the muhammad character who is credited with this 'divine vision' was largely a bloodthirsty child rapist. Not so much as ISIS likes to think, but still a monster unworthy of 10 followers, much less a billion

 

[Chagos]

..........

not at all to make light of anything you've said prior to here...............

.............and my conclusion is the muhammad character who is credited with this 'divine vision' was largely a bloodthirsty child rapist. Not so much as ISIS likes to think, but still a monster unworthy of 10 followers, much less a billion

It is precisely the currently fashionable habit of equating Muslims with ISIS that has me even entering a race I'd otherwise have no interest in at all.

Contrary to most (I'd wager) going down this line, I happen to know Muslim and I've even known a helluva lot more in my life.

The child rapist thing is the favorite grenade of their bashers and it's bull. Basically because the much beloved calculation of Aisha's age simply won't hold up to closer scrutiny of records (if one cares to search).

Comparing Muhammad to Jesus of the scriptures I've already addressed as nonsensical. Bloodshed in the Arabian desert of 1400 year ago (and before) was not only common, it was a way of life. There's no reason to even remotely suggest that Muhammad wasn't partial to engaging in it.

The point historically missed is that in so doing (once he'd completed his conquest of the idol worshipping Meccans) he brought unity and peace to his own. To his own, mind you. Pretty much like the Tokugawa shogunate ended centuries of bloodshed in Japan and Q'in ended it in China. Again, for their own and, yes, by means of violence as well.

One of the idiocies in maintaining the execution of the Banū Quraiza (as above) to have been a consequence of his supposed teachings of hate against all non-Muslims, is revealed as BS as well on closer inspection. A plenitude of Jews in the then-to-be Muslim realm of Arabia lived and prospered.

As did those in further away pastures of the following caliphates, all the way to Andalusia. Leading far better and certainly more protected lives than in most Christian realms of the time.

Taking nothing away from their (and that of Christians) dhimmi status under Muslim rule and the jizya tax they had to pay. But also taking nothing away from the fact that they were exempt from military service.

There's no denying that there were exclusions from this "tolerance", yet these most often resulted from rebellions based on faith.

 

[chromium]

not at all to make light of anything you've said prior to here...............
It is precisely the currently fashionable habit of equating Muslims with ISIS that has me even entering a race I'd otherwise have no interest in at all.

Contrary to most (I'd wager) going down this line, I happen to know Muslim and I've even known a helluva lot more in my life.

The child rapist thing is the favorite grenade of their bashers and it's bull. Basically because the much beloved calculation of Aisha's age simply won't hold up to closer scrutiny of records (if one cares to search).

Comparing Muhammad to Jesus of the scriptures I've already addressed as nonsensical. Bloodshed in the Arabian desert of 1400 year ago (and before) was not only common, it was a way of life. There's no reason to even remotely suggest that Muhammad wasn't partial to engaging in it.

The point historically missed is that in so doing (once he'd completed his conquest of the idol worshipping Meccans) he brought unity and peace to his own. To his own, mind you. Pretty much like the Tokugawa shogunate ended centuries of bloodshed in Japan and Q'in ended it in China. Again, for their own and, yes, by means of violence as well.

One of the idiocies in maintaining the execution of the Banū Quraiza (as above) to have been a consequence of his supposed teachings of hate against all non-Muslims, is revealed as BS as well on closer inspection. A plenitude of Jews in the then-to-be Muslim realm of Arabia lived and prospered.

As did those in further away pastures of the following caliphates, all the way to Andalusia. Leading far better and certainly more protected lives than in most Christian realms of the time.

Taking nothing away from their (and that of Christians) dhimmi status under Muslim rule and the jizya tax they had to pay. But also taking nothing away from the fact that they were exempt from military service.

There's no denying that there were exclusions from this "tolerance", yet these most often resulted from rebellions based on faith.

once again, the point of following a book as a guide to life 1400 years later is that it is *still* applicable to your time and place, so that diffuses quite a lot the whole context excuse. If we're to separate the religion from the man, well the man claimed to be a prophet whose lessons and commandments were timeless. And if they weren't timeless, they're to be dismissed or read by scholars only

as for bringing peace....yeah it really shows. Unlike china and japan, arabia is still a wartorn wasteland. The sunni and shi'ia were at each other from the moment of his death and largely over his own lineage. Yes, i know they brought benefits as well in their conquests, but a real prophet would usher in a lasting peace. To say he was a fraud would be the kindest criticism i can levy

 

[Absentglare]

once again, the point of following a book as a guide to life 1400 years later is that it is *still* applicable to your time and place, so that diffuses quite a lot the whole context excuse. If we're to separate the religion from the man, well the man claimed to be a prophet whose lessons and commandments were timeless. And if they weren't timeless, they're to be dismissed or read by scholars only

as for bringing peace....yeah it really shows. Unlike china and japan, arabia is still a wartorn wasteland. The sunni and shi'ia were at each other from the moment of his death and largely over his own lineage. Yes, i know they brought benefits as well in their conquests, but a real prophet would usher in a lasting peace. To say he was a fraud would be the kindest criticism i can levy

No, it doesn't diffuse the ability for its lessons to translate to other contexts.

In the bible, killing in war is not immoral, it is not murder. Having sex with young girls is encouraged for the sake of procreation.

And you can see how a Christian version of ISIS could be condemned in the exact parallel way, and you can hopefully see how this is a poor representation of the reasoning behind their prophet's actions. It's an oversimplification that emphasizes the least desirable actions in the stories without necessarily focusing on the lessons themselves.

Like it or not, books were written by humans who had circumstances outside of their control shape the world they came to know. Without the historical context, the understanding of the people, themselves, who they are, is incomplete.

The middle east has been a cluster**** because of more than just Islam, it is a locus for all three major monotheistic religions and that has resulted in a lot of religious violence that certainly cannot be blamed on Muslims alone. It's endured corruption in government due to all the precious black wealth buried under its soil.

Islam has been a force for stability and strength for many in the middle east. I would not seek to demean or impugn those who continue to experience as such.

 

[Chagos]

once again, the point of following a book as a guide to life 1400 years later is that it is *still* applicable to your time and place, so that diffuses quite a lot the whole context excuse. If we're to separate the religion from the man, well the man claimed to be a prophet whose lessons and commandments were timeless. And if they weren't timeless, they're to be dismissed or read by scholars only

No, they're to be understood by scholars who then explain them to those requiring comprehension. Or why do you think Christianity has theologians or a secular justice system has courts with judges and attorneys?

as for bringing peace....yeah it really shows. Unlike china and japan, arabia is still a wartorn wasteland.

Well, for a considerable amount of time it wasn't, just as China and Japan did not remain peaceful forever. Nor, to cite another example, Christian countries.

The sunni and shi'ia were at each other from the moment of his death and largely over his own lineage.

as were various Christian sectarians until Rome put the fear of Gawd in to them to buck up their act. Not to mention the great schism that Protestantism brought, warfare bundled in to boot. I'm more interested in the human factor that enters here than in comparing whosever prophets. But the I've already said that.

Yes, i know they brought benefits as well in their conquests, but a real prophet would usher in a lasting peace. To say he was a fraud would be the kindest criticism i can levy

He was human. Being that he died. You wanna call him a fraud, fine.

But if you want to create a causation between someone of 1400 years ago and the current lunatic scum in what they pompously call a caliphate of today, base it on something of more meat than their convenient interpretations of an old book that most Muslims I've come across (let alone scholars of repute) view quite differently.

Because if you don't you're playing exactly their same game.

 

[coldjoint]

But if you want to create a causation between someone of 1400 years ago and the current lunatic scum in what they pompously call a caliphate of today, base it on something of more meat than their convenient interpretations of an old book that most Muslims I've come across (let alone scholars of repute) view quite differently.

The Koran ceates the causation. Over 90 times it(the Koran) says to emulate Mohammad in thoughts and in deeds. That includes child marriage. I believe Chagos called it playing games. He is the one running a game. He also knows that people would rather believe that Islam couldn't possibly be that bad, and plays on that constantly.

Also Muslim scholars do not read that many books and no dissenting opinions(that is a no no)and are well versed in every method of deception that their religion allows.

 

[D_NATURED]

That is a quite good presentation of the relativistic point of view. A system based on relativism has problems of its own losing its basis for prioritizing values as it does.

I've heard that defense of, essentially, religion from people before. As for losing a basis of priority, I give you the hungry. Their priority changes from hand to mouth, just as it should. The basis is, and always has been, human need.

I believe that philosophy has value and a purpose but it fails when it attempts to convince us that we can no longer tell right from wrong or when we remain pontificating when we should be acting. I think the grand moral questions have always been answered correctly by utilitarian thinkers. Does it harm? It's wrong. Does it help? It's right. Usually, more often than not, that's on the money.

I don't think the human race would have made it this far if we had to spend our time second guessing ourselves on everything. To correct for our missteps, we give ourselves the confessional and the corner bar, two tools we've invented to fix ourselves AFTER the fact...it's always after the fact when philosophy is, sadly, powerless to change anything but our opinions on what already happened.

 

[jet57]

Khadija died three years before the Prophet 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. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

It bears pointing out that the Islamic prophet, who according to them is the greatest of all prophets, was a sexual pervert who molested little girl(s). Note by the way that this is not an ad hominem, because it is Islamic doctrine that Muhammed was sinless, thus pointing out his debased deviancy is entirely on point in a criticism of the Islamic religion.

Another thing that needs to be taken from this is an understanding that when ISIS fighters go around molesting little girls, they are only doing as their religion tells them to. It's not because of socioeconomic factors or whatever other nonsense our sociologists want to make up, it is because they follow the perverse religion of Islam.

 

[joG]

I've heard that defense of, essentially, religion from people before. As for losing a basis of priority, I give you the hungry. Their priority changes from hand to mouth, just as it should. The basis is, and always has been, human need.

I believe that philosophy has value and a purpose but it fails when it attempts to convince us that we can no longer tell right from wrong or when we remain pontificating when we should be acting. I think the grand moral questions have always been answered correctly by utilitarian thinkers. Does it harm? It's wrong. Does it help? It's right. Usually, more often than not, that's on the money.

I don't think the human race would have made it this far if we had to spend our time second guessing ourselves on everything. To correct for our missteps, we give ourselves the confessional and the corner bar, two tools we've invented to fix ourselves AFTER the fact...it's always after the fact when philosophy is, sadly, powerless to change anything but our opinions on what already happened.

"Does it harm? It's wrong" sounds fine. It isn't. It is usually a case of choice between harming this group or that. In that sense both would be "wrong".

 

[D_NATURED]

"Does it harm? It's wrong" sounds fine. It isn't. It is usually a case of choice between harming this group or that. In that sense both would be "wrong".

When the choice is obvious, nobody has to wax philosophic. Too often, our choices, as humans, ARE between bad and worse not between good and bad (this comes up every election cycle). We have to make a decision about which harm is the least. In these hard choices, I think religion and philosophy often fail to provide a clear path, but it's really all we have.

I think that, given the realm of possible actions, we do pretty good, overall, for monkeys.