I just had my life threatened debating ideas within Islam!

originally posted by: intrepid
I don't mean to be an ass but is there anything here that can confirm the OP?

Did you really think the OP made up this elaborate story in order to do some muslim bashing? Really?

a reply to: neformore

Muhammed is supposed to be above humanity. The fact that he married a young girl shows that he was simply a mortal who had no attained higher morals or divine understanding.

Unless God (of the koran) approves that sort of behavior. Which I wouldn't doubt. Most Gods seem to be violent and oppresive.

People pretend religion can exist in today's society. In a free and open society. It can't, unless one is willing to blindly ignore their religion's ugly past. And if you're going to ignore the bad, then one isn't a free and open individual anyway.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Actually, it is completely my thing, and quite obviously not your forte.

Really? Because when you typed this

How were you not being apologetic towards those people who still do this today? And you were clearly suggesting that because "we" did it too, the OP shouldn't criticise those who do it now, which is utter BS.

You had missed me typing this...

Of course, such things are absolutely heinous by today's standards - and rightly so

here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

and then this

Anything that happens today is governed by today's laws, and as such anyone who carries out such acts should be condemned and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tell me how I was "being apologetic towards those people who still do this today"?

So now we've established that you aren't actually reading what I type I have to wonder why you are trying to put words into my mouth, because I've never, ever said anything remotely defending people who carry out such practices today, and nor would I.

Pointing out history isn't being apologetic. It's making a point.

Let me make that point again.

Yes, what was happening was definitely wrong to us, by the standards we have come to accept today - however People didn't know any better at the time, be they Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh - whatever. Singling out one person specifically and ignoring everyone else that was doing the same is the very nature of hypocrisy.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

According to the Sahih Bukhari (Hadith), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:

"The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."

Also Number 236

"Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old."

Before you say the Hadith is inaccurate and rejected by many Muslims, I'll just point out that many requirements in the Muslim religion come FROM the Hadith, such as how to pray, behave, the Five Pillars and performing the Hajj.

So then the question becomes to which degree is this cherry-picking, especially when some of these teachings and quotes are uncomfortable and inconvenient?

Preceding the Battle of Badr, the first and decisive confrontation with pagan Meccans in the second year of migration from Mecca in 623 CE, Prophet Muhammad foretold the precise spot every pagan Meccan soldier would fall. Those who witnessed the battle saw the prophecy come true with their own eyes

www.islamreligion.com...

__________________________________

The above isn't a prophecy. Even though it is used to justify Muhammed as a prophet. This kind of event above could be a false prophecy made that was self-fulfilling. If demons were in control of the soldiers being fought by Islamic forces then those demons could use their human hosts to dictate exactly where in the field of battle each melee occured.

Usually prophecies are related to repentance or obedience and the rewards or chastisement. The prophecy above of soldiers falling in battle in a particular place on the field of battle has no relation to obedience to Divine Law.

I would stay clear of debating muslims right now.A lot of them are as dangerous as NAZIS use to be.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Points well taken, but in the end it will not, and does not matter.

No truth or victory will ever be found in ANY religion, and that is what TRULY makers the believers so mad.

And so EASY to push their buttons.

Inside, they all know they could not be FARTHER from the truth, and if they could just get that last 3% of themselves to completely KNOW IT to be true, they would be alright.

But that will never happen, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully believe in "almost truths".

Shouldn't have surprised you...lol

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: TechniXcality


I'm afraid I cannot see the point of debating something that is alleged to have occurred way back in the dim distant past where nothing can be proven anyway?

It's okay, other people do.

Imagine if nobody did, and everyone continued the lies.

So whats the cut off point of debating things in the past, only recent as in 5 years?

Dunno but while I know history is important I cannot be bothered debating it these days. Happy to discuss but not debate. Perhaps I've grown weary or is it just old?

cheers

a reply to: Azureblue

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

a reply to: TechniXcality

I had a Southern Baptist Christian threaten to "Frag my ass one night" many years ago for wearing an Orthodox Christian Cross with my dog-tags ("Bull#, fake commie bullsh*t. That isn't a TRUE Christian cross!"). When America elected JFK there was a significant movement to stop him from running because many Protestant Christian Americans felt a Catholic President would cater to the Vatican over America.

True Believers of any cause, or any religion, are dangerous in my experience. And as you experienced, there are jerks everywhere.

a reply to: TechniXcality

One of my friends was merely asking questions on facebook to some high profile Islamic leaders, he received death threats almost daily for a while

a reply to: neformore

Yes, what was happening was definitely wrong to us, by the standards we have come to accept today - however People didn't know any better at the time, be they Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh - whatever. Singling out one person specifically and ignoring everyone else that was doing the same is the very nature of hypocrisy.

God, you are still missing the point completely, you are arguing that you can't really blame the prophet for marrying little girls, since it was common practise back then, and this is also true regarding our western history. I basically agree with that.

But wether or not it was ok for the prophet to do that in his time, was not the subject of debate. Child marriages in Egypt were the subject. The OP didn't attack the prophet, he simply drew a paralel between the practises of that time and the same sort of practises that are still going on in our current time. I presume to point out that these views are outdated and unacceptable.

If there was any confusion it is because you didn't get what the actual subject of debate was.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

And.. again.. you miss the point that comparing the past to now is a strawman argument, because back then society was not as enlightened as it is now and people didn't know any better.

It's not rocket science to understand that.

originally posted by: whatsup86

originally posted by: Hecate666

originally posted by: whatsup86

originally posted by: Hecate666

Can have heated discussions with christians here on ATS with nobody getting threatened for their life but when muslims do what they do best [getting offended and threatening with violence] the apologists come out of the woodworks and defend them at all costs by spinning words and meanings.



OP has all the right to come on here and voice his annoyance about a well out of proportion reaction. If you find it unnecessary, don't read it.



It's all dandy telling us that everyone would get annoyed and threaten to kill someone over the internet if we insulted them, but then I think: Nahh, I have been insulted big time and never threatened anyone in that way EVER.



The culture thing goes two ways. OP comes from a culture where he has the freedom to question any medieval beliefs and expect to get a civilised answer.



All of you who love culture so much, how about fighting for our advanced civilisation and culture instead of always pandering to those that hold some very questionable beliefs?

Is it because you agree with them?



I so had enough of this. OP I am on your side 100%. Keep the posts coming, the truth has to be told and not stifled.

Thats all fine and all but cant you do it in the 1001 other threads that have been created about this topic? Truth? Really so this thread is about truth now? And what is that truth exactly? Muslims are pedos? Muslims want to kill you because you dont agree with them?



Or is it you all generalizing Muslims all to willingly with any example of an incident that is brought up? And people that dont jump on your bandwagon of hate, fear and division are apologists?



Ill remind you of 2 facts: It is Muslims that are fighting Isis. And Islam has 100s of dispersions that are spread out over many different cultures.



And I dont see anyone taking that into account when replying here.

Yeah, some muslims are fighting muslims. You are correct. Who are these other ones then that are always angry and offended? Yes, they are muslims too.

It's almost as if there are different kinds of muslims. Just as there are christians and all those other baloney religions that can never agree what to believe.

I don't care about religion, only when it threatens the peace of my life. At the moment I don't see any christians doing this or I would lay into them just the same. I don't discriminate when I insult organised religion, they are all the same.



You say nobody takes into account that there are 'nice' muslims, yet I question if anyone takes into account that there are some really big pain in the ass muslims too. And it is those that we are annoyed about. If all muslims were nice I am sure this thread would never exist.



Just to clarify, the same goes for christians. As soon as they throw homosexuals of their church towers, I'll be the first one to rant against them as well. It's time to acknowledge that islam as believed by the uneducated masses is incompatible with our culture. Only then can we find a way to sort this out. Not if we keep on denying the undeniable.

No i ment to say people are generalizing. And if you think that brings any solution whatsover go ahead.



Islam is incompatible and needs reforming, but generalizing and spreading hate will never accomplish that. Instead it will directly feed extremism by estranging muslims. And id rather be part of the solution than the problem.

Well said, we need to try and have dialogue to end extremism not alienate all Muslims so that we eventually turn every Muslim in to someone who hates everyone else apart from Muslims.

Islam is not incompatible, its some interpretations which are. The Bible (Old and New) at one stage although may have different extremes, it still had them. What is needed is for Islam to be reformed in that way and the more moderate interpretations to be spread throughout the Muslim world.

a reply to: neformore

And.. again.. you miss the point that comparing the past to now is a strawman argument, because back then society was not as enlightened as it is now and people didn't know any better.

Wow. But that's just the point you are missing, these ancient practises are still happening in Egypt today. The comparison is valid because it points out that people who are still supporting this stuff today have an ancient point of view.

How many times does it need to be spelled out to you? Jeez man.

originally posted by: Miracula2
Preceding the Battle of Badr, the first and decisive confrontation with pagan Meccans in the second year of migration from Mecca in 623 CE, Prophet Muhammad foretold the precise spot every pagan Meccan soldier would fall. Those who witnessed the battle saw the prophecy come true with their own eyes

www.islamreligion.com...

__________________________________

The above isn't a prophecy. Even though it is used to justify Muhammed as a prophet. This kind of event above could be a false prophecy made that was self-fulfilling. If demons were in control of the soldiers being fought by Islamic forces then those demons could use their human hosts to dictate exactly where in the field of battle each melee occured.

Usually prophecies are related to repentance or obedience and the rewards or chastisement. The prophecy above of soldiers falling in battle in a particular place on the field of battle has no relation to obedience to Divine Law.

I've always thought the same about the rebuilding of the nation of Isreal. Is it really fair to call it prophecy, when it was Jews/Christians who chose to reestablish it?

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
God, you are still missing the point completely, you are arguing that you can't really blame the prophet

The age isn't the problem if the law allowed it, anymore than Joseph Smith Jr's marrying 14 Helen Mar Kimball was wrong if the cultural standards accepted the behavior and the law allowed Smith to marry her. But when the relationship is forced upon the child by deceipt as in Smith's case when Smith told her that "God commanded it" or by use of coercion as Smith threatened Kimball that she would be destroyed if she left the relationship or the church. She did both and was not destroyed.

If Muhammed used deceipt in creating false prophecies which could be the instrument of dark spirits like the prophecy regarding people falling in battle in a particular place, it seems more like sorcery to me. And if Aisha and Muslims perceived Muhammed as a prophet who using sorcery and dark spirits to predict where men fell in battle, versus prophecies blessings related to repentance and obedience to the 10 Commandments, then Muhammed falsely set himself up as a prophet and misused his position to gain access to her, and then.....

....her age wouldn't matter.

All of his wives at that point from the oldest to the youngest were being victimized by misuse of authority falsely gained by masquerading as a prophet when it reality using sorcery to predict where men would fall in battle.

It is said that the Archangel Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad and I respect that. I was married to a Muslim for 12 years so I know first hand the challenges in an inter faith relationship. I was naive about things like multiple wives and the 72 virgins waiting in heaven. That I believe is mainly cultural and I believe there are serious issues regarding cultural differences and Sharia Law, which I believe is Incompatible with the US Constitution. Do we want to bridge this type of gap and make concessions where there should be none? Isn't it time for women to be treated fairly by a patriarchal society and culture and revere as the Divine Feminine?

a reply to: neformore

By that train of thought, people should be dumping religion all together if thats the case, but nope, they cling on to it.