Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 21
Send Topic Print
Executing prisoners of war (Read 96661 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #165 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 8:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2013 at 12:10pm:
Hey look! A muslim deflecting!


The bugger is wrong with you??

Brian makes a comment about not all muslims wanting to slavishly follow Muhammad's example in contemporary society - you then twist that round and distort it is "anti-Muhammadan muslims" - which any sensible person would understand that as completely unreasonable.

Can you actually fathom the difference between a muslim choosing not to follow the prophet's example - but still reverring him as a messenger of God - and actually being "anti" Muhammad?? I can, and so can Brian. Thats my comment on what Brian "actually said".
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47056
At my desk.
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #166 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 8:37pm
 
Quote:
The bugger is wrong with you??


I ask you a simple question. You spend pages and pages avoiding it, then pretend it is my fault you are incapable of giving a straight answer to a simple question.

Quote:
Brian makes a comment about not all muslims wanting to slavishly follow Muhammad's example in contemporary society


Oh look, I have to quote Brian yet again. How many times does it take to get a straight answer from a Muslim? Let's count.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 6:37pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 6:33pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 9:05pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 6:56pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 5:32pm:
I am condemning people who hold a womanising, mass murdering, raping, thieving, wife beating pedophile to be an eternal example to all mankind, and who hold his rules to be eternal rules that should be imposed on all mankind.


So, you're applying modern, 21st century, Western morality to a man who lived in in the 7th century, in Arabian society of the time?

Mmm, do you do the same thing when considering Saint Paul (after all, we know he existed, we don't know if Christ existed)?

Quote:
If you think he is just another medieval thug, I am happy to leave it at that.


I think he is a normal, 7th century Arab.  In some ways better, in some ways worse as a representative of his society of the day.  I don't attempt to judge him by standards other than those of his period.   Only immature fools do otherwise.  Are you such a fool?


Like I explained the first time round, I am applying modern 21st century western morality to modern, 21st century western people who want to bring back Muhammed's standards.

Do you think that "don't rape, murder and steal" is some kind of new fad?


Brian?


Yes?   As long as you keep thinking all Muslims want to "bring back Muhammed's standards," FD, I think you have a problem with your bigoted viewpoint.   Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #167 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 8:43pm
 
So, you really can't see the difference between not wanting to "bring back Muhammad's standards" into contemporary society and being "anti-Muhammad"?
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #168 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 9:38pm
 
If there is something about Mohammed's conduct that is NOT to be emulated in this society, say so. If everything he did IS to be emulated in this society, say so.

But slippin' an' slidin' simply because you can't say aye or nay is very undignified, Gandy.

Either Mohammed is an example, in every way to all times, or he isn't. I say no, he isn't.  What do you say?i
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47056
At my desk.
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #169 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 9:53pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 10th, 2013 at 8:43pm:
So, you really can't see the difference between not wanting to "bring back Muhammad's standards" into contemporary society and being "anti-Muhammad"?


Do you have an opinion on what Brian posted?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #170 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 10:09pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2013 at 9:53pm:
Do you have an opinion on what Brian posted?


If you weren't so busy acting like a tool, you would see that I have already commented on what Brian wrote - which as already stated has nothing to do with your invention of "anti-Muhammaden muslims":

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/119#119

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1374112476/117#117



Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47056
At my desk.
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #171 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 10:27pm
 
Yes Gandalf, I herewith formally acknowledge that you offered an opinion on something else that Brian wrote.

One more time, do you have an opinion on this:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 6:37pm:
freediver wrote on Oct 26th, 2013 at 6:33pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 9:05pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Aug 11th, 2013 at 6:56pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 3rd, 2013 at 5:32pm:
I am condemning people who hold a womanising, mass murdering, raping, thieving, wife beating pedophile to be an eternal example to all mankind, and who hold his rules to be eternal rules that should be imposed on all mankind.


So, you're applying modern, 21st century, Western morality to a man who lived in in the 7th century, in Arabian society of the time?

Mmm, do you do the same thing when considering Saint Paul (after all, we know he existed, we don't know if Christ existed)?

Quote:
If you think he is just another medieval thug, I am happy to leave it at that.


I think he is a normal, 7th century Arab.  In some ways better, in some ways worse as a representative of his society of the day.  I don't attempt to judge him by standards other than those of his period.   Only immature fools do otherwise.  Are you such a fool?


Like I explained the first time round, I am applying modern 21st century western morality to modern, 21st century western people who want to bring back Muhammed's standards.

Do you think that "don't rape, murder and steal" is some kind of new fad?


Brian?


Yes?   As long as you keep thinking all Muslims want to "bring back Muhammed's standards," FD, I think you have a problem with your bigoted viewpoint.   Roll Eyes


Not losing count are we?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #172 - Nov 10th, 2013 at 11:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2013 at 10:27pm:
Yes Gandalf, I herewith formally acknowledge that you offered an opinion on something else that Brian wrote.

One more time, do you have an opinion on this:


You might get better responses from me if every reply of yours didn't reek of "gandalf's out to deceive me" attitude.

In this case I took "example" and "standards" as the same thing.

To be honest I don't really know what is meant by "standards" - which is why I asked you to clarify the term before. Is this "deflecting" or otherwise being my usual malicious self? Feel free to set me straight with another sneering response followed up by yet another petty grudge thread.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47056
At my desk.
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #173 - Nov 11th, 2013 at 7:32pm
 
Quote:
You might get better responses from me if every reply of yours didn't reek of "gandalf's out to deceive me" attitude.


But you are not. Your deflections are quite transparent. I herewith formally acknowledge that you are making no effort to disguise your deflections as good-faith arguments.

Quote:
To be honest I don't really know what is meant by "standards" - which is why I asked you to clarify the term before.


That is why I was careful to include the discussion leading up to it.

Quote:
Is this "deflecting" or otherwise being my usual malicious self?


Yes. You cannot think of any way to attempt to rescue what Brian said (as you did in the spineless apologetics thread), so you are trying an alternative approach of pretending you cannot understand it. Remember, just because what he says is obviously incorrect and beyond reason, does not mean you are misinterpretting it.

But feel free to qualify any opinion you give in case you think Brian might rescue it for himself.

I would also be interested to hear your opinion regarding Brian's claim that only "immature fools" would judge Muhammed by standards other than those of the society he lived in.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #174 - Nov 12th, 2013 at 11:54am
 
*sigh* - FD I have never tried to deceive you or anyone. I'm here to debate, not score points. I'm frankly tired of having every reply of mine - made in good faith - labelled as a deliberate attempt at deception. I admit that I may have been a little wound up the last week as it was my final exam week, and I apologise if I have been a little too aggressive of late (not totally unprovoked though I hasten to add). But that is over now, and I hope we can return to a more civil debate.

freediver wrote on Nov 11th, 2013 at 7:32pm:
Yes. You cannot think of any way to attempt to rescue what Brian said (as you did in the spineless apologetics thread), so you are trying an alternative approach of pretending you cannot understand it. Remember, just because what he says is obviously incorrect and beyond reason, does not mean you are misinterpretting it.


Honestly FD, be reasonable. I originally entered this discussion when you applied the term "anti-Muhammad muslim" and attributed it to Brian - thats really all I was interested in. I tried to explain to you that the term bore no resemblance to what Brian actually wrote - where he was talking about muslims who might not choose to follow his example, not being "anti-Muhammad". You have never responded to this despite making several posts since. I asked you more than once how what Brian actually wrote (in relation to muslims not applying Muhammad's example/standards in contemporary society) equates to being "anti-Muhammad", but you ignored me every time. What do you think that is if its not "deception" and "pretending"? Incredibly, instead of explaining the use of this distorted term, you turn it into an attack on me for not adequately responding to what Brian actually said! As if *I* had something to explain!!

As for Brian's claims about Muhammad's "standards", I would firstly point out that Brian is not muslim, so I don't think we could ever agree on the morality of the prophet. As a muslim, I believe that Muhammad's morality was/is universal, whereas Brian believes his morality can only apply to the time and place in which he lived. That is the general premise to this issue...

BUT

I think it is a little more complicated than this. I believe the prophet's morality can only be viewed in two layers. There is absolutely a universality to his morality, but it is abstract: do not abuse women, ensure that marriage is about mutual love and respect, tolerate opposing views etc. However this universal morality can only exist within specific contexts - contexts which are vastly different depending on the time and place. This is what I tried to touch on with my arguments about the morality of marrying a post-pubescent 9 year old. Look at it this way: the "universal" morality on this issue is that women must be "mature" before consummation of marriage. However what constitutes "mature" is completely meaningless outside the specific contexts of the societal norms of a specific time and place. Thats why you can have the apparent contradiction of marrying a 9 year old being both moral and immoral depending on when and where it happens - and *STILL* be able to call it a universal morality. Since in *BOTH* cases, the same universal morality applies - namely that the girl has to be psychologically and physically mature and of course willing enough according to the societal norms of the time.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47056
At my desk.
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #175 - Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm
 
Quote:
*sigh* - FD I have never tried to deceive you or anyone. I'm here to debate, not score points. I'm frankly tired of having every reply of mine - made in good faith - labelled as a deliberate attempt at deception.


Deflection Gandalf. If I see you deflecting, I call you on it. Not every reply. Only the ones where you deflect.

Quote:
I admit that I may have been a little wound up the last week as it was my final exam week, and I apologise if I have been a little too aggressive of late (not totally unprovoked though I hasten to add). But that is over now, and I hope we can return to a more civil debate.


Would you say that you were intimidating?

Quote:
Honestly FD, be reasonable. I originally entered this discussion when you applied the term "anti-Muhammad muslim" and attributed it to Brian - thats really all I was interested in. I tried to explain to you that the term bore no resemblance to what Brian actually wrote - where he was talking about muslims who might not choose to follow his example, not being "anti-Muhammad".


Yes Gandalf, it was in reference to the other thing that Brian wrote. Do I need to quote him again?

Quote:
You have never responded to this despite making several posts since.


Responded to what? Do you want an argument over the appropriateness of a term I made up on the spot?

Quote:
I asked you more than once how what Brian actually wrote (in relation to muslims not applying Muhammad's example/standards in contemporary society) equates to being "anti-Muhammad", but you ignored me every time.


I quoted Brian. What he posted speaks for itself.

Quote:
What do you think that is if its not "deception" and "pretending"


I think it is a deflection. You refuse to give your opinion on what Brian actually wrote.

Quote:
As for Brian's claims about Muhammad's "standards", I would firstly point out that Brian is not muslim, so I don't think we could ever agree on the morality of the prophet. As a muslim, I believe that Muhammad's morality was/is universal, whereas Brian believes his morality can only apply to the time and place in which he lived.


Brian believes that only "immature fools" (that's an exact quote this time) would judge him by modern standards. He also seems to think that Muslims share this view. Why do you tread on eggshells when addressing what he says? Is he really so valuable to you that you must avoid upsetting him at all costs? Or are you afraid he will direct his constant whining at you?

Quote:
I think it is a little more complicated than this. I believe the prophet's morality can only be viewed in two layers. There is absolutely a universality to his morality, but it is abstract: do not abuse women, ensure that marriage is about mutual love and respect, tolerate opposing views etc. However this universal morality can only exist within specific contexts - contexts which are vastly different depending on the time and place. This is what I tried to touch on with my arguments about the morality of marrying a post-pubescent 9 year old. Look at it this way: the "universal" morality on this issue is that women must be "mature" before consummation of marriage. However what constitutes "mature" is completely meaningless outside the specific contexts of the societal norms of a specific time and place. Thats why you can have the apparent contradiction of marrying a 9 year old being both moral and immoral depending on when and where it happens - and *STILL* be able to call it a universal morality. Since in *BOTH* cases, the same universal morality applies - namely that the girl has to be psychologically and physically mature and of course willing enough according to the societal norms of the time.


So why are you afraid to explain how to raise a child to be an appropriately mature child bride?

Was Muhammed in love with Aisha? Was she in love with Muhammed?

Was Muhammed tolerant of Pagans, Jews, Christians etc?

Did Muhammed permit spousal abuse?

How do you get this universal morality when his actions clearly contradict it? How does the context turn wife beating, concubinage etc into not abusing women? How does it turn arranged marriages into a marriage based on mutual love? How does it turn the naked agression against pagans into tolerance? How does it turn the execution of 800 Jewish POWs in one day into tolerance?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #176 - Nov 13th, 2013 at 7:15am
 
freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
Deflection Gandalf. If I see you deflecting, I call you on it. Not every reply. Only the ones where you deflect.


Would you mind explaining how I am "deflecting" in this particular case? You seem to throw the term around extremely liberally.

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
Responded to what? Do you want an argument over the appropriateness of a term I made up on the spot?


Yes I would like an explanation of why you used a term that clearly has no resemblance to what Brian actually wrote. Address this point at least: why do you turn questioning whether or not muslims would want to bring Muhammad's example/standards into contemporary society into being "anti-Muhammaden muslim"? And why do you expect me to "comment" on a term that I plainly do not believe exists?

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
I quoted Brian. What he posted speaks for itself.


Do you understand that muslims can believe Muhammad's ways are not appropriate for contemporary society, but still revere the man as a messenger of God and founder of a great religion? Explain how such muslims must necessarily be "anti-Muhammad", please.

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
I think it is a deflection. You refuse to give your opinion on what Brian actually wrote.


And yet I've been painstakingly explaining to you what Brian actually wrote is completely different to your distorted term "anti-Muhammaden muslim" for about 3 pages now. Have you ever responded to this? Answer no. Do you think its fair to call your (non) responses to this a "deflection"?

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
Brian believes that only "immature fools" (that's an exact quote this time) would judge him by modern standards.


And he is right - like when people twist themselves into knots trying to explain that Muhammad was a pedophile based on the fact that our modern society has a completely arbitrary age (16 I think) for girls to lawfully have sex. It goes to the heart of my point about universal standards only existing within the specific contexts of time and place. Ignoring this is simplistic, and dare I say it an 'immature' way to debate. I agree with Brian 100% on this one. Hows that for an opinion?

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
So why are you afraid to explain how to raise a child to be an appropriately mature child bride?


Because you are distorting what I said. I made it clear it was something only for a particular time and place - and that time was a long time ago. Since then Women receive education, better health care, they grow up in relative peace and prosperity etc. You make it sound as if it is something that is worth pursuing, I never said that. In fact I made it clear that going back to that would be massively retrograde. Girls were "conditioned", if you like, to grow up very fast because life was much shorter, far more volatile and generally sucked in just about every measure compared to today. And this was not an environment of Muhammad's or islam's making - it was the way of the world - everywhere. What Muhammad did do was try and make the best of a sh!tty situation- raising the status of women, having a *VERY* strong emphasis on education (in fact he deemed it compulsory for women to be educated), and severely curbed the ill-treatment of women. Aisha embodied that "new way" for women - becoming well educated and a strong, wise and very much reverred leader of her society.

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
Was Muhammed in love with Aisha? Was she in love with Muhammed?


Absolutely, yes.

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
Was Muhammed tolerant of Pagans, Jews, Christians etc?


undeniably he was intolerant of paganISM, but he was tolerant towards any person who did not attack or betray him. The evidence is quite clear on this.

freediver wrote on Nov 12th, 2013 at 9:12pm:
Did Muhammed permit spousal abuse?


NO!
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47056
At my desk.
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #177 - Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm
 
Quote:
Yes I would like an explanation of why you used a term that clearly has no resemblance to what Brian actually wrote. Address this point at least: why do you turn questioning whether or not muslims would want to bring Muhammad's example/standards into contemporary society into being "anti-Muhammaden muslim"?


Because I think it succinctly captures the essence of what Brian posted while at the same time highlighting the absurdity. It is also catchy.

Quote:
And why do you expect me to "comment" on a term that I plainly do not believe exists?


I initially asked you to comment on what he actually posted. Only after failing to get a response a few times did I resort to the abbreviated version. Then I went back to the long version after you started complaining about it. I went to some effort to highlight the fact that I was asking you to comment on what Brian actually posted. You appeared deliberately oblivious to this - hence my conclusion that you are deliberately deflecting. When you finally did comment on it, it was one of the most spineflexing efforts at diplomacy I had seen from you.

Quote:
Do you understand that muslims can believe Muhammad's ways are not appropriate for contemporary society


It makes sense, but I don't expect that from Muslims, and I have never seen a Muslim argue this. Even you are careful to leave the option open of "socialising" children to make good child brides.

Quote:
but still revere the man as a messenger of God and founder of a great religion?


ie, he was an asshole, but he was God's great asshole?

Quote:
Explain how such muslims must necessarily be "anti-Muhammad", please.


It makes it hard to draw the line. If you accuse Muhammed of acting immorally, the entire belief system collapses. If, as you do, you insist he acted morally, then you also end up defending as moral those same actions today, though I do appreciate your difficulty in explaining the context. That is why the middle east and North Africa are such shitholes today. They still marry prepubescent girls and all the other BS that Muhammed's mates did. And the fact that they do this maintains a similarly backwards society that in turn (according to you) permits the backwardness.

Quote:
And yet I've been painstakingly explaining to you what Brian actually wrote is completely different to your distorted term "anti-Muhammaden muslim" for about 3 pages now.


And I've been asking you to comment on what he actually posted, for far longer.

Quote:
And he is right - like when people twist themselves into knots trying to explain that Muhammad was a pedophile based on the fact that our modern society has a completely arbitrary age (16 I think) for girls to lawfully have sex.


No Gandalf. It is based on the fact that he had sex with a pre-pubescent 9 year old girl. I presented the relevant Islamic texts in the child brides thread, and you have been deflecting ever since (I can quote your dummy spit if you would like).

Quote:
It goes to the heart of my point about universal standards only existing within the specific contexts of time and place. Ignoring this is simplistic, and dare I say it an 'immature' way to debate. I agree with Brian 100% on this one. Hows that for an opinion?


I did ask you before whether you rejected the concept of universal moral standards. You deflected. It does seem incongruous with Islam. Perhaps I will start another thread on this.

Quote:
Because you are distorting what I said.


I have no idea what you meant. Hence the question. Hence the same question, unanswered, dozens of times. I was asking you what you meant, not telling you. Even when I quoted you and offered no interpretation at all you continued to deflect.

Quote:
I made it clear it was something only for a particular time and place - and that time was a long time ago.


No you didn't. In fact you did the exact opposite.

Quote:
undeniably he was intolerant of paganISM, but he was tolerant towards any person who did not attack or betray him. The evidence is quite clear on this.


So slaughtering pagans and destroying their religious monuments is being tolerant towards the people but intolerant towards their beliefs?

If our society was hostile towards Islam, banned Mosques, killed Muslims, but tolerated them if they recanted, would you accept that that counts as being tolerant towards the people?

Quote:
NO!


Yet he never specifically forbade it or made any comment on it, despite several specific examples of him apparently turning a blind eye to, or condoning it, and even beating his own wife (despite your many and varied protests, eg that it was a 'jovial slap'). Wife beating was rife. Muhammed's friends and relatives did it. Muhammed himself did it. The women complained to Muhammed about it.

This was Muhammed's response:

Quote:
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
True Colours
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #178 - Nov 13th, 2013 at 1:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
Wife beating was rife.

It was rife amongst pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. Prophet Muhammed was the first in history to outlaw it, and never did it himself.

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
Muhammed's friends and relatives did it.


Incorrect

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
Muhammed himself did it.


Incorrect. He never beat his wives, and there many hadeeth that attest to that.

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
The women complained to Muhammed about it.

This was Muhammed's response:

Quote:


Incorrect. He banned it.

He was later overruled by God, but the Prophet's commands that a woman not be physically harmed remain in place.

The Prophet many times mentioned his dislike of wife beating, and warned women not to marry wife-beaters.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #179 - Nov 13th, 2013 at 2:26pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
I initially asked you to comment on what he actually posted.


Yes, and I had already gone through that with Soren. Muhammad's "standards" are presumably what is revealed through his example - otherwise known as the sunna. Now, as I have explained before, a distinction needs to be made between specific laws handed down by Muhammad, and just every day things that he did. The latter are the "sunna". As a general rule, whenever a practice of the prophet was to become compulsory, it would be specifically stated as such either in the hadith or the quran. The rest, as I understand it, is optional: growing a beard, circumcision, additional prayers outside the 5 compulsory ones, taking wudu before sleep, etc etc. Reccomended, but optional. So yes, literally millions of muslims don't consider all of Muhammad's "standards" (as I understand it) to be applicable to this day and age. And no, that doesn't even remotely make them an "anti-Muhammaden muslim".

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
It makes sense, but I don't expect that from Muslims, and I have never seen a Muslim argue this.


Have you ever met a muslim man who doesn't have a beard?

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
If you accuse Muhammed of acting immorally, the entire belief system collapses.


Of course. But as I argued in great length before, you can believe having sex with a post-pubescent 9 year old is both moral and immoral depending on the time and place, while at the same time holding that they are both consistent with a universal morality.

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
It is based on the fact that he had sex with a pre-pubescent 9 year old girl.


It is not based on that at all. I can tell you, if it really is a fact that Aisha was prepubescent at the time of consummation then I will happily renounce islam and declare Muhammad a filthy pedophile. I have gone over this enough times already, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she was pre-pubescent at the time of consummation. Baron tried very very hard, but literally the only thing he had was a reference to Aisha possessing dolls, and the faulty logic that she must have been prepubescent because post-pubescent girls are not allowed to play with dolls (note, says nothing at all about mere possession). This "evidence" compared to an actual sahih hadith that has Aisha herself stating that she was post-pubescent even before the migration, while she was still living with her parents (that the consummation was after the migration and when she was not living with her parents is not in dispute - by anyone).

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
I did ask you before whether you rejected the concept of universal moral standards.


Goodness FD, if you are religious, then of course you believe in universal moral standards. I thought that goes without saying.

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
I have no idea what you meant. Hence the question. Hence the same question, unanswered


Your question itself was the distortion. "How does islam justify something immoral" - was the essense of your question, which as we both know is not a question at all, but a swipe at islam. My answer is just to say islam does no such thing. Or to quote a well used politician answer - I reject the premise of your question.

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
So slaughtering pagans and destroying their religious monuments is being tolerant towards the people but intolerant towards their beliefs?


I'm not sure which pagans he "slaughtered". But basically he only waged war on people who were attacking and/or conspiring to destroy the islamic state.

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
Yet he never specifically forbade it or made any comment on it


He made a universal ruling on rape - all rape, as discussed at length before. Spousal rape is completely contrary to his emphasis on marriage being about mutual love and respect.

freediver wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:57pm:
This was Muhammed's response:


Muhammad's response was to tell the men who committed the beatings "you are not the best among us" or words to that effect. So please don't tell such blatant untruths.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 21
Send Topic Print