Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Again, you're trying to deflect onto other examples that are irrelevant. Muhammad is claimed to be the perfect and timeless example for mankind so by this logic everything he did should still be considered perfect today. It clearly isn't so he isn't perfect, simple.

    Of course he had sex with her! You think he wouldn't have sex with his wife? Even Sahih Bukhari very clearly states him having intercourse with Aisha. It's seems like it's you who needs to get your facts right.
    And again the stipilation of age is in this country. Why? Because children are not deemed mature at age 9. However, in that time, in that area it was the norm.
    You cannot claim phedophelia when numerous beautiful girls were offered to the prophet yet all declined.
    Before you ask, no..if a girl was to be of the same maturity level as Aisha was, then I would not object to that either.
    Being of age or not is subjective. Its in accordance to each individual. Not as a group.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    Because people are full of prejudices? most of them are not able to make differences in terms of individuals, that is the problem.
    It's not as straight forward as that.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starfab)
    And again the stipilation of age is in this country. Why? Because children are not deemed mature at age 9. However, in that time, in that area it was the norm.
    You cannot claim phedophelia when numerous beautiful girls were offered to the prophet yet all declined.
    Before you ask, no..if a girl was to be of the same maturity level as Aisha was, then I would not object to that either.
    Being of age or not is subjective. Its in accordance to each individual. Not as a group.
    The simple fact is he married a nine year old, hardly the perfect example to be setting. The same is true of Jesus, he (maybe) was having an affair with a prostitute. His 'parents' were also about 60 years apart in age. It was normal then and nobody saw a problem but the same is true of slavery two hundred years ago. We've developed into a more civilised society and condemn that sort of behaviour. The problem with dogmatic belief is you'll argue until the day you die to justify your prophet being a pedophile


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    It's not as straight forward as that.
    It is just my made experiences in my surrounding. But I am aware of that people with an opend mind exist. And I am glad to speak with them about controversial topics like this one.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uw0tm9)
    Islamic ideology promotes terrorism, not Muslims.
    Without support of people any ideology is dead.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by starfab)
    And again the stipilation of age is in this country. Why? Because children are not deemed mature at age 9. However, in that time, in that area it was the norm.
    You cannot claim phedophelia when numerous beautiful girls were offered to the prophet yet all declined.
    Before you ask, no..if a girl was to be of the same maturity level as Aisha was, then I would not object to that either.
    Being of age or not is subjective. Its in accordance to each individual. Not as a group.
    I am not claiming paedophilia, I am saying his example is not perfect in the slightest. If he were alive today and did the same things he would definitely be jailed for sexual assault on a minor though.

    Let's not get ridiculous now. No 9-year-old in existence, past or future, is as mature as an adult, nor anywhere near it, so I sincerely hope you're not going to come out with the "Aisha was as mature as an adult" apologist line. Sahih Bukhari observe that she still played with dolls at or near the time when she married Muhammad. The fact you would refuse to condemn such a union is sickening and just shows that Muslims cannot bring themselves to condemn anything Muhammad did, regardless of how disgusting or unpleasant.

    Well exactly! To be a perfect example there must be some objective standard of perfection which can by definition never change, consequently disproving Muhammad's alleged perfection.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bex.anne)
    The KKK killed more than 3,400 black people, how on earth can you say they were a tiny group? ISIS have killed 1/3 of that amount, but you're not calling them tiny? Both of these groups are awful, but I really have no idea how you can call them a tiny unimportant group.
    arab slave trade killed far more black people than kkk. but lets stick to topic and put this into perspective - islamic terrorism is the most prevalent in the world today. i have no clue where you get your figures from but IS in 2014 killed over 6000. boko haram, another islamist group killed a similar number in the same year. you can then add the numerous other islamist groups globally and the numbers swell.
    this is not counting all the deaths under the general umbrella of ' shia vs sunni islamic military conflict' that arnt offically classed as terrorist killings but may as well be.

    all of the above is essentially down to one influence - ie islamist ideology. the KKK have been around since the 1930s and modern islamic terrorism only since early 1970s - and yet the amount of misery its caused is many fold
    so you cant pretend islam has been a good influence on muslims people- exactly the opposite
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marianade)
    Why do people call us terrorists
    Straw man!
    Most people don't call Muslims terrorists. Just look at the demonstrations going on at the moment.
    There are passages in the Quran and sunnah that Islamists use to justify violent attacks, but that is a completely different argument.

    anyone who kills is not a muslim
    Not the old out-of-context misquoting of 5:32 again?
    Islam absolutely does not forbid killing. The verses you are referring to specifically allow the killing of a range of people, including those "disobeying god's laws" (according to Ibn Kathir).

    and isis kills more muslims than non-muslims.
    But they don't consider their victims to be Muslims. Because of their refusal to accept a literalist, retentionist, unmodernised version of the Quran and sunnah (as required by the Quran and sunnah), ISIS see them as murtad and munafiq (who are also punishable by death)

    [/quote]They arent muslim they just want to ruin our reputation.[/quote] There you go! You have just done exactly what ISIS are doing. Calling takfir on other Muslims because they follow an interpretation that you reject.
    Ironic much?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by years101)
    Agreed. Its pretty sad a lot of people hold negative views when muslims are taught to be the kindest people and respect all.
    What people are taught depends on the agenda of those teaching them.
    If you use the entire Quran rather than just cherry-picked verses, you will be left confused as to how you are supposed to think of disbelievers. There are some verses that suggest tolerance while there are others that are explicitly intolerant.

    While it is good that many Muslims are taught from the positive verses, it is all to clear what happens when they are taught from the negative ones.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Junaid12)
    Out of context much? What was the previous verse? Hm. Any book sounds this way if taken way out of proportion. Even the bible. Can't we just live in peace?
    The previous verses say not to obey disbelievers as this can lead to disbelief, but to rely only on Allah.

    Perhaps you can answer a question for me.
    Whenever a sceptic quotes a violent Quran verse, apologists always claim "out of context, you cant quote verses on their own, this only applied in Muhammad's time", but when peaceful verses are posted no such complaints are made.
    Why do you think that is?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asiangcse)
    And that verse you're quoting relates to the story of Abu sufiyan and the idol worshipers who went to exterminate the muslims after the battle of Uhud, but Allah casted fear in their hearts, preventing them from the killings of muslims, not to do with regular muslims like myself striking fear to the people around us.
    If it is just an account of a past event that must have no influence on how Muslims are to behave towards disbelievers, why is it in the Quran (the perfect, unchangable, universal and timeless guide for all humanity)?

    Also, the verse actually says "we shall cast terror.." which refers to a future, not a past event.

    Ambiguous at best.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yes Muslims should not be criticized for being "terrorists". It is a daft over-generalization.

    They should be criticized for following and trying to spread an archaic, barbaric, evil ideology.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ward47)
    but there are also people that are posting verses from the quaran without any context in order to make it seem like islam is a religion of hate and indoctrination. .
    The issue here is that there are also people who post verses from the Quran without any context in order to make it seem like Islam is a religion of peace.
    Yet they are never pulled up by apologists for doing so.
    Double standards?

    islam as a whole is in many ways no less or more violent than any of the other main religions including christianity.
    Certainly true with regard to the Old Testament. However, other religions don't make the same absolute claims about the infallible, immutable universality of their scriptures.

    Ideologically, Islam is lagging several centuries behind Christianity and is yet to experience its reformation/enlightenment and accept the role of reason in the interpretation of religious texts.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Because unfortunately the media has brainwashed them into thinking that.
    Didn't you once tell me that nothing could shake your belief in the truth of Islam?
    Don't you believe that a 1400 year old book (based in part on even earlier works) contains everything you need to live the perfect life, and that anything that contradicts the contents of that book must be wrong?

    Oops! Looks like I'll be needing a new spring for my Acme Irony-o-Meter™
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    It is just my made experiences in my surrounding. But I am aware of that people with an opend mind exist. And I am glad to speak with them about controversial topics like this one.
    But your earlier statement is generalising when you criticise others for doing the same. You can't have it both ways.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bex.anne)
    Quran 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind"

    In Islam, if you murder someone (unless you kill them in regards to death penalty for murder or rape) it is as though you have murdered all of mankind.
    Not so.
    The word for "corruption" used in the Quran is "fasad". Fasad is a vague term referring to a wide range of "crimes", not just rape. According to Ibn Kathir's tafsir (the most widely used and authoritative explanation of the meaning of the Quran), "fasad" includes "disobeying god's laws or encouraging others to disobey them".

    Quite a different concept when seen in the light of authentic classical Islamic scholarly interpretation, don't you think?
    (And it's 5:32 BTW. 5:33 states that the punishment for those guilty of 'waging war against Allah and his messenger' is death, crucifixion, dismemberment or exile. Ibn Kathir describes 'wage war' as including "opposition, contradiction and disbelief". Doesn't get any better, does it?)

    Murder is not accepted in Islam.
    Murder is not acceptable in any society.
    However, what is "murder"? It is simply killing that is prohibited. Islam permits killing for many things, some of which we would consider to be "murder". The execution of someone for leaving Islam, being gay, or having an affair, for example.

    There are verses about the death of disbelievers but this is in the context of war. War in Islam is only allowed in cases of Just War,
    Who decides whether it is "just". Allah? Muhammad? Do the people on the other side have a say?

    where no innocent civilians are killed (because if you do kill an innocent you will go to hell),
    Define "innocent".
    Were the hundreds of defenceless Banu Qurayza prisoners that Muhammad had executed, "innocent"?
    What about the sahih hadith where Muhammad permits the killing of women and children during the confusion of night attacks?

    where all prisoners are given humane treatment on both sides, and with minimum necessary force.
    Like the Banu Qurayza? Even if the tribe's leaders had planned to betray Muhmammad (which is disputed), no fighting took place and they voluntarily surrendered. Was it "humane" to behead every male over puberty and enslave the women and children?

    ISIS are not doing this. They are in no way following Islamic teachings. Can any of you who believe that ISIS are Muslims and Muslims have a terrorist mindset please respond with a verse of the Quran which tells me that ISIS are doing as the Quran tells them?
    First, Muslims don't have a "terrorist mindset" (whatever that is). Why did you add that to the question? It has nothing to do with the nature of the content of the Quran. It's like saying "those who believe that Catholic priests are Christians and Christians have a child-abusing mindset." Meaningless.

    Anyway, you've already mentioned one yourself, 5:33. ISIS have crucified people who they believe are opponents of Islam. Now, where did they get that idea?

    Also 8:57, So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
    ISIS are using severe punishment of prisoners as a warning for other opponents.

    Or 8:39 And fight them [the idolators] until disbelief is no more, and religion is all for Allah.
    ISIS are using force to spread their interpretation of Islam.

    Then there's 33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee
    The quran permits the use of female prisoners for sex (confirmed by sahih hadith). ISIS use female captives for sex.

    That should do for now. And don't forget the sunnah. The hudd punishments that ISIS are meting out to apostates, adulterers and gays are mostly contained in the sunnah, as well as more explicit statements about aggressive military action and conversion of pain of death.

    If Muhammad returned today, he would find the Islam of ISIS more familiar than the Islam practised by most western Muslims.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibbyyyyy)
    In Islam, you are only allowed to kill people during wars.
    Nonsense. What about the death penalty for fasad, apostasy, adultery, homosexuality?

    Here are some verses that ISIS are clearly not following:
    All you are doing is cherry-picking verses to suit your agenda. ISIS are just doing the same.

    "He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind." (Qur'an 5:32).
    In the Quran, "disorder and corruption" (other translations use "mischief" ) comes from the word "fasad". According to Ibn Kathir's tafsir, fasad includes "disobeying god's laws or encouraging others to disobey them".

    So you approve of the legal killing of those who disobey god's law under an Islamic system.
    Nice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bex.anne)
    The land refers to the land by which they are under the law of. If you 'wreak corruption of the land' it simply means break the law.
    So, in a land controlled by an Islamic system, you can be killed for breaking Islamic law. Kinda what Ibn Kathir says.

    Again it is referring to those laws which are punishable by death (rape, murder, ect).
    You forgot to mention apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, and opposing Islam.

    This could in no way be be interpreted as killing innocents for revenge would in any way be okay.
    But in the system you propose, only people who submitted to Islam are considered "innocent". And where did revenge come from?

    In addition to this, in Islam it also says to follow the law of your land, and to oppose it also punishable. In Britain this would mean to follow the U.K. law, and America the same, so ISIS supporters in the UK and US, who are trying to force shariah law upon the west (Islam says to invite people peacfully) and are committing these acts, are again, going against the teachings of Islam.
    There is nothing in the Quran or sunnah that instructs Muslims to obey disbelievers. It only says to "obey your leaders/those in authority", and in the context of the rest of the verse it is clearly speaking in an Islamic context. Some scholars now claim "leaders" refers to any government, but even they admit that it only applies where kuffar law does not conflict with Islamic law. The Quran is quite clear that Allah's law is paramount.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I am nitpicking because you say that killing people is forbidden, unless they have "spread corruption in the land"; this phrase is so vague that it kinda nullifies your statement, unless you could bring me a valid definition of "spreading corruption in the land" (which you haven't done).
    The most widely used and authoritative of all the classical scholars, Ibn Kathir, describes fasad (spreading corruption) as "disobeying Allah on earth or commanding that he be disobeyed", and "disbelief and acts of disobedience".
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...sk=view&id=436

    So verses 5:32-33 clearly permit the killing of people for "disbelief and acts of disobedience".


    Now, obviously this does not mean that all Muslims are commanded to kill all disbelievers but to those who want to use violence and fear to spread and impose islam, the justification is there.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bex.anne)
    'Fasad fil-ardh'
    Which is wreaking havoc in the land, and is punishable by death includes Treason/apostasy, Murder, Piracy, Rape, Adultery, Homosexual activity.
    I have already provided a definition from the foremost classical scholar in Islamic history.

    But shall we have a look at the crimes which are punishable by death in Christianity?
    Murder, Adultery, Rape, Homosexuality, Sex before marriage, Treason/Apostasy, Witchcraft, Taking the lords name in vain, Cursing or disobeying a parent, Kidnapping.

    If the reason you're asking about the death penalty is for the death of homosexual thing, then I have to say, Obviously I completely disagree with the death of a homosexual person. But not only Muslims believe in this, christians do too, and regardless of someones religious beliefs many people today are extremely homophobic and believe in this anyway.
    This is called "whataboutery".
    "Yes, I murdered that bloke, but someone else murdered his wife" is not a good defence!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.