Why are we using scriptures that are not widely accepted to support our theories, rather why not use historical linkages?

Logical:

Why are we using scriptures that are not widely accepted to support our theories, rather why not use historical linkages?

To start with, i refuse to be a part of a religion that obtains most of it's vaidations from history! Christians believe the bible to be an inspired book from God Himself that is why we quote it at every available opportunity! Besides it's the only book known in history to still be as important if not more important today despite it's being maligned at every opportunity, it's followers killed and maimed for over 2000 years and yet is the world's best selling book! That must really rile doesn't it?
If the quran is truly the word of "god", are you always afraid to quote it instead prefering to hide under the umbrella of history?

Okay back to using history to prove the difference!
Muhammad - Married a 6yr old girl and slept with her at 9! In this modern age, he'd be behind bars as a pedophile and would be on the lifetime US sex offenders register!
Jesus - Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Muhammad - did NO miracles
Jesus - Healed the sick, raised the dead, fed 5000, died and rose again, should i go on?

Jesus lived a sinless life (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Allah himself refers to Muhammad as sinful (Sura 40:55, 48:1-2).

The bible has remained infallible for 2000 yrs, the same cannot be said of the book your "prophet" brought by sword and death!
Here are just a few notable errors in the Qur'an:

- In Sura 2:249 Muhammad confuses the persons of Saul (Talut) and Gideon. See: Judges 7:4-7

- In Sura 26:54 the Israelites were said to be "a scanty band" (small band); vastly inferior to the Egyptians. But in Exodus 1:7-10 the Egyptian king said to his people that the Israelites had become "more and mightier than we". Exodus 1:9 speaks of the Hebrews as multitudes.

- The Koran confused the sister of Moses by implication (Miriam) with Mary, the mother of Jesus 3 times. These two women actually lived about 1500 years apart. The entire Chapter 19 is devoted to Mary (Maryam) the mother of Jesus in the Qur'an. Sura 19:28, "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" Sura 66.12 calls Mary 'daughter of lmran". lmran is the Arabic form of the Hebrew Amram mentioned in Numbers 26.59 as the father of "Aaron, Moses and Miriam." The title "sister of Aaron" is given to Miriam in Exodus 15.20. Sura 3.35-36, The wife of Amram said, "My Lord, I have dedicated (the baby) in my belly to You, totally, so accept from me. You are Hearer, Omniscient."

- How many angels were talking to Mary? When the Qur'an speaks about the annunciation of the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, Sura 3:42,45 speaks about angels (plural) while it is only one in Sura 19:17-21. The Christian Bible clearly indicated one angel; "In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth," Luke 1:26

- Jesus taught people even in his "old age". (Sura 5:110). Actually Jesus ascended into Heaven while in His mid 30's.

- Do you remember the evil Persian Haman who conspired to kill all the Jews during the time of Esther in the Babylonian captivity (about 500 BC). In the Koran, Muhammad incorrectly taught that this wicked man Haman was the prime minister of the Egyptian Pharaoh (Firon) in Moses' time (1450 BC). See Suras 28:4-6, 28:38, 29:39, 40:23-24,and 40:36-37. Throughout the Qur'an--Nimrod and Abraham, Haman and Moses, Mary and Aaron, the tower of Babel (2500 BC) and Pharaoh were all pictured as living and working together. Moses and the flood are also incorrectly found together. Muhammad thought these all happened at the same time. Muhammad was always mixing people together in the Qur'an who did not live at the same time. See Suras 21:51-76; and 29:15-16.

- What about Noah's (Nuh) son? According to Sura 21:76, Noah and his family is saved from the flood, and Suras 29:15 and 37:76-77 confirms that his seed survived. But Sura 11:42-43 reports that Noah's son drowns.

- Sura 7:59 and 7:136 say Noah's flood took place in Moses' day. Did anyone tell Moses that?

- Sura 14:37, says Abraham lived in the valley of Mecca (Muslim Sacred House). The Bible says he lived in Hebron, Israel. (Genesis 13:18, 23:2, 35:27)

- Sura 9:30 mistakenly claims that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, the Messiah, just as Christians claim for Jesus. No Jews have ever believed this.

- Sura 6:74, says Abraham father's name was Azar. The Bible says it was Terah (Genesis 11:27). How can Muhammad claim he verified the Torah which came first as true, yet differ with the facts in the Torah?

- Sura 9:10 says Zakarias was mute for only 3 days. The Bible says Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was made mute because of his unbelief concerning Gabriel's prophecy of John's birth. He would remain mute until the baby was born (Luke 1:20), which is roughly nine months.

- Islam says it was Ishmael that was nearly sacrificed on the mountain rather than Isaac as both the Torah and Christian Gospels say. Islam says that Hagar was the legitimate wife (and not a concubine) of Abraham, rather than Sarah; so Ishmael was the heir of Abraham. But wait! Muhammad had already attested to the Bible and Torah as being correct. Then why these huge errors? Of note: After Muhammad's death, the Meccans (Waraquah) changed the name Isaac in Suras 2:125 and 127 for the name Ishmael and invented the story about Abraham taking Ishmael to their black rock in Mecca, so that pilgrims would continue to visit Mecca.

Jesus and Mohammed have nothing in common
khai! kareya ne

@David I would answer just a few because you tend to be very bias in your arguments, but I would really appreciate if you could answer my questions, then I promise you, I would tackle your unproven accusations one by one objectively.

davidylan:

To start with, i refuse to be a part of a religion that obtains most of it's vaidations from history!

When you say that, I think Christianity is more guilty of that, when it comes to validation; because the bible is "according to someone" as clearly stated on every chapter? besides I was just making an open suggestion, that was my first post in this thread, I haven't even made a stance yet on whether they have anything in common. Besides that I don't think Muslims really do preach anything in regards to common attributes, besides they are both prophets?

davidylan:

If the quran is truly the word of "god", are you always afraid to quote it instead prefering to hide under the umbrella of history?

Who said they were afraid of quoting? An intellectual discussion requires that both parties lay down facts based on what both of them would tend to understand not believe in. Saying the bible said, the Quran said, can be done when necessary but not to force a believe on someone?

davidylan:

Okay back to using history to prove the difference!
Muhammad - Married a 6yr old girl and slept with her at 9! In this modern age, he'd be behind bars as a pedophile and would be on the lifetime US sex offenders register!

Difference in what in particular?

Firstly, you have not provide a reference to any written historical book that has an accurate report that Muhammad(S.A.W) slept with his 9 year old wife, while she was 9.

Secondly what was the average age people got married, back then?

Thirdly since when did the American law became a widely accepted law of the past actions of historical occurrences?

fourthly I think I answered that in one of the threads in this section. I might browse through and paste it here.

And fifthly are you really here to argue based on faith or what people would understand as normal human beings based on simple God given logic without being unbiased in your argument?

Logical:

When you say that, I think Christianity is more guilty of that, when it comes to validation; because the bible is "according to someone" as clearly stated on every chapter?

Sorry, the Bible is [size=13pt]not[/size] "according to someone", and it is [size=13pt]not[/size] "as clearly
stated on every chapter". If that is a problem for you about trusting what it says,
then those chapter headings that bear the names of people in the Qur'an should
not be trusted, especially Sura 47 which bears the name of Muhammad.

Logical:

Secondly what was the average age people got married, back then?

Please. What do you mean by "what was the average age people got married back
then?" Are you trying to sanction the act of a "prophet" over 50 years old marrying
a child not quite in her first decade?

Logical:

And fifthly are you really here to argue based on faith or what people would understand as normal human beings based on simple God given logic without being unbiased in your argument?

I don't get it: did Muhammad come with a religion of faith or a religion of logic?

Gwaine:

Sorry, the Bible is [size=13pt]not[/size] "according to someone", and it is [size=13pt]not[/size] "as clearly
stated on every chapter".

Well the copy of bible I have, which is the King James Version, from Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation, it says at the begining and I quote "According to" at the begining of every chapter or book.

I dont know about your copy but yah know , we have a lot of bible versions out there, so I really don't know which one you use, maybe you could send me a copy for me to stash in my collection for future refrences and studies. Might help, to avoid confusion

Gwaine:


If that is a problem for you about trusting what it says,then those chapter headings that bear the names of people in the Qur'an should not be trusted, especially Sura 47 which bears the name of Muhammad.

Lady its not about trust, its about having a healthy discussion, You forcing the words into me is not acceptable in an intellectual forum like this. Nobody says the chapter bears name rather the chapters are based according to someone or something, there is no place it is said that it is according to GOD !!.

Gwaine:

Please. What do you mean by "what was the average age people got married back
then?" Are you trying to sanction the act of a "prophet" over 50 years old marrying
a child not quite in her first decade?

I don't get it: did Muhammad come with a religion of faith or a religion of logic?

It was a simple question, What was the age of marriage 1000 Years ago, Was it an acceptable practice?

All I can say is that all Islamic doctrines can be proven to be understandeable logically. Anything that cant be, and its based on faith only is questionable.

It's like when I say I have a faith in the devil, and there is no reasonable doubt that I can question that faith just because that faith requires me not to question it. Should that be an acceptable religion? You tell me.

But come to think of it,[b] some christians [/b]believe in miracles in the Church to strenghten their beleif, yet they call it "faith"? Isn't that contradictory? Or let me see, Its part of the whole package in achieving that faith

Faith or Logic, whatever you choose to call it, Islam is not about being impressive, rather its about being understood by an average human being, with an open mind.

@Logical,

Logical:

Well the copy of bible I have, which is the King James Version, from Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation, it says at the begining and I quote "According to" at the begining of every chapter or book.

You would do us a favour to provide the publication references of the KJV
(King James Version) of the Bible you have - who are its publishers and in
what year was it published? Every KJV Bible I have is the same and does
not begin with "According to" at the beginning of every chapter or book.

If you still insist on recycling what you learnt by rote from an Islamic or
Muslim scholar who didn't take the time to check his claims, then I urge
you to open your copy of the Bible and quote the beginning of the first
three chapters of Genesis and the first three chapters of Revelation
alone. I'd like to see how your assertion that "According to" is to be found
"at the beginning of every chapter or book".

Logical:

Lady its not about trust, its about having a healthy discussion, You forcing the words into me is not acceptable in an intellectual forum like this. Nobody says the chapter bears name rather the chapters are based according to someone or something, there is no place it is said that it is according to GOD !!.

First, I'm not a lady. Second, there's essential nothing you've clarified about
this issue in chapter based on someone/something or God. Even the Qur'an
does not say that each chapter is "according to God", so you can also throw
it out as well. It only says "In the name of Allah" (not "According to Allah/God"
in the heading of each chapter (Sura) of the Qur'an except Sura 9 - and there's
good reason to believe that it is the compilers of the Qur'an that arranged
it in verses - not God Himself.

Here's another weakness in your argument: the Qur'an endorsed or purported
to have believed in the Bible at one time until the tides turned for Muhammad.
Question: what was the beginning of every chapter of the Bible that the Qur'an
endorsed? This hoo-ha about every chapter of the Bible beginning with what
you say it does (which it does not) can be applied to the Qur'an itself - and then
you find that the claim of the Qur'an to have believed in the Book (the Bible) is
empty.

Logical:

It was a simple question, What was the age of marriage 1000 Years ago, Was it an acceptable practice?

As for the age of marriage 1000 years ago, how many of Muhammad's companions
married 6 year-olds? I'll be glad for you to help me on that note because I actually
don't know everything about Islamic history.

Logical:

All I can say is that all Islamic doctrines can be proven to be understandeable logically. Anything that can't be, and its based on faith only is questionable.

Well then, the Qur'an is questionable by your logic since it was not based on logic
but on faith as it testifies severally. There are no less than 260 verses in the Qur'an
(depending on English translation) where the word faith appears; not one verse in
the Qur'an even mentions the words "logic" or "logically" in any translation.

No one says a faith can't be questioned; but that does not justify your perennial
appeal to "logic" even in Islam.

And come to think of it - I don't know any Christian who believes in miracles in
order to strengthen their belief. We believe in miracles and all else that the Bible
says; and the Bible does not depend on anyone's belief or doubts in order for it
to be strengthened.

"Faith or logic" is not whatever I choose to call it - that's rather what you've been
hawking on this Forum as if we can't understand what we're about. Neither the
Qur'an nor the Bible are based on logic: they both claim to be promoting faith
from start to finish, and they can be understood by rational people.

Guys,

Its pointless trying to communicate spiritual things to someone who wants to "logically figure out his faith" (IRONY)

The Bible says: "The natural man cannot comprehend the things of the spirit because they are spiritually (not logically) discerned. (1 Cor 2:14.)

Bible also says: "The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life". (2 Cor. 3:6)

A lot of things in the bible cannot be logically figured out, but based on faith and application of these principles we (Spirit-filled Christians) know beyond a doubt that it works. Bible talks a lot about believing without seeing. A logical man will want to see before he believes. Jesus said to some: "you have believed because you see, but blessed are they that do not see but yet believe". Bible says in the book of Hebrews that the things which we see are made from the things which we cannot see, It also talks about "Faith being the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of unseen realities". A logical man cannot reconcile something you are hoping for with having substance while you are still hoping.

My point is Christianity is not based on logic or any empirical evidence of some sort. It is based on faith in Jesus Christ, hence trying to make sense of Christianity with a "logical Muslim" will go on forever without any reasonable conclusion. Until you accept Jesus as your lord and Saviour, you can never fully comprehend Christianity.

I still stand by my earlier post: " JESUS and mohammed have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common"

@logical

Firstly, you have not provide a reference to any written historical book that has an accurate report that Muhammad(S.A.W) slept with his 9 year old wife, while she was 9.

Did you really ask for a "reference"? Who was Mohammed's last wife Aisha? At what age were they married and at what age did they consumate the marriage? Is that not the basis for muslims giving out their 3 yr old daughters to 70yr old men today?

Well the copy of bible I have, which is the King James Version, from Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation, it says at the begining and I quote "According to" at the begining of every chapter or book.

Genesis 1:   1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Exodus 1:   1Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.
1 Kings 1:   1Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
Jude 1:    1Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Revelation 1:   1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Just a few random chapters of the bible for your own reference. You obviously have never read the bible if not you wouldn't make such a bogus claim. And by the way all those references are from the KING JAMES VERSION!

Who said they were afraid of quoting? An intellectual discussion requires that both parties lay down facts based on what both of them would tend to understand not believe in. Saying the bible said, the Quran said, can be done when necessary but not to force a believe on someone?

Unfortunately that is the aspect the bible and quran differ by a million miles. While the quran is based on "intellectual" reasoning (most of which are questionable based on the characters involved and the myriads of inconsistencies, the bible is based on a simple belief and faith in Jesus Christ our SAviour and Redeemer. Faith in His awesomeness and in his redeeming act on the cross of calvary from which we are saved from destruction by the blood of the sinless lamb.
Unfortunately urs is based on the faulty reasoning of an erratic war monger and pedophile.

Thirdly since when did the American law became a widely accepted law of the past actions of historical occurrences?

It is not American law, even ordinary moralists in my father's village in Ijebu know it is WRONG TO MARRY A 6 YR OLD!

And fifthly are you really here to argue based on faith or what people would understand as normal human beings based on simple God given logic without being unbiased in your argument?

It is hard for a normal human being to understand why there are hundreds of inconsistencies in the quran. It is hard for a normal human being to understand why a religion promotes so much hatred and death as means of getting into paradise like Islam. It is hard for a human being to understand why Islam allegedly means peace while its adherents have been the source of sorrow for millions around the world. It is hard for normal human beings to understand the horrible condition of women in real islamic nations.
It is very hard for normal humans to understand why a "religious" leader finds it so easy to order the deaths of millions for no just cause!
It is hard for me to truly be unbiased against those who rise up and shout "death to America", "wipe out Isreal", and threaten Nigeria for no offence!

@David,

I would really love to continue this debate, but it seems that you are turning a blind eye to laid down facts, so I am resting my case in regards to your arguments. I am not here to be having a conversation with someone that chooses not to listen rather wants to be listened to.

"The Gospel According to Davidylan, "

@ Logical

When christians quote some rather unsavoury aspects of the pratice of Islam, they choose to see those actions as sanctioned by the Quran, but when christians commit the same crime, they are excused as not being good christians. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Who carried out the slave trade? Who dropped the first Atom bomb on other humans? Who carried out the much celebrated holocaust? And the crusades? WHo is killing Palestines everyday to perpetuate the Jews' land grabbing thirst?

And as a muslim, I would NOT allow a christian to tell me what is right or wrong. I only judge by what God says is legislation. And if they would prefer to continue in their rebelliousness against God, by such actions as ordination of gay priests, marrying homosexuals, preaching a pacifism that's hardly ever practised by the preachers, claiming all the time that Jesus was peaceful, the Bible is peaceful, but we hardly ever see such peaceful disposition even amongst the christian leaders as exemplified by Pat Robertson in his caling for the assasination of another country's president, then, I cannot but conclude that the concept of their belief is hypocritical. Even christians are the ones that carry out pre-emptive strikes against their supposed enemies, not even waiting for the aggressor to show his first card. Thus they become the aggressor themselves by claiming clairvoyance or ability to read the intentions of other people. So, I say unto DavidLan, Gwaine and others, remove the log in your eyes before removing the speck in others eyes

I however would not judge them because that's something that's the exclusive prerogative and preserve of God alone. As for the supposedly violent disposition of Islam, I unequivocally state that I submit totally to Islam, so long as I follow all the rules of engagement in Islam, I am not an aggressor, and I only seek to preserve my identity, I do not care if you call me violent. So, in effect, if someone slaps me, and the person has the propensity to take forgiveness as a sign of weakness, I would rather be unpretentious and slap the person back than turn the other side.

@ajia23,

I would have adviced you to follow the withdrawal of Logical who obviously
could not pursue his logic to a beautiful finish; but since you decided to add
some more brouhaha to your plight, allow me a few lines more to remove
the mahogany from your iris.

Logical was asked to help with just two things: (a) quote the first chapters
of "every chapter or book" of the KJV of the Bible he said was in his
possession; (b) explain to us how a prophet in his golden age (over 50 years)
would marry a girl little older than a toddler who was barely in her first decade.
On both counts he failed and then honourably withdrew.

What you have done is break out with smoke yet again that the fire brigade
in your backyard has no water to douse your flames. How? Let me show you:

First, I'm not one given to invectives - and you already know me by now. In
this case, I refuse to iggy your continued use of uncouth language until you're
ready to cool down and have a dialogue.

Second, when people commit atrocities in the name of God (whether as Muslims
or Christians), we decry the violence on either side of the fence, and the basis
of this is an appeal to what is stipulated in the holy books of either faiths. Jesus
was not a jihadist, never wielded the sword to force people into Christianity,
did not behead those who turned away from following Him, and did not in any
way encourage violence as a means of following and finding God.

Muhammad carried out his atrocities by 'revelation' - by 'revelation' he took an
underaged girl to wife, by 'revelation' he slew people who turned away from Islam,
and by 'revelation' his followers could not agree about the earliest copies of the
Qur'an. The revelations still stand as guides today for the exemplified case
of "real Muslims" who would rather have beheaded a Christian convert in
Afghanistan had it not been for international outcry.

Now, my friend, who's playing judge here? You have the temerity to accuse and
judge others as hypocrites who have to remove logs from our eyes before we
remove specks from yours - good, because now I can see more clearly to remove
the mahogany from your red pupils. After foaming in the mouth and judging others,
you come back claiming a sob story of "I however would not judge them because
that's something that's the exclusive prerogative and preserve of God alone."
Please!!

Just let me enjoy my midsummer break - I worked hard for it and want to visit my
beloved home country Nigeria soon, log or no log!!

Hmmmmm, that was hot!

Over to you logical; got any more logical anwers?

In retrospect, I apologise - didn't mean to be that reactive, and had
hoped for a good exchange of ideas rather than what I read as a bit
out of place in ajia23's. No ill-feelings intended. Bless all.

Religion is very sensitive, people. The way it is, there will always be points for u to attack the other side, whether u're christian or muslim. Everyone is completely convinced that his own religion is the right one. Nothing we say here can change that, if u like raise a million points against Jesus or Muhammed, those who believe in them will NEVER be convinced otherwise. What's the essence then? I think in the long run, it's your heart that matters. Pouring invectives on others here and supporting ur own religion to high heavens will not stop you from going to Hell if thats where God decides you belong. Just worship your own God in your own way and keep His commandments anyhow you can. The Judgement is up to Him.
I ain't no saint,just a guy who thinks religious arguments are totally unneccesary. I'm a muslim, but I got nothing against any other religion. Just do your own thing, live and let live. C'est tout.
Cheers people,

firstly, Jesus is Jesus
Mohammed is Mohammed
secondly, they dont have anything in common
Thirdly, they dont have anything in common
and lastly they dont have anything in common

C'mon now, belloti. lol

Why is it that Muslims are always quick to call for an end to a discussion or thread about Islam and Muhammad or the Qur'an?

I often feel that it perhaps has to do with Muslims not having sufficient answers to questions arising from the discussion. . .??

sweetnini's entry says it all for me, though: firstly, secondly, thirdly and lastly - they don't have anything in common.

BTW, what really is Muhammad - a messenger, an apostle, or a prophet? Or. . . maybe he's just all three of them and some of my Muslim friends just don't know the difference between them?

@ Syrup

He was both. A messenger and a Prophet.

Muslims will always call for the end of a dialog as long as people use uncouth language for the Prophets, as long as people fail to follow the book they claim to hold. Afterall, ' For you is your religion and for me is mine'

Oga Nuru, so it's okay for the dialogue to continue with the use uncouth language
for other discussants on the Forum? And what part of the "book" that you claim to
follow would approve of such uncouth language at others as long as it is not used
on the Prophets? About that epilogue - 'For you is your religion and for me is mine'
- just read Sura 2:256 of the Qur'an ("let there be no compulsion in religion" and
ask yourself if Prophet Muhammad actually in his career believed and followed that
injunction.

Prophet Muhammad followed the injunctions of God in-to-to.

Quran Ch 3 Vs 19 '' Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh, then surely, Allâh is Swift in calling to account. ''

Quran Ch 3 Vs 20 '' So if they dispute with you (Muhammad SAW) say: "I have submitted myself to Allâh (in Islâm), and (so have) those who follow me." And say to those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): "Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allâh in Islâm)?" If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message; and Allâh is All-Seer of (His) slaves[2]. ''

You see why muslims will not engage in slanderous arguement with others.

Hmm they leave when they do not have answers? Well if you have been on this section long enough, and not taking sides because you tend to come from one religion or another, you would know that infact I have answered questions in relative to Muhammads Marriage before, and this thread is not the first thread raising the same sentiment.

What all of you christian sympathizers fail to understand is that, there is a clear cut, between a bias discussion that is full of vulgarity and one that is based on simple reasoning and threated with calmness. I am only interested in discussions that treats all points raised, into consideration.

As I clearly stated in my earlier post, I am not ready to be having a discussion with someone that turns a blind eye to the points I have already raised in my debate.

That being said, have you yourself the sympathizer really read through my premises? I doubt so. Because if you had, and you are giving a fair judgment to points laid down, based on what you know. You wouldn't say otherwise. So my withdrawing from a discussion like this, is not about a battle retreat, rather its a smart thing to do. This is because if you are very familiar with this section you would know well, that I haven't failed to explain something to a level beyond reasonable doubt, if given a chance too.

But could someone please explain as to why, I should continue having a debate in a thread, where the laid down premises are not taking into consideration and judged by what it means according to what that co-debator understands, rather as a response, attacks comes from different angles un-objectively?

I really do not see a reason why I should continue, except the co-debator is ready to give an eye and ear to every laid down points. If he is ready, then I am willing to carry on with an intellectual debate.

I decided to dig the forum to look for my points in regards to the marriage of Muhammad (S.A.W) even though I am very sure my codebators would refuse to read it, or take my point into consideration.

Aisha might be nine, and we are also allowed to deduce that marriage might implied sex right away or vice versa?

But lets ask ourselves a simple question, was the practice of marrying girls at the age of 9, one thousand plus years ago acceptable by cultures then?

I guess most of us Learned history in school, which implies we went to school at the first place, so I guess we all would reason objectively in that regards. But if you happen not too, then I would encourage you to desist from reading my futher points.

Things to note:

1. Most people one thousand years ago married at a very young age, even at birth in some cultures.

2. The definition of culture.

3. If marrying at an early age, during the past is acceptable, why is it not now? Culture evolution of course.

4. What is acceptable by a specific group is culture, should be used to judge them. This can thus allow us to reach a conclusion that the practice of that past can be said to be acceptable because it is the culture of which their ethics is developed from. I am assuming we know the definition of ethics.

5. When I argue, I debate based on what the other co-debater lays down, and I make sure, his angle of reasoning comes into peace with the truth besides giving a perfect explanation to why it is so.

6. There is no where in the teachings of Islam, that promotes marriage at a young age, rather it encourages marriage when you are matured and able.

To conclude on the marriage or sex case, the culture of the past, remains the culture of the past, and the culture of today should never be used to judge the culture of the past, because the people of the past lived by the standards that which today you deem to claim as unacceptable, due to the so called "evolution" of cultures and civilizations.

Well my forefathers weren't evil with their cultures I really don't know about yours

What amazes me, is that this accusation is coming from people that actually went to school. History is not taught in school to criticize the past, rather it is taught to educate people of the differences.

If you are not going to argue based on my points raised, please do not reply to my debate.

@Logical,

For one thing, I think you had taken a 'smart' exit instead of answering questions
raised in consequence to your claims. If anyone was turning a "blind eye", it most
certainly seems to be applicable to your case as you failed to address enquiries
that offered you the opportunity for intellectual debate. Certianly, I'm not one who
readily uses vulgarity and/or bias, and I think this should go both ways for every
discussant on the forum. Most of us who have read your inputs have found them
insufficiently addressing issues, and we hope that you'll do the next smart thing
by providing good points that won't dribble around debates.

Now, in consequence of your recent entry, I'll still ask a few questions in hope that
you'll provide some well-reasoned points as well:

Question #1:
How many of Muhammad's disciples actually married under-aged girls as did their
prophet Muhammad? Notice that it is said that Muhammad married Aisha when she
was 6 y.o. and "consumated" the marriage when she was 9 y.o. What then do you
understand by the marriage being "consumated" when she was not even quite in
her first decade?

Question #2:
Do you concede that the bragado you made earlier about your claim of the KJV of
the Bible was dishonest?

Question #3:
Since, as you said, "There is no where in the teachings of Islam, that promotes
marriage at a young age, rather it encourages marriage when you are matured
and able", why then did the Prophet Muhammad not keep that or respect the
age of maturity for Aisha before consumating his marriage to her at such a tender
age?

If you're taking the views you raised as an educated or schooled opinion about
history, why are there still gaps in your replies to these issues?

@nuru,

I understand why Muslims will not engaged in slanderous argumements with any
discussant or participant in an open Forum, and that's a commendable example
to emulate, if only our dear Muslim friends would not be too hasty to accuse others.
Indeed, the Bible urges calmness and respect/deference to others when engaging
in any discussion with people who may not understand why we believe what we
do -

"But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no
fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always
being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope
that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so
that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be
put to shame." (I Pet. 3:14-16).

In relation to what you quoted from the Qur'an, the question is: did Muhammad really
keep the injunction of Qur'an ch. 3 vs 20 - "but if they turn away, your duty is only to
convey the Message"? What happened and still happens to those who "turn away"
from Islam and become converts to other religions - did Muhammad simply convey
the Message or he sought to behead them? Are his followers today still conveying
the Message or they are seeking to follow Muhammad's example of beheading the
converts to other religions?

It is hard to defend the notion that "Prophet Muhammad followed the injunctions of
God in-to-to", unless one is ignoring the issues of what the Qur'an claimed on the
one hand; and what happened and how Muhammad lived his life and pursued his
career on the other hand. If he lived his life simply as a Messenger who "only" and
only conveyed the Message without seeking to behead those who turned away or
converted to other religions, then you would have a point. However, the very texts
of both the Qur'an and the Hadith prove the contrary - and I therefore submit that
Muhammad did not follow the injunctions of God precisely in the verse you quoted
in Qur'an ch 3 vs 20.

@Gwaine
There you go again, this is exactly the problem. Pick one point, leave the others.

How many of Muhammad's disciples actually married under-aged girls as did their
prophet Muhammad? Notice that it is said that Muhammad married Aisha when she
was 6 y.o. and "consumated" the marriage when she was 9 y.o. What then do you
understand by the marriage being "consumated" when she was not even quite in
her first decade?

There are quiet a few, based on the historical facts, example Fatima's marriage to Ali, to name a few. You see the problem is you don't even know where this historical facts are gotten from, and you really don't know anything about Islamic history from what I can tell now. You are just using one fact someone raised such as Davidlyan etc,

You guys just pick one historical occurence and infer that that must be a unique occurence of that era.

The question still hasnt be answered, at what age do people marry 1000 years ago?

Now on my argument in regards to bible, what I was saying exactly wasnt a verse, I was talking in regards to the books in the bible, like for example the book of Luke. It would state at the top before the verses. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE.

You might want to educate yourself on Islam before you pickup something out of nowhere and shout "blasphemy".

LOGICAL

It is typical to see them do that. When you raise points, they leave those that seem genuine and pick o one thing even ignoring your explanations, and when you ask them to investigate, you'll be accused of forcing down your views on them. THE simple fact is that Muhammed (SAW) married Aisha (RA) at age 9, and had sex with her only at about between age 12 to 15. Also, girls matured pretty fast at that time, and so asking whether the Prophet (SAW) followed the injunctions of Islam is needless. Aisha indeed was mature before the Prophet(SAW) had sex with her.

Another reason why christians have a problem with such practice is that their religio is based on consensus and not the REVEALED WORD OF GOD. How can you explain forbidding homosexualism in the past, and then in one epiphanic moment, it is legal in christianity in this age? Or the belief in the death penalty and it's subsequent abolishing in this time? Mlks-Baby said Jesus confirmed the law, and that christinaity recognised the laws of the land. I digested this, and then came to the conclusion that if say in US, they decide like they have that abortion, homosexuality, fornication, is legal, then by electing representatives whose parties support some of these provisions, then christianity does infact allow them because cultures have evolved. So, christianity is not prepared to live by the laws of Moses (ASW), but instead supports a system that allows man tinker with these laws to suit his whims and caprices. On the contrary, ISLAM REAffirms the laws given to Moses(ASW), and that is why today christians consider it a violent religion, because it has refused to allow maning play with the laws of God. For as long as there are Muslims, they Sharia' ah Law shall be used to govern man because it's God's legislation. If anyone has a problem with stoning to death, cutting of the hands, etc, then he should know that he secretly supports a contravention of God's law in the Bible and the Quran.

ajia23:

LOGICAL

If anyone has a problem with stoning to death, cutting of the hands, etc, then he should know that he secretly supports a contravention of God's law in the Bible and the Quran.

Typical terroristic "statement of belief" from a "TERRORIST". In the words of FELA: ANIMAL in human skin !!!!!!

Only an insane individual with a twisted perception of "God" will make such stupid, inflammatory statements. People with such beliefs should live in dungeons. I will advise you to move to  a SHARIA country where your teenage daughter will be stoned to death for making a mistake a sizeable number of youths make in all societies or your son handicapped for stealing from you. If you parents practised SHARIA on you I wonder if you will have the fingers to type on nairaland.

Even George Bush's America in the publisiced definition of a terrorist by their own standards, does not say someone who believes in the Sharee'ah is a terrorist. I can see you are bringin g a new definition. It's expected, and I know that what is at stake is the way of life muslims have adopted. Soon it will get to the stage of persecuting muslims who believe in the sharee'ah. I am well prepared for that stage, and will gladly die knowing that I lived my life by the sharee'ah and died by it. So my friend, mrlawng, I am unashamed and unapologetic and unrepentant in my belief in the implementation of the law of God. What about you?

ajia23:

I am well prepared for that stage, and will gladly die knowing that I lived my life by the sharee'ah and died by it. So my friend, mrlawng, I am unashamed and unapologetic and unrepentant in my belief in the implementation of the law of God. What about you?

Dont call SHARIA the law of God, i think the law of the devil will be in order. Like i said earlier, i am sure you were not a perfect teenager. What if your parents practiced SHARIA on you?

I pray you don't have children, because your delusion will subject those kids to a life of misery, better yet they may be handicapped of even killed in your idea of "gods law"