I renounce islam

[Carpathian Wolf]

first mistake: "my texts"

what are they axactly? also refer to this

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

Bukhari. And your book states that girls can not play with dolls after puberty. Aisha was playing with dolls. Everything else you've shown me can be argued one way or another. But this is set in stone. And you like to give out links, did you read mine? I've read yours before.

looks like your disregarding any counter argument that makes your position crumble in ruins

okay

No here's the thing though. Nobody is providing any good argument. In fact even the Muslims themselves didn't seem to notice her young age as an issue until the 20th century. Show me a single historical source claiming Aisha was older.

you are calling muhamad a pedophile left and right

are you denying the simple fact that you're just trying to score a few points disregarding any arguments brought up by the other side?

okay

If having sex with a 9 year old makes you a pedo, then yes. Am I doing it to "score points?" No, that's retarded. What points in what game? Honestly the whole pedo prophet thing is one of the least worrisome things about Islam if I really wanted to "go for points." Enough with the victim complex.

[Yosemite]

Bukhari. And your book states that girls can not play with dolls after puberty. Aisha was playing with dolls. Everything else you've shown me can be argued one way or another. But this is set in stone. And you like to give out links, did you read mine? I've read yours before.

you're playing private obvious again

nobody is talking about the current belief of traditionalist muslims
we are talking about how their stories are conveyed through books (hadith)
if you had really read my sources, you would not be saying what you are saying

you are here, using the same old traditionalist sources in order to portray all muslims and muhamad as pedophiles

i am here, posting my sources proving that the traditionalist sources are full of

and you are here, still using the same sources

also adith are not my text, you are wrong on all points in this thread so far
and you are actively supporting these views by saying "this is the true islam!"

really, your contribution only hurts those who want to change things

No here's the thing though. Nobody is providing any good argument. In fact even the Muslims themselves didn't seem to notice her young age as an issue until the 20th century. Show me a single historical source claiming Aisha was older.

but we do

my sources are proof that the traditionalist view is full of lies and

you just decide to actively disregard it, and spam the same old traditionalist texts just to rub it on everyone's faces
and on top of that, you assume they are the ultimate truth for islam, and that is extremely retarded, sorry
you're just pushing forward the agenda of traditionalist muslims

If having sex with a 9 year old makes you a pedo, then yes. Am I doing it to "score points?" No, that's retarded. What points in what game? Honestly the whole pedo prophet thing is one of the least worrisome things about Islam if I really wanted to "go for points." Enough with the victim complex.

but i have shown you the inconsistency and how erroneous traditionalist beliefs can be

you're just going on with pointing the obvious

you don't seem to be serious about it

[Carpathian Wolf]

you're playing private obvious again

nobody is talking about the current belief of traditionalist muslims
we are talking about how their stories are conveyed through books (hadith)
if you had really read my sources, you would not be saying what you are saying

Nobody is talking about "Current belief" either, but historical belief. Hadith have been part of Islam for over a thousand years and now all of the sudden you want to toss them out.

you are here, using the same old traditionalist sources in order to portray all muslims and muhamad as pedophiles

Where am I trying to portray <<<<ALL MUSLIMS>>>> as pedophiles?

i am here, posting my sources proving that the traditionalist sources are full of

and you are here, still using the same sources

also adith are not my text, you are wrong on all points in this thread so far

The "Traditionalist" sources are the Muslim sources. If you don't want to be a Muslim that's fine by me. Your sources are concepts from the 19th and 20th century. You can use Maulana Muhammad Ali if you want but Bukhari weighs a bit more than he does.

but we do

my sources are proof that the traditionalist view is full of lies and

you just decide to actively disregard it, and spam the same old traditionalist texts just to rub it on everyone's faces

What are your sources? They are all from the 19th and 20th century at best.

but i have shown you the inconsistency and how erroneous traditionalist beliefs can be

you're just going on with pointing the obvious

you don't seem to be serious about it

No you haven't shown. You've posted a bad link and and whined constantly about how mean I am.

[Yosemite]

Nobody is talking about "Current belief" either, but historical belief. Hadith have been part of Islam for over a thousand years and now all of the sudden you want to toss them out.

you sure about that?

you're still just pointing out the obvious, using "Muslim" source in your argument

i am merely pointing out that these "Muslim" sources are just full of lies

why do you think my argument goes against yours? it simply goes against the traditionalist beliefs, you should not be fighting my sources, but instead learning from them

looks like you don't want to learn

The "Traditionalist" sources are the Muslim sources. If you don't want to be a Muslim that's fine by me. Your sources are concepts from the 19th and 20th century. You can use Maulana Muhammad Ali if you want but Bukhari weighs a bit more than he does.

what does the age of sources have to do with the factual weight they hold? because you know, a lie in the past remains a lie today

What are your sources? They are all from the 19th and 20th century at best.

and?

No you haven't shown. You've posted a bad link and and whined constantly about how mean I am.

but i am not whining, i am just showing that, by using the hadith themselves, you can prove that the hadith books are unreliable and full of erroneous information

not only that, we can also see in the quran that most claims from traditionalist muslims are wrong

here is a good read for you, that think bukari is automatically true just because it is older
(quite a retarded thing to assume i would say)

http://books.google.hu/books?id=nyMK...page&q&f=false

just for heads up, nobody is saying that the current muslamic beliefs are not true, they truely believe on all the stupid stuff we can see, what we are saying is that their beliefs are wrong

one last thing: why are you against people that are against pedophile traditionalist? (it seems for you that muslims are pedophiles because they follow a (supposedly) pedophile)

[Carpathian Wolf]

you sure about that?

you're still just pointing out the obvious, using "Muslim" source in your argument

i am merely pointing out that these "Muslim" sources are just full of lies

why do you think my argument goes against yours? it simply goes against the traditionalist beliefs, you should not be fighting my sources, but instead learning from them

looks like you don't want to learn

Yes I am sure about that. As far as i'm concerned all of Islam is a lie so telling me one is more lying than the other is irrelevant. My point is that you can not say Hadith are not Islam because they are. If you have a problem with part of your religion why not just go the full way? My sources at Bukhari. Your sources are modernist scholar revisionists that want to say Islam is something else. If you want to change Islam from what it was by all means go ahead. But don't tell me Islam is what you today say it is. Just admit you have to change it.

what does the age of sources have to do with the factual weight they hold? because you know, a lie in the past remains a lie today

This is true, but Maulana Muhammad Ali doesn't make good arguments. More on that later. Even if Hadith are a complete lie, it is a lie which Muslims have followed for over a thousand years. The prince actually becomes the pauper and the pauper the prince if you wait long enough. Get my meaning?

As for Maulana Muhammad Ali, his and your argument have very specific limitations. Your arguments lay in numbers. "So and so was 10 years older than such and such and this places them 3 years before this, and 6 years after this, there for Aisha was this age and Mohamed isn't a pedo." Issue is remembering age/numbers is something that can shift. Was so and so REALLY a hundred years old or were they 93 and we simply say 100 to round it off?

My arguments come from concrete points. Aisha played with dolls. Girls that have gone through puberty can not play with dolls. Nobody could "mis-remember" someone playing with dolls. Specifically when much of this is Aisha herself recollecting her own memories.

Beyond the number's argument that you and Maulana Muhammad Ali make, was the argument about Aisha's age in battle. That rule says that if you are younger than 15 you can not participate. But that refers to boys. The women didn't fight. Aisha wasn't there to swing a sword so that is irrelevant.

Furthermore your website kills its own credibility when it touches upon the bible:

As it is Christian evangelists and other believers in the Bible who have been bitterly reviling the Holy Prophet Muhammad on account of his marriage with Aisha, we put to them the practices of the great patriarchs and prophets that are recorded in the Bible itself in this connection. The main accusations regarding the marriage of Aisha are that she was too young in age while the Holy Prophet was a much older man, being fifty years of age, and that consent to marriage was either not obtained from her or she was not capable of giving it.

Abraham

In the book of Genesis in the Bible it is recorded about Abraham:

“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, ‘The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her.’ Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. … So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.” (Genesis, chapter 16, verses 1–4, and 15–16, New International Version. Bolding is mine.)

Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar’s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham’s wife.

Here is where the "score keeping" is. In an attempt to "score against the Christians" this fool here attempts to insult Abraham, forgetting that Abraham himself is a forefather of the Mohammedans as well. So in a way we are half brothers with the same father and you are calling our father a bastard. Well what does that make you then? A son of a bastard. Beyond that the argument against Abraham is simply poor. It assumes that Hagar was forced into something. It also misses the point, the issue isn't the age difference but that Aisha was prepubescent. So Abraham could be 800 years old, and Hagar could be 20 something. That's fine. But Aisha not even reaching puberty is what the issue is. Moving on...

David

The first book of Kings in the Bible begins as follows:

“When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, ‘Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’ Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her.” (1 Kings, chapter 1, verses 1–4, New International Version. Bolding is mine.)

So there seems nothing wrong, according to the Bible, in procuring a young virgin, again apparently without her consent, whose duties include lying with the elderly king in bed. The intention was certainly for sexual enjoyment, otherwise there was no necessity of looking for a young, beautiful virgin. A much older woman, perhaps a widow, could have performed all these duties, including lying with the king to keep him warm.

Here the author of the site attempts to say David had sex with a "young virgin." First off young virgin doesn't mean prepubescent. The bolded parts are from the original text, which the sub text refers to. They try to make it seem that David had sex with an under age girl. Issue is if you go a few lines more, where I underlined, it clearly says David had no relations with her. So sadly this idiot attempted to "use our own texts against us" thinking we wouldn't read a few sentences later to see how much of a moron he is. This is YOUR source sadly.

Lastly:

The most famous marriage in Christianity is no doubt that of Mary, Jesus’ mother, with Joseph. While the following details are not in the canonical Gospels in the Bible, it appears from other early Christian writings (known as apocryphal writings) that Mary was twelve years old when the temple elders decided to find a husband for her. They selected the husband by drawing lots, and Joseph whom they chose was an elderly man, being according to some accounts ninety years old. The husband was selected and Mary was handed over to him, and she played no part in his selection.

These accounts are summed up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, which is available online, as follows:

“It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph’s marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children … A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph …” [13] (Bolding is mine.)

Although these apocryphal accounts are not now accepted by many Christians, and the Catholic Encyclopedia says that they “are void of authority”, yet it also speaks of their influence as follows:

“they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of the Lord’s brothers; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.”

However, these accounts are accepted by the Eastern churches. The website of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy has an article on this subject entitled An Elderly Joseph which agrees with the presentation in the apocryphal writings “of Joseph as an elderly man, a widower with adult children”. It concludes:

“The Christian East’s picture of Joseph as a courageous, faithful, God-centred elderly widower rings true.” [14]

We give below, as Appendix, a quotation from one of these apocryphal books, The Infancy Gospel of James, describing how Mary’s husband was selected.

While the Western Christian churches may not accept these accounts as authentic, the Eastern churches in Europe do accept that Mary was 12 years old and Joseph a widower 90 years old when they married. Moreover, there is nothing in the Gospels of the New Testament to contradict these accounts, and the Gospel stories are not at all inconsistent with these ages for Mary and Joseph.

I am impressed that this dolt actually managed to look beyond the western papal perversions and read a few Orthodox things. It is true Joseph was a man in his 80s or 90s and the Virgin Mary was a young girl just reaching puberty. What this guy fails again to do is to read a little bit further and he would learn what the whole arrangement was. Joseph was suppose to be a care taker of Maria who was a young girl. She had lived and grew up in the Jewish temple. She wasn't a wife in the sense that he would have sex with her. But he simply married her so it wouldn't seem indecent that he is living with a woman out of wedlock. But his role was simply to be a care taker. This is from the same texts that this Muslim finds out that Joseph was much older, although western christianity stupidly portrays the arrangement as Joseph being in his 20s or 30s with Maria.

So again at best this is half ass scholarship and lying.

but i am not whining, i am just showing that, by using the hadith themselves, you can prove that the hadith books are unreliable and full of erroneous information

Yes but not all hadith are equal. Bukhari is one of the most if not THE most reliable Hadith.

not only that, we can also see in the quran that most claims from traditionalist muslims are wrong

here is a good read for you, that think bukari is automatically true just because it is older
(quite a retarded thing to assume i would say)

http://books.google.hu/books?id=nyMK...page&q&f=false

just for heads up, nobody is saying that the current muslamic beliefs are not true, they truely believe on all the stupid stuff we can see, what we are saying is that their beliefs are wrong

one last thing: why are you against people that are against pedophile traditionalist? (it seems for you that muslims are pedophiles because they follow a (supposedly) pedophile)

Here is the thing. Even if Bukhari is a liar...Muslims have followed these lies since the Hadith were created. So either way Islam in my eyes is discredited. Either Mohamed is a pedo or Islam's past is a lie.

I am also against pedophile traditionalists, but sadly their Islam is the most original form. Theirs is the one that has been followed through most of history. And for the last time I DON'T THINK MUSLIMS ARE PEDOPHILES.

[PointOfViewGun]

Muhammad al-Bukhari lived about two centuries after Mohammed. He was tirtiary source at best. Some of the Hadith he've written down even claim that Mohammed had the sexual power of 30 men.

Bukhari gives contradictory numbers for the year Abraham was allegedly circumcised, 80 versus 120. Bukhari who reports hearsay regarding the circumcision of converts and women, also reports that when Greeks and Abyssinians embraced islam
they were not examined at all by Muhammad.

Hadith books, including Bukhari, contain numerous hadiths promoting circumcision including female circumcision, which is a torturous mutilation. However, hadith fabricators somehow forgot to fabricate hadiths about the circumcision of prominent figures during the time of Muhammad. More interestingly, since the practice of circumcision was adopted centuries later, they missed the opportunity to attribute this practice to Muhammad himself. Sunni scholars, therefore, came up with another so called miracle: Muhammad was born circumcised. This would answer those who wondered about the absence of such an "important" record in the books of hadith and sunna.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Nobody said he wasn't messed up. But again this has been Islam for the most part.

[Yosemite]

Yes I am sure about that. As far as i'm concerned all of Islam is a lie so telling me one is more lying than the other is irrelevant. My point is that you can not say Hadith are not Islam because they are. If you have a problem with part of your religion why not just go the full way? My sources at Bukhari. Your sources are modernist scholar revisionists that want to say Islam is something else. If you want to change Islam from what it was by all means go ahead. But don't tell me Islam is what you today say it is. Just admit you have to change it.

they are not modernist scholars revisiionists, they are people who look at the quran, try to understand it, and see that it has nothing to do with the traditionalist view

there is literally nothing to change in the quran, it's the way it's read and interpreted

this is not revisionism

you keep thinking im a religious person, what's wrong with you? hadith are not part of the quran, it's an innovation that came later, the quran is the only books needed

i don't expect you to make differences between the different school of thoughts in this whole mess, you said it yourself: you just want to generalise

everything about "islam" is wrong from the begining for you, why are you even in this thread?

This is true, but Maulana Muhammad Ali doesn't make good arguments. More on that later. Even if Hadith are a complete lie, it is a lie which Muslims have followed for over a thousand years. The prince actually becomes the pauper and the pauper the prince if you wait long enough. Get my meaning?

second, yes, they follow hadith lies for many years, does that make it more true? no, the quran is what it should be all about, and today it's all about hadith

As for Maulana Muhammad Ali, his and your argument have very specific limitations. Your arguments lay in numbers. "So and so was 10 years older than such and such and this places them 3 years before this, and 6 years after this, there for Aisha was this age and Mohamed isn't a pedo." Issue is remembering age/numbers is something that can shift. Was so and so REALLY a hundred years old or were they 93 and we simply say 100 to round it off?

for the subject of aisha, how are you not going to use maths in order to see her age? why are you not going to look for dates and do a little bit of math to try and see how old she was? what's wrong with that?
you're the one who settles for the 7 to 9 years old version, my source shows that the hadiths are contradicting themselves after doing a little bit of research, i mean, it can't hurt to do a little bit of research right? with a little bit of math too

My arguments come from concrete points.

Mine too.

Aisha played with dolls.

Hearsays.

Girls that have gone through puberty can not play with dolls.

Hearsays.

Nobody could "mis-remember" someone playing with dolls. Specifically when much of this is Aisha herself recollecting her own memories.

Yes, in hearsays, they can.

So you prefer to dismiss actual logical arguments, backed by dates and maths, for a personal opinion from a certain event that happened 200 years before the recording.

Good.

Beyond the number's argument that you and Maulana Muhammad Ali make, was the argument about Aisha's age in battle. That rule says that if you are younger than 15 you can not participate. But that refers to boys. The women didn't fight. Aisha wasn't there to swing a sword so that is irrelevant.

nowhere does it pretend that aisha was there for fighting

Furthermore your website kills its own credibility when it touches upon the bible:

oh, really?

Here is where the "score keeping" is. In an attempt to "score against the Christians" this fool here attempts to insult Abraham, forgetting that Abraham himself is a forefather of the Mohammedans as well. So in a way we are half brothers with the same father and you are calling our father a bastard. Well what does that make you then? A son of a bastard. Beyond that the argument against Abraham is simply poor. It assumes that Hagar was forced into something. It also misses the point, the issue isn't the age difference but that Aisha was prepubescent. So Abraham could be 800 years old, and Hagar could be 20 something. That's fine. But Aisha not even reaching puberty is what the issue is. Moving on...

"Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar’s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham’s wife."
no where does he attempt to insult abraham, it's you being paranoid or something
just shows that things are not black and white

Here the author of the site attempts to say David had sex with a "young virgin." First off young virgin doesn't mean prepubescent. The bolded parts are from the original text, which the sub text refers to. They try to make it seem that David had sex with an under age girl. Issue is if you go a few lines more, where I underlined, it clearly says David had no relations with her. So sadly this idiot attempted to "use our own texts against us" thinking we wouldn't read a few sentences later to see how much of a moron he is. This is YOUR source sadly.

"So there seems nothing wrong, according to the Bible, in procuring a young virgin, again apparently without her consent, whose duties include lying with the elderly king in bed. The intention was certainly for sexual enjoyment, otherwise there was no necessity of looking for a young, beautiful virgin. A much older woman, perhaps a widow, could have performed all these duties, including lying with the king to keep him warm."

where does it say "young virgin" is little girl?
author does not pretend this, author simply says that it's a young virgin, could be anywhere near 12 to 18

notice how today, below 18 is considered pedophilia

Lastly:



I am impressed that this dolt actually managed to look beyond the western papal perversions and read a few Orthodox things. It is true Joseph was a man in his 80s or 90s and the Virgin Mary was a young girl just reaching puberty. What this guy fails again to do is to read a little bit further and he would learn what the whole arrangement was. Joseph was suppose to be a care taker of Maria who was a young girl. She had lived and grew up in the Jewish temple. She wasn't a wife in the sense that he would have sex with her. But he simply married her so it wouldn't seem indecent that he is living with a woman out of wedlock. But his role was simply to be a care taker. This is from the same texts that this Muslim finds out that Joseph was much older, although western christianity stupidly portrays the arrangement as Joseph being in his 20s or 30s with Maria.

oh, so "maria" was not a "wife", but just "being taken care of"

i guess muhamad was just in for screwing 9 years old girls, but david was not

great argument there

So again at best this is half ass scholarship and lying.

nah, that's just your opinion

and you base all your arguments on hadith, that automatically makes them fail because hadith themselves are full of erroneous information

so naturally, your arguments will also be erroneous

Yes but not all hadith are equal. Bukhari is one of the most if not THE most reliable Hadith.

no

http://free-minds.org/does-hadith-ha...storical-basis
http://free-minds.org/hadith-question-authenticity
http://free-minds.org/hadith-conspir...stortion-islam
http://free-minds.org/myth-hadith

feel free to disregard them, calling them "biased", "apologetic" or whatever

they are actual research made on hadith, that shows hadith are unreliable and full of lies

the same lies you use as your arguments to mis judge people of the past

Here is the thing. Even if Bukhari is a liar...Muslims have followed these lies since the Hadith were created. So either way Islam in my eyes is discredited. Either Mohamed is a pedo or Islam's past is a lie.

or, hadith collectors are liars

it's not "either muhamad is pedo" or "islams past is a lie"

people who reported islam's past could have lied on it, doesn't mean muhamad was pedo or islam's past was lie
stop thinking in black and white for once

Nobody said he wasn't messed up. But again this has been Islam for the most part.

come on, you take it as the only, true, pristine official islam

for you theres no alternative other than "revisionism"

the only revision needed is dropping the hadith

[Carpathian Wolf]

they are not modernist scholars revisiionists, they are people who look at the quran, try to understand it, and see that it has nothing to do with the traditionalist view

there is literally nothing to change in the quran, it's the way it's read and interpreted

this is not revisionism

you keep thinking im a religious person, what's wrong with you? hadith are not part of the quran, it's an innovation that came later, the quran is the only books needed

i don't expect you to make differences between the different school of thoughts in this whole mess, you said it yourself: you just want to generalise

No see you don't seem to get it. Quran = non sense = Hadith. To me it's all non sense. I'm just letting YOU know that historically speaking the Hadith were second only to the Quran in Islamic theology. I'm not all that unfamiliar with Islam or Middle Eastern history. I was someone who considered to convert to islam even. I thought "I am Orthodox Christian but perhaps the Muslims are right. I should consider this religion openly and study it and if it is the truth and there is a God he will guide me." I've been reading excerpts from Rifa'a Rifi'al-Tahtawi and Muhammad Abduh from the Modern Middle East by James Gelvin. So your argument isn't exactly new.

everything about "islam" is wrong from the begining for you, why are you even in this thread?

I read a bunch of rage comic strips and it motivated me.

second, yes, they follow hadith lies for many years, does that make it more true? no, the quran is what it should be all about, and today it's all about hadith

Cool story bro. The 15th century called, they want their protestant reformation back. Get my point? Papalism and "Traditional Islam" are spin offs of Orthodox Christianity. Protestantism and "Modern Islam" are in the same bag. An off shoot of an off shoot.

for the subject of aisha, how are you not going to use maths in order to see her age? why are you not going to look for dates and do a little bit of math to try and see how old she was? what's wrong with that?
you're the one who settles for the 7 to 9 years old version, my source shows that the hadiths are contradicting themselves after doing a little bit of research, i mean, it can't hurt to do a little bit of research right? with a little bit of math too

Again because years are harder to remember than actual events. In Islam only children play with dolls. There's no way to confuse this with something else. The time when these events happened is another thing. As for contradiction, to me Islam as a whole is a contradiction so what else is new?

Hearsays

Islamic law.

Yes, in hearsays, they can.

So you prefer to dismiss actual logical arguments, backed by dates and maths, for a personal opinion from a certain event that happened 200 years before the recording.

Good.

But it all comes from hadith not from "math."

nowhere does it pretend that aisha was there for fighting

Right so the rule for her was unfamiliar.

"Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar’s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham’s wife."
no where does he attempt to insult abraham, it's you being paranoid or something
just shows that things are not black and white

It suggests Hagar had relations with Abraham against her own will.

"So there seems nothing wrong, according to the Bible, in procuring a young virgin, again apparently without her consent, whose duties include lying with the elderly king in bed. The intention was certainly for sexual enjoyment, otherwise there was no necessity of looking for a young, beautiful virgin. A much older woman, perhaps a widow, could have performed all these duties, including lying with the king to keep him warm."

where does it say "young virgin" is little girl?
author does not pretend this, author simply says that it's a young virgin, could be anywhere near 12 to 18

notice how today, below 18 is considered pedophilia

He quotes saying that it is okay to have sex with a young virgin but the verse he himself quotes later says that there was no relations between the two. So he's either an idiot that couldn't read two lines further or a liar.

oh, so "maria" was not a "wife", but just "being taken care of"

i guess muhamad was just in for screwing 9 years old girls, but david was not

great argument there

Maria was a wife but in name only. She was given to Joseph to be taken care of. He only married her as to fulfill the law of not just living with a woman. Secondly if you read the bible it clearly states Maria was a Virgin through her entire life. What womb God has opened and closed can not be opened by anyone else.

Concerning david, the verse the guy himself quotes says David did not have sex with that girl. David did plenty of stupid things, killed the husband of a woman he desired etc. But he didn't have sex with that girl. So yeah if you know how to read you'll see it is a great argument.

nah, that's just your opinion

Uh no it's actually right there. David didn't sleep with that girl as the verse says and Joseph did not sleep with Maria. Even in your Quran you say she is a virgin.

and you base all your arguments on hadith, that automatically makes them fail because hadith themselves are full of erroneous information

so naturally, your arguments will also be erroneous

Yeah the Hadith is fail as is the Quran. Same crap to me.

no

http://free-minds.org/does-hadith-ha...storical-basis
http://free-minds.org/hadith-question-authenticity
http://free-minds.org/hadith-conspir...stortion-islam
http://free-minds.org/myth-hadith

feel free to disregard them, calling them "biased", "apologetic" or whatever

they are actual research made on hadith, that shows hadith are unreliable and full of lies

the same lies you use as your arguments to mis judge people of the past

That's cute, same crap. hadith, quran they are both non sense.

or, hadith collectors are liars

it's not "either muhamad is pedo" or "islams past is a lie"

people who reported islam's past could have lied on it, doesn't mean muhamad was pedo or islam's past was lie
stop thinking in black and white for once

But Muslims have historically followed hadith along with quran. So again either Muslims in the past were all wrong or Mohamed is a pedo.

come on, you take it as the only, true, pristine official islam

for you theres no alternative other than "revisionism"

Here's the thing, and this is the reason protestantism never appealed to me. Islam has no set standard. It's whatever you want it to be. Islam is built just like protestantism. You have ten million different little groups that claim to be authentic Islam and they all try to kill each other. Funny but I can go to Moscow and listen to half a sermon of one priest, and go to Athens and listen to the second half of another and they will tell me the exact same thing. To me that is what I hold a true faith to...Islam, protestantism etc, don't come close to that standard.

[Admiral Piett]

So what do non-traditionalist Muslims want to use in place of Bukhari? Forgive me, but I can't really discern through the wall of text for the past 3 pages.

And from way back...

My initial point was that Quranism is fundamental Islam. He pushed the liberalism argument on to me. With pure liberalism you may indeed need to ignore some messages in Quran. As by nature, most religions do not provide absolute freedom to the individual, however, that doesn't exist in practice anyway. So, my point was that it's all about the scope of the liberalism.

So is Quranism the wrong way to interpret it, much in the same way its wrong to interpret the Bible literally?

[PointOfViewGun]

So what do non-traditionalist Muslims want to use in place of Bukhari? Forgive me, but I can't really discern through the wall of text for the past 3 pages.

For religious matters? Nothing other than Quran. For historical discussion? A series of historical accounts, including Bukhari, can be examined to make an educated deduction.

And from way back...

So is Quranism the wrong way to interpret it, much in the same way its wrong to interpret the Bible literally?

I don't think taking Quran literally make it automatically wrong or the same as taking the Bible literally. It's an interpretation of Quran without any cultural imposition. It understands Quran in context without altering the meaning of words in verses for the convenience of the reader.

[Yosemite]

No see you don't seem to get it. Quran = non sense = Hadith. To me it's all non sense.

then leave the thread

your contribution is useless

Again because years are harder to remember than actual events. In Islam only children play with dolls. There's no way to confuse this with something else. The time when these events happened is another thing. As for contradiction, to me Islam as a whole is a contradiction so what else is new?

that's your opinion, you just do selective reading and take what fits your personal agenda
years are not harder to remember

Islamic law.

based on hearsays

But it all comes from hadith not from "math."

hearsays reporting dates

better than shaddy eye witness about some girl playing with dolls and taking it as holy divine truth

the problem with your arguments is that you select one particular version of the story and dismiss the other, while both versions are documented the same

basically you side with the view that goes with your opinions on islam

It suggests Hagar had relations with Abraham against her own will.

nah, that's just what you assume from his comments

He quotes saying that it is okay to have sex with a young virgin but the verse he himself quotes later says that there was no relations between the two. So he's either an idiot that couldn't read two lines further or a liar.

who's to say the verse wasn't changed in order to fit with the modern time

Maria was a wife but in name only. She was given to Joseph to be taken care of. He only married her as to fulfill the law of not just living with a woman. Secondly if you read the bible it clearly states Maria was a Virgin through her entire life. What womb God has opened and closed can not be opened by anyone else.

aisha's life isn't even mentioned in the quran, and yet you take hearsays as ultimate truth on the matter
it's just because the 9 years old version helps your personal agenda
you shouldn't be in this thread, you consider everything in islam rotten

you're wasting your time

don't you value your time?

Concerning david, the verse the guy himself quotes says David did not have sex with that girl. David did plenty of stupid things, killed the husband of a woman he desired etc. But he didn't have sex with that girl. So yeah if you know how to read you'll see it is a great argument.

oh so david is a corrupt man, but didn't have sex with girls

the point is not if he had sex or not, the point is that he married a young girl


you take shady sources for muhamad, but for david? nah it's awright

Uh no it's actually right there. David didn't sleep with that girl as the verse says and Joseph did not sleep with Maria. Even in your Quran you say she is a virgin.

now the quran is of use for you?

i see, you only take what is in line with your personal thoughts

Yeah the Hadith is fail as is the Quran. Same crap to me.

leave the thread

That's cute, same crap. hadith, quran they are both non sense.

stop wasting your time leave the thread

But Muslims have historically followed hadith along with quran. So again either Muslims in the past were all wrong or Mohamed is a pedo.

wrong, historically muslims haven't always followed the quran

i don't expect you to know anything about it though

[Carpathian Wolf]

then leave the thread

your contribution is useless

No mas butthurt. Keep it to yourself.

that's your opinion, you just do selective reading and take what fits your personal agenda
years are not harder to remember

No it's simply logical. No one can misremember playing with dolls. Someone two hundred years later doesn't care if someone was actually 100 or just 92. They were frikken old.

based on hearsays

And Muslims follow it.

hearsays reporting dates

better than shaddy eye witness about some girl playing with dolls and taking it as holy divine truth

the problem with your arguments is that you select one particular version of the story and dismiss the other, while both versions are documented the same

basically you side with the view that goes with your opinions on islam

No I am siding with the side that has the least contradictions. It isn't like Mohamed not being a pedo will suddenly make me see the light and brilliance of Islam. Again Aisha is a moot point and to be honest she was obnoxious as a person and spoke very disrespectfully toward Mohamed.

nah, that's just what you assume from his comments

Umm actually no he says so directly "Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar’s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham’s wife."

You don't even read the crap you post and then you tell me to leave the thread. Is this a joke? Because it's pretty good i'm laughing.

who's to say the verse wasn't changed in order to fit with the modern time

Who's to say your Quran wasn't changed from Mohamed having an orgy with a 9 year old Aisha and all her 9 year old playmates? Please if you are going to make these small minded childish arguments don't waste people's time. He used a source to try to say David slept with a "young virgin" when the same verse says he did no such thing. It's idiotic and neither you nor him actually read the verse before using it.

aisha's life isn't even mentioned in the quran, and yet you take hearsays as ultimate truth on the matter
it's just because the 9 years old version helps your personal agenda
you shouldn't be in this thread, you consider everything in islam rotten

Oh well maybe she didn't exist at all no? Maybe Othman made her up when he rounded up all the different Quran versions and standardized it to a single one.

you're wasting your time

don't you value your time?

Yes but I love a good rout.

oh so david is a corrupt man, but didn't have sex with girls

the point is not if he had sex or not, the point is that he married a young girl


you take shady sources for muhamad, but for david? nah it's awright

I wish we could converse as equals but clearly one of us isn't even reading their own damn source. No where does it say David married the young girl. Show me the verse where it says he did.

Reading, it's pretty important.

now the quran is of use for you?

i see, you only take what is in line with your personal thoughts

No simply saying even your own book agrees with what I am saying. Quran isn't good for me any time.

wrong, historically muslims haven't always followed the quran

i don't expect you to know anything about it though

So there were no Muslims until you?

[Yosemite]

No mas butthurt. Keep it to yourself.

you're still wasting your time

No it's simply logical. No one can misremember playing with dolls. Someone two hundred years later doesn't care if someone was actually 100 or just 92. They were frikken old.

you are wrong on this point

And Muslims follow it.

captain obvious to the rescue

No I am siding with the side that has the least contradictions. It isn't like Mohamed not being a pedo will suddenly make me see the light and brilliance of Islam. Again Aisha is a moot point and to be honest she was obnoxious as a person and spoke very disrespectfully toward Mohamed.

you still go around tell muslims that muhamad was a pedo

you have no actual proof of it other than shady hearsays

you just select the points that fit your personal views, that's all

Umm actually no he says so directly "Firstly, it is evident that as Abraham (who then had the name Abram) was 86 years old, Hagar must have been some fifty years younger than him, and probably even younger, to bear a child. Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham. So Hagar’s consent was not obtained but rather she was commanded by Sarai to go and become Abraham’s wife."


You don't even read the crap you post and then you tell me to leave the thread. Is this a joke? Because it's pretty good i'm laughing.

Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham.
giving your maidservant sounds like she didn't consent

you didn't read anything yourself
just leave please
stop wasting your time

Who's to say your Quran wasn't changed from Mohamed having an orgy with a 9 year old Aisha

you have no concrete proof of that
[/quote]

and all her 9 year old playmates?

people have reported all kinds of hearsays on muhamad
if muhamad was a pedophile, he wouldn't have settled to only one girl

there would have been hadith reporting muhamad having relations with other young girls

there are no such hearsays
now i will wait for your consipiracy that muhamad killed any witness that could have seen him ing little girls

Please if you are going to make these small minded childish arguments don't waste people's time.

you're the one wasting your time in this thread

He used a source to try to say David slept with a "young virgin" when the same verse says he did no such thing. It's idiotic and neither you nor him actually read the verse before using it.

you can't take actual verses on other people marying young girls, just admit you are biased towards islam and end it here

Oh well maybe she didn't exist at all no? Maybe Othman made her up when he rounded up all the different Quran versions and standardized it to a single one.

speculation, guesswork

the story of your life i would say

Yes but I love a good rout.

nah, you just don't value your time that much

I wish we could converse as equals but clearly one of us isn't even reading their own damn source. No where does it say David married the young girl. Show me the verse where it says he did.

‘Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’

so david was having a girl in his bed that was not related to him in any way shape or form

we can't converse as equals because you are extremely biased on islam and the quran
for you, it is dead set in your mind that islam is corrupt and full of lies

why bother? you're wasting your time, this is beginning to be pathetic

No simply saying even your own book agrees with what I am saying. Quran isn't good for me any time.

you're just hellbent on pointing the obvious current practices of muslims
your contribution is useless
and by using the quran to support your argument, you are indeed using the parts of it that you need
the quran was good for you this time

you can't even keep being consistent with what you bring forward

So there were no Muslims until you?

this is something too retarded to say, even for you

i am quite disappointed by that one remark of yours

[Carpathian Wolf]

you are wrong on this point

Great refutation.

captain obvious to the rescue

Then it's Islamic.

you still go around tell muslims that muhamad was a pedo

you have no actual proof of it other than shady hearsays

you just select the points that fit your personal views, that's all

Your religion states so and many in the mid east who follow the practice use Islam as the justification.

Secondly, the Bible speaks of Sarai giving her maidservant Hagar to Abraham.
giving your maidservant sounds like she didn't consent

you didn't read anything yourself
just leave please
stop wasting your time

That's exactly what I said. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham but the writer makes it seem like it was against Hagar's will thus calling Abraham a rapist in an attempt to "score points" as you put it.

you have no concrete proof of that

And you have no proof that the verse concerning David was changed either. Hypocritical claim is hypocritical.

people have reported all kinds of hearsays on muhamad
if muhamad was a pedophile, he wouldn't have settled to only one girl

there would have been hadith reporting muhamad having relations with other young girls

there are no such hearsays
now i will wait for your consipiracy that muhamad killed any witness that could have seen him ing little girls

Good job making a strawman.

you're the one wasting your time in this thread

Yeah I really am with the amount of stupidity and imbecility you keep spreading I really am.

you can't take actual verses on other people marying young girls, just admit you are biased towards islam and end it here

But the verse doesn't say David married her. If he did he did, what do I care? David isn't to Christianity what Mohamed is to Islam. David orchestrated the murder of a man so he could have his wife. He did plenty of bad things. If this was one of them i'd admit it, but it isn't and you don't have any verse that says other wise. All you have is your buttfrustration pillow bitter welping.

speculation, guesswork

the story of your life i would say

I was pointing out how stupid it was for you to say David's verse was changed with no proof. COME ON can we at least work on some basic logic and consistency here?

nah, you just don't value your time that much

My own fault.

‘Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’

so david was having a girl in his bed that was not related to him in any way shape or form

we can't converse as equals because you are extremely biased on islam and the quran
for you, it is dead set in your mind that islam is corrupt and full of lies

why bother? you're wasting your time, this is beginning to be pathetic

No where did he say he married her or slept with her. There is definitely something pathetic here but it isn't me.

you're just hellbent on pointing the obvious current practices of muslims
your contribution is useless
and by using the quran to support your argument, you are indeed using the parts of it that you need
the quran was good for you this time

you can't even keep being consistent with what you bring forward

Your website link was the one that challenged the notion of Maria and Joseph and her virginity. I simply said "Even your book says she was a virgin ever after." There is nothing inconsistent about that and i'm seriously doubting any ability on your argument's part to project anything that could possibly even be mistaken for an intellectual thought.

this is something too retarded to say, even for you

i am quite disappointed by that one remark of yours

What is laughable is that you are making the same argument protestants make. They have to re-invent "What reeaaaaallll christianity/islam is." The same way they make themselves into a pope, you 'modern islamists' make yourself prophets. I'm just a bystander here. You want to wash out all the silly things in Islam, go for it. But don't pretend that isn't Islam just because you see something wrong with it.

[Kanaric]

Fatality


Carpathian Wolf wins.

[Yosemite]

Great refutation.

just stooping down to your level here

Then it's Islamic.

no one is denying it

Your religion states so and many in the mid east who follow the practice use Islam as the justification.

you don't understand (or you don't want to)
the traditionalist religion is not my religion, i do not have a religion
i am not a sunni or shia
why are you so wrong all the time?

That's exactly what I said. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham but the writer makes it seem like it was against Hagar's will thus calling Abraham a rapist in an attempt to "score points" as you put it.

she was given

it doesn't sound like consent

do you understand?

And you have no proof that the verse concerning David was changed either. Hypocritical claim is hypocritical.

no hypocrisy here, as i am only showing you how inconsistent you are

i am not siding with anyone here, i just want to show you your own bias

if anything you're the hypocrite for taking as divine truth hearsays for muhamad, then pretend everything was fine with david

Good job making a strawman.

and your doll argument isn't one?
you're basing it all on hearsays and hail it as ultimate truth for islam in generalc
show me hadith that talk about muhamad having orgies with other girls
i'll quote you there:

Who's to say your Quran wasn't changed from Mohamed having an orgy with a 9 year old Aisha and all her 9 year old playmates?

Yeah I really am with the amount of stupidity and imbecility you keep spreading I really am.

i am merely bringing myself down to your level of debating, nothing else

i am merely a mirror of yourself right now, you don't want to be reasoned, you are closed minded
you don't even bring up actual arguments against mine, you just end up saying i'm an imbecile
i'll have to report you for that too

But the verse doesn't say David married her. If he did he did, what do I care? David isn't to Christianity what Mohamed is to Islam. David orchestrated the murder of a man so he could have his wife. He did plenty of bad things. If this was one of them i'd admit it, but it isn't and you don't have any verse that says other wise. All you have is your buttfrustration pillow bitter welping.

and you still take one version of aisha's story as ultimate truth, while disregarding the other one simply because it does not fit your personal views

I was pointing out how stupid it was for you to say David's verse was changed with no proof. COME ON can we at least work on some basic logic and consistency here?

i was merely showing you how annoying it is to debate with someone who's way to debate is to use guesswork

see how annoying it is? it's how i felt the whole time debating with you in this thread

No where did he say he married her or slept with her. There is definitely something pathetic here but it isn't me.

She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.’
She can lie beside him
She can lie beside him

here, just like you did, am using guesswork and fantasy to pretend that he slept and ed her

just like you do for aisha

Your website link was the one that challenged the notion of Maria and Joseph and her virginity.

it does not challenge the virginity of maria, simply that maria was married to joseph
it's the whole "he maried a very young girl" thing
the author of the article on this website used mary only on that argument

you're the one assuming he brought it up as a sexual matter

learn to read, seriously

What is laughable is that you are making the same argument protestants make. They have to re-invent "What reeaaaaallll christianity/islam is."

nothing to reinvent, just hadith to drop

you're ignorant on this whole issue, and it seems like you just wish to remain ignorant

you keep thinking i'm a sunni or a traditionalist, that the only real islam is the one of bukari and other hadith author

if you're closed minded, it's not my problem

The same way they make themselves into a pope, you 'modern islamists' make yourself prophets.

no

I'm just a bystander here.

you're a useless contributor, not a bystander

you keep pointing out the obvious current practices of traditionalist muslims, nobody is denying what they do is wrong

i want things to change, you don't seem to want anything to change

You want to wash out all the silly things in Islam, go for it. But don't pretend that isn't Islam just because you see something wrong with it.

i don't want to wash out all the silly things in islam, this is a wrong assumption you are making

i want the traditionalist to change their beliefs, that's all

you're just here to up the discussion with baseless claims about me

[Yosemite]

Fatality


Carpathian Wolf wins.

nope

for carpathian wolf, it works like this: the only real islam is the one from traditionalist, there is no way islam or muslims can change, if we ever attempt to fix things, we stray away from the "real islam"

that's what i call being closed minded and useless in general

maybe he doesn't value his time that much? maybe he likes parroting the same old rabbles about traditionalists? i agree with him that they are silly

is there a solution to this problem?

yes there is

carpathian wolf is not part of it

[Kanaric]

Lol that is implied. Common logic

[PointOfViewGun]

Fatality


Carpathian Wolf wins.

He wins so much that he thinks you can have an orgy with a single girl...