Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Al-Ismailiyya]

Eh, you're in conflict with Christians by mere fact alone, that for Christians, Muhammad was (and IS) a False Prophet, who corrupted people with lies

That's not extremist, that's common, usual fact for literally all the Christians. So how can you even pretend to respect them?

It's possible to disagree with someone and respect them.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Well, Lower Nubia, I am going to end this waste of time argument between us before it turns into a flame war because we can't come to an agreement nor will we listen to one another. I can also tell, you are getting more and more angrier with each reply you make. I will no longer reply to you after this last reply by me. Peace.

He was kind to those that agreed with him, I showed this in subsequent hadith and historiography.

No you didn't. It wasn't with just those who agreed with him as I've shown in Shama'il Muhammadiya. He punished those who sought to create disorder in the land as the hadith and Qu'ranic verse you provide later on in your post and previous post admit. You are not a history expert.

I also never said that he was kind because he was rich, but that he gave much because he was rich. Learn the difference.

Same difference. Saying "he was rich" / "gave much because he was rich" is the same difference. That's basically what I meant in my posts.

, Euphemism: refers to a mild alternative, saying "worked his magic" is a euphemism for "working his talent", please learn this difference, I wasn't claiming he was a wizard. I mean for crying out loud, you're still stuck on this? My gosh. I placed it down to language, but twice?

I didn't claim he was a wizard either nor was I talking about that type of magic anyway. That's why I said magic is only an illusion. So yes, "working talent" is only an illusion. And that was the magic I was referring to, which you referred to as well. I know how deceivers work. There are plenty of examples. I'll even given modern examples of Christian so called "prophets" - Bob Larsen, and T.B. Joshua. Then, of course, what you've mentioned and will again mention later - Joseph Smith. Yes, I still consider Mormons Christians because of the fact they declare Jesus the Son of God and that he died on the cross despite their inconsistent theological doctrines (modalism in the Book of Mormon, but polytheism in the Pearl of Great Price: Book of Abraham).

EDIT - I'll concede that I confused the idiom for a magician. Sorry about not understanding.

I'm referring to HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS, all rulers are both kind and cruel. Honestly.

Ok, I can agree with this. Yes, it's human characteristics to be kind and cruel. That's irrefutable, but this comment does not disprove the prophethood of Muhammad. As I've said earlier, he was kind to everyone, but punished those who caused disorder in the land.

Thank you, with clarification like that, who needs books. (You'll notice his next little bit doesn't explain why it didn't collapse so... )

I did explain why it didn't collapse:

And besides, there's a difference between stealing from others and taking war spoils. Permission was granted to Muhammad by Allah because the Muslims were poor and didn't have much. They needed money to support their efforts. Besides, all of that went to charity. So what you said in Al-Tabari does not contradict the hadith I provided.

I will add on further to this quote.

You said in a previous comment, that they didn't take anything, because it was worse than carrion. Now you say they did take it, but gave it to charity, contradiction much?

I did not contradict myself. I explained in my previous post:

Plunder / Booty.

Different things. Taking booty is justified and it is not stealing as it was lawful for the Muslims, and it was given to the poor.

I'll add to this previous post:

-3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

I did not say it was worse than carrion, re-read the hadith I provided:

Āṣim bin Kulaib relates from his father that an Anṣārī Companion narrates that, we set out on a Ghazwah with the Holy Prophet. On one occasion, the people were struck by severe hunger and became very much distressed (since they had no provisions with them). Upon this they caught a few goats from a flock, slaughtered them and began cooking them. Our pots were boiling with their meat when the Holy Prophet arrived. The Holy Prophet immediately upset our pots with his bow and angrily began grinding the pieces of meat beneath his feet and exclaimed, ‘Plunder is no better than carrion.’”

So, what can we take from this hadith? The companions mentioned in this hadith were NOT authorized to STEAL from someone's flock. Besides, as the context of this hadith shows, the flock they plundered from is said not to be hostile. So therefore, it was not from a hostile force they took from, so there, this is unlawful. The commentary you provided in your first reply to me further explains the difference between the plundering mentioned in Sunan Dawud and the below mentioned, as well as what I've mentioned in Sahih Bukhari 335:

"They question thee with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (man) from the path of Allah…." This was revealed because the Messenger of God sent a detachment of seven men under the command of ‘Abd Allah B. Jahsh al-Asadi, consisting of ‘Ammar b. Yasir, Abu Hudhayfah b. ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, Sa‘d b. Abi Waqqas, ‘Utbah b. Ghazwan al-Sulami the confederate of the Banu Nawfal, Suhayl b. Bayda’, ‘Amir b. Fuhayrah and Waqid b. ‘Abd Allah al-Yarbu‘i the confederate of ‘Umar b. al-Khattab. He wrote a letter (which he gave) to Ibn Jahsh, ordering him not to read it until he halted at Batn Malal. When he halted at Batn Malal, he opened the letter, which read, "March until you halt at Batn Nakhlah." He said to his companions, "Whoever desires death, let him go on and make his will; I am making my will and acting on the orders of the Messenger of God." He went on, and Sa‘d b. Abi Waqqas and ‘Utbah b. Ghazwan, who had lost their riding-camel, stayed behind. They went to Buhran in search of it, while Ibn Jahsh went to Batn Nakhlah. Suddenly he encountered al-Hakam b. Kaysan, ‘Abd Allah b. Mughirah, al-Mughirah b. ‘Uthman, and ‘Amr b. al-Hadrami. They fought and took al-Hakam b. Kaysan and ‘Abdallah b. al-Mughirah captive, while al-Mughirah escaped and ‘Amr b. al-Hadrami was killed by Waqid b. ‘Abd Allah. This was the first booty taken by the companions of Muhammad. When they returned to Medina with the two captives and the property they had taken, the people of Mecca wanted to ransom the two captives. The Prophet said, "Let us see how our two companions fare." When Sa‘d and his companion returned, he released the two captives on payment of a ransom. The polytheists spread lying slander concerning him, saying, "Muhammad claims that he is following obedience to God, yet he is the first to violate the holy month and to kill our companion in Rajab." The Muslims said, "We killed him (in the previous month) Jumada." Some say it was on the first night of Rajab, and some say it was on the last night of Jumada and that the Muslims sheathed their swords when Rajab began. God revealed in rebuke of the Meccans, "They question thee with regard to warfare in the sacred month." The History of Al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community, Volume VII, pp. 21-23

The context I've underlined and bolded shows that the booty taken from the Meccans was during warfare, including that during the sacred month. And like I said, this was made lawful:

-3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

What happened in Sunan Dawud wasn't lawful:

Āṣim bin Kulaib relates from his father that an Anṣārī Companion narrates that, we set out on a Ghazwah with the Holy Prophet. On one occasion, the people were struck by severe hunger and became very much distressed (since they had no provisions with them). Upon this they caught a few goats from a flock, slaughtered them and began cooking them. Our pots were boiling with their meat when the Holy Prophet arrived. The Holy Prophet immediately upset our pots with his bow and angrily began grinding the pieces of meat beneath his feet and exclaimed, ‘Plunder is no better than carrion.’”

There was no fighting mentioned in this hadith so what the companions did was illegal. So this adds to my statement that there is a difference between plundering and getting booty as I've explained in the situations above. There is no contradiction. Read them for yourself.

Besides If it all went to charity, how could it support their efforts? How did they get camels? Swords? Armour? Horses?

The companions could've brought them?

Where did all of this come from, how do you raid a caravan without some weapons? Weaponry and Armour as well as transport is expensive.

You are confusing raiding caravans with taking booty from rival tribes after certain battles. Besides, many caravans from what I recall were hardly even armed?

Wow, it's as if you have a block

The same thing could apply to yourself. Just by reading your post in its later portions regarding Muhammad's wives.

if it is true, it refutes your whole argument

Well, I've read the commentary in its full context so, no it does not refute my argument, and I've explained earlier in this post.

, because if the Banu had won rather than Islam, today we would say that Muhammad struck first. See how that works?

Yes. But it doesn't strengthen any of your points either. Especially since I've explained the commentary earlier in this post.

Did I say it did? or did you make a leap there?

I'm just going at your conclusion that Muhammad is somehow a false prophet. So yes, I did make a leap. And yes, you did say he was a false prophet:

This is an Islamic discussion thread, they’re going to paint their prophet as the nicest of guys. Honestly, if he was alive and working his magic today, he’d be done for a number of crimes. The reality is that he was the same as every other leader or king - even warlord, they can be kind, but also cruel. He plundered trade caravans, he gave out unreasonably cruel punishments (the Quran even has to correct his cruelty) as well as other curious qualities such as invoking polygamy, the man had 11 wives at one point, kissing pagan rocks and a cut of income from conquests for himself, amongst other things... He provides himself a number of exemptions from normal Muslim rules and many perks (increased polygamy, the old “God told me that she should by my wife”) and other things.

The underlined portion is the same thing as saying he was a false prophet. And that's even your conclusion for every single point you make. That's where all your allegations and hatred for Muhammad stem from.

Any evidence for your claim there?

Yes.

While I did say Muhammad earlier, in reality it was Allah himself.

1. The Sandstorm during the Battle of Badr
2. Spitting into Ali's eye and healing it.
3. Angel's casting fear into the Meccan's hearts during Uhud.
4. Rain and wind during the Battle of the Trench.
5. the Qu'ran itself. I can think of many examples how liars have conquered vast territory. So this statement is as valueless as sand on a beach.

The underlined portions are the divine help promised to Muhammad in the Qu'ran and what happened later on.

This refutes your whole point above, Islam needed military supplies to conquer the: "heavily armed pagan tribes", where did the poor Muslims get their supplies from I wonder? *cough* raided the caravans *cough*.

The underlined portion of "heavily armed pagan tribes" did not refute my point. Sources for that?

How convenient, the issue with this however, is that the Muslims weren't as weak as you make them out to be

Lol, that's not me. That's from the sources I'm getting this information from: The Qu'ran and several commentaries. And are you sure about that?

, and quite frankly, Muhammad lost many battles. His prophethood was won in combat, tells you all you need to know about the kind and earnest Muhammad. That he was confirmed in war.

Not just combat. It's also divine prophecies being fulfilled.

Besides the point, his prophethood was proven in Qu'ran 30:3-4 on the Romans winning over the Persians in 624 while most scholars say this surah was revealed in 615.

So, saying that his prophethood was won in combat is only part of the story.

I did:

"A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.") (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)

The Quran then provides in Surah 5:33-34 the following statement:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

What else could this mean? Clearly Muhammad was corrected for his cruelty to the tribesmen. If the revelation happened after, he contradicts Allah, if it happened before, it was revealed to curb this punishment.

No it wasn't. You don't even know what you're talking about. I can prove that because none of the commentaries I've read including that of Ibn Kathir supports your arguments.

David and Solomon aren't prophets, their kings

Aww yeah, I forgot. The Tanakh's version of David and Solomon are kings. I can't speak for Solomon of the Bible, but nevertheless, since you are a Christian, I will provide proof from your Christian Scriptures that David was in fact a prophet:

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

The Greek supports this as well:

prophétés: a prophet (an interpreter or forth-teller of the divine will)
Original Word: προφήτης, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: prophétés
Phonetic Spelling: (prof-ay'-tace)
Short Definition: a prophet, poet
Definition: a prophet, poet; a person gifted at expositing divine truth.

So, here your Bible contradicts itself. Because in Samuel, David had a prophet to guide him - Nathan, but here in Acts 2:29-30, David is called a prophet.

Anyway,

You might say, well doesn't that vindicate Muhammad's numerous wives? No. This issue was far reduced by the time of Muhammad, food was more plentiful, which is illustrated by the skeletal qualities of post Roman peoples. Along with a far larger and thus sustained population, which meant collapse of soceity was less likely to occur. The legitimisation of yesteryear were no longer. Proven, in part, by Christian kingdoms, where the sociological failures of ANE had been overcome by the far larger food supplies and population centers - as an over simplification.

That's not the reason why Muhammad had multiple wives. If you say, "That's not the point" to me in reply to what I've just said, then you really need to work on your arguments better because you're not making any sense at all.

I think what needs to explained here, is that Prophets after the revelation to Moses on the mount.

Not the point.

In particular the establishment of the Jewish priesthood. Even then the number of wives is much reduced to usually 2, or non at all, not 11, as well as the cultural issues involved with makes this practice a necessity.

Well, Muhammad wasn't a Jewish priest? Irrelevant.

But why did they need to mary Muhammad specifically, why not marry an unmarried faithful Muslim instead?

He did. Her name is Aisha bint Abu Bakr.

The issue with claiming there was reduced number of men because of war, illustrates a pertinent point, why did they not go to the husbands family?

Simply because they chose to marry Muhammad? Besides, who would they go to if your latter statement about the husband's family?

Why did they need to be married?

It was their own choice to marry Muhammad according to hadith.

and married to someone already wed of all people.

Again, it was their own choice.

Was their common faith not enough?

What does that got to do with anything?

Was their allegiance to Muhammad and likewise his prophethood status not already a powerful unifying quality?

Are you really saying that?

Like I said, if this was the culturally done thing, then Allah has submitted to Arabian practices by allowing multiple wives.

Yeah, as if you totally ignored my earlier comment:

No. Having 4 wives is a privilege. If you cannot handle more than 1 wife, then go with one.

I know you answered this later on in your post, but for this part, you for sure did.

So again, cultural acceptance of multiple marriages to support alliances, why is this a necessity?

Why not?

An example is Muhammad could have corrected this method of alliances or non-agression by having it in writ, or support, not women. This is clearly a cultural reason.

He did do non aggression pacts with several tribes:

[9:7] How can there be a treaty of these idolaters with Allah and His Messenger, except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So, as long as they stand true to you, stand true to them. Surely, Allah loves those who are righteous.

[8:62] And if they incline towards peace, incline thou also towards it, and put thy trust in Allah. Surely, it is He Who is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

This is about treaties with pagan tribes ALONE. Also, let's not forget the Constitution of Medina bringing peace to tribes (in Medina).

4. Again, to help teach the Ummah of Islam.

How does it help teach Islam?

They narrated several ahadith. As I've said earlier, Aisha narrated many.

Do you understand how arguments work?

Yes I do. Do you understand how arguments work yourself?

You make premises which strictly relate to the conclusion let me illustrate:

1) The sky at night is black.
2)The sky is currently not black.
∴ It is currently not night.

See how the premises pertain to the conclusion?

That doesn't even make sense, nor does it pertain to the forth point I made.

Let's try your argument:

1)Polygyny is revealed.
2)Muhammad takes additional wives.
∴ The Ummah of Islam is helped in being taught.

What about these premises and argument illustrates that Muhammad's marriages aided the ummah? This isn't logically necessary, therefore it collapses

It didn't collapse. Besides, my points were pretty simple and your above quotes make no sense at all. My points make way more sense than your rhetoric that you are showing me right now.

I could put anything in premise two and this argument would work:

1)Polgyny is rebuked.
2)Muhammad maintains a singular marriage.
∴ The Ummah of Islam is helped in being taught.

Irrelevant.

What about the first one makes it more effective in helping Islam? If it is because it helps the Arabian tribes join Islam because Muhammad can ally to them in marriage, then Islam has succomb to pre-Islamic Arabian practices, thus, so has the Quran.

:facepalm:

Not just marriages. It was a variety of factors.

Didn't say it was

Maybe not, but you brought in the topic of prophesy:

For political alliances? This is something he could of corrected with his prophesy, that alliances should be given in writ, not women.

,

but why does it exist in this format? Why multiple wives?

I've explained earlier.

This serves no purpose, your people arn't happier, stronger, wiser.

What does that got to do with Islam? Again, with your rhetoric. And as a matter in fact, many of Muhammad's wives' hadith are compiled in several hadith books. This in no way disproves Islam. Besides, who said that the Muslims were happier, stronger, and wiser? You did. They educated the Ummah and several of Muhammad's companions, for example, often asked Aisha about several traditions of her husband. You have no real argument. Using your own question, Do you know how an argument works?

They're non of these things, so why does it exist?

It's been explained.

Why did Muhammad reciprocate the Arabian practice of multiple alliances by multiple marriages?

Also explained.

Why was Muhammad made exempt from this?

[33:51] O Prophet, We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has given thee as gains of war, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle, and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle, and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who have emigrated with thee, and any other believing woman if she offers herself for marriage to the Prophet provided the Prophet desires to marry her; this is only for thee, as against other believers — We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess — in order that there may be no difficulty for thee in the discharge of thy work. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

It's really that simple.

The problem is that that is a very specific event which may or may not require a specific answer, but Polygyny is still available to Islam even when the population is 50/50. This specific event does not justify that quality.

I cannot speak for the Muslims of today, but going back to Muhammad's era, the last time I checked, many of the former husbands of Muhammad's wives were killed in battle or they were divorced. They weren't going to go marry other people because the majority of the Arabian peninsula around this time was still pagan. Marriage is heavily encouraged in Islam as it is the Sunnah of Muhammad. You may not like this, but they chose to marry Muhammad and not anyone else. This is a simple and comprehendible answer. If this answer still does not satisfy you, then you are wasting your time with me.

Another problem with this, is that it's simply not true. The majority of a populace at this time was built around farming and herding, 90% of the population at this time did this.

So what's that gotta do with marriage?

the number of men in the army should be exceedingly few, in comparison to the number of people who are not in it, which means the number of widowed women should also be very few.

As I've said earlier, the Muslims were quite small compared to the vast majority of pagans. Especially before the conquest of Mecca. So your argument destroys itself because there really was a few Muslims in comparison with various pagans. Especially around the time that the Surah 33 was revealed.

So why is their such a disparity between the allowed number of men and wives, up to four wives, would allow a maximum of a 1 to 4 ratio, which is statistically never going to happen, so why is it arbitrarily set to four?

Explain your statistic argument.

Four is the maximum number of wives a Muslim (excluding Muhammad) can have. Do I know why it was set to four? No, but I will say it is because of the state of Muslim society at the time of when al-Nisa 4:4 was revealed. Besides, this Surah doesn't enjoin polygamy nor does it permit it unconditionally:

[4:4] And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice.

Scholars say that this verse was revealed following the battle of Uhud. 70 of the women's husbands out of 700 Muslims were killed in battle and many of their wives as a result, became widows. And like I said, if you want to argue that because the population was 50/50 does not justify this verse, you forget that the Muslims were still small in numbers when this verse was revealed. Especially compared with the vast pagans surrounding them. Arab cultural traditions have absolutely nothing to do with this verse. Your argument therefore is irrelevant.

Why do other countries during this not need to adopt this quality?

Before I answer, which nations are you referring to? The Byzantines? The Persians? The Chinese?

If only a few would be made widows, then why do they need to be remarried?

Many became poor, and they could not manage a family without the aid of a husband.

Why can't they live their lives on the husbands families side?

Who's going to provide for them? Who exactly of the husband's families is going to help out the widows?

Clearly this practice is a carry over from the original Arabian practices

Incorrect as I've explained on al-Nisa 4:4.

, thus, Islam has, again, submitted to local cultural traditions, rather than Allah.

No they haven't.

Why does it not illustrate this by confirming that if a wife be made a widow in battle, she is to be cared for beyond remarriage?

I've told you already.

Rather than just a blanket statement on the matter concerning all women.

Where did I say all Muslim women?

Why didn't Muhammad provide places for women to live out their lives as widows?

The circumstances in Arabia I've mentioned earlier didn't allow this. Though after his death, Muhammad's wives did have their own homes.

In the form of monasteries? As an example.

Because they had their own homes already?

I am not sure what you meant by that.

Reciprocate, if Polygyny is allowed, so should polyandry. Plenty of women die in Child birth, during times of peace the number of women should logically be lower. Why not allow marriage the other way, by your reasoning.

Give me one hadith where a single Muslim woman died in childbirth.

Men are the heads of the household. Not women. That is why polyandry isn't prescribed. If this answer doesn't satisfy you, then, you are again wasting your time on useless questions.

Human beings contradicting God, that's you argument? That's a bad argument.

It's not a bad argument. I used Solomon and David as examples because you were using a nonsense argument about Jesus contradicting Muhammad and therefore, the conclusion is Muhammad is in the wrong. You gave the circumstances for Jewish society and I gave the circumstances for Muslim society around the time of al-Nisa.

It was also not the point, again, if Jesus revealed from God that multiple wives was allowed, how did the society get this so drastically wrong so quickly?

Not sure?

If Jesus said one man for one woman (which is was it historically accpeted by all scholars), then Jesus contradicted Muhammad. Yet seeing as they were both from Allah, how could this be justified?

Look, all I'm going to say is that during the time of al-Nisa, 70 women were left without husbands after Uhud. They needed someone to care for them. I'm not sure for the time of Jesus, so I guess I'll go with your explanation of the world population around his time?

What about the first century makes it so wildly different to the 6th century? Why is polygamy now viable in the 6th as in the 1st? Your answer is just special pleading.

I've explained above.

You were doing the exact same thing when you tried to attack me on "logic".

"Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you." Sahih al-Bukhari, book 2, volume 667.

Thanks for admitting that kissing stones isn't pagan.

:roll: , How have you managed to do this? How have you managed to contradict yourself so much?

I didn't. I've explained to you at the top of this post why I did not contradict myself.

how did he gain the booty... with plunder. See how that works.

I've explained the context of the situations narrated in Sunan Dawud and al-Tabari.

He also gave to those willing to follow him as Allah's apostle, he didn't give charity to anyone, which clearly illustrates a kindness to your own mentality.

Not sure what you meant by this.

Rich rulers that give all in charity, are not rich for long, but if Muhamamd was rich, he clearly didn't give too much away did he?

Nor did he make luxurious mansions out of it. He gave as much as he could for the better of the poor and needy.

He gave much, because he had much. That's how wealth works, the more you have, the more you can give away, without hurting your income.

No. He gave wealth because that was what he DID as an individual. It's not about being rich. It's about being kind. Besides, several times in the Qu'ran and hadith it's mentioned to give to the poor and needy.

And of course you don't want to live on this planet anymore because you aren't succeeding in trying to convince me that Islam is wrong. All you're doing is throwing numerous allegations and stupid questions at me and expect me to answer every single one of them (which you got your wish). That's not how an argument works. The reason you are asking these numerous questions is simple: It is to silence me.

No, If Islam and Mormonism make the same claims, how do we know which one is right? Because if they make the same claims, they are therefore both proven true, which is not logically possible.

Islamic and Mormon polygamy are two different things. Using your own words, Learn the difference.

If Islam and Mormonism use the same examples to justify their teachings, then why can't I call the criticism against Mormons also against Islam? Is their some reason that that is not logically possible?

Name one reference from any of Joseph Smith's works that is similar to that of the Qu'ran in Surah 4 and 33.

No, but the claim that Muhammad's polygamy was legitimised because of they were "Mothers of the faithful" is not logically relevant let me again demonstrate, seeing as you have such a hard time with logic.

You have just as much of a hard time trying to comprehend simple things. It's like I'm talking to wall. I've provided further explanation earlier in the thread.

1) The sky at night is black.
2)The sky is currently not black.
∴ It is currently not night.

So how does this argument work:

1)Muhammad has multiple wives.
2)The women were of the faithful.
∴ Muhammad additional marriages were legitimised.

The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

[33:51] O Prophet, We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has given thee as gains of war, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle, and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle, and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who have emigrated with thee, and any other believing woman if she offers herself for marriage to the Prophet provided the Prophet desires to marry her; this is only for thee, as against other believers — We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess — in order that there may be no difficulty for thee in the discharge of thy work. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

Why have I provided the above? Because your argument makes no sense to me

Neither does your so called "logic".

, because Christians are monogamous in marriage, so when the same argument is provided but in Christian Marriage, it illustrates clearly why the argument fails. Why the premises have nothing to do with the conclusion, show, how the position is logically valid. Why did Muhammad get more wives than the other Muslims were allowed?

[33:51] O Prophet, We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has given thee as gains of war, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle, and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle, and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who have emigrated with thee, and any other believing woman if she offers herself for marriage to the Prophet provided the Prophet desires to marry her; this is only for thee, as against other believers — We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess — in order that there may be no difficulty for thee in the discharge of thy work. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

, You can't just say it's an irrelevant question. That's literally not how discussion occurs.

Neither does asking many absurd questions at once.

Why? Because He was the prophet? Very hypocritical that he is annulled from his very own rules.

[33:51] O Prophet, We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has given thee as gains of war, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle, and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle, and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who have emigrated with thee, and any other believing woman if she offers herself for marriage to the Prophet provided the Prophet desires to marry her; this is only for thee, as against other believers — We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess — in order that there may be no difficulty for thee in the discharge of thy work. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

Then why was it done?

Since you have a hard time with simple answers, I will again say: They chose to marry Muhammad

This doesn't answer my objection, what about polygamous marriage makes it valid? Besides, I thought it was because there was a male deficit? If this form of marriage is a privilege, why can't women have more than one husband? Is that not their privilege?

Just stop with the questions already. You're not even going anywhere with these. I've answered these several times and you still aren't satisfied.

Dealt with your "explanations".

And it isn't a very good dealing either. Especially of what I've said above.

No, that's not how that works, Christianity makes marriage one man, one woman, because it logically follows from God's created order.

Yes it is how it works. Christianity doesn't apply to Islam.

Just because the Quran says they are faithful, how does that legitimise multiple marriages? Who cares if they were happy? Besides this isn't true at all:

Aisha is recorded as syaing. "He said: 'So you were the black shape that I saw in front of me?' I said, 'Yes.' He struck me on the chest, which caused me pain, then he said: ‘Did you think that Allah and His Messenger would deal unjustly with you?'" Sahih Muslim Volume 2, Book 4, Number 2127

I know this hadith and it does not prove that Aisha had an unhappy marriage with Muhammad. If that were so, we would have more of these. Besides, this hadith is out of character for Muhammad as several other hadiths go against this one.

Doesn't answer my question.

Because nothing can satisfy you.

Blessed refutation, with this new knowledge, I will amend my ways.

I know this is sarcasm, but clearly you haven't.

The universal rule about prophets, they die destitute and alone, not wealthy - not powerful.

What? Moses, David, and Solomon would like to differ with you.

I mean, David and Solomon weren't prophets. I'll give you this one. .[/quote]
Acts 2 says David was in fact a prophet. I can't say for the Biblical Solomon however.

Attempted? Were they blocked by his family? Did he actually get stoned though? No? So your point is irrelevant.

He escaped. And the stoning reference was relevant. It was to prove he was persecuted.

In that he suffered little persecution, not even imprisonment.

He may have not been imprisoned, but it doesn't negate the fact he was heavily persecuted. So this argument is irrelevant.

What?! How is this persecution? He was made the ruler of Medina!

And?

His uncle protected him on many occasions against the Meccans. At any rate, against, is not the same as giving him up to the authorities.

Irrelevant. His uncle eventually turned completely against him.

How protestant of you. I mean, no you haven't.

Yes I did. Several times.

There only extremists because they countered you, again, if they had won, rather than Islam, you'd be the extreme idolators. Call them by their true name.

No, because they were extremists. How hard is this for you to understand?

Attempt? Sounds positively like he wasn't actually stoned then.

It's a form of persecution nonetheless. To deny persecution is dishonesty.

And slandering me wasn't?

It wasn't slander. It was a fact.

And being made ruler of Medina was?

Where did I say being made ruler of Medina is a form of persecution? You hardly know what you're talking about.

Please, the man behind the myth and the remaining Caliphs weren't persecuted, nor did they die for their belief. Most Muslims have always been under the protection of their nation, it's easy. Many were martyred on all sides, but Islam has never had mass persecution against it. It has almost always been under the protection of the state.

Tell that to Pakistan: They persecute Ahmadis and Shi'ites and even Christians.

No, just that it has no bearing on this conversation.

It actually does, but you chose to ignore it. Besides, it was my reply to Geniviev anyway before you came in, countering his "sounds like a cool prophet" when he replied to that small reference I made out of that hadith. So, yes, this hadith is part of the conversation.

The only impressive one on that list is number 2, which I am going to need a citation for.

Sure thing. Sahih Bukhari 3009 (Sunnah.com)

The rest are about as coincidental as that time I'd said there would be a tornado in Birmingham, and then a day later there was a tornado. However, I can think of similar miracles performed by Christians, Mormons, Hindu's. Lot's of groups have miracles with them, Muhammad's seem a little... lax...

Not coincidental. These miracles were mentioned in the Qu'ran in the form of thousands of angels who controlled the weather.

I said that, because you slandered me:

The so called "other side" has no real arguments. Just an angry backlash because they're afraid their lies against Islam will be exposed or that their religion will shrink.

Every claim you made was misleading and dishonest.

How else am i to respond to you hurling elephants across the room. An angry backlash? Dishonest and misleading?! besides, look below.

I said that because it is the truth. Why did I say that? Because you didn't confront me when you first came on this thread. What did you do? You went straight to Geniviev to tell him to "listen to the other side" because you knew he was ignorant of Islam. If you really were honest in your arguments, you would've confronted me instead on your first post. Either way, we are arguing, but I'm still going to make my point clear.

Never said it did, just meant his open arms during visitors was irrelevant.

Please, I was not referring to not listening or furthering discussion. I wasn't referring to being willfully nescient of Muhammads qualities, just that your source for how he welcomed his guests was totally irrelevant.

No. It was relevant. That hadith I mentioned from Shama'il Muhammadiya describes Muhammad's personality. Everything you said was cases only during times when some people made war against him. Those cases are not relevant to the hadith I provided.

I wasn't claiming he was, it was hyperbole for standard Muslim discussion on Muhammad's qualities.

I know. Still, going to make that point. I've never seen any Muslims who closely studies the Qu'ran and hadith say that Muhammad was somehow a liberal progressive and 21st Century-like.

You clearly don't, seeing as I've had to repeat myself multiple times.

Actually I do. I just simply don't agree with your absurd opinions.

This assumes Muhammad has anything valuable to say, which 78% of the planet thinks he doesn't. Not that majority opnion means anything, however, from my position Muhammad was wrong and is leading people away from God. He is not above criticism or proper discussion about his persons. Nor infact ahve you shown my "allegations" to be false either.

I actually have shown that your allegations are false several times. Especially in the beginning where I showed how you're wrong for accusing me of contradicting myself.

Please. My faith has made far more successful, far more logical and sensible outpourings than Islam has.

Did Christianity invent coffee? Did Christianity make the first lens for a camera? Did Christianity make the first constitution? Does Christianity have guidance on how to run a government? If you're wondering why I'm asking all of these. I'm using your tactics.

For example, why was Mary a virgin?

Mary was a virtuous woman and heavily guarded her chastity according to Surah Maryam (19), which is named after her. The point of the Qu'ran's reference to her was to bear witness to her truth and Jesus's prophethood.

The Mormon argument is a comparison between it and Islam, they both have the exact same arguments

No they do not.

, but both of them can't be true. Therefore, there arguments must be wrong. they both claim that their Holy books are true, because both their founders were illiterate, but created such vast works. Along with many other arguments.

Joseph Smith was not illiterate. He wrote the Book of Mormon. It may have had bad grammar in its first edition, but that doesn't make him illiterate.

It's that bit I wanted you to look below to, stings being a massive hypocrite doesn't it?

Not sure how that makes me hypocritical.

Besides "hahahahaha" Isn't a refutation of what I said, because it was most applicable to yours.

I never said it was. I was just laughing at your silly mockery and your attempts to compare Islam with other religions.

I did in the form of citations and logical proof.

No. You did in fact provide citations, but you put your OWN personal opinions on top of them. A great example is that hadith about the tribe of Ukil and Qu'ran 5:33-34. Your opinions are irrelevant to Islam. Your opinions mean nothing and they're only hate-filled comments. Nothing more needs to be said about them.

Just because you've had your dreams narrated by Islamic dream discerners, doesn't make them fact.

It does.

I'm all for interfaith dialogue, so visiting your founders grave should be an opportunity for educating and reflecting upon myself, In this world of reciprocation, in dialogue if you'd like to visit Christ's grav... oh wait a minute. (I agree this was petty, shameful and mockery, but I couldn't resist)

You mean in Kashmir, India? Yeah, maybe someday I will.

I mean, you're founder isn't really Muhammad is it? He's just the first of another.

False. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the messiah of this age. He has come to bear witness of the truth of Muhammad. He is not "first of another".

Anyway, again, Lower Nubia, arguing with you is a waste of time. We aren't going to come to an agreement so I bid you farewell.

[25:64] And the servants of the Gracious God are those who walk on the earth in a dignified manner, and when the ignorant address them, they say, ‘Peace!’

[/quote]

7,833 words.

Congrats, you beat my fan fics. Have a herp hug.

[Genivaria]

Eh, you're in conflict with Christians by mere fact alone, that for Christians, Muhammad was (and IS) a False Prophet, who corrupted people with lies

That's not extremist, that's common, usual fact for literally all the Christians. So how can you even pretend to respect them?

It's possible to disagree with someone and respect them.

I can name 3 people on my friends list who I strongly disagree with.
Washington Resistance Army
The East Marches
Luminesa

[Mujahidah]

Eh, you're in conflict with Christians by mere fact alone, that for Christians, Muhammad was (and IS) a False Prophet, who corrupted people with lies

That's not extremist, that's common, usual fact for literally all the Christians. So how can you even pretend to respect them?

Because normal people are capable of respecting people despite disagreements. You should try it sometime.

[Jolthig]

Well, thanks, Herp.

That post was possibly my longest post on NS ever. Even longer than those when I used to role-play a lot on NS

[Valgora]

Why is the dude that survived the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and then was raped by his own daughters a prophet?
This is a serious question: Why would Lot be a prophet?

I think your thinking about the Biblical story, because that didn't happen in the Holy Qur'an.

According to Wikipedia:
"Lut (Arabic: لوط‎) in the Quran is considered to be the same as Lot in the Hebrew Bible. He is considered to be a messenger of God and a prophet of God.

In Islamic tradition, Lot lived in Ur and was a nephew of Ibrahim (Abraham). He migrated with Ibrahim to Canaan and was commissioned as a prophet to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. His story is used as a reference by some Muslims to demonstrate Islam's disapproval of homosexuality. He was commanded by Allah to go to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah to preach monotheism and to stop them from their lustful and violent acts. Lut's messages were ignored by the inhabitants, prompting Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. Though Lut left the city, his wife was asked to be left behind by angels hence died during the destruction."

There are differences; however, the basic premise is the same.

So now, can someone inform me why Lot is a prophet or was he just told to go somewhere and preach and that makes him a prophet?

[Al-Ismailiyya]

I think your thinking about the Biblical story, because that didn't happen in the Holy Qur'an.

According to Wikipedia:
"Lut (Arabic: لوط‎) in the Quran is considered to be the same as Lot in the Hebrew Bible. He is considered to be a messenger of God and a prophet of God.

In Islamic tradition, Lot lived in Ur and was a nephew of Ibrahim (Abraham). He migrated with Ibrahim to Canaan and was commissioned as a prophet to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. His story is used as a reference by some Muslims to demonstrate Islam's disapproval of homosexuality. He was commanded by Allah to go to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah to preach monotheism and to stop them from their lustful and violent acts. Lut's messages were ignored by the inhabitants, prompting Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. Though Lut left the city, his wife was asked to be left behind by angels hence died during the destruction."

There are differences; however, the basic premise is the same.

So now, can someone inform me why Lot is a prophet or was he just told to go somewhere and preach and that makes him a prophet?

That is the definition of a prophet Lut was said to have been sent by God to preach to Sodom and Gomorrah and attempt to cleanse them of their sinful ways.

[Al-Ismailiyya]

It's possible to disagree with someone and respect them.

I can name 3 people on my friends list who I strongly disagree with.
Washington Resistance Army
The East Marches
Luminesa

Luminesa is also someone I disagree with often but actually respect. It is possible.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I think your thinking about the Biblical story, because that didn't happen in the Holy Qur'an.

According to Wikipedia:
"Lut (Arabic: لوط‎) in the Quran is considered to be the same as Lot in the Hebrew Bible. He is considered to be a messenger of God and a prophet of God.

In Islamic tradition, Lot lived in Ur and was a nephew of Ibrahim (Abraham). He migrated with Ibrahim to Canaan and was commissioned as a prophet to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. His story is used as a reference by some Muslims to demonstrate Islam's disapproval of homosexuality. He was commanded by Allah to go to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah to preach monotheism and to stop them from their lustful and violent acts. Lut's messages were ignored by the inhabitants, prompting Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. Though Lut left the city, his wife was asked to be left behind by angels hence died during the destruction."

There are differences; however, the basic premise is the same.

So now, can someone inform me why Lot is a prophet or was he just told to go somewhere and preach and that makes him a prophet?

You said that Lut (AS) was raped by his daugthers, and no where in your explanation does it say that, nor is it in the Holy Qur'an.

As for your question, Lut (AS) was ordered by Allah (SWT) himself to preach, so yes, that would be prophethood. Also, 2 angels visited his (AS) house to warn him of the impending punishment, and that's also proof of prophethood.

[Valgora]

According to Wikipedia:
"Lut (Arabic: لوط‎) in the Quran is considered to be the same as Lot in the Hebrew Bible. He is considered to be a messenger of God and a prophet of God.

In Islamic tradition, Lot lived in Ur and was a nephew of Ibrahim (Abraham). He migrated with Ibrahim to Canaan and was commissioned as a prophet to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. His story is used as a reference by some Muslims to demonstrate Islam's disapproval of homosexuality. He was commanded by Allah to go to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah to preach monotheism and to stop them from their lustful and violent acts. Lut's messages were ignored by the inhabitants, prompting Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. Though Lut left the city, his wife was asked to be left behind by angels hence died during the destruction."

There are differences; however, the basic premise is the same.

So now, can someone inform me why Lot is a prophet or was he just told to go somewhere and preach and that makes him a prophet?

You said that Lut (AS) was raped by his daugthers, and no where in your explanation does it say that, nor is it in the Holy Qur'an.

"There are differences; however, the basic premise is the same."

Lot getting rapped by his daughters ain't what I was considering the basic premise. It's just someone thing I usually say when talking about Lot and/or Sodom and Gomorrah due to how weird it is that the Bible includes incestuous rape of a man by his daughters.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Well, thanks, Herp.

That post was possibly my longest post on NS ever. Even longer than those when I used to role-play a lot on NS

No problem!

Speaking of Rping, your post was longer than the op of World baseball classic 42, my roster, and my first RP combined.

viewtopic.php?p=33367017#p33367017

viewtopic.php?p=33367080#p33367080

viewtopic.php?p=33367130#p33367130

[Shazbotdom]

So, I wonder what the opinions are in this thread of a certain organization.

Through my church, we assist an organization called Musalaha that seeks to assist those within Israel and Palestine in reconciliation of the past and promoting a peaceful future where everyone can get along.

Would you be something that y'all could get behind?

[Aillyria]

So, I wonder what the opinions are in this thread of a certain organization.

Through my church, we assist an organization called Musalaha that seeks to assist those within Israel and Palestine in reconciliation of the past and promoting a peaceful future where everyone can get along.

Would you be something that y'all could get behind?

No.

[New Emeline]

So, I wonder what the opinions are in this thread of a certain organization.

Through my church, we assist an organization called Musalaha that seeks to assist those within Israel and Palestine in reconciliation of the past and promoting a peaceful future where everyone can get along.

Would you be something that y'all could get behind?

No.

Why not?

[Shazbotdom]

So, I wonder what the opinions are in this thread of a certain organization.

Through my church, we assist an organization called Musalaha that seeks to assist those within Israel and Palestine in reconciliation of the past and promoting a peaceful future where everyone can get along.

Would you be something that y'all could get behind?

No.

And why not? Wouldn't promoting peace and attempting to end hundreds of years of conflict be a noble cause?

It would be something that the government's have been unable to accomplish.

[Aillyria]

No.

Why not?

Israel is the enemy of all Muslims, especially the Palestinians. Of course, I'm not Palestinian, so if they make peace with the people who stole their land, that's their business. I wouldn't support it personally though.

[Mujahidah]

Why not?

Israel is the enemy of all Muslims, especially the Palestinians. Of course, I'm not Palestinian, so if they make peace with the people who stole their land, that's their business. I wouldn't support it personally though.

As much as I agree with you, its not exactly economical, practical, nor necessarily moral to evict all Jewish Israelis from the region. If I had my way, in an idea world, it'd be Palestine from the river to the sea - better yet the UN never would have partitioned the place. Sadly there's no way of doing this effectively, in my view, without resorting to some seriously bad stuff. An equitable peace process with strict provisions for Palestinian sovereignty, no Jewish domination of Israel, and the removal of settlers from Palestinian land is the best bet.

[Cekoviu]

I have a question for the Muslims here (forgive me if this has already been asked): What do you think of LGBT people and the LGBT rights movement? How does it fit with or conflict with your interpretation of Islam?

[Kubumba Tribe]

I have a question for the Muslims here (forgive me if this has already been asked): What do you think of LGBT people and the LGBT rights movement? How does it fit with or conflict with your interpretation of Islam?

أعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطانِ الرَّجيم، بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحيم

LGBT people are fine, depends on the person. LGBTism, however, is haram for a Muslim to support. We should not be doing things that are against our Deen. At the same time, we should not be ostracizing anyone - especially our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters - who may be LGB. This video explains: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o0oxJ-wfJZo
Also, I'd like to point out that LBGTism is haram and the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah speak against it. It's not a personal interpretation to say this, to say this is to be in line with Al-Islam.

As for the peacemaking between the Zionists and Palestine, I see it as pointless. The Native Americans tried making peace with the European colonizers up and down North and South America, and look at what happened to them. Making 'peace' with people who your demise will not solve anything. I wish the Zionist state were never created, but at the same time, the Jews should be allowed to live where they wish. I just believe that all of Palestine restored to its borders prior to the Zionist invasion. Insha-Allah, that'll come.

[Cekoviu]

I have a question for the Muslims here (forgive me if this has already been asked): What do you think of LGBT people and the LGBT rights movement? How does it fit with or conflict with your interpretation of Islam?

أعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطانِ الرَّجيم، بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحيم

LGBT people are fine, depends on the person. LGBTism, however, is haram for a Muslim to support. We should not be doing things that are against our Deen. At the same time, we should not be ostracizing anyone - especially our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters - who may be LGB. This video explains: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o0oxJ-wfJZo
Also, I'd like to point out that LBGTism is haram and the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah speak against it. It's not a personal interpretation to say this, to say this is to be in line with Al-Islam.

As for the peacemaking between the Zionists and Palestine, I see it as pointless. The Native Americans tried making peace with the European colonizers up and down North and South America, and look at what happened to them. Making 'peace' with people who your demise will not solve anything. I wish the Zionist state were never created, but at the same time, the Jews should be allowed to live where they wish. I just believe that all of Palestine restored to its borders prior to the Zionist invasion. Insha-Allah, that'll come.

By LGBTism, you mean engaging in gay relationships or transitioning?

[Kubumba Tribe]

أعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطانِ الرَّجيم، بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحيم

LGBT people are fine, depends on the person. LGBTism, however, is haram for a Muslim to support. We should not be doing things that are against our Deen. At the same time, we should not be ostracizing anyone - especially our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters - who may be LGB. This video explains: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o0oxJ-wfJZo
Also, I'd like to point out that LBGTism is haram and the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah speak against it. It's not a personal interpretation to say this, to say this is to be in line with Al-Islam.

As for the peacemaking between the Zionists and Palestine, I see it as pointless. The Native Americans tried making peace with the European colonizers up and down North and South America, and look at what happened to them. Making 'peace' with people who your demise will not solve anything. I wish the Zionist state were never created, but at the same time, the Jews should be allowed to live where they wish. I just believe that all of Palestine restored to its borders prior to the Zionist invasion. Insha-Allah, that'll come.

By LGBTism, you mean engaging in gay relationships or transitioning?

Yes.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

No.

Why not?

Peace is not an option Israel supports.

Two-state solution is hardly a solution.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Why not?

Peace is not an option Israel supports.

Two-state solution is hardly a solution.

It's already been tried twice and didn't work, what makes people think it'll work this time?

[Mujahidah]

By LGBTism, you mean engaging in gay relationships or transitioning?

Yes.

Not everyone agrees with you on the latter.

[Geneviev]

Yes.

Not everyone agrees with you on the latter.

What do you mean?