How amusing. How quaint. What a nice little story.
Did she have any comment on:
1- The use of or philosophy towards sex slaves that Mohammed, the great man of peace, adhered to.
2- The murders that Mohammed, the great man of peace, committed during the offensive potions of his battles.
3- That Mohammed, the great man of peace, wanted unbelievers put to death (if they did not repent).
Didn’t you say you were done talking with me about this?
I went at least a week without commenting.
Can I take it that this is your best defense, to talk about me instead of Mohammed?
No, I just want to know if you’re actually wanting to know my answers to those questions, or just being flippant with “rhetorical” questions. Because we’ve already discussed all those things right in this very thread, you and I.
The fact that she is an important historical figure in the history of Islam is in not incompatible with the fact that she was an abuse/rape victim. When a fifty something year old man has sex with a nine year old, that is rape, regardless of his claims that “God told me to”. Lot’s of truths are insulting to people, that doesn’t mean that they are not true.
It does not specify any particular number of wives, these supposed revelations that he claimed to have received from God allowed him to have as many as he wanted, like so many other self-proclaimed prophets before and since.
This is historical revisionism for the purpose of Islamic propaganda, not truth. The Romans, the Jews, and the Christians all had some form of prohibitions or restrictions on polygamy. And besides, why should Mohamed’s child abuse, violence, misogyny, and slavery be excused simply because it was the norm back in the iron age? Many of the things that Islam prohibited, like eating pork, drinking alcohol, and idolatry, were also the norms of the day.
I have been reading portions of it that are on Amazon, I will look for it in the library the next time I am there. Thanks for the reference.
I am curious though, why, of all of the time periods and locals that have been the source of information about the life of Aisha, you are directing me to read something written in 1994 by a Texan? Is there a reason that you consider this particular work to be authoritative? Or is it simply that this collection is most compatible with your ijtihad?
Yes, “it happened a long time ago and lots of other people back then did the same thing”
Murder, theft, rape, slavery. Mohammed excelled, reveled, in all of these activities. He was not some hapless victim of the times, he actually - devoted - his life to murder, theft, rape, and slavery.
Not all abusers are abusive 100% of the time, you know. And among those who presume that Mo was infallible it does not matter if it gets written down, because an explanation that relieves the Prophet of responsibility will always be produced, no matter how convoluted it must be to show him in the best light.
She did get smacked around though, according to hadith:
[QUOTE=Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 2127]
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘‘A’‘isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’‘s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘‘A’‘isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi’’ (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.
[/QUOTE]
No she didn’t, according to *hadith *:
“‘Ā’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger, may Allah bless him, never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant” (Sahih Muslim, Book 30 Number 5756)
It’s incompatible with her life, her role, and her influence. Focusing on her supposed rape and abuse to the exclusion of literally everything else about her also doesn’t seem to be motivated by any actual consideration for her and her ostensible victim status. It’s merely concern trolling in order to bash Islam.
Doesn’t mean they are, either.
Polygamy is all over the Bible!
And yet, he selected war widows and middle-aged women to marry.
No, it’s pretty clear from the textual evidence that the Qur’an is modifying an existing practice, not introducing an entirely new one like Joseph Smith did.
Because the 7th Century was *different *from today. As was the 1st Century of Jesus, or the Xth Century BC of Moses.
The criticism that Muhammad didn’t instantly transform 7th Century Arabia into 21st Century America has always struck me as bizarre, even nonsensical.
It’s easily available, inexpensive, in a language you can read, examines a number of sources from a wide range of periods, goes into detail about the various and often conflicting views of ‘Ā’isha (such as the Sunni and Shia dispute over her age or her role in the First Fitnah), not dry despite being an academic work, widely cited, and written by an expert in both Islamic history and the history of ‘Ā’isha.
No one is saying that as a secular leader he was any worse than the other bloodthirsty barbarians who wanted to steal land and take slaves. What we are asserting is that a - man of god - would not act in this manner. Not unless, you want to make the case that Allah wanted him to steal land and take slaves. And, if that is true, then ISIS* is indeed the most accurate representation of The Will Of Allah The God Of Peace.
*Why isin’t ISIS taking slaves?
*As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
They are. Your ability to get literally every single thing about Islam wrong remains unchallenged.
AWESOME!!!
Oh, so you agree then, that they - are - the most accurate representation of The Will OF Allah The God Of Peace.
You have your own ideas about what a ‘man of god’ would or wouldn’t do or say (despite not believing in god, correct?) However, those ideas are personal to you, and are not a requirement that must be fulfilled by others in order for them to have religious beliefs. Muslims aren’t going to leave their religion because you personally prefer Jesus to Mohammad.
Of course the moral ideas of the 7th century were different than those of today; as societies make material progress, this is reflected in changing social mores. Equally clearly, Islam (like Judaism, Christianity, and so on) isn’t totally incompatible with modern ideas, because vast numbers of people are able to be Muslims (or Christians) without owning slaves or harming anyone. You have a solution (abandon Islam for Christianity) in search of a problem.
There are plenty of God’s in history that proclaim themself as battlefield gods. None of them claim to be a god of peace. There is no hypocrisy when Yahweh, or Odin or Mixcotal (Aztec) make some violent proclamation. When you call yourself a god of peace but condone slavery or the murder of people who won’t convert, well, that is a problem. I’m not saying god can’t be violent. I’m saying that you can’t be a god of peace and act like Allah/Mohammed did.
Yes, of course. Except:
Mohammed was God (Allah’s) final prophet. The last word. The definitive version. You can’t alter, edit or revise the final instructions of the final prophet of god. That can not be done. To do so is a HUGE flaw in logic and basic reasoning. So, it’s fine to say that Allah wanted his followers to steal land, take slaves and kill those who do not convert. What you can’t do is say a “modern” Muslim is following the will of Allah when they refrain from doing such things. This does not paint a very pretty picture. But, the picture - is - accurate.
Yes, I kind of am hoping that if god exists he/she/it is benevolent and peaceful. Are you trying to assert that god should be violent psychotic and vengeful?
The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. - Nahum 1:2
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
The difference, Miller is that Mohammed - actually - used a sword to kill people, take slaves and steal things.
Well, Mohammed has the advantage of being a verifiable historical figure, as opposed to a wholly mythological one. But I don’t see how that makes a difference to the people who actually follow these religions. To a Christian or a Jew, the God described in Nahum is every bit as real Mohammed - as are his instructions to wage war, take slaves, and commit genocide. If Mohammed doing these things in the Koran makes Islam an inherently violent religion, than Yahweh doing these things in the Old Testament makes Judaism and Christianity every bit as bad.
What about permitting slavery, but praising manumission? Or waging war, but praising mercy and forgiveness?
In other words, your strict dichotomy is difficult to map onto actual religion. As they are human constructs, they contain the multitudes of human thought.
You’ll have to quote me commandments from Allah requiring these things. Establishing rules for how slaves should be treated isn’t a commandment to enslave people. Establishing that it’s permissible to fight back against your attackers isn’t a commandment to kill non-Muslims.
What I can’t do is tell over a billion Muslims that they’re doing it wrong, and the “real” Islam is a bloody caricature interpreted by someone that hates Islam.
I don’t have any thoughts on god’s nature, since I don’t believe that a god exists. How god “should” be is meaningless. As a result, I don’t tell others what god is.
Well, we can debate whether that makes makes Jesus (I agree he is a mythical figure of course) just as bad, I say he most certainly was not, despite a handful of things he said that implied violence, ie mentioning a sword and using a sword are fundamentally different categories. However, this is a minor point to the larger point.
If Mohammed doing these things in the Koran makes Islam an inherently violent religion
The point is he did, in both word and deed, and was an excessively violent man, even for his own time. Even then, there were plenty of people, the MAJORITY of people in fact, were not bandits, and slave traders and warlords.
So, my objection is not the portrayal of Mohammed as he actually was, a violent man in word and deed, but the idea that he is a “man of peace” when he most clearly was not.
Incidentally, that is why I respect Moses the most of all three Judaeo-Christian figures. He never pretended to be a “man of peace”. He stated, quite clearly, that the Jews were gods chosen people and that if you got on the wrong side of the Jews you got on the wrong side of god, with all the violent repercussions that entails. Yahweh - is - a battlefield god that steals land and takes slaves. Yahweh/Moses never pretended otherwise.