Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Genivaria]

Alright, I miss-sited the author, but muslim is hardly unreliable.

Never said that. Just correcting you

Now I don't envy the task of defending Muhammad, as it becomes impossible in the great run at least from a moral perspective

No it doesn't

So then you support Muhammad participating in the slave trade?

[Conserative Morality]

Mathematics does include letters once you get into algebra.

4x + 5y = 24
6x + 3y = 36

BEHOLD. A BASIC SYSTEM OF EQUATIONS IN ALGEBRA.

Algebra!

Yet another proof that the Muslims are up to no good!

[Genivaria]

He also married a nine year old, so....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZRKaHS7YQc

What is this supposed to prove?

Code: Select all

The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[11] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Never said that. Just correcting you

No it doesn't

1: Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) isn't white, he's Arab
2: Do y'all have a problem with asking more qualified Muslim scholars about Islamic stuff?

You haven’t corrected a single thing he’s said. We don’t come here to go look at the website of some random imam. We’re here to debate with YOU. Now do you want to debate or not? Because it seems you don’t want to.

Actually, he wasn't a imam, I never said he was.
Go to a more qualified Muslim if you want an answer. I wasn't intending on debating anything, I just wanted to answer a question as best I could.

[Luminesa]

He also married a nine year old, so....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZRKaHS7YQc

How about you answer the accusation yourself?

[Genivaria]

You haven’t corrected a single thing he’s said. We don’t come here to go look at the website of some random imam. We’re here to debate with YOU. Now do you want to debate or not? Because it seems you don’t want to.

Actually, he wasn't a imam, I never said he was.
Go to a more qualified Muslim if you want an answer. I wasn't intending on debating anything, I just wanted to answer a question as best I could.

You are the second person who doesn't want to debate anything while on a debate forum.
Also 'Muslim' is not an occupation it is a denomination, so you are plenty 'qualified'.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Go to a qualified Muslim scholar for this question, and any others that you have questions about that we Muslim NSers might not be able to answer.

[Pilarcraft]

You haven’t corrected a single thing he’s said. We don’t come here to go look at the website of some random imam. We’re here to debate with YOU. Now do you want to debate or not? Because it seems you don’t want to.

Actually, he wasn't a imam, I never said he was.
Go to a more qualified Muslim if you want an answer. I wasn't intending on debating anything, I just wanted to answer a question as best I could.

you legit didn't answer anything tho. Like, it's this simple. Do you, from your own knowledge, believe Muhammad partook in the Slave Trade? and if so, how is he still Imago Dei with that fact considered?

[Luminesa]

You haven’t corrected a single thing he’s said. We don’t come here to go look at the website of some random imam. We’re here to debate with YOU. Now do you want to debate or not? Because it seems you don’t want to.

Actually, he wasn't a imam, I never said he was.
Go to a more qualified Muslim if you want an answer. I wasn't intending on debating anything, I just wanted to answer a question as best I could.

So a Muslim who actually has read their holy texts?

[Genivaria]

Go to a qualified Muslim scholar for this question, and any others that you have questions about that we Muslim NSers might not be able to answer.

Why? So we can hear the same vapid apologetics repeated in a condescending tone?

[Luminesa]

Go to a qualified Muslim scholar for this question, and any others that you have questions about that we Muslim NSers might not be able to answer.

No.

[Conserative Morality]

Go to a qualified Muslim scholar for this question, and any others that you have questions about that we Muslim NSers might not be able to answer.

Normally I'm here either as provocateur or defender since I feel Islam often gets an unfair shake, but I have to side with the opposition on this one. When confronted with opposition in a discussion, "Go talk to others" is not a defence; it is an admission that you have flaws in your argument that you have no interest in fixing. Try "I'll have to read up on that" or "I'm not sure, I'd have to think about it."

[Pilarcraft]

Go to a qualified Muslim scholar for this question, and any others that you have questions about that we Muslim NSers might not be able to answer.

you're the one who's showed up to talk about his religion though.
in this case, the question is really simple. Does Islam find Slavery Immoral? or does it not?

[Genivaria]

Go to a qualified Muslim scholar for this question, and any others that you have questions about that we Muslim NSers might not be able to answer.

Normally I'm here either as provocateur or defender since I feel Islam often gets an unfair shake, but I have to side with the opposition on this one. When confronted with opposition in a discussion, "Go talk to others" is not a defence; it is an admission that you have flaws in your argument that you have no interest in fixing. Try "I'll have to read up on that" or "I'm not sure, I'd have to think about it."

That would require compromising, even a little, that Al-Islam MIGHT be flawed which he can't violate because his entire foundation is based on that unfounded assumption.

[Pilarcraft]

Normally I'm here either as provocateur or defender since I feel Islam often gets an unfair shake, but I have to side with the opposition on this one. When confronted with opposition in a discussion, "Go talk to others" is not a defence; it is an admission that you have flaws in your argument that you have no interest in fixing. Try "I'll have to read up on that" or "I'm not sure, I'd have to think about it."

That would require compromising, even a little, that Al-Islam MIGHT be flawed which he can't violate because his entire foundation is based on that unfounded assumption.

Honestly, if he'd said "you're taking it out of context" or idk "it didn't mean that in 1400 years ago arabic" or some other generic bullshit like that, I wouldn't be so insulted.
"Go ask someone else" literally means "I don't know, and I don't want to."

[Alsheb]

Idk what that means, Allahu 'Alim.
1 thing I do know is that I'm not gonna take your slander of Prophet Muhammad's (SAWS) name.

alright this, this is what's wrong with Islam.
There is a Hadith. a Rawayat. that claims that Muhammad sold two Black Slaves to buy another Slave, then to presumably free him. This mean, obviously, that in this case, at least, Muhammad partook in Slave Trade.
Slavery is Immoral. (unless you disagree that Slavery is immoral?), and one would expect that the Image of God on Earth (aka, God's representative and messenger, who has Ismat and is infallible) wouldn't partake in an immoral action such as Slavery.
There are two possibilities. The Hadith is Doruq (a lie) or that the Hadith is, in fact, Sahih (since it appeared in a Sahih Book) and therefore probably trustworthy.
There's no Slander here. If that is correct, Muhammad isn't infallible because he partook in an immoral act at least once. IF that is false, then you can bring evidence that it is, in fact, false.

This could be an issue for Sunni Muslims who accept all Sahih books as undeniably true. Personally, I don't. And as such a hadith like that I would definitely call flawed and wrong, as it contradicts the very nature of the Prophet himself.

[Luminesa]

alright this, this is what's wrong with Islam.
There is a Hadith. a Rawayat. that claims that Muhammad sold two Black Slaves to buy another Slave, then to presumably free him. This mean, obviously, that in this case, at least, Muhammad partook in Slave Trade.
Slavery is Immoral. (unless you disagree that Slavery is immoral?), and one would expect that the Image of God on Earth (aka, God's representative and messenger, who has Ismat and is infallible) wouldn't partake in an immoral action such as Slavery.
There are two possibilities. The Hadith is Doruq (a lie) or that the Hadith is, in fact, Sahih (since it appeared in a Sahih Book) and therefore probably trustworthy.
There's no Slander here. If that is correct, Muhammad isn't infallible because he partook in an immoral act at least once. IF that is false, then you can bring evidence that it is, in fact, false.

This could be an issue for Sunni Muslims who accept all Sahih books as undeniably true. Personally, I don't. And as such a hadith like that I would definitely call flawed and wrong, as it contradicts the very nature of the Prophet himself.

A fair rebuttal. Though no idea if Kubumba is Sunni or not.

[Genivaria]

alright this, this is what's wrong with Islam.
There is a Hadith. a Rawayat. that claims that Muhammad sold two Black Slaves to buy another Slave, then to presumably free him. This mean, obviously, that in this case, at least, Muhammad partook in Slave Trade.
Slavery is Immoral. (unless you disagree that Slavery is immoral?), and one would expect that the Image of God on Earth (aka, God's representative and messenger, who has Ismat and is infallible) wouldn't partake in an immoral action such as Slavery.
There are two possibilities. The Hadith is Doruq (a lie) or that the Hadith is, in fact, Sahih (since it appeared in a Sahih Book) and therefore probably trustworthy.
There's no Slander here. If that is correct, Muhammad isn't infallible because he partook in an immoral act at least once. IF that is false, then you can bring evidence that it is, in fact, false.

This could be an issue for Sunni Muslims who accept all Sahih books as undeniably true. Personally, I don't. And as such a hadith like that I would definitely call flawed and wrong, as it contradicts the very nature of the Prophet himself.

This makes me think of how I talk to Catholics when they mention they don't follow Sola Scriptura, and I'm just dumbfounded at the notion because I was raised Baptist.

[Luminesa]

This could be an issue for Sunni Muslims who accept all Sahih books as undeniably true. Personally, I don't. And as such a hadith like that I would definitely call flawed and wrong, as it contradicts the very nature of the Prophet himself.

This makes me think of how I talk to Catholics when they mention they don't follow Sola Scriptura, and I'm just dumbfounded at the notion because I was raised Baptist.

We also have TRADITION!!! *Overflowing books everywhere.* : D

[Thomshafen]

If you people do indeed wish for knowledge on the topic it seems that you would have to deal with more knowledgeable people. The argument usually goes circular and is done with chattel slavery in mind, I myself cannot spare the time to answer but if you would telegram me I could actually bring you into contact with scholars who can answer properly and in more depth.

[Genivaria]

This makes me think of how I talk to Catholics when they mention they don't follow Sola Scriptura, and I'm just dumbfounded at the notion because I was raised Baptist.

We also have TRADITION!!! *Overflowing books everywhere.* : D

Is it bad that you reminded me of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRujuE-GIY4

[Genivaria]

If you people do indeed wish for knowledge on the topic it seems that you would have to deal with more knowledgeable people. The argument usually goes circular and is done with chattel slavery in mind, I myself cannot spare the time to answer but if you would telegram me I could actually bring you into contact with scholars who can answer properly and in more depth.

I've heard plenty of 'scholar's' prattle.

[Conserative Morality]

We also have TRADITION!!! *Overflowing books everywhere.* : D

Is it bad that you reminded me of this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRujuE-GIY4

is this a recording of Pope Leo X's reaction to Martin Luther

[Pilarcraft]

alright this, this is what's wrong with Islam.
There is a Hadith. a Rawayat. that claims that Muhammad sold two Black Slaves to buy another Slave, then to presumably free him. This mean, obviously, that in this case, at least, Muhammad partook in Slave Trade.
Slavery is Immoral. (unless you disagree that Slavery is immoral?), and one would expect that the Image of God on Earth (aka, God's representative and messenger, who has Ismat and is infallible) wouldn't partake in an immoral action such as Slavery.
There are two possibilities. The Hadith is Doruq (a lie) or that the Hadith is, in fact, Sahih (since it appeared in a Sahih Book) and therefore probably trustworthy.
There's no Slander here. If that is correct, Muhammad isn't infallible because he partook in an immoral act at least once. IF that is false, then you can bring evidence that it is, in fact, false.

This could be an issue for Sunni Muslims who accept all Sahih books as undeniably true. Personally, I don't. And as such a hadith like that I would definitely call flawed and wrong, as it contradicts the very nature of the Prophet himself.

as per definition, a Sahih Hadith is probably the most trustable thing remaining from the Prophet. You don't get to decide which Hadith are true to make your image of your prophet, because if you can claim a sahih Hadith to be bullshit "as it contradicts the very nature of the Prophet himself.", you're using other Hadith to build said Nature of the Prophet (since Quran itself doesn't actually build any nature for the Prophet, and has in fact repeatedly claimed "he's someone like other people" (which of course means someone who didn't find Slavery Immoral 1400 years ago, something we as a species decided was wrong years later)) which your opposition in a debate can, easily, claim "is bullshit because it deosn't fit what I think the Ebil Moslem Profit looked like" and he would be as in the right as you are, which is none.

[Thomshafen]

I've heard plenty of 'scholar's' prattle.

Then, do keep me in mind. I've only jumped into this thread because of how hard it was to see people fail at defending their position - mostly due to a lack of ignorance (among others).