Religion, what's the point?

Dumbstar said:
That's the one thing you've said right despite your and Shamana's unabated mis-contexting. Aisha (RA) was indeed one of a kind, at 16 she was superior in intellect and maturity than any men (and women) around her at the time except her husband of course. Considering the men you mentioned above that is no small feat (Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, etc RA). They would go to her for the most difficult of social, political or religious understanding because she possessed something they didn't. At 16!! Not quite the expected psychological behaviour of a child sex victim.

I accept she was really young, I mean really young, when married. But she was mature a lot sooner than any girl probably before or after. Note, the Prophet (SAAW) did not marry any other young girl not did any of his followers. If you and Shamana are truly open minded you would read the hundreds of books on her attributes and qualities. Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam. It's quite common, even among those that think they're open minded. They still prefer hearing the Daily Mail headlines of the religion lest they succumb to this mystical/secretive religion. And it is pretty much mystical/secretive because they want it to remain so, just taking Quranic blurbs where necessary to fit their arguments.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I think people are getting bored of this discussion.
Click to expand...

I never actually said anything negative about Aisha herself. I believe when it is written that Aisha and Muhammed had geniune affection for each other, the point of contention is just her very young age when they married and all that. I totally believe she developed into a very intelligent, strong and mature woman.

I don't believe that all muslims are terrorists, I believe that Muhammed should not protected from mock and critism considering his life story and that his life story is detrimental to a so called religion of love and peace. I think the vast majority of muslims in the world are no less descent than all the rest of us and just happiness for themselves and others as most descent people do.

It's just mental that this happened because over some offensive cartoons that most people would daily gloss over. The reason why the author puiblished the cartoons was actually because an author who was writing a biography of Muhammed couldn't find anyone willing to draw a depiction of Muhammed out of fear for their lives in freaking Denmark in the 21st century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...uhammad_cartoons_controversy#Violent_protests
 
Last edited:
Incidentally Aisha is viewed not so favorably in the Shi’i historiography.
 
2cents said:
Incidentally Aisha is viewed not so favorably in the Shi’i historiography.
Click to expand...

It's the age old Four Caliphs rule versus Ali RA (the fourth Caliph). In Sunni literature Ali RA may have disagreed on minor governance elements of the other three Caliphs but recognised their seniority and his place in line for leadership. Aisha RA narrated 100s/1000s of hadiths supporting this version. Shi'as disregard anything the other three Caliphs have said and done (hadiths) which includes Aisha's hadiths and support. They are all considered usurpers and enemies of their Islam.

The age old question I have always have for Shi'as is: why has God permitted two of these Caliphs to lie in the same tomb in Medina for 1400+ years literally beside their beloved Prophet (SAAW), Ali RA not being one of them? Of all the thousands of miracles that occurred during those times God has chosen not to 'throw out' the others (usurpers) from the Prophet's (SAAW) proximity. Astaghfirullah. It's not just a test in belief and patience for Shi'as. It's a clear sign right there.

Oops, sorry went off on a tangent.
 
There's no clear cut evidence/scholarly opinion on Aisha's age anyway, there are evidences that she was a lot older than the age of 9 that is normally brandished. Personally I don't accept the younger position.
 
Dumbstar said:
That's the one thing you've said right despite your and Shamana's unabated mis-contexting. Aisha (RA) was indeed one of a kind, at 16 she was superior in intellect and maturity than any men (and women) around her at the time except her husband of course. Considering the men you mentioned above that is no small feat (Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, etc RA). They would go to her for the most difficult of social, political or religious understanding because she possessed something they didn't. At 16!! Not quite the expected psychological behaviour of a child sex victim.

I accept she was really young, I mean really young, when married. But she was mature a lot sooner than any girl probably before or after. Note, the Prophet (SAAW) did not marry any other young girl not did any of his followers. If you and Shamana are truly open minded you would read the hundreds of books on her attributes and qualities. Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam. It's quite common, even among those that think they're open minded. They still prefer hearing the Daily Mail headlines of the religion lest they succumb to this mystical/secretive religion. And it is pretty much mystical/secretive because they want it to remain so, just taking Quranic blurbs where necessary to fit their arguments.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I think people are getting bored of this discussion.
Click to expand...

When did I say ‘All Muslims are terrorists’? Please quote and report that post.

Oh, she was very smart (at least from what I have heard). And likely she got a good education for that time from Muhammad, Abu-Bakr and co. That does not mean that it was fine fecking her when she was a kid, though. There is a word for that in English.

I think that I’ve read enough (including multiple readings of Quran), to have an educated opinion that Islam is as fake as the other Abrahamic religion. Probably more so, considering that it is just a copy of Judaism. And I don’t remember reading Daily Mail. Why would I do so? I don’t live in UK, and I am left-wing.
 
2cents said:
Incidentally Aisha is viewed not so favorably in the Shi’i historiography.
Click to expand...
Of course she is not. Shi have a fetish on Ali, and Aisha fought a civil war against him. Two of the closest people of Muhammad (with Ali getting the heaven ticket while alive according to Sunni), what a nice bunch of guys.

Sunni try to avoid talking that Muhammad’s nephew and Muhammad’s preferred wife lead thousands to their death by fighting each other.
 
shamans said:
I'll only target one of your examples for now. Why do you concern yourself with the Hadith and what it teaches to muslims? Do you believe in the Hadith? Do you believe them as valid sources?
Click to expand...

It's a subject of interest since it's 2nd biggest religion in the world and has vast influence on a huge amount of people. No, I do not necessarily consider the Hadith to 100% true, but consider them part of puzzle. I had before requested what is considered to be the most historically accurate biography of Muhammed and I was told "The Sealed Nectar" by Safiur-Rahmen. I was wondering whether there is another biography that has a consensus among historians as being the most valid biography of Muhammed. Do you know one?

My intial interest in the dark sides of Islam was sparked by this since I am Danish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...uhammad_cartoons_controversy#Violent_protests
 
2mufc0 said:
This is written by somebody who believes all hadith in bukhari are authentic, which is a position I don't agree with.
Click to expand...
Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.

Do you not accept it perhaps, cause it does not agree with your viewpoint of child marriages? By accepting the Hadith, it makes either child marriages okay, or Muhammad not a very nice man. Rejecting the Hadith solves the issue though, which makes rejecting it very desirable. But then, where to stop on rejecting hadiths? And for that matter Quran verses too (human sperm most definitely is not created on spine).
 
Revan said:
So true. There was a post where you referred to him with name, and he quoted you referring to you with name (or the other way around). Was confused as feck.
Click to expand...

It just adds to the mystery of whole topic.
 
Revan said:
Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.

Do you not accept it perhaps, cause it does not agree with your viewpoint of child marriages? By accepting the Hadith, it makes either child marriages okay, or Muhammad not a very nice man. Rejecting the Hadith solves the issue though, which makes rejecting it very desirable. But then, where to stop on rejecting hadiths? And for that matter Quran verses too (human sperm most definitely is not created on spine).
Click to expand...
Each hadith should be scrutinised on its own merits, to say every single hadith in Bukhari and Muslim is authentic isn't true.
 
2mufc0 said:
Each hadith should be scrutinised on its own merits, to say every single hadith in Bukhari and Muslim is authentic isn't true.
Click to expand...
Ok, I admit it that it is a very open-minded viewpoint, and if I was a Muslim, I would have likely done the same.

The problem though, is how to decide what is authentic or not, considering that all the other things which might contradict it, have lower authority than Bihari/Muslim. Now for some hadiths is easy to dismiss, for example, Muhammad didn’t travel the entire universe in a single night. But for the social hadiths, that becomes very hard to dismiss.

For what is worth, I find genuinely interesting to know why you reject the Hadith. Based on what other hadiths (or events) you think it is not true?
 
Revan said:
Ok, I admit it that it is a very open-minded viewpoint, and if I was a Muslim, I would have likely done the same.

The problem though, is how to decide what is authentic or not, considering that all the other things which might contradict it, have lower authority than Bihari/Muslim. Now for some hadiths is easy to dismiss, for example, Muhammad didn’t travel the entire universe in a single night. But for the social hadiths, that becomes very hard to dismiss.

For what is worth, I find genuinely interesting to know why you reject the Hadith. Based on what other hadiths (or events) you think it is not true?
Click to expand...
If you know how hadith science works you will understand how each one is scrutinised, there have been many scholars who have looked at each hadith chain in detail, it's upto the person to make a their own decision. FYI the Aisha hadiths have been weakened.

I have enough experience in these online debates where it's not worth my time going into detail, there are plenty of easily accessible resources out there on these subjects. And in the end I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.
 
Revan said:
Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.

Do you not accept it perhaps, cause it does not agree with your viewpoint of child marriages? By accepting the Hadith, it makes either child marriages okay, or Muhammad not a very nice man. Rejecting the Hadith solves the issue though, which makes rejecting it very desirable. But then, where to stop on rejecting hadiths? And for that matter Quran verses too (human sperm most definitely is not created on spine).
Click to expand...

I actually came across a quite uncomfortable passage In The Sealed nectar where Abu Bakr is conducting a raid on a village and the children attemps to flee, but he prevents them from fleeing because he sees amongst the children a pretty arab girl. I did not take notes while reading the book or bookmark the controversial passages, but I can always find them, it just takes a long a time. But yeah it does not shine nicely on Abu Bakr who were counted among the best of muslims and muhammeds more or less 2nd in command and father to one of his wives.
 
Shamana said:
It's a subject of interest since it's 2nd biggest religion in the world and has vast influence on a huge amount of people. No, I do not necessarily consider the Hadith to 100% true, but consider them part of puzzle. I had before requested what is considered to be the most historically accurate biography of Muhammed and I was told "The Sealed Nectar" by Safiur-Rahmen. I was wondering whether there is another biography that has a consensus among historians as being the most valid biography of Muhammed. Do you know one?

My intial interest in the dark sides of Islam was sparked by this since I am Danish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...uhammad_cartoons_controversy#Violent_protests
Click to expand...

If you do not consider the hadith to be 100% why do you then use them as one of your resources to point out negatives? https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/246 This is a Hadith. Are you going to believe this or not?



Revan said:
Of course she is not. Shi have a fetish on Ali, and Aisha fought a civil war against him. Two of the closest people of Muhammad (with Ali getting the heaven ticket while alive according to Sunni), what a nice bunch of guys.

Sunni try to avoid talking that Muhammad’s nephew and Muhammad’s preferred wife lead thousands to their death by fighting each other.
Click to expand...

You are factually wrong here. By all accounts that is not what is reported or believed to have happened. Besides, even if it did you realize this is Islamic history and not Islam right?
 
Revan said:
Isn’t very accepted from Muslim scholars that Bukhari and Muslim are true (or at least the vast majority of them are true)? That Hadith being false becomes quite unlikely when both of them (highest authority on Islam after Quran) say the same thing.

Do you not accept it perhaps, cause it does not agree with your viewpoint of child marriages? By accepting the Hadith, it makes either child marriages okay, or Muhammad not a very nice man. Rejecting the Hadith solves the issue though, which makes rejecting it very desirable. But then, where to stop on rejecting hadiths? And for that matter Quran verses too (human sperm most definitely is not created on spine).
Click to expand...

Your first problem is generalizing more than a billion people of the same religion to have the exact same beliefs. You will get different answers. Secondly, them becoming false is not unlikely at all if you read a little into the compilation methods and contradictions within same resources.

The reason Hadith are rejected by some is because in Islamic belief the Quran is considered the divine word of God while Hadith are considered historical accounts compiled by man. Upon the completion of Islam, the Hadith did not exist and came into birth years later.
 
shamans said:
Your first problem is generalizing more than a billion people of the same religion to have the exact same beliefs. You will get different answers. Secondly, them becoming false is not unlikely at all if you read a little into the compilation methods and contradictions within same resources.

The reason Hadith are rejected by some is because in Islamic belief the Quran is considered the divine word of God while Hadith are considered historical accounts compiled by man. Upon the completion of Islam, the Hadith did not exist and came into birth years later.
Click to expand...
Yes, but surely not all those of Islamic faith consider the Quran to be literally true either? That can't be the case for such a large and diverse array of people.
 
shamans said:
You are factually wrong here. By all accounts that is not what is reported or believed to have happened. Besides, even if it did you realize this is Islamic history and not Islam right?
Click to expand...
Tell me how I am wrong, and how the Battle of the Camel did not happen.

shamans said:
Your first problem is generalizing more than a billion people of the same religion to have the exact same beliefs. You will get different answers. Secondly, them becoming false is not unlikely at all if you read a little into the compilation methods and contradictions within same resources.

The reason Hadith are rejected by some is because in Islamic belief the Quran is considered the divine word of God while Hadith are considered historical accounts compiled by man. Upon the completion of Islam, the Hadith did not exist and came into birth years later.
Click to expand...

Sure, if Hadith does against Quran, that disqualifies that hadith. But this is not what happened here, Quran said nothing about Aisha.

I have yet to read about a respected Muslim scholar who rejects hadiths of Muslim and Buhari, especially when those hadiths say the same thing.

And yes, obviously the hadith is the word of man. Same as Quran, the Bible and Lord of the Rings. The last one is much more interesting than the others though. And of course Quran has factually wrong things on it (sperm being created on spine, for example). I guess the verse just got misinterpreted from people during the time, and so should be rejected.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Yes, but surely not all those of Islamic faith consider the Quran to be literally true either? That can't be the case for such a large and diverse array of people.
Click to expand...
Every one of those I know, do exactly that. The problem is that Quran says itself that everything there is true, and it will be protected from Allah until the end of days. Not a single letter of it will be changed from humans. Dismissing some inconvenient part of Quran is as a big blasphemy as it can be.

Which actually gives a highly disadvantage to Quran when used scientifically. If you find something wrong (or contradictory) in Bible * it is not a game-breaking deal. The Bible was written from people who talked about Jesus. Them being humans might have make mistakes. But this is not the case of Quran. It is supposed to be the verbatim word of God, protected from God. Anything found there false, is more than enough to dismiss all of it. This obviously means that when there is some clearly wrong verse, Muslims pretend that it is science who is wrong, or we just are unable to understand the true meaning of the verse.

* Most Christians would not accept those things to exist, but it is easy to see them considering that two gospel start contradicting each other since the beginning, for example in the genealogy of Jesus when they give different names.
 
shamans said:
If you do not consider the hadith to be 100% why do you then use them as one of your resources to point out negatives? https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/246 This is a Hadith. Are you going to believe this or not?





You are factually wrong here. By all accounts that is not what is reported or believed to have happened. Besides, even if it did you realize this is Islamic history and not Islam right?
Click to expand...

Well, if we aren't going to use the Quran, the hadith and historical sources, who should we rely on to get a picture of the life of Muhammed? Who would you rely on? Yes the book I read is full of miracles which of course is where I am willing to suspend my belief. I have a few superstious inclinations so I don't entirely write off supernatural phenomena, but Muhammed healing people's wounds with his saliva would probably only be believeable for me if I did indeed believe in a All-mighty creator God called Allah and if I believed Muhammed was his prophet. I don't believe that there is an Al-mighty god called Allah so I would find it difficult to believe that Muhammed had attained supernatural powers.

But you know what if we say, feck the validity of the Quran, feck the hadith and feck the historical sources we have lets just say that Muhammed never existed in the first place and it's just all a big sham.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Yes, but surely not all those of Islamic faith consider the Quran to be literally true either? That can't be the case for such a large and diverse array of people.
Click to expand...

You'll find exceptions of course and people who still don't follow it anyway but fundamentally, what unites almost all Muslims, regardless of political, social, religious etc views is that almost all of them believe that the Quran is the unchanged and literal word of god.
 
africanspur said:
You'll find exceptions of course and people who still don't follow it anyway but fundamentally, what unites almost all Muslims, regardless of political, social, religious etc views is that almost all of them believe that the Quran is the unchanged and literal word of god.
Click to expand...
Thank you. So in general, the Quran would be considered to be more literal than, say, the Bible is on average by Christians? In the sense that, whilst of course open to interpretation, the content of the Quran is inherently true?
 
Carolina Red said:
Lots of Christians believe this about the Bible as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. I'm trying to understand if that's, basically, similar to Christianity in that there is something of a "pick and choose" approach as is the case with many Christians regarding the Bible. May be it's a tough question to answer I guess.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Yes, indeed. I'm trying to understand if that's, basically, similar to Christianity in that there is something of a "pick and choose" approach as is the case with many Christians regarding the Bible. May be it's a tough question to answer I guess.
Click to expand...

Might sound obvious to say, but they’re two different texts which serve different functions within the quite different contexts of each faith. So trying to draw direct analogies between them often leads to more confusion and less understanding.
 
2cents said:
Might sound obvious to say, but they’re two different texts which serve different functions within the quite different contexts of each faith. So trying to draw direct analogies between them often leads to more confusion and less understanding.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suspect so. I feel my question may not be helpful but I'm trying to get some base understanding of how a very different religion and its philosophies are structured through the prism of a religion I'm more familiar with which may well be foolhardy.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Yes, indeed. I'm trying to understand if that's, basically, similar to Christianity in that there is something of a "pick and choose" approach as is the case with many Christians regarding the Bible. May be it's a tough question to answer I guess.
Click to expand...
It would depend on the denomination of Christianity you're looking at. Views on the literal nature of the Bible vary between them.

Your evangelical branches are going to be the most strict in their belief that the book is both without error and literally true. This brings up a great irony as those are the types who push for biblically inspired laws within the US, but are also the most vocal in promoting Sharia based conspiracy theories and in voicing hatred towards fundamentalists of other religions, especially Islam. Fundamentalism is a zero sum game in that regard.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Thank you. So in general, the Quran would be considered to be more literal than, say, the Bible is on average by Christians? In the sense that, whilst of course open to interpretation, the content of the Quran is inherently true?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to compare directly of course. I think the difference is perhaps that the overwhelming majority of muslims (that I've met anyway) will say that the Quran is the literal word of god, unchanged since Muhammed was alive. All Muhammed did was collect the messages and others wrote them down word for word. It does therefore make it a bit more difficult to exclude some of the harsher let's say aspects.

I believe some Muslims believe Muhammed was illiterate and the beauty of the Quran, in both a literary and auditory sense, as well as its complexity, is his true miracle.

Not that some Christians don't also believe the bible very literally of course.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Yes, I suspect so. I feel my question may not be helpful but I'm trying to get some base understanding of how a very different religion and its philosophies are structured through the prism of a religion I'm more familiar with which may well be foolhardy.
Click to expand...

It’s an understandable impulse, but it’s nearly always best to try to understand these things in their own terms.

I’ll write a long post on Islam and its structures of authority later on which might be helpful.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Yes, but surely not all those of Islamic faith consider the Quran to be literally true either? That can't be the case for such a large and diverse array of people.
Click to expand...

Of course not but my point is the vast majority. It would be like a christian not believing in christ to be the son of God. Belief in Hadith on the other hand is a wide spectrum.

Shamana said:
Well, if we aren't going to use the Quran, the hadith and historical sources, who should we rely on to get a picture of the life of Muhammed? Who would you rely on? Yes the book I read is full of miracles which of course is where I am willing to suspend my belief. I have a few superstious inclinations so I don't entirely write off supernatural phenomena, but Muhammed healing people's wounds with his saliva would probably only be believeable for me if I did indeed believe in a All-mighty creator God called Allah and if I believed Muhammed was his prophet. I don't believe that there is an Al-mighty god called Allah so I would find it difficult to believe that Muhammed had attained supernatural powers.

But you know what if we say, feck the validity of the Quran, feck the hadith and feck the historical sources we have lets just say that Muhammed never existed in the first place and it's just all a big sham.
Click to expand...

My point is you are using the same sources that claim saliva healed people for your negative criticism. You can't pick and choose. Either we accept all the negative you talked about and miraculous healing or you reject it. They are the same source. So tell me, which side are you on?
 
Carolina Red said:
Lots of Christians believe this about the Bible as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I don't think it is entirely the same. Those Christians also believe that Bible is the word of those 4 people (and the other letters) about Jesus' teachings. Of course, there is the supernatural part here, God helps on keeping those words true, but I think that most recognize that Matthew and co. didn't even meet Jesus.

While regarding Quran, it is essentially direct express from God to Muhammad. It is literally what God sent to Muhammad (for whatever reasons with a courier), so the verbatim word of God. The hadiths are actually very comparable with the gospels (word of other people about Muhammad/Jesus' teachings).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.