So, I guess we should argue that the “jumping in” process of various LA street gangs, most notably the Bloods and the Crips, where they savage beat the teenage initiates is due to Christianity since most of the members are African-Americans from a Christian background and the Bible explicitly endorses what Hank would call child abuse, going so far as to say that fathers who don’t beat their children don’t love him.
And, of course this was legitimized by Jesus, whom Christians view as both Gid and the greatest man that ever lived declared that people had to obey “every jot and tittle” of the law.
Somehow, I suspect that were I to argue this people would start laughing their asses off and my suggestion would be considered a ludicrous hijack.
That’s not a good comparison, because no one is making that argument here regarding Islam. The claim was that “nothing in Islam promotes or condones this”.
The apt comparison would be if someone, during a discussion about LA street gangs, were to argue that “nothing in Christianity” condones or promotes violent behavior. This would be just as obviously wrong as the ridiculous “nothing in Islam” slogans repeated in this thread, because of all the smiting that goes on in the bible.
Also: considering that the social and economic conditions that lead these people to form and join these gangs is often traceable to the biblically justified enslavement of their ancestors, Christianity does have something to do with this violence. It might be hard to untangle, but it’s all up in there.
My guess I’d he’ll simply ignore them just as he repeatedly ignored the numerous ahadith I pointed to relating Aisha’s age(I.E. her birth in reference to Muhammad hearing the call, her sister, her participation in certain battles etc.) as well as how long after her death the stories were first collected.
I actually repeated asked him how he could be so certain of her age despite all the contradictory stories but he refused to give any non-evasive answers.
I was actually tempted to ask him how he could be so certain of her age when three of the most esteemed Islamic historians, Wansbrough, Crone and Cook don’t think we can be certain of anything about Muhammad since most of the “evidence” can charitably be described as “rumors”.
Lane’s Lexicon says it means to be “pushed away”, specifically on account of one’s moral failings.
Actually, the context makes it clear that it’s not in anger, but in admonishment for telling a lie for no reason whatsoever - the sentence right after the one you quoted says, “and then [he] said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?”, and proceeds to tell her what he was doing when he went outside and the message he had received from Gabriel. The whole point of the hadith is that message, which is the proper way to say prayers for the dead when entering a graveyard, and has zip to do with the way wives should be treated (or even how Muhammad treated his wives), so no, it does not in any way, shape or form “normalize violence against women and children”.
That’s why the hadith is in the chapter entitled “What is to be said when entering the graveyard and supplicating for its occupants” in the book entitled “The Book of Prayer - Funerals”, and not in a chapter about how to treat wives or women.
After admonishing them and then denying them sexual relations, yes. Which only goes to show how your concern is obviously just to demonize Islam in general and Muhammad in particular, since that really has nothing to do with what the gangs in the UK did, since their victims were not their wives, were not admonished, and definitely weren’t denied sexual relations.
If you’re trying to cite the authority of A’isha through the ahadith in Sahih Muslim to back up your nonsense claims about Islam supporting the behavior of the rape gangs in the UK, it’s kind of disingenuous to start complaining about their unreliability the instant you’re shown a hadith of A’isha’s as narrated in Sahih Muslim that contradicts your claims.
The plain fact is (to use your own words), according to hadith widely accepted among Muslims as having the highest levels of authenticity, the prophet of Islam (whose behavior, as an example of perfect moral behavior, is a source for the way of life Muslims believe that Islam proscribes) never struck or beat any of his wives.
You certainly seem to think that sex between an adult man of any age and a fourteen year old girl can be legitimized by a church ceremony and a courthouse clerk’s signature, so you can go ahead and drop your hypocritical nonsense about A’isha’s marriage to Muhammad having anything to do with what happened in the UK.
Unless, of course, you know of some non-explicitly racist reason to tweet a picture of a crying blond haired blue eyed child with the caption “My race is dying out in my own COUNTRY!! STOP IMMIGRATION NOW!!” Because I sure don’t.
Yeah, I’m not exactly convinced of that myself (especially given the presumed age of the Sana’a Manuscript, as well as the work of John Burton, who goes pretty far in the *other *direction regarding Muhammad and the Qur’an), but his work on the potential derivation and evolution of the Qur’anic text is both exhaustive and immensely valuable. That’s why I cited his Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation upthread.
Bullshit. Stop writing fiction in this forum. For about the fifteenth fucking time, Poster Who Ironically Calls Himself Ibn Warraq: This revisionist theory that you keep advancing is a modern reaction to Western criticism of Mohammed, and is widely rejected among Muslims. It tries to refute multiple positive claims in Aisha’s own voice with oblique calculations and supposed inconsistencies.
Bullshit. Stop your stupid crusade against comments critical of Islam dude. Like I already told you all the other times you tried this, I never said I was “certain of her age”. My claim, that you despise so much, but that you cannot refute because it is true, is that according to mainstream and traditional Islamic sources she was nine when Mohammed, at fifty three, had sex with her. Not that no one anywhere has any other interpretation, or about what actual evidence there is for anything in the Koran or any of the collections of hadith, or any other religion. My claim is about what has traditionally been accepted, and what is now accepted, among mainstream Islam. Got it?
Going back to the o.p. I think that it was an excellent idea.
Many bigots, who think that they hate a a particular skin colour or religion purely because they’re different, or because of what other bigots have said to them (and have dehumanised them on that basis ) are not only taken aback when the subjects of their hatred interact with them like this, but see them as just “people” not that different from themselves.
I recall shortly after the soldiers murder, a group of Asians in I think , Birmingham, very publicly collecting money for soldiers charities, something that must have changed the impressions of people in parts of the U.K. where the locals were unlikely to even see Asian Britains, let alone interact with them.
What you don’t know, you fear, and what you fear you hate.
And lets face it, bigots by their very nature are highly unlikely to take this step themselves.
I can’t see any extreme right wing party inviting Muslims to pop in party headquarters and have a chat with them over a cup of tea, while they explained why they didn’t like Muslims.
I might even develop a modicum of respect for them if they did this, rather then the opinion I hold, and have held of them for my life up until now, and probably for the foreseeable future.