Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Muhammad's marriage to Zaynab

muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.

At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".

"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"

Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.

What is your opinion?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:11:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter."

Why is it wrong ?!

By the way, it's not sex, it's marriage, or owned slave, known by everyone, not a secret.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:23:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:11:56 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
By the way, it's not sex, it's marriage, or owned slave, known by everyone, not a secret.

huh?
Usama.7
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:28:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
By the name of Allah the greatest most merciful
Surah al mae'dah chapter(6)/verse 48
( 48 ) And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
As u can see".". To each of you We prescribed a law and a method"
Quraan is Muslim's law..so when Allah swt ordered his messenger to do any thing
There must be great wisdom behind this..
Zaid r a is not the real son of the prophet -peace be upon him- so Zainab ra is not his daughter in law
by islamic law..to merry daughter in law is forbidden forever ..even if her husband died or divorced her..
But in this case people will learn that adopted son's wife is not your real daughter in law..one exception of Islamic shariaa..to teach the ummah whom you can merry (not mahram) n whom u cant (mahram)
The funny love story which u created is so far from our prophet saww
Its Allah wisdom to order the prophet saww to marry Zainab
This marriage is made by Allah..she is chosen for him by Allah
There is no shame there is no tiny mistake
you are right ..He is indeed "the best of mankind" "mercy to the worlds"
bulproof
Posts: 25,272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:08:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:28:40 AM, Usama.7 wrote:
By the name of Allah the greatest most merciful
Surah al mae'dah chapter(6)/verse 48
( 48 ) And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
As u can see".". To each of you We prescribed a law and a method"
Quraan is Muslim's law..so when Allah swt ordered his messenger to do any thing
There must be great wisdom behind this..
Zaid r a is not the real son of the prophet -peace be upon him- so Zainab ra is not his daughter in law
by islamic law..to merry daughter in law is forbidden forever ..even if her husband died or divorced her..
But in this case people will learn that adopted son's wife is not your real daughter in law..one exception of Islamic shariaa..to teach the ummah whom you can merry (not mahram) n whom u cant (mahram)
The funny love story which u created is so far from our prophet saww
Its Allah wisdom to order the prophet saww to marry Zainab
This marriage is made by Allah..she is chosen for him by Allah
There is no shame there is no tiny mistake
you are right ..He is indeed "the best of mankind" "mercy to the worlds"
This is so full of apologist CRAP that only a "deranged" simpleton could even consider it. There is not an intelligent human being who has ever lived that would give it credence. Only a muslim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Usama.7
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:36:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
oh yeah ..is that your best "bulproof"
are u here for trolling..i bet u don't know a single word about whole story
go read and then talk..
why you got mad ..is that much our love for our prophet saww teasing u
pathetic..
what i have said is not from my own fantasy its from seerah means history..from ahadith and from quraan
keep your dirty nose out of it
Fatihah
Posts: 7,751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:39:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

Response: Quoting from Al-Tabari is an invalid argument when the source is weak and even Al-Tabari does not call his own sources credible. So the argument fails. Aisha herself states that Muhammad was kind to her, and the Qur'an itself and the Sunnah condemns looking at a women naked who is not your wife. Thus the evidence is clear that Muhammad was a man of great character and not sex -crazed and treated women kindly.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:51:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:39:22 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

Response: Quoting from Al-Tabari is an invalid argument when the source is weak and even Al-Tabari does not call his own sources credible. So the argument fails. Aisha herself states that Muhammad was kind to her, and the Qur'an itself and the Sunnah condemns looking at a women naked who is not your wife. Thus the evidence is clear that Muhammad was a man of great character and not sex -crazed and treated women kindly.

Watch the video, that incident is not just reported by at-tabari. many scholars have reported and commented on this incident. yasir qadhi at length discuesses the idea that muhammad was at least infatuated with zaynab and calls this idea 'theory A'. he goes to great lengths explaining its credibility.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:54:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:51:20 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:39:22 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

Response: Quoting from Al-Tabari is an invalid argument when the source is weak and even Al-Tabari does not call his own sources credible. So the argument fails. Aisha herself states that Muhammad was kind to her, and the Qur'an itself and the Sunnah condemns looking at a women naked who is not your wife. Thus the evidence is clear that Muhammad was a man of great character and not sex -crazed and treated women kindly.

Watch the video, that incident is not just reported by at-tabari. many scholars have reported and commented on this incident. yasir qadhi at length discuesses the idea that muhammad was at least infatuated with zaynab and calls this idea 'theory A'. he goes to great lengths explaining its credibility.

Response: Yet not one of the reports are authentic. So the argument is invalid.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:13:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:54:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:51:20 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:39:22 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

Response: Quoting from Al-Tabari is an invalid argument when the source is weak and even Al-Tabari does not call his own sources credible. So the argument fails. Aisha herself states that Muhammad was kind to her, and the Qur'an itself and the Sunnah condemns looking at a women naked who is not your wife. Thus the evidence is clear that Muhammad was a man of great character and not sex -crazed and treated women kindly.

Watch the video, that incident is not just reported by at-tabari. many scholars have reported and commented on this incident. yasir qadhi at length discuesses the idea that muhammad was at least infatuated with zaynab and calls this idea 'theory A'. he goes to great lengths explaining its credibility.

Response: Yet not one of the reports are authentic. So the argument is invalid.

there are several indicents that are not reported in bukhari, muslim and trimidhi, which are still not totally rejected by scholars. this incident may not have the same strength of chain of narrators as a mutawatir hadith, but it is still considered credible by many scholars. suhaib webb in his series on the mothers of the believers also narrates this incident where muhammad calls Allah "mufassir ul qulub" with great fondness. regardless of the fact, that you are denying an incident which scholars (unlike yourself) give credibility to, this incident is not the only thing wrong with muhammad's marriage to his own adopted son's wife.
makhdoom5
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:38:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

this is nothing but ur cheap way of thinking.
u know u are devil worker.
who always find and makes way to make the stories which proves something good as bad.
well.
there is nothing above which i should respond its dirt in ur dirty head simply.
go and read the real story,
ok

there are many things happen to prophet saww to teach muslims.
that was major mistakes made be arabs before this.
that they were even give property to their adopted sons.
so this is biologically not correct and in the eyes of ALLAH also not correct that u consider adopted son as ur son.
it could be most ethical in many times but not always.
see of 40 year old women adopt 40 year men as adopted son could it be reasonable.
same is for even young.
which is clear that is clear,
islam is clear.
adopted son is not real son never it could be.
so all the things happened to prophet saww himself.
to give best examples to Muslims.
mother zainab ra was from rich and nobel family.
and ziad ra was slave.
zainab ra was always angry with zaid ra coz of the cast difference.
and zaid ra already wanted to have divorce.
every thing was controlled by ALLAH.
the zaid was adopted zainab was married to zain ra and than hate among them than marrige to prophet saww all was planed by ALLAH to give best example to not make ur adopted as ur real son.
coz its not.
got it.
now stop this crap and be positive.
u dont have any other task to do just try to find the way to make stories to prove islam is bad.
which is not for just and good man its not.
indeed insane like and shiiiit bullproof it is,
makhdoom5
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:42:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

one more thing there is no evidence for this. ur made up story or some one u quoted.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:02:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rest 11/24/2013 11:13:42 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:54:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:51:20 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:39:22 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

Response: Quoting from Al-Tabari is an invalid argument when the source is weak and even Al-Tabari does not call his own sources credible. So the argument fails. Aisha herself states that Muhammad was kind to her, and the Qur'an itself and the Sunnah condemns looking at a women naked who is not your wife. Thus the evidence is clear that Muhammad was a man of great character and not sex -crazed and treated women kindly.

Watch the video, that incident is not just reported by at-tabari. many scholars have reported and commented on this incident. yasir qadhi at length discuesses the idea that muhammad was at least infatuated with zaynab and calls this idea 'theory A'. he goes to great lengths explaining its credibility.

Response: Yet not one of the reports are authentic. So the argument is invalid.

there are several indicents that are not reported in bukhari, muslim and trimidhi, which are still not totally rejected by scholars. this incident may not have the same strength of chain of narrators as a mutawatir hadith, but it is still considered credible by many scholars. suhaib webb in his series on the mothers of the believers also narrates this incident where muhammad calls Allah "mufassir ul qulub" with great fondness. regardless of the fact, that you are denying an incident which scholars (unlike yourself) give credibility to, this incident is not the only thing wrong with muhammad's marriage to his own adopted son's wife.

Response: And every alleged scholar claiming that the story is credible have no evidence to support the claim, supporting by your own inability to prove they are credible. So the argument still fails, and the accusation is debunked. Further, all scholars, including those you refer to agree the Qur'an is authentic and has the most authority. So this again refutes you since the Qur'an itself condems looking at any women naked who is not your wife. So your logic continues to fail.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 2:37:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:02:12 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Rest 11/24/2013 11:13:42 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:54:23 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:51:20 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:39:22 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 11/23/2013 11:17:00 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Muhammad was clearly a sex-obsessed man. His marriage to Zaynab, (the wife of his own adopted son) in my opinion, is proof of this (amongst many other proofs).

There is nothing wrong or unusual about being sex-obsessed unless this obsession causes you to have sex with 9 year-olds and slaves. And also if it causes you to lust after your own friend/follower/adopted son's daughter.


At the very least, this incident is some proof that the Quran's verses written by Muhammad to fulfil his personal desires, and that it was not written by a God who wanted to write a book to guide humanity for ages to come.

Having such an obsession with sex, and concocting verses in order to have sex with a woman, makes Muhammad an evil man, not "the best of mankind" and a "mercy to the worlds".


"One day Muhammad went out looking for Zayd. There was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. After that Allah made her unattractive to Zayd and he divorced Zainab." Tabari VIII:3 Tabari VIII:4
Here is historian Karen Armstrong's version:
"A pious woman, [Zaynab] was a skilled leather-worker and gave all the proceeds of her craft to the poor. Muhammad seems to have seen her with new eyes and to have fallen in love quite suddenly when he had called at her house one afternoon to speak to Zayd, who happened to be out. Not expecting any visitors, Zaynab had come to the door in dishabille, more revealingly dressed than usual, and Muhammad had averted his eyes hastily, muttering 'Praise be to Allah, who changes men's hearts!'"


Please see the following link for more references: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a very weak but detailed defence, where Yasir Qadhi does not even deny that it is likely that Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law. He even admits this was an embarrassing moment in Muhammad's life.


What is your opinion?

Response: Quoting from Al-Tabari is an invalid argument when the source is weak and even Al-Tabari does not call his own sources credible. So the argument fails. Aisha herself states that Muhammad was kind to her, and the Qur'an itself and the Sunnah condemns looking at a women naked who is not your wife. Thus the evidence is clear that Muhammad was a man of great character and not sex -crazed and treated women kindly.

Watch the video, that incident is not just reported by at-tabari. many scholars have reported and commented on this incident. yasir qadhi at length discuesses the idea that muhammad was at least infatuated with zaynab and calls this idea 'theory A'. he goes to great lengths explaining its credibility.

Response: Yet not one of the reports are authentic. So the argument is invalid.

there are several indicents that are not reported in bukhari, muslim and trimidhi, which are still not totally rejected by scholars. this incident may not have the same strength of chain of narrators as a mutawatir hadith, but it is still considered credible by many scholars. suhaib webb in his series on the mothers of the believers also narrates this incident where muhammad calls Allah "mufassir ul qulub" with great fondness. regardless of the fact, that you are denying an incident which scholars (unlike yourself) give credibility to, this incident is not the only thing wrong with muhammad's marriage to his own adopted son's wife.

Response: And every alleged scholar claiming that the story is credible have no evidence to support the claim, supporting by your own inability to prove they are credible. So the argument still fails, and the accusation is debunked. Further, all scholars, including those you refer to agree the Qur'an is authentic and has the most authority. So this again refutes you since the Qur'an itself condems looking at any women naked who is not your wife. So your logic continues to fail.

I dn't think Yasir Qadhi and Ibn Ihsaq are 'alleged' scholars. maybe according to you they are, in which case fall into the minority.
Furthermore, the incident is reported to have happened before injunctions about hijab were 'revealed' so thanks for exposing your inability to reason as well as your ignorance.
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 2:52:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Someone address my video. It explains a lot. Many of his wives were old.

In the United States, just 100 hundred years ago, the age of consent was 10 years old.
This is about something just 1 century ago, not 14.

It's ignorant to compare the lifestyle of people even a century ago to people now. They had different social norms than the ones we have today.
Vote fuzala for President of the World.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:07:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 2:52:55 PM, fuzala wrote:
Someone address my video. It explains a lot. Many of his wives were old.

In the United States, just 100 hundred years ago, the age of consent was 10 years old.
This is about something just 1 century ago, not 14.

It's ignorant to compare the lifestyle of people even a century ago to people now. They had different social norms than the ones we have today.

OK fine. If muhammad's lifestyle was so incomparable to ours, he should no longer be anyone's role model.
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:07:25 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:52:55 PM, fuzala wrote:
Someone address my video. It explains a lot. Many of his wives were old.

In the United States, just 100 hundred years ago, the age of consent was 10 years old.
This is about something just 1 century ago, not 14.

It's ignorant to compare the lifestyle of people even a century ago to people now. They had different social norms than the ones we have today.

OK fine. If muhammad's lifestyle was so incomparable to ours, he should no longer be anyone's role model.

I fail to see what role model has anything to do with the topic at hand, but I'll respond anyways. Things like charity, kindness to your neighbors, etc. apply to today. Did you even watch the video?

Plus, social norms EVEN TODAY vary drastically from place to place.

You cherry pick certain details. Like the wikipedia page. You fail to mention that it happened by accident.
Vote fuzala for President of the World.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 4:42:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:30:13 PM, fuzala wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:07:25 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:52:55 PM, fuzala wrote:
Someone address my video. It explains a lot. Many of his wives were old.

In the United States, just 100 hundred years ago, the age of consent was 10 years old.
This is about something just 1 century ago, not 14.

It's ignorant to compare the lifestyle of people even a century ago to people now. They had different social norms than the ones we have today.

OK fine. If muhammad's lifestyle was so incomparable to ours, he should no longer be anyone's role model.

I fail to see what role model has anything to do with the topic at hand, but I'll respond anyways. Things like charity, kindness to your neighbors, etc. apply to today. Did you even watch the video?

Plus, social norms EVEN TODAY vary drastically from place to place.


You cherry pick certain details. Like the wikipedia page. You fail to mention that it happened by accident.

I am not the one cherry picking. you are literally picking and choosing the aspects of muhammad's life to follow.e.g. give charity but don't have sex with 9 year old girls.

btw, i do not find religious charities very honourable in a lot of cases.

i find it odd that god would send his final revelation and guide to humankind who lived in times where it was normal to act in such an abhorrent manner.

oh, and kindness to your neighbours? like killing all the men and young boys of your neighbouring jewish tribe out in the open? look up banu qurayza.
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 5:13:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 4:42:39 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:30:13 PM, fuzala wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:07:25 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 2:52:55 PM, fuzala wrote:
Someone address my video. It explains a lot. Many of his wives were old.

In the United States, just 100 hundred years ago, the age of consent was 10 years old.
This is about something just 1 century ago, not 14.

It's ignorant to compare the lifestyle of people even a century ago to people now. They had different social norms than the ones we have today.

OK fine. If muhammad's lifestyle was so incomparable to ours, he should no longer be anyone's role model.

I fail to see what role model has anything to do with the topic at hand, but I'll respond anyways. Things like charity, kindness to your neighbors, etc. apply to today. Did you even watch the video?

Plus, social norms EVEN TODAY vary drastically from place to place.


You cherry pick certain details. Like the wikipedia page. You fail to mention that it happened by accident.

I am not the one cherry picking. you are literally picking and choosing the aspects of muhammad's life to follow.e.g. give charity but don't have sex with 9 year old girls.

btw, i do not find religious charities very honourable in a lot of cases.

i find it odd that god would send his final revelation and guide to humankind who lived in times where it was normal to act in such an abhorrent manner.

oh, and kindness to your neighbours? like killing all the men and young boys of your neighbouring jewish tribe out in the open? look up banu qurayza.

Again, you probably didn't watch the video. Your comments show how you didn't even bother watching it. It refutes your original claims on this posts. It's only about 7 minutes unlike your video that is over 1 hour long. All it means is that people matured differently in the past than now. That doesn't mean the rules don't apply. Back then, and in some places today, people grow up faster. In other places, people who are still 30 years old live in their parent's basement. It varies. Some are more mature than others regardless of age. This still applies today.

I proved how you're cherry picking by selecting certain details from that link and ignoring others. You skipped the important detail that said it was an accident ya cherry picker.

Where am I cherry picking? I never said it was an abhorrent manner. I said it was another social norm. A norm that still exists in places in the world today. It happens in India.

Yet again, you're cherry picking. You just love doing that. You left out important information yet again. "First, the Banu Nazir attempted to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which led to a war between the Muslims and this tribe." http://www.onislam.net...

You'll see that they were trying to wipe Muslims out and broke the treaty.

Plus, what kind of person would stand there and say "I'm just gonna stand here and let you kill me. I'm too peaceful" Pfft, you're gonna protect yourself and your family.

It's called defending yourself. A rational person will defend his or herself and others when danger arises.

Yeah, kindness to your neighbors. Where you go share food with them. Where you're still kind to them after they trash your property and spit on you.

We're way off topic now so just agree to disagree. I already refuted your original claims both by word and with a video. To distract the fact that I refuted your bogus claims, you totally went off topic by bringing up role model.

There was another user (who's agnostic by the way) who explained how you become irrational when people disagree with you. I'm gonna have to agree with him.
Vote fuzala for President of the World.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 5:39:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, you probably didn't watch the video. Your comments show how you didn't even bother watching it. It refutes your original claims on this posts. It's only about 7 minutes unlike your video that is over 1 hour long. All it means is that people matured differently in the past than now. That doesn't mean the rules don't apply. Back then, and in some places today, people grow up faster. In other places, people who are still 30 years old live in their parent's basement. It varies. Some are more mature than others regardless of age. This still applies today.

I proved how you're cherry picking by selecting certain details from that link and ignoring others. You skipped the important detail that said it was an accident ya cherry picker.

Where am I cherry picking? I never said it was an abhorrent manner. I said it was another social norm. A norm that still exists in places in the world today. It happens in India.

Yet again, you're cherry picking. You just love doing that. You left out important information yet again. "First, the Banu Nazir attempted to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which led to a war between the Muslims and this tribe." http://www.onislam.net...

You'll see that they were trying to wipe Muslims out and broke the treaty.

Plus, what kind of person would stand there and say "I'm just gonna stand here and let you kill me. I'm too peaceful" Pfft, you're gonna protect yourself and your family.

It's called defending yourself. A rational person will defend his or herself and others when danger arises.

Yeah, kindness to your neighbors. Where you go share food with them. Where you're still kind to them after they trash your property and spit on you.

We're way off topic now so just agree to disagree. I already refuted your original claims both by word and with a video. To distract the fact that I refuted your bogus claims, you totally went off topic by bringing up role model.

There was another user (who's agnostic by the way) who explained how you become irrational when people disagree with you. I'm gonna have to agree with him.

I saw that video ages ago. I am not a fan of steven crowder and i thought the video did a great job exposing his hypocrisy.

however, your response mostly consists of claims that you have refuted my claims, and not much else.

you say i am cherry picking and that i did not mention details about muhammad's glimpse of his daughter-in-law's half-naked body, whereas i posted the incident as narrated by tabari and karen armstrong. i did not cut out any part of the narration.

also, your defense of the killing of all the men and boys (mostly non combatants) is sickening. no one in modern times would do that to an entire tribe. and those who did so in ancient times are considered barbaric today.

i don't care how 'mature' (whatever that's supposed to mean) a girl can be at 9 years of age, a 50 year old man should not have sex with her. so what if it still happens in india? it's messed up. you'd never marry off your daughter to a fifty year old man if she was 6 years old.
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:02:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 5:39:15 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Again, you probably didn't watch the video. Your comments show how you didn't even bother watching it. It refutes your original claims on this posts. It's only about 7 minutes unlike your video that is over 1 hour long. All it means is that people matured differently in the past than now. That doesn't mean the rules don't apply. Back then, and in some places today, people grow up faster. In other places, people who are still 30 years old live in their parent's basement. It varies. Some are more mature than others regardless of age. This still applies today.

I proved how you're cherry picking by selecting certain details from that link and ignoring others. You skipped the important detail that said it was an accident ya cherry picker.

Where am I cherry picking? I never said it was an abhorrent manner. I said it was another social norm. A norm that still exists in places in the world today. It happens in India.

Yet again, you're cherry picking. You just love doing that. You left out important information yet again. "First, the Banu Nazir attempted to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which led to a war between the Muslims and this tribe." http://www.onislam.net...

You'll see that they were trying to wipe Muslims out and broke the treaty.

Plus, what kind of person would stand there and say "I'm just gonna stand here and let you kill me. I'm too peaceful" Pfft, you're gonna protect yourself and your family.

It's called defending yourself. A rational person will defend his or herself and others when danger arises.

Yeah, kindness to your neighbors. Where you go share food with them. Where you're still kind to them after they trash your property and spit on you.

We're way off topic now so just agree to disagree. I already refuted your original claims both by word and with a video. To distract the fact that I refuted your bogus claims, you totally went off topic by bringing up role model.

There was another user (who's agnostic by the way) who explained how you become irrational when people disagree with you. I'm gonna have to agree with him.

I saw that video ages ago. I am not a fan of steven crowder and i thought the video did a great job exposing his hypocrisy.

however, your response mostly consists of claims that you have refuted my claims, and not much else.

you say i am cherry picking and that i did not mention details about muhammad's glimpse of his daughter-in-law's half-naked body, whereas i posted the incident as narrated by tabari and karen armstrong. i did not cut out any part of the narration.

also, your defense of the killing of all the men and boys (mostly non combatants) is sickening. no one in modern times would do that to an entire tribe. and those who did so in ancient times are considered barbaric today.

i don't care how 'mature' (whatever that's supposed to mean) a girl can be at 9 years of age, a 50 year old man should not have sex with her. so what if it still happens in india? it's messed up. you'd never marry off your daughter to a fifty year old man if she was 6 years old.

Glad you agree that the video exposed Steven of his horrendous claims.

Since you watched it, then why repeat the same things I and he refuted? I did refute it by explaining social norms. If you watched the video, you should remember that no one had a problem with it until much much later, over 12 centuries later. What part of norm don't you understand. The age of consent in America just 100 years ago was 10 years old. That was perfectly normal then. Just because they had a different social norm does not mean those Americans were suddenly barbaric. It'd be barbaric if some kind of abuse was involved. Instead of replying to the topic of social norms, you went off topic and brought up role models.

It doesn't matter that you don't care. People hit puberty at different times, and that is an indisputable fact. What happens in puberty? Our body becomes sexually mature and we are ready to reproduce. This is natural, not some man made rule like social norms are like.

Morality is not based solely on what you think is right and wrong. It is subjective from a human perspective. Certain areas are okay with it depending on puberty. That's their norm. As long as there is agreement and NO FORCING from all parties, and everyone is happy, it's none of your business.

Say in a hypothetical situation, people of the future view us as barbaric because we eat meat. That doesn't mean people of the future are in the right. I mean there are people now who think that. People in the present always say crap about people in the past. That's how it is. People in the present always assume they're better than their ancestors.

Uhm, when did I say it was okay to kill innocent people? I'm sure I didn't say such.

Did you read the information in the link? They had an agreement.

I think your bogus claims are what is sickening in this topic. You think about it from a sexual perspective when there is much more to a relationship than sex.
Vote fuzala for President of the World.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:37:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Glad you agree that the video exposed Steven of his horrendous claims.

Since you watched it, then why repeat the same things I and he refuted? I did refute it by explaining social norms. If you watched the video, you should remember that no one had a problem with it until much much later, over 12 centuries later. What part of norm don't you understand. The age of consent in America just 100 years ago was 10 years old. That was perfectly normal then. Just because they had a different social norm does not mean those Americans were suddenly barbaric. It'd be barbaric if some kind of abuse was involved. Instead of replying to the topic of social norms, you went off topic and brought up role models.

It doesn't matter that you don't care. People hit puberty at different times, and that is an indisputable fact. What happens in puberty? Our body becomes sexually mature and we are ready to reproduce. This is natural, not some man made rule like social norms are like.

Morality is not based solely on what you think is right and wrong. It is subjective from a human perspective. Certain areas are okay with it depending on puberty. That's their norm. As long as there is agreement and NO FORCING from all parties, and everyone is happy, it's none of your business.

Say in a hypothetical situation, people of the future view us as barbaric because we eat meat. That doesn't mean people of the future are in the right. I mean there are people now who think that. People in the present always say crap about people in the past. That's how it is. People in the present always assume they're better than their ancestors.

Uhm, when did I say it was okay to kill innocent people? I'm sure I didn't say such.

Did you read the information in the link? They had an agreement.

I think your bogus claims are what is sickening in this topic. You think about it from a sexual perspective when there is much more to a relationship than sex.

Steven's claims about Muhammad's violent and misogynistic nature as well as muhammad's depraved sexuality were not incorrect. What I said was that he was being hypocritical since the bible is also flooded with such characters (and even worse ones).

Let's forget about what vegans say about meat eaters. human beings have been eating meat for ages because many people need it to survive and live healthy lives. if people in the future or even today that eskimos were barbarians because they ate seal meat i would disagree. there is no way anyone could make a rational case against blubber consumption in alaska.

Let's forget about vegans hating on omnivores for a while... I am asking you a question: if you had a daughter today, would you marry her off to a 50 year old man when she was 6? would you be ok with that 50 year old man having sex with her at age 9, even if her body was fully developed and capable of birthing a child (as ridiculous as this hypothetical situation sounds)?

I highly disagree with your claim that 9 year olds were ever capable of safely having children. i know young girls have had babies in the past, but it is not safe.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:39:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think your bogus claims are what is sickening in this topic. You think about it from a sexual perspective when there is much more to a relationship than sex.

be honest with yourself. what sickens you is the idea of a man having sex with a nine year old and having the hots for his own adopted son's wife. not my claims.
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:18:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:37:40 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Glad you agree that the video exposed Steven of his horrendous claims.

Since you watched it, then why repeat the same things I and he refuted? I did refute it by explaining social norms. If you watched the video, you should remember that no one had a problem with it until much much later, over 12 centuries later. What part of norm don't you understand. The age of consent in America just 100 years ago was 10 years old. That was perfectly normal then. Just because they had a different social norm does not mean those Americans were suddenly barbaric. It'd be barbaric if some kind of abuse was involved. Instead of replying to the topic of social norms, you went off topic and brought up role models.

It doesn't matter that you don't care. People hit puberty at different times, and that is an indisputable fact. What happens in puberty? Our body becomes sexually mature and we are ready to reproduce. This is natural, not some man made rule like social norms are like.

Morality is not based solely on what you think is right and wrong. It is subjective from a human perspective. Certain areas are okay with it depending on puberty. That's their norm. As long as there is agreement and NO FORCING from all parties, and everyone is happy, it's none of your business.

Say in a hypothetical situation, people of the future view us as barbaric because we eat meat. That doesn't mean people of the future are in the right. I mean there are people now who think that. People in the present always say crap about people in the past. That's how it is. People in the present always assume they're better than their ancestors.

Uhm, when did I say it was okay to kill innocent people? I'm sure I didn't say such.

Did you read the information in the link? They had an agreement.

I think your bogus claims are what is sickening in this topic. You think about it from a sexual perspective when there is much more to a relationship than sex.

Steven's claims about Muhammad's violent and misogynistic nature as well as muhammad's depraved sexuality were not incorrect. What I said was that he was being hypocritical since the bible is also flooded with such characters (and even worse ones).

Let's forget about what vegans say about meat eaters. human beings have been eating meat for ages because many people need it to survive and live healthy lives. if people in the future or even today that eskimos were barbarians because they ate seal meat i would disagree. there is no way anyone could make a rational case against blubber consumption in alaska.


Let's forget about vegans hating on omnivores for a while... I am asking you a question: if you had a daughter today, would you marry her off to a 50 year old man when she was 6? would you be ok with that 50 year old man having sex with her at age 9, even if her body was fully developed and capable of birthing a child (as ridiculous as this hypothetical situation sounds)?

I highly disagree with your claim that 9 year olds were ever capable of safely having children. i know young girls have had babies in the past, but it is not safe.

Before medical advances, a drastic number of woman died both young and old from childbirth. It was and still is a dangerous process for women. Puberty means your body is becoming sexually mature. It is becoming ready for reproduction.

That's not the social norm where I am, so I wouldn't. It's like polygamy. Some societies are mainly monogamous while others are more accepting of polygamy. That's their choice.

I can't imagine living a life without electricity either.
That doesn't mean others haven't done it and lived just fine.

You can throw around the terms misogyny and sexuality, but it's proven that his first wife was a widow that was much older than him. All his wives were widows and ex-divorcees except one. If he was as you say, why wouldn't he have married younger or more better looking women? Why were almost all of them widows or ex-divorcees? Why did he reject the best of women? If he was as you say, why didn't he marry all those fine women? Yet, he married widows and ex-divorcees. To this day, men still prefer never married woman. He wasn't as shallow as many other men. You're slandering a very noble human being.

I don't know how many times I can explain to you the meaning of social norm. A social norm that is still accepted in many parts of the world. Again, just because it doesn't fit your norm, doesn't mean it's barbaric.

It wasn't until about over 12 centuries later that people even had any problem with the age thing. No one in his time period or even for centuries after had anything to say. People of age 9 or 10 or whatever were viewed differently. If it really was a problem, why did it take people CENTURIES to even think about it as an issue? OVER 12 CENTURIES. That's a long, looooooong time.

Guess what? Today, the age for consent in a state in USA (a very MODERN nation) has set the age at 13. Me at 10 and me at 13 isn't all that different.

Again, people vary drastically in their maturity.

Maybe I have to explain it to you so many times because you don't know how to put yourself in the context of another time period. or a different social norm.
Vote fuzala for President of the World.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:18:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:02:56 PM, fuzala wrote:
At 11/24/2013 5:39:15 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Again, you probably didn't watch the video. Your comments show how you didn't even bother watching it. It refutes your original claims on this posts. It's only about 7 minutes unlike your video that is over 1 hour long. All it means is that people matured differently in the past than now. That doesn't mean the rules don't apply. Back then, and in some places today, people grow up faster. In other places, people who are still 30 years old live in their parent's basement. It varies. Some are more mature than others regardless of age. This still applies today.

I proved how you're cherry picking by selecting certain details from that link and ignoring others. You skipped the important detail that said it was an accident ya cherry picker.

Where am I cherry picking? I never said it was an abhorrent manner. I said it was another social norm. A norm that still exists in places in the world today. It happens in India.

Yet again, you're cherry picking. You just love doing that. You left out important information yet again. "First, the Banu Nazir attempted to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which led to a war between the Muslims and this tribe." http://www.onislam.net...

You'll see that they were trying to wipe Muslims out and broke the treaty.

Plus, what kind of person would stand there and say "I'm just gonna stand here and let you kill me. I'm too peaceful" Pfft, you're gonna protect yourself and your family.

It's called defending yourself. A rational person will defend his or herself and others when danger arises.

Yeah, kindness to your neighbors. Where you go share food with them. Where you're still kind to them after they trash your property and spit on you.

We're way off topic now so just agree to disagree. I already refuted your original claims both by word and with a video. To distract the fact that I refuted your bogus claims, you totally went off topic by bringing up role model.

There was another user (who's agnostic by the way) who explained how you become irrational when people disagree with you. I'm gonna have to agree with him.

I saw that video ages ago. I am not a fan of steven crowder and i thought the video did a great job exposing his hypocrisy.

however, your response mostly consists of claims that you have refuted my claims, and not much else.

you say i am cherry picking and that i did not mention details about muhammad's glimpse of his daughter-in-law's half-naked body, whereas i posted the incident as narrated by tabari and karen armstrong. i did not cut out any part of the narration.

also, your defense of the killing of all the men and boys (mostly non combatants) is sickening. no one in modern times would do that to an entire tribe. and those who did so in ancient times are considered barbaric today.

i don't care how 'mature' (whatever that's supposed to mean) a girl can be at 9 years of age, a 50 year old man should not have sex with her. so what if it still happens in india? it's messed up. you'd never marry off your daughter to a fifty year old man if she was 6 years old.

Glad you agree that the video exposed Steven of his horrendous claims.

Since you watched it, then why repeat the same things I and he refuted? I did refute it by explaining social norms. If you watched the video, you should remember that no one had a problem with it until much much later, over 12 centuries later. What part of norm don't you understand. The age of consent in America just 100 years ago was 10 years old. That was perfectly normal then. Just because they had a different social norm does not mean those Americans were suddenly barbaric. It'd be barbaric if some kind of abuse was involved. Instead of replying to the topic of social norms, you went off topic and brought up role models.

It doesn't matter that you don't care. People hit puberty at different times, and that is an indisputable fact. What happens in puberty? Our body becomes sexually mature and we are ready to reproduce. This is natural, not some man made rule like social norms are like.

Morality is not based solely on what you think is right and wrong. It is subjective from a human perspective. Certain areas are okay with it depending on puberty. That's their norm. As long as there is agreement and NO FORCING from all parties, and everyone is happy, it's none of your business.



Say in a hypothetical situation, people of the future view us as barbaric because we eat meat. That doesn't mean people of the future are in the right. I mean there are people now who think that. People in the present always say crap about people in the past. That's how it is. People in the present always assume they're better than their ancestors.

Uhm, when did I say it was okay to kill innocent people? I'm sure I didn't say such.

Did you read the information in the link? They had an agreement.

I think your bogus claims are what is sickening in this topic. You think about it from a sexual perspective when there is much more to a relationship than sex.

clearly we're going in circles here. but to me, the fact that you won't directly answer my question says a lot.
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:18:56 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:02:56 PM, fuzala wrote:
At 11/24/2013 5:39:15 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Again, you probably didn't watch the video. Your comments show how you didn't even bother watching it. It refutes your original claims on this posts. It's only about 7 minutes unlike your video that is over 1 hour long. All it means is that people matured differently in the past than now. That doesn't mean the rules don't apply. Back then, and in some places today, people grow up faster. In other places, people who are still 30 years old live in their parent's basement. It varies. Some are more mature than others regardless of age. This still applies today.


I proved how you're cherry picking by selecting certain details from that link and ignoring others. You skipped the important detail that said it was an accident ya cherry picker.

Where am I cherry picking? I never said it was an abhorrent manner. I said it was another social norm. A norm that still exists in places in the world today. It happens in India.

Yet again, you're cherry picking. You just love doing that. You left out important information yet again. "First, the Banu Nazir attempted to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), which led to a war between the Muslims and this tribe." http://www.onislam.net...

You'll see that they were trying to wipe Muslims out and broke the treaty.

Plus, what kind of person would stand there and say "I'm just gonna stand here and let you kill me. I'm too peaceful" Pfft, you're gonna protect yourself and your family.

It's called defending yourself. A rational person will defend his or herself and others when danger arises.

Yeah, kindness to your neighbors. Where you go share food with them. Where you're still kind to them after they trash your property and spit on you.

We're way off topic now so just agree to disagree. I already refuted your original claims both by word and with a video. To distract the fact that I refuted your bogus claims, you totally went off topic by bringing up role model.

There was another user (who's agnostic by the way) who explained how you become irrational when people disagree with you. I'm gonna have to agree with him.

I saw that video ages ago. I am not a fan of steven crowder and i thought the video did a great job exposing his hypocrisy.

however, your response mostly consists of claims that you have refuted my claims, and not much else.

you say i am cherry picking and that i did not mention details about muhammad's glimpse of his daughter-in-law's half-naked body, whereas i posted the incident as narrated by tabari and karen armstrong. i did not cut out any part of the narration.

also, your defense of the killing of all the men and boys (mostly non combatants) is sickening. no one in modern times would do that to an entire tribe. and those who did so in ancient times are considered barbaric today.

i don't care how 'mature' (whatever that's supposed to mean) a girl can be at 9 years of age, a 50 year old man should not have sex with her. so what if it still happens in india? it's messed up. you'd never marry off your daughter to a fifty year old man if she was 6 years old.

Glad you agree that the video exposed Steven of his horrendous claims.

Since you watched it, then why repeat the same things I and he refuted? I did refute it by explaining social norms. If you watched the video, you should remember that no one had a problem with it until much much later, over 12 centuries later. What part of norm don't you understand. The age of consent in America just 100 years ago was 10 years old. That was perfectly normal then. Just because they had a different social norm does not mean those Americans were suddenly barbaric. It'd be barbaric if some kind of abuse was involved. Instead of replying to the topic of social norms, you went off topic and brought up role models.

It doesn't matter that you don't care. People hit puberty at different times, and that is an indisputable fact. What happens in puberty? Our body becomes sexually mature and we are ready to reproduce. This is natural, not some man made rule like social norms are like.

Morality is not based solely on what you think is right and wrong. It is subjective from a human perspective. Certain areas are okay with it depending on puberty. That's their norm. As long as there is agreement and NO FORCING from all parties, and everyone is happy, it's none of your business.



Say in a hypothetical situation, people of the future view us as barbaric because we eat meat. That doesn't mean people of the future are in the right. I mean there are people now who think that. People in the present always say crap about people in the past. That's how it is. People in the present always assume they're better than their ancestors.

Uhm, when did I say it was okay to kill innocent people? I'm sure I didn't say such.

Did you read the information in the link? They had an agreement.

I think your bogus claims are what is sickening in this topic. You think about it from a sexual perspective when there is much more to a relationship than sex.

clearly we're going in circles here. but to me, the fact that you won't directly answer my question says a lot.

Are you actually serious? I did answer your question about my non-existent daughter. I said "That's not the social norm where I am, so I wouldn't."

The fact that you keep bringing up topics not related to the original topic tells me a lot.
Vote fuzala for President of the World.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:33:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are you actually serious? I did answer your question about my non-existent daughter. I said "That's not the social norm where I am, so I wouldn't."


ok, let me put it this way then: if you were living in 7th century arabia, would you marry off your 6 year old daughter to a 50 year old man, and then give him the ok to have sex with her when she was 9?
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:45:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:33:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Are you actually serious? I did answer your question about my non-existent daughter. I said "That's not the social norm where I am, so I wouldn't."


ok, let me put it this way then: if you were living in 7th century arabia, would you marry off your 6 year old daughter to a 50 year old man, and then give him the ok to have sex with her when she was 9?

Can't say for sure. I would assume the 7th century environment would influence my ideas and thoughts just like my ideas and thoughts are influenced by the 21st century environment. The idea horrifies me in today's context, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have a problem in a context where such was the norm.

Do I have to tell you about social norms again?
Vote fuzala for President of the World.
fuzala
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:49:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:33:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
Are you actually serious? I did answer your question about my non-existent daughter. I said "That's not the social norm where I am, so I wouldn't."


ok, let me put it this way then: if you were living in 7th century arabia, would you marry off your 6 year old daughter to a 50 year old man, and then give him the ok to have sex with her when she was 9?

In addition to the answer I just gave you:

"Before modern history, child marriage was a common practice found everywhere in the world. With the advent of 20th century, the practice began to be questioned, discouraged by a majority but not all governments, and child marriage practice has been declining across the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

You see what that says? EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, child marriage was a common practice during those times.

It was normal. Just because it's not normal now in some places holds no bearing.

Can't say for sure. I would assume the 7th century environment would influence my ideas and thoughts just like my ideas and thoughts are influenced by the 21st century environment. The idea horrifies me in today's context, but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have a problem in a context where such was the norm.

Do I have to tell you about social norms again?
Vote fuzala for President of the World.