 |
| [original cartoon pending] |
CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Limitations Inherent Within a Human-Developed Quality Check Process." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024. [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.
CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:
M. Rasheed on BitChute!
*************************************
Q: If atheists are good at criticising Christianity and the Bible, why is it so hard for them to criticise Muhammad and the Islamic texts, since there is so much low hanging fruit for ammunition such as Muhammad’s pedophilia?
Krister Sundelin (atheist) - There are several reasons.
The first is that many atheists in the west have no real knowledge about Islam. We live, after all, mostly in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. Not only that, but many Christians are very in your face about their Christianity, just like you are. So we know more about Christianity than Islam.
The second is again a consequence of living in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. While many Christians spread their faith to any and everyone regardless if the audience wants it or not, Muslims in the west is a minority, and therefore mostly keep their religion to themselves as to not stand out so much and offend the host country.
The third is a corrollary to the second: the reason that we criticise Christianity is that you push it on us all the time. That merits a response. Muslims generally do not push their religion on anyone else, but when they do, they get the same kind of response.
I am also a bit surprised about your hangup on Muhammad’s pedophilia, and just gloss over the pedophilia of about a gazillion Christian priests – something which is still happening and which is even lower-hanging fruit than Muhammad’s.
You know, John 8:7, Matthew 7:5 and so on.
Ian MacKinnon - How old was Aisha when she got married? As for the Catholic priests, reprehensible no doubt, but their actions don't excuse pedophilia by others-pure "whataboutism, no?
Jake Mikelson - Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when the marriage was consummated. In today’s world we find this disgusting and reprehensible. However this was fairly standard in the ancient world.
The issue is that Muhammad is meant to be “the most perfect human” and so we should follow his example. Of course this is ridiculous and he was a product of his environment and time.
Starbuck - There are numerous misconceptions regarding Aicha's age.
Before she married the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Aicha was already betrothed to a polytheist named Jubayr ibn Mutim, which can only suggest she was much older than the hadith would have us believe.
The Qur'an which has an authoritarian character and does not mention the age of marriage, it forbids if a person lacks biological maturity as well as emotional, psychological, intellectual, and moral maturity.
And this is evident from the following verse;
"Test the orphans' ability until they reach marriageable age. Then if you think they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And don't consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up to demand it. If the guardian is right" ~(Qu'ran 4:6)
In Bukhari we read: “O young men, whoever of you is able to bear the responsibilities of marriage, may he/she enter into marriage. This will lower his gaze and keep him/her chaste. Whoever is unable, let him/her fast. Because fasting reduces (physical) desire.” ~(Bu. 62:4)
The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said also:
"The widow and the divorced woman should not be given in to marriage until an order is received from her, and the virgin should not be given in marriage until permission has been obtained from her" ~(Bu. 67:42)
So we see that Allah the Exalted protects individuals who are not intellectually capable of bearing the obligation of a marriage.
In summary, someone who thinks rationally understands that Aicha must have been far older than the given age.
Partly because Aisha would not have joined the combat in Uhud if the Prophet had not issued a ruling requiring everyone wishing to fight to be at least 15 years old.
This including Abdullah ibn Umar, Zaid ibn Thabit, Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah, Abu Saeed al Khudri, and Zaid ibn Arqam. They all were sent away, except for Raf'i ibn Khadij who was 14 years, he was asked to remain because he was an excellent archer.
Jake Mikelson - The majority of Muslims scholars do not contest the age of Aisha and is a somewhat recent approach by modern Muslims to try and come to terms with the concept that their prophet married and had sex with a 9 year old child.
However, if you say that the Quran and Muhammed was from a time long long ago then that is a different story. These types of marriages to young girls was not uncommon. But in today’s modern society this is disgusting and reprehensible which is why Muslims try to bury it or make up excuses or stories that she was much older.
Starbuck - Let's assume for the sake of argument that what the Hadith states is true, then we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?
For his enemies, the polytheists sought every opportunity to discretize him, he was accused of a liar, a madman, a sorcerer yet never was he accused of marrying a 9 years old, why is that?
Jake Mikelson - There is no need to assume for the sake of argument. The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate.
Starbuck wrote: "we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?"
There is nothing to “accuse” him of. Marriage of young girls was fairly common 1,400 years ago, so what would they accuse him of? However, so was slavery if you want to make that case.
As I stated, even Zainab the daughter of Muhammed was around 10 when she was married. His daughter Ruqqaya was also betrothed when she was 9.
So the issue is not specially that Muhammed married a 9 year old, but that Muhammed is supposed to be the prophet of God! Is this the behavior and example you would expect from the chosen one of God? And to be held up as the perfect human and an example for all mankind for all time?!
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate”
“Sahih/authentic” means that the person being interviewed passed the hadith collector’s quality check test. It doesn’t mean the content of the hadith really came from the person.
Jake Mikelson - As you say, it passed the quality control of the interviewer to determine that the person that has memorized the hadith is honest and trustworthy, along with the chain of narration.
It doesn’t mean that the person himself said the words (hadith), but it can be reliably traced back to the source (i.e. Muhammad).
The stamp of “sahih” is the highest grade a hadith can be given, therefore it should be taken as accurate.
Muhammad Rasheed - Again, all that Sahih/authentication means is that the hadith collector had a checklist they used to determine if the person being interviewed could be trusted or not. They could not verify whether the interviewee was passing along a false hadith or not, only that as far as the interviewee themselves knew, it was real and they weren’t deliberately passing along false info.
“Sahih/authentication” is only a limited QC tool, it is not proof that the hadith did in fact come from the prophet and the sahaba. Other methods need to be used to determine that next level of QC, including whether the hadith align to the letter and/or spirit of the Word of Allah (Qur’an).
Jake Mikelson - I agree with most of what you said. However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible. If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get. I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.
It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.
This is intellectual dishonesty.
If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree with most of what you said.”
I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so.
Jake wrote: “However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible.”
Well, I’m actually Muslim and have the Qur’an as my guide — it’s on earth for that very purpose, so the task isn’t impossible, one just has to care.
Jake wrote: “If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get.”
There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet.
Jake wrote: “I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.”
It’s true, but what’s important here is that the method he chose to formulate his quality checklist still possessed elements of arbitrariness, for one, and for two, the body of hadith literature never pretends to be anything but a work of mere men doing their best to collect the numerous sayings of the prophet as passed down in a couple of generations at that point. It’s not a divinely protected work. Its strength is that there are a LOT of them collected, and the most numerous ones are of the most strongly-supported class of material — which backs up the pillars & tenets of Islam commanded in the Qur’an. The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals.
Jake wrote: “It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.”
Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise.
Jake wrote: “This is intellectual dishonesty.”
I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty.
Jake wrote: “If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.”
Not aligning to the Word of God is a very compelling argument. But as a strict monotheist, I am, of course, biased in this regard.
Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so."
I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible. And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih. It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad. We must take it as authentic and accurate.
M. Rasheed wrote: "There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet."
That’s a contradictory statement. If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.
M. Rasheed wrote: "The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals."
I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.
M. Rasheed wrote: "Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise."
Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.
M. Rasheed wrote: "I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty."
Nobody expects you or anyone else to “blindly accept” anything. Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.
But I am going off topic.
If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible.”
Meaning that the best that the hadith collectors could do was at least try to ensure that the people they interviewed were not deliberately lying, whether the hadith they quoted were true or not.
Jake wrote: “And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih.”
Agreed. With “graded sahih” meaning that the interviewee wasn’t lying as far as the determination of the hadith collector’s QC check.
Jake wrote: “It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad.”
If the hadith really was originally fabricated before it reached the interviewee who recited it, then it ultimately does matter, which is why further QC checks are required — it’s not wise to take all of the hadith at face value since we agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba.
Jake wrote: “We must take it as authentic and accurate.”
We must take it that it passed the level of the hadith collector’s limited QC check, but to pretend that represents true authenticity & accuracy after we both agreed that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba is unreasonable.
Jake wrote: “That’s a contradictory statement.”
No, it’s not.
Jake wrote: “If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.”
The only honest & trustworthy being in existence who doesn’t make mistakes is God. Well-meaning humans accidentally pass along false info they mistakenly assumed was correct all the time.
Jake wrote: “I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.”
Again, sahih/authentic hadith are those that were collected from interviewees determined to be trustworthy according to the hadith collector’s QC checklist. The method cannot verify whether the hadith really came from the prophet and the sahaba, therefore, of the body of sahih hadith, some are stronger than others.
Jake wrote: “Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.”
Those hadith are in the minority of collected hadith. The majority of collected hadith are those that show the prophet as truthful, of exemplary character, and affirm the tenets and pillars of the faith.
Jake wrote: “Nobody expects you or anyone else to ‘blindly accept’ anything.”
Your last post gives the impression that you want ‘sahih’ to mean that all of the hadith so labeled should be accepted as authentic & accurate, despite it 1) not being possible to verify whether the sayings really were uttered by the prophet and 2) the fact that ‘sahih’ is only a reference to the QC method developed to determine the interviewees trustworthiness and not the content of the hadith itself.
Jake wrote: “Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.”
My point was that, of the vast collection of ahadith, those that show the prophet in a poor light are in the minority and are the least supported. There’s no reason to give extra attention to them since they are less likely to be accurate. The biased opponents of Al-Islam would like to take the opposite approach for obvious reasons, but objectively that wouldn’t make any sense.
Jake wrote: “If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.”
It should be as long as it agrees in letter and/or spirit with the revelation of the One God (Qur’an). If it does not, then it clearly fails the next level of authenticity quality check, which was a method not included in the collection processes of the original hadith collectors.
Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "If the hadith really was originally fabricated before it reached the interviewee who recited it, then it ultimately does matter which is why further QC checks are required — it’s not wise to take all of the hadith at face value since we agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba."
Anything beyond this verification would be speculation. Nothing can be 100% verified. Multiple attestation of the hadith through various chains would amplify the probability, but nothing can be 100%.
M. Rasheed wrote: "Those hadith are in the minority of collected hadith. The majority of collected hadith are those that show the prophet as truthful, of exemplary character, and affirm the tenets and pillars of the faith."
Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person, and from what I’ve read and studied, Muhammad was certainly not a good person, let alone of exemplary character.
M. Rasheed wrote: "My point was that, of the vast collection of ahadith, those that show the prophet in a poor light are in the minority and are the least supported. There’s no reason to give extra attention to them since they are less likely to be accurate. The biased opponents of Al-Islam would like to take the opposite approach for obvious reasons, but objectively that wouldn’t make any sense."
Again, I would not say they are in the minority but are pieces of a whole picture. You can’t ignore them just because they go against what you believe. We all carry biases but I am a firm believer of following the truth no matter where it leads or how uncomfortable it can be - I only care about the truth.
Anyway, appreciate the discussion my friend, I wish you and your family all the best over the holiday period.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “Anything beyond this verification would be speculation.”
Not quite. The Qur’an is a most excellent guide in this regard.
Jake wrote: “Nothing can be 100% verified.”
That’s where faith comes in.
Jake wrote: “Multiple attestation of the hadith through various chains would amplify the probability, but nothing can be 100%.”
Some hadith have more attestations than others and are amplified closer to the 100%. This is significant, despite your own hostile outsider penchant to downplay it.
Jake wrote: “Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person”
What a genuinely odd thing to say. If you’re supposed to be a Christian, surely you recognize that this comment taints your witness terribly. In essence, God commanded that “Thou shalt not bear false witness!” and Jake counters with, “That’s not a thing!” Okay. Wow.
Jake wrote: “and from what I’ve read and studied”
“Studied” on anti-Islam hate sites, mind you.
Jake wrote: “Muhammad was certainly not a good person, let alone of exemplary character.”
You’re saying this as a hostile outsider who is biased against the religion. Your opinion isn’t objective nor clear-headed. Your mentality is one of the narrow-minded partisan, or a fanatic sports team fan who is committed to be against the opposing team NO MATTER WHAT. Hence, how you can actually allow “Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person” to come out of your face.
Jake wrote: “Again, I would not say”
That doesn’t matter.
Jake wrote: “they are in the minority”
They are in the minority of the ahadith. Literally. The majority of hadith literature supports the core tenets of the religion of Al-Islam and are amplified closer to 100% verification.
Jake wrote: “but are pieces of a whole picture.”
Only in the sense that dubious haters lurking in the background seeking to cause discord and insider threat sabotage are always part of any human story of such size & scale. But pretending that dank negativity found as a minority within a large body of testimony automatically is true just because the dedicated hostile outsider committed to being biased against the material wants it to be, is unreasonable.
Jake wrote: “You can’t ignore them just because they go against what you believe.”
lol Sure, I can. Watch:
Jake wrote: “We all carry biases”
We should train ourselves to be biased towards God’s Truth. You’ve already expressed that you believe truthfulness is a treacherous tool of the satan—or whatever you wanted me to believe with that objectively crazy comment—so your witness is tainted and you are dismissed from the jury selection.
Jake wrote: “but I am a firm believer of following the truth”
Are you?
Jake wrote: “no matter where it leads or how uncomfortable it can be - I only care about the truth.”
So, you want to chase down and uphold the minority comments that conspicuously conflict with the hadith that have the greater attestation towards being 100% verified, and you think this weird behavior reflects love of truth. lol
Jake wrote: “Anyway, appreciate the discussion my friend, I wish you and your family all the best over the holiday period.”
Peace.
Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "Some hadith have more attestations than others and are amplified closer to the 100%. This is significant, despite your own hostile outsider penchant to downplay it."
Not sure what you are saying here, I was agreeing that some hadith have greater attestations than others making them stronger and more likely to be true. Like that of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, is multiply attested.
I didn’t make any hostile remarks but you are certainly being very defensive.
M. Rasheed wrote: "What a genuinely odd thing to say. If you’re supposed to be a Christian, surely you recognize that this comment taints your witness terribly. In essence, God commanded that 'Thou shalt not bear false witness!' and Jake counters with, 'That’s not a thing!' Okay. Wow."
What are you confused about? So being truthful is what makes you a good person? A murderer that is truthful is a good person? A rapist that is truthful is a good person?! That’s just nonsense.
M. Rasheed wrote: "'Studied' on anti-Islam hate sites, mind you."
Anti-Islam hate sites?! What are you talking about? So the Quran, Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, these are anti-islamic sources?! This is what I read, not random websites on the internet!
M. Rasheed wrote: "You’re saying this as a hostile outsider who is biased against the religion. Your opinion isn’t objective nor clear-headed. Your mentality is one of the narrow-minded partisan, or a fanatic sports team fan who is committed to be against the opposing team NO MATTER WHAT. Hence, how you can actually allow 'Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person' to come out of your face."
Pot, meet kettle lol
I am on objective outsider reviewing the Islamic sources without any “indoctrination” to believe everything being said. You on the other hand cannot be objective because you are embedded within the religion itself and you are telling me that my opinion isn’t objective?! Gold.
Muhammad was a warlord that murdered and executed people, raped women, was a slave owner and child molester. How can this be a prophet of God?! It is not me who is committed to opposing reality. I see it for what it is, not through the lens of someone embedded in the religion.
By your own admission you ignore the references that show Muhammad to be of poor character, such as the child marriage to Aisha. Multiple chains of narration, but hey, it makes Muhammad look bad so just ignore it. Or worse, let’s lie and say she was much older to fool those that don’t want to actually read.
M. Rasheed wrote: "You’ve already expressed that you believe truthfulness is a treacherous tool of the satan"
What an asinine thing to say. I already explained that being truthful doesn’t necessarily make you a good person. Is that all it takes for you to believe someone to be a good person, that they are truthful?! Hitler believed he was truthful, was he a good person?
M. Rasheed wrote: "So, you want to chase down and uphold the minority comments that conspicuously conflict with the hadith that have the greater attestation towards being 100% verified, and you think this weird behavior reflects love of truth. lol"
What minority comments conflict with the hadith that have greater attestation? The child marriage to Aisha is towards 100%, does that conflict? The Quran even supports it [Q65:4]. What about the slaves Muhammad owned? Again, numerous hadith and the Quran supports it. So where is the conflict?
Imagine that it wasn’t Muhammad that had committed these acts but that it was another figure from a different religion, would you still find it morally acceptable? I dare say not, but you are blinded by faith and your own bias.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “Not sure what you are saying here, I was agreeing that some hadith have greater attestations than others making them stronger and more likely to be true. Like that of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, is multiply attested. I didn’t make any hostile remarks but you are certainly being very defensive.”
This very first part is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. There are an estimated tens of thousands of ahadith. Very few of them include the ones Christians and atheists like to harp on (like the Age of Consent item with Aisha). The only reason you wouldn’t be aware of this fact is if the sum total of your “research” involved perusing anti-Islam hate propaganda site, which cherry-pick all the negative stuff and give the false impression it makes up a higher percentage than it does. Trying to convince me from your uncritical non-Muslim position that my religion is false is an inherently hostile act.
Jake wrote: “What are you confused about?”
lol I’m not confused at all. I’m just watching to see where you plan to go with this.
Jake wrote: “So being truthful is what makes you a good person?”
Being truthful is objectively one of the principles of righteousness. lol
Jake wrote: “A murderer that is truthful is a good person?”
Both ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder!’ and ‘Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness’ are commandments of the Lord thy God. Is it possible to break a commandment, repent, and resume a good person standing?
Jake wrote: “A rapist that is truthful is a good person?! That’s just nonsense.”
Being good person would involve more than one of the righteous principles, I would think. Being truthful and a man of your word is universally recognized as a trait of a good person. You seem to go my your own original moral code, or you are trying to downplay ‘truthfulness’ specifically for some reason.
Jake wrote: “Anti-Islam hate sites?!”
Yup.
Jake wrote: “What are you talking about?”
Probably ‘AnsweringIslam.’
Jake wrote: “So the Quran, Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, these are anti-islamic sources?! This is what I read, not random websites on the internet!”
This explains why you tried to downplay ‘truthfulness’ as a righteousness trait. Shame on you. The quality of your argument gives away what you’ve read and haven’t read. You only copy/paste cherry-picked verses and hadith from your favorite anti-Islam hate sites, since the quality of your argument is no different than any other surface-level troll “critic.” This is Quora, so you don’t use all of those giggling emojis like they use in the FB debate chats and you seem supremely confident in your sneaky gas lighting/grifting skills to hide them behind an unassuming polite tone.
Jake wrote: “Pot, meet kettle lol”
*shrug* I know my religion. You only pretend to know it. I’ve had arguments with critical scholars who were actually studied in the material and could go into the deep waters.
Jake wrote: “I am on objective outsider”
lol No, you’re not. You literally believe that just because someone claims something negative it must automatically be real, for no other reason than because they direct it towards a religion you don’t subscribe to.
Jake wrote: “reviewing the Islamic sources”
You mean the cherry-picked items in prepackaged arguments on anti-Islam hate sites.
Jake wrote: “without any ‘indoctrination’ to believe everything being said.”
Instead, you’re brainwashed to uncritically believe all the negative stuff said about Islam on your favorite hate sites. I know.
Jake wrote: “You on the other hand cannot be objective because you are embedded within the religion itself and you are telling me that my opinion isn’t objective?! Gold.”
I changed my name to this when I converted. I’m not an Arab. But go off.
Jake wrote: “Muhammad was a warlord that murdered and executed people, raped women, was a slave owner and child molester.”
Literally no objective truth-seeker would come away with this summary. This proves without a shadow of a doubt that you have only brainwashed yourself on anti-Islam hate sites. You’ve never read the Qur’an for yourself. The prophet was none of these things. You don’t know the history of the religion.
Jake wrote: “How can this be a prophet of God?!”
You are tiresome.
Jake wrote: “It is not me who is committed to opposing reality.”
Oh, yes, you are. You are lazy, disingenuous and you hate integrity.
Jake wrote: “I see it for what it is, not through the lens of someone embedded in the religion.”
You see it through the willing dupe eyes of a hate propaganda site subscriber.
Jake wrote: “By your own admission you ignore the references that show Muhammad to be of poor character, such as the child marriage to Aisha.”
lol How does this item show him being of poor character? In what way?
Jake wrote: “Multiple chains of narration”
“Multiple” is relative. “Multiple” compared to what? Of the thousands and thousands of collected hadith, the marriage to Aisha item is barely mentioned in comparison. There are far more hadith explaining how to pray, make the poor tax, even of the prophet brushing his teeth, etc., but you think the marriage to Aisha ones are some of the most prolific because that’s how they look as displayed on an anti-Islam hate site. lol
Jake wrote: “but hey, it makes Muhammad look bad”
Only if the one reading it has a skewed mind against the material and a penchant for interpreting everything from a negative angle because of his own hatred. “Warlord” indeed. lol
Jake wrote: “so just ignore it. Or worse, let’s lie and say she was much older to fool those that don’t want to actually read.”
Even if she was 9 yrs old when the marriage was consummated, what of it? Marrying women of as soon as they reach puberty was/is a normal custom in traditional families that value having a million children. This isn’t even a religious item, so why would it be relevant in this context?
Far more is known in the record about Aisha’s sister Asma, and calculating her age from the Hijrah with Aisha does show that Aisha was much older. So, what measurement are you using to choose one age as real and the other as fake outside of your own anti-Islam biases and hatred?
Jake wrote: “What an asinine thing to say.”
You’re the one who jumped through hoops to pretend that truthfulness isn’t a trait of righteousness, seemingly to cover over your own plans to pretend you did a deep dive into Islam.
Jake wrote: “I already explained that being truthful doesn’t necessarily make you a good person.”
In popular fiction, authors often will write a villainous figure sympathetic by having them be uncharacteristically truthful and bend over backwards to keep promises, etc. In real life, being truthful goes a long way towards being a genuinely good person, and people will often not put themselves in compromising situations if they know it will require lying to maintain or protect people in the shady business.
Jake wrote: “Is that all it takes for you to believe someone to be a good person, that they are truthful?!”
The “spirit of truth” is all Jesus used to describe the coming Comforter/Paraclete after him who would bring a fuller explanation of the divine message of his Only True God. Here I find you trying to convince me that it is a small matter, by contrast. Curious.
Jake wrote: “Hitler believed he was truthful, was he a good person?”
Did he? Should I take your word this is so? Why would I do that? Aren’t you the one who called the prophet of the One God a warlord and child molester? That was you, right?
Jake wrote: “What minority comments conflict with the hadith that have greater attestation? The child marriage to Aisha is towards 100%, does that conflict?”
You don’t understand what a “minority” among a majority means? This seems pretty elementary. Or do you somehow believe that the marriage to Aisha makes up 10,000 hadith of 10,100? lol
Jake wrote: “The Quran even supports it [Q65:4].”
lol No, it doesn’t. smh There’s a million reasons why a woman wouldn’t get her menses, especially in those conditions back then.
Jake wrote: “What about the slaves Muhammad owned?”
He freed his slave upon receiving his prophethood commission and adopted him as his son. What about him?
Jake wrote: “Again, numerous hadith and the Quran supports it. So where is the conflict?”
It seems like you are throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Do you actually have a point right now?
Jake wrote: “Imagine that it wasn’t Muhammad that had committed these acts”
I’m apparently supposed to blindly accept a hostile and biased outsider’s willfully twisted interpretation of these acts as default truth.
Jake wrote: “but that it was another figure from a different religion, would you still find it morally acceptable? I dare say not, but you are blinded by faith and your own bias.”
Why would I care about the hypothetical figure from another religion when only Islam is the final religion perfected for me by God? I don’t share your blind hatred against Islam for such a challenge to even make any sense intellectually because I know too much about the faith to play stupid games that require me to convert to paganism.
No comments:
Post a Comment