Non-fallacious defenses of Muhammad?

Author: Barney
Islam
Pedophilia
Muhammad
Todd Akin
No True Scotsman

Posts

Total: 59
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
I keep seeing defenses of him so weak they seem designed to insult the Muslim community. So I am curious, any actual Muslims here have any good defenses of him?

This is referencing his pedophila. The trollish defenses are things like the Todd Akin defense (it's not rape because he got her pregnant), and various No True Scotsman (no true pedo waits until they're nine, etc).

...

Alternatively, if there are no good defenses of him, how do you reconcile that with your faith?
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Islam is a subject about which I am quite ignorant.  I have not read the Quran.  I know the history some, but really only from the English point of view. The religious precepts I do know don't seem so different from the moral code of the Old Testament.  I know you have spent some time in Muslim countries- do you feel knowledgable on the subject? 

In Mohammed's own time, Mohammed's conduct was moral and legal, no?  
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,612
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@oromagi
In Mohammed's own time, Mohammed's conduct was moral and legal, no?  

It probably was in Old Persia  (Arabia) as it was anywhere else in the Near and Middle East. Mary was a "young girl" at the time the acting Gabriel impregnated her. The New Testament is careful not to mention her age but it is highly probable that she was between only 12 and 14 years of age.  So given these circumstances and cultures of the time it appears to be a case of Pot V Kettle.

#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
That's right.  If Yahweh/Allah is knocking up 14 year olds, who is God to judge?
#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Stephen
That's right.  If Yahweh/Allah is knocking up 14 year olds, who is God to judge?
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
Absolutely futile judging the distant past by todays standards.

In fact, judging the distant past is absolutely futile.

Until the time machine is invented of course.

But the dilemma will be, who will be judging who first.

We ourselves might be judged, by A.I. from the year 3046.
Topic's author
#7
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@oromagi
the English point of view.
In order to discuss it within English, we must use English.


I know you have spent some time in Muslim countries- do you feel knowledgable on the subject? 
The samples of Islam I witnessed almost certainly left me with a slanted point of view. I saw good and bad; yet the bad won out and took control of Iraq after I left. A regular occurrence over there was Islamist military leaders raping boys to shame the families.


In Mohammed's own time, Mohammed's conduct was moral and legal, no?  
As one who wrote the law, of course it was legal. However, just because one can get away with something, does not make it moral. Consider Jesus being crucified; was he evil because the law was against him? Of course not.

Plus when it comes to religious claims of perfection, the actions must hold up to the test of time or else not be perfect.
Topic's author
#8
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Stephen
Pot V Kettle.
That’s just a what about ism. It doesn’t actually defend one action, to say an unrelated action was also bad; not even were the other action worse.

E.g.,  O.J. Simpson does not become innocent on account of Charles Manson also killing people.
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,612
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Barney
Pot V Kettle.
That’s just a what about ism. It doesn’t actually defend one action, to say an unrelated action was also bad; not even were the other action worse.

E.g.,  O.J. Simpson does not become innocent on account of Charles Manson also killing people.


 I agree. But I am sure it was the practice of those times, as despicable as it were. And I wasn't defending it, Barney. 
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
The main problem with Americans condemning Mohammad is that Americans do much worse things to children.

Besides, child marriages will become legal in about 20 years, so most people will not condemn Mohammad as most people will approve of child marriages.
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
It is extremely non-Muslim ignorant to spell his named Moh...

His named is Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him and Aisha was not 14. She was 6 when he claimed her as his own from her parents, at barely age 9 (still age 8 in modern solar years, 9 in lunar years) full penetration happened and the holiest man in Islam raped a 9 year old wife of his to impregnate her.

By Allah's glorious will, this occurred. From what I gather, it was her birthday present.
#12
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@RationalMadman
holiest man in Islam raped a 9 year old wife

Are you saying that 1 billion people are praising a rapist?

Rapist is the role model for 1 billion people on how to behave?

Quran has 6666 verses.

Number of the beast is 666.

Still, Aisha said he was hot.
#13
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
My bad. There are 2 billion muslims in the world and its rising.

So 2 billion people are praising a man who had sex with a 9 year old?

And the numbers of people praising him are increasing?

Yeah, imagine trying to judge child marriages while at the same time praising a man who marrired a 9yo and thinking he is the best role model on how to behave.

Awkward.
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Best.Korea
People misjudge the holy qnd great Muhammad PBUH for this one act.

Not at all enough reason to disrespect the holiest man of Islam.

He is so brave and mighty that when Khalid ibn al-Walid ransacked Muhammad's village early on and Islam almost went extinct, Muhammad told fathers and sons to lay their life on the line and die while he hid with the elderly and those very men's wives and children.

Then he sweet-talked Khalid and his thugs into sparing him and converting and later Khalid led the invasion to Persia that would terrorise the Zoroastrianist Persians to convert to Islam or be slaughtered, with the mercy and Islamic benevolence to spare those that converted, of course.

Khalid became named the sword of Allah, a title Muhammad PBUH bestowed upon Khalid for being so efficient at terror and blackmail.

Do not ever disrespect Islam's holiest man again, he is a kind, loving soul that insisted the man a woman forced into a different marriage cheated with get stoned with her and the man tried to protect her but his body went limp as the stones cut his flesh bit by bit and they tossed him aside to finish his lover off and Muhammad smiled and said how merciful he was to scold one of his men for pulling out a whip to lash the woman with.
Topic's author
#15
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Absolutely futile judging the distant past by todays standards.
In the time span of the universe, humanity itself is meaningless. However, for most of us it’s quite meaningful.

We frequently look at popular world leaders from past times and hold them up as heroes or villains; Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves cannot have done any good if the brutality of the slave trade was morally neutral; and Mao Zedong was the biggest mass murderer in history, which most of us have a knee-jerk reaction that such is a bad thing.


We ourselves might be judged, by A.I. from the year 3046.
Yes. And?
Topic's author
#16
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@RationalMadman
It is extremely non-Muslim ignorant to spell his named Moh...
Thank you for the correction. I have updated to thread title to reflect this.

#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
It appears I was mistaken. It was already for chasing out the Persians from Iraq, Syria and modern day Jordan (then part of Syria), Khalid earned the title Sword of Allah, not Persia itself.
#18
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Well, the muslims basically only have 2 choices:

1) Condemn child marriages and with that reject Muhammad as the best role model.

2) Accept child marriages as good in order to uphold that Muhammad was a perfect role model.

To the not so great surprise, many muslims choose 2).
#19
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

So basically, life was an accident, but Humans made up a million stories to say it wasn't an accident.
#20
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
If you are familiar with Marxist dialectics, you know that life is a struggle between two opposing sides.

Therefore, the side that accepted religion won in the past.

Atheism has only begun winning recently.

For the most part, religion was an advantage and the opposition of religion societies with non-religious resulted in almost total victory for religious societies throughout history.

Therefore, either it was an accident that successful societies accepted religion, either accepting religion made those societies successful over non-religious societies.

This remains true irrelevant of if God exists or not.
#21
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

Therefore, either it was an accident that successful societies accepted opiates, or accepting opiates made those societies successful over non-opiate societies.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Barney
Yes. And?

Only if the time machine is invented.

And A.I. from the year 3046 is more likely to invent a time machine than we are.

And it probably won't let us borrow it.

That's if they bring it with them.

Though I'm guessing that they will leave it well out of our reach, 1023 years in the future.

Of course there is the butterfly affect to consider.

For it and for us.

So perhaps we ought to cease all technological development.

Now.
#23
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Barney
Not a Muslim myself, but there are typically two responses I've seen to this on Muslim forums.

The first is that Aisha was actually 19, not 9. Hadiths aren't considered infallible in Islam, and there are a number of examples of time periods being miscalculated around that era. There's a lot of skepticism around this explanation, but there's some reasoning to substantiate this given a lot of calculations that are posted here.

Another argument I've seen is that the rate of maturity itself (not just laws) varies by culture. The logic would be that if children in a particular society are forced to take on more responsibilities, they would mature faster than children in our current society. I don't really buy this one, since child marriage has been shown to have negative psychological effects in places where it is common, but I suppose that Muslims would attribute that to abuse by the husband, not to the act of marriage itself.
#24
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Barney

In Mohammed's own time, Mohammed's conduct was moral and legal, no?  
As one who wrote the law, of course it was legal. However, just because one can get away with something, does not make it moral.
  • What I mean is that he wasn't getting away with anything.  There was nothing is Muhammad's cosmology, theology that frowned on marrying six year olds.  What would have been contrary to the morals of the time would have been to considered well-being of a six year in the sealing of a major geo-poltical alliance.  Abu Bakr was the first man to adopt Islam of his own free will and the most important source of wealth and arms available to Muhammad's campaign. At a very young age, Aisha was Abu Bakr's only daughter and her marriage the only convention available that would make Abu Bakr Muhammad's heir in terms of tribal leadership/inheritance customs.    It would have been nice to wait until AIsha at least hit puberty but Muhammad was an old man at war and he needed to seal his succession immediately.  Aisha remained with her parents and the marriage unconsummated until Aisha hit puberty.  SInce Muhammad's only really sacred, traditional, original  and long-lasting marriage was to a woman twenty years older,  and all of his wives except Aisha older widows, I think we can safely assume that Muhammad was not pursuing some pruient interest in his marriage to Aisha.  Aisha might as well have been a box of gold for all Muhammad's contemporary morality required of his duty to her.
Consider Jesus being crucified; was he evil because the law was against him? Of course not.
  • Not to you and I but to the Sanhedrin and Provincial Governor who tried him, Jesus was a terrorist attacking the most sacred  institutions in the  land during a week and year when both governments were barely clinging to civil peace.  Jesus was caught with a gas can in the munitions yard and such tresspassers are typcially shot on sight.   The reason neither Roman nor Jewish records made any note of Jesus' execution was because a lot of rabble rousers were getting executed  for committing less riot and treason than Jesus and neither government regretted their efforts to preserve the peace.

Plus when it comes to religious claims of perfection, the actions must hold up to the test of time or else not be perfect.
  • See, I don't know what that is. Who claims exactly what is perfect?


#25
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@oromagi
Who claims exactly what is perfect?
Muslims believe that Muhammad was the greatest man who ever lived and a possessor of moral excellence. This is why Muhammad marrying a child (even if the practice was common at the time) is considered a problem for orthodox Muslim views.

Aisha might as well have been a box of gold for all Muhammad's contemporary morality required of him.
Muslims believe Muhammad was objectively virtuous, not just that he adhered to the moral standards of that time.
#26
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
 This is why Muhammad marrying a child (even if the practice was common at the time) is considered a problem for orthodox Muslim views.
No. The only ones finding a problem with it are non-muslims.

For muslims, it is one of these options:

1) They dont know about it, so not a problem

2) They know about it, but they approve, so not a problem

3) They heard about it, but they suspect the accuracy of the hadith regarding Aisha's age, so not a problem

All muslims fall into one of these 3. In all 3 cases, not a problem.

There is no muslim that will find problem with anything that prophet did. The islam is built around prophet.

Only non-muslims actually have problem with it.

It almost never causes people to leave islam. Rather, it causes people to justify prophet instead of finding problem with what he did.
#27
swordburial17
swordburial17's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 15
0
0
5
swordburial17's avatar
swordburial17
0
0
5
-->
@Barney
I can explain it with some sense. My English will not be correct but the idea will be conveyed. I am a STEM student so I am not very good at formulating multiple arguments at a time but I can handle one. Throw me some questions 
#28
swordburial17
swordburial17's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 15
0
0
5
swordburial17's avatar
swordburial17
0
0
5
-->
@Barney
Mother Aisha was born in 604 AD and died in 678 (her life span was 74 years). She lived for 44 years after the prophet died and her marriage to the prophet was for a duration of 9 years and 5 months. Lets do the math 74 years (Aishas age at death) - 44 years (the amount of years she lived after the prophet died)= 30 years (her age at the time of the prophets death). 30 years - 9 years and 5 months (the duration of the marriage before the prophet died)= 20 years and 7 months. (her age when she got married). so the mathematics shows that Aisha was not 9 years old but an adult woman when she married the prophet. It seems to me (subjectively) that the scribe mixed up Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage with the length of her marriage to the prophet. 
Every thing I said is right. You will find the same in multiple places but the fools are not able to do this simple maths. I hope it clarifies your doubt.

There are many proofs that these hadiths are unreliable if you want  I can give you the answer with context.
#29
swordburial17
swordburial17's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 15
0
0
5
swordburial17's avatar
swordburial17
0
0
5
hadith cannot be true for several reasons. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Quran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child. Secondly, the age of Hazrat Aisha can be easily calculated from the age of her elder sister Hazrat Asma who was 10 years older than Hazrat Aisha. Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb al Amri Tabrizi the famous author of Mishkath, in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal), writes that Hazrat Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, ten or twelve days after the martyrdom of her son Abdullah Ibn Zubair. It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah or the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina. Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra.This puts the age of Hazrat Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hazrat Aisha in the year 2 Hijri it can be conclusively said that she was 19 at that time and not nine as alleged in the aforementioned hadiths.

Hadiths are unreliable and that's a fact. Every problem and thorn you see in Islam( except for homosexuality, if you say so) was written in Hadiths. From 72 hoors, to kaafir shit( mind you it is written in Quran Sharif that one cannot declare someone kaafir because kaafir means one who hides the truth not non believers ( Al baqarah) ) There is a valid reasoning why hadiths cannot be trusted and what could have the motive behind all the false hadiths. Ask me if you want to know. That would be long to explain and hard to write so I am reluctant to write it without knowing someone's going to read it.

My previous answer is factually disputed. Some say 614, some say 616, some say 610 some even say 602 so I took a different approach.
Topic's author
#30
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@swordburial17
Why were these mistakes (from multiple sources) not corrected? And since it seems much more easy to mess up years than basic details of relationships, why should we assume that the testimonies about the marriage are wrong instead of the calendar years?

Plus if those sources are known to be so unreliable, why are they used as a basis for law? To include allowing child marriage.