Did you even read what I wrote? The Companions were at odds with each other, both politically and religiously, from the moment Muhammad died. What they claimed Muhammad said and did differed based on that. Islam and its scriptures have a lot more to do with the people that came after Muhammad than they do with the man himself.
Muhammad wasn’t around to check what the Companions and Successors said about him and claimed he said. John Wansbrough even argues that (the Muslim tradition about the 'Uthmanic rescension notwithstanding) the Qur’an didn’t even reach its final form until more than a century after Muhammad’s death.
I still want to know who the fundamentalist Christians are. Magiver said above that it is common sense that there will be fundamentalists in every religion, and that these fundamentalists will be driven chiefly by the character and teaching of their prophet. So this leads very naturally to the question. Who are the fundamentalist Christians?
And, more important, does Magiver consider those fundamentalist Christians, even if they’re a minority, to be absolutely representative of all Christians?
Earlier on this thread you specifically claimed that the difference between Jesus and Muhammad was that Muhammad had actually “written” the Quran whereas Jesus hadn’t written the New Testament.
Now, when you specifically claim that Muhammad “wrote a book on how everybody else should live” that would certainly appear to every reasonable person that you were completely unaware that he Quran wasn’t put together till years if not decades after his death based on oral traditions or that there’s no evidence that he even wanted a book written.
You have since claimed that you were always aware the the Quran wasn’t written until long after his death.
Ok, three things.
**1. Why if you knew that Muhammad didn’t actually write the book and that it wasn’t put together by other people(not at his request) years if not decades after his death did you say “He wrote a book.”
Since most of the New Testament, the Gospels, the Letters etc. based on the testimony of people who met him or knew him, then by your standards doesn’t that mean Jesus “wrote” if not the Bible, most of the New Testament.
Since the Book of John is supposedly told by Jesus’ “beloved disciple” does that mean that the Book of John, based on the standards you’ve set, should be renamed “The Book of Jesus”? **
Look, people, if you were just willing to start from the premise that Islam is particularly evil, you’d find it much easier to accept the arguments that lead to the conclusion that Islam is particularly evil.
Wrong. I have not said this. Which is why you never quote me when you follow your tradition of claiming I said it it. You always “rephrase” what I say into something completely different.
Anyway, according to hadith widely accepted among Muslims as having the highest levels of authenticity, the prophet of Islam raped and beat a child. His behavior, as an example of perfect moral behavior, is a source for the way of life Muslims believe that Islam proscribes. So this nonsense about “Islam does not promote child abuse” should be relegated to commercial breaks between the real news segments, because it is nothing but a marketing slogan, like “Diet Zork Cola, same taste as oroginal Zork, but with zero calories!”. The claim does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny, it’s not even paper thin.
Christianity promotes homophobia. There, I said it. Are you going to now claim that I have labeled every last Christian, and absolutely every single schism of Christianity as homophobic?
Which of the “ahadith” claimed that Muhammad “beat” Aisha?
Beyond that, claiming that according “hadith(sic)” Muhammad raped Aisha is lie claiming that according to James Cameron, Jack Dawson “raped” Rose Dewitt Bukatter, or that according to Christian tradition Joseph/Yosef/Yussif raped Mary/Miriam/Maryam, mother of Jesus/Yehoshua/Issa/Joshua called the Christ/the false prophet/Al Masih.
Let’s look at exactly what you said, then, shall we?
In post 159, tomndebb wrote, “The legitimate reports, (as opposed to the ones you [ie, Lauren-C] initially posted), provide a reason for genuine concern that young men who enter Britain from another culture in which there is stricter sexual behavior required of men and women will see the less strict behavior of young women in Britain as “loose.” Such young men, when unemployed and uneducated regarding the mores of their new country have demonstrated the sad behavior of treating young women as sluts. Nothing in Islam promotes or permits such behavior.”
Your reply to tomndebb’s statement that nothing in Islam promotes or permits the behavior as treating young women as “loose” and “sluts” was to say “Wrong. The Koran specifically legitimizes sex slavery. And of course Mohammed himself groomed and raped a nine year old girl when he was in his fifties, according to mainstream Islamic belief.”
Neither sex slavery nor Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha have anything to do with the behavior that tomndebb was talking about. Your reply was almost entirely a non sequitur, a broad-brush and pointless attack on Islam as a whole and Muhammad in particular that had almost nothing to do with what tomndebb said (and what little of it that did have anything to do with what tomndebb said was entirely incorrect).
And yet you not only refuse to apply this same logic to non-Muslims who permit child marriages between young girls and adult men, you went out of your way to justify and minimize it.
So I find your moral outrage about how “the prophet of Islam raped and beat a child” because he married her when she was young and he was old to be less than convincingly genuine.
You don’t even have an argument, do you? Just the repetition of slurs.
[QUOTE=Aisha the Mother of Believers]
He struck me on the chest which caused me pain
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
Beyond that, claiming that according “hadith(sic)” Muhammad raped Aisha is lie
[/QUOTE]
um..
According to Christian tradition it was God that snuck thorough Mary’s window that night, not Joseph. In reality is was likely neither. If there was a way to know for sure, and I was a betting man, I would bet that the whole story was probably a creative way to keep herself from getting stoned.
Yes it does. They both involve older men abusing much younger girls. One of the abusers behavior is considered a moral example in a religion followed by the rest. That’s more than just a little bit of “to do with”
You can only craft this slogan if you ignore whatever parts of the source texts that don’t fit your handy, modern little hypothesis.
The word used there doesn’t mean “to strike”, it means to push away or to shove, which is how it’s translated in other places that reproduce that hadith (such as here), as well as when they translate other ahadith collections that contain that same hadith, such as Sunan an-Nasa’i.
And A’isha, according to the exact same book of ahadith, also explicitly said
The word used in that hadith, incidentally, is ضَرَبَ (darb), which does mean to hit or strike, by the way.
How can A’isha simultaneously narrate that Muhammad beat her, and that he never beat a woman?
You seem really focused on ignoring the whole “marriage” part. There’s nothing about Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha that has any bearing on the behavior tomndebb was referring to, since nothing about Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha involved treating females of any age, whether married to them or otherwise, as “loose” or “sluts”.
I look forward to how you deal with the “parts of the source texts” that say A’isha reported that Muhammad never beat a woman.
So some translations say she was struck and caused pain, and others that she was shoved. The context makes it clear that it was in anger. This normalizes violence against women and children.
Which is what men are commanded to do to their disobedient wives in verse 4:34 of the Koran.
Because she was not completely consistent with all of her recollections? Because she was telling people what they wanted to hear, if that is what she actually said? If your standard is that religious texts have to be internally consistent you are going to be disappointed by all of them, not just the Muslim ones.
This line of reasoning is only possible if you buy into the perverted notion that sex between a fifty three year old man and a nine year old girl can somehow be legitimized by the abusers claims that the victim had been given to him by God, in a dream, and that she was his wife.
As far as the OP, I would frankly prefer to talk more about the EDL and their interaction with the particular Muslims they met with.
Comparing the EDL to the KKK is an imperfect comparison, because the EDL is not explicitly racist at this point, but their ideological heritage is similar and partially shared, and they have had connections to far right, ex KKK types in the past. I think a better comparison would be the racialist group the Council of Conservative Citizens, which keeps its racism sort of hidden, like the EDL, or at least pretends to try to, and has a few token minorities, like the EDL.