cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)
have (none / 0)
you even researched this thoroughly, or you just believe what some people say. i look at both sides. i look at what people like Daniel pipes say and what other people say.btw, alot of these statements that you use are translated from arabic.  the word aisha uses can be translated as validation. in islam there is no making a marriage valid by sexual intercourse. if you read some biographies of muhammad written by valid authors such as karen armstrong, and if you are reasonable, you would understand this subject a little better. i dont provide citations because i dont have anything to prove. you go ahead believe what you want to believe. you already have in your head that he was immoral. i too have said bad things about him,which i now regret. i changed my mind after a lot of research. have you even read what other historians and scholars on the other side have wrote?

by alfarooq88 on 02/06/2010 04:45:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Adjourned, for now (none / 0)

I don't "already have it in my mind" that he is immoral; for years he was described to me as a paragon of virtue.  Back in highschool a Muslim friend of mine was asked who his rolemodels are in life and he said "First Muhammad, then my dad."  It was only after I started reading up on him that I became skeptical of his reputation. 

 But this time I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I'll give your suggested Karen Armstrong book a try.  I'll write a blog about it when I'm done.

And yes, you do have something to prove.  I'd like to make this very clear before I proceed to read Karen Armstrong's book.  If others present sources contradicting information you're presenting and if you wish to maintain your position then you're obliged to present evidence to back up your claims.  Whether they be reasoned scholarly opinion, a citation of primary sources, or something I can't even think of there is still an onus on you.  This is not a debate about theism or cultural relativity, it's simply a discussion of whether or not there is strong evidence to suggest Muhammad had sex with a child.

by Tashi Freeman on 02/06/2010 07:36:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
theres really (none / 0)
no point in arguing with you. when you look at history, you have to put aside your bias, and look at the context of the time. she came to live with him after puberty. at that time, when children reached puberty they were considered adults. at that time kids that age also did other mature things. boys would go to war at a young age. so if you already researched about this, you should know all the arguments of the side. you are judging things that happened at that time, with your own modern day way of thinking. also, have you read on what Islamic scholars say about this, and what other historians who are on the other side say? or when you "read" up on him did you only read what people who have something negative to say about him have to say, or did you read what the other side had to say. I also suggest reading the biography of Muhammad by martin lings.

by alfarooq88 on 02/06/2010 08:08:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your position changes, (none / 0)
in case you don't notice. Earlier in the thread you wrote she entered puberty at 9, now she was already through puberty at 9? You know what that would make her? Sick, as in: she has had a condition that led to this premature puberty! If you have to adapt your story all the time, it tells a lot about whether your story is true or not. We are still waiting for sources btw. If you want to cite your books by Armstrong or Lings, go ahead, do that.

no point in arguing with you. when you look at history, you have to put aside your bias

Dude, Tashi provided primary sources for his claims, you only alluded to popular science books, without even citing secondary sources. What you call bias btw, arose probably only after having heard about critical sources, so it is neither bias nor prejudice but a critical opinion based on (more or less disputed, I think less) facts.

boys would go to war at a young age.

So, after pedophilia, child soldiers are also OK. Child soldiers were an anomaly when all other options were exhausted. It does not make sense to regularly send your children into battle.

This has nothing to do with modern sensibilities but with natural, innate human behaviour. Murder is, though, much more natural than pedophilia.

by eborujion on 02/07/2010 07:08:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]

cenks comment on the prophet Muhammad | 116 comments (116 topical, 0 hidden)