What makes something good?

[جوري]

I think it was when I saw that you were arguing off the back of Apocrypha, which no Christian denomination includes in their canon, that was when I realized just how bad things were for you on the argument front.

and believe me I can understand your need to do so.. whether in the Gospel of James or the forgeries of Saul.. it doesn't matter to me which of your 'bibles' you choose to subscribe to, in fact it is a further elucidation to the corruption and forgeries of your religion. The fact that it is recorded as such even if in 'one' of your books is enough of a testimony. You can work out on your own private time, which parts of your bibles you should keep and which you should throw out!

You were equating marriage to the betrothal of underage minors, or, in legal terms, child abuse.

No, I wasn't.. and again, I'd urge you to work on your reading and comprehension before engaging in dialogues.. I prefer to ignore your all too frequent bêtise, since I haven't the time nor the interest to engage puerile minors with concocted ideals!

all the best

 

[Supreme]

and believe me I can understand your need to do so.. whether in the Gospel of James or the forgeries of Saul.. it doesn't matter to me which of your 'bibles' you choose to subscribe to, in fact it is a further elucidation to the corruption and forgeries of your religion. The fact that it is recorded as such even if in 'one' of your books is enough of a testimony. You can work out on your own private time, which parts of your bibles you should keep and which you should throw out!

You really don't read what I write, do you? I just referenced that I'm talking about apocryphal writings, that is non Christian writings, in the very lines you quoted!!! Gosh, man, pull yourself together, will you?
If you prefer to continue to babble such unfathomably stupid arguments, hey, be my guest! It's not something that has any bearing on Christian theology, but as long as you don't expect to be taken seriously, it's none of my business.

 

[جوري]

You really don't read what I write, do you? I just referenced that I'm talking about apocryphal writings, that is non Christian writings, in the very lines you quoted!!! Gosh, man, pull yourself together, will you?

did you do poopy in your diepy and that is why you are so grumpy... aohhhhhhh

If you prefer to continue to babble such unfathomably stupid arguments, hey, be my guest! It's not something that has any bearing on Christian theology, but as long as you don't expect to be taken seriously, it's none of my business.

Better yet since you are unable and unwilling to carry yourself to a level or sustain your position with common sense simply buzz off in lieu of asking others to subscribe to what you deem part of 'christian theology'?


you have more sects than listed here:

• 1.1 Roman Catholic Church
  • 1.1.1 Latin Rite
  • 1.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches
• 1.2 Eastern Orthodox Church
• 1.3 Oriental Orthodox Church
• 1.4 Assyrian Church of the East
• 1.5 Anglican Communion
• 1.6 Other churches self-identified as Catholic
  • 1.6.1 Independent
  • 1.6.2 Orthodox
    • 1.6.2.1 Byzantine
    • 1.6.2.2 Oriental
    • 1.6.2.3 Western-Rite
  • 1.6.3 Assyrian
  • 1.6.4 Anglican

• 2.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants
• 2.2 Lutheranism
• 2.3 Anglican Churches
• 2.4 Reformed Churches
• 2.5 Presbyterianism
• 2.6 Congregationalist Churches
• 2.7 Anabaptists
• 2.8 Brethren
• 2.9 Methodists
• 2.10 Pietists and Holiness Churches
• 2.11 Baptists
  • 2.11.1 Spiritual Baptists
• 2.12 Apostolic Churches - Irvingites
• 2.13 Pentecostalism
• 2.14 Charismatics
  • 2.14.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches
• 2.15 African Initiated Churches
• 2.16 United and uniting churches
• 2.17 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
• 2.18 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
• 2.19 Southcottites
• 2.20 Millerites and comparable groups
  • 2.20.1 Sabbath Keeping Churches, Adventist
  • 2.20.2 Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Non-Adventist
  • 2.20.3 Sunday Adventists
  • 2.20.4 Sacred Name Groups
• 2.21 British-Israelism
• 2.22 Miscellaneous/Other

• 3.1 "Prairie Saint" denominations
• 3.2 Rocky Mountains denominations
• 3.3 Other denominations

• 4.1 Oneness Pentecostalism
• 4.2 Unitarianism and Universalism
• 4.3 Bible Student groups
• 4.4 Swedenborgianism
• 4.5 Other non-Trinitarians

and as many bibles, with each sect deeming the other heretic.. and you want to speak of taking this corrupted text over that corrupted text? aside from all of that, it isn't the first incident of 'pedophilia' in your bible if we are to go by dear Hugo's definition, it is certainly riddled with, scatology, concubines and incest of 'god's holy' men .. not to mention positively no agreement between your 'accepted' texts.
I really don't think you want to go down that track if you want to have some semblance of credibility!




all the best as usual

 

[CosmicPathos]

@ Hugo: So what if she was "swinging" on a swing in a garden? How does that affect her ability to marry? I've seen 40 year old men playing with toy cars. I've seen 35 year old blokes playing with cell phones gadgets as if they are toys. Just because you think that only chidren swing on swings, it does not mean that ONLY children swing on swings. I'd like to swing too if I am in the mood. What a foolish argument.

 

[Hugo]

What about your own lord Jesus ? He had no shame ordering the Killing of young Palestinian virgins and then consumating himself with 32 of them ?
Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore KILL every male among the little ones, and KILL every woman (female) that hath known man by lying (having sex) with him.But keep ALIVE for yourselves all the GIRLS and all the women who are VIRGINS." So Jesus almighty also needed his share in the pound of flesh and so 32 were his share and he cohabited with 32 raped and ravished palestinian girls in heaven. Imagine In a Book of God , God giving instruction that you verify whether the women is a virgin or not and uttering this filth and dirt , "kill every little child male or female .Kill them all Why the double standard ?

You ignorance is mind boggling. Firstly, 'Palestinian' is a modern term and Jesus was not even on the scene until at least 1,600 years after the incident in numbers. Or are you conceding that Jesus is God?

Secondly, if you look at my earlier posts you will see that I have stated that I find many things in the Bible very very troubling and though I believe they took place I take no pleasure in them, I do not ever draw ANY lessons from them and unlike Muslim killings I do not teach them to children as a something to be proud of as you do.

You seem equally ignorant of Islam for in Q8.41 we read that Mohammed was entitled to his share of the booty (including women), in fact 1/5 of it and his followers might have thought that unfair but conveniently the name of God is appended to that of the prophet so how exactly was Allah supposed to take his share of the booty including the women?

 

[CosmicPathos]

You ignorance is mind boggling. Firstly, 'Palestinian' is a modern term and Jesus was not even on the scene until at least 1,600 years after the incident in numbers. Or are you conceding that Jesus is God?

Secondly, if you look at my earlier posts you will see that I have stated that I find many things in the Bible very very troubling and though I believe they took place I take no pleasure in them, I do not ever draw ANY lessons from them and unlike Muslim killings I do not teach them to children as a something to be proud of as you do.

You seem equally ignorant of Islam for in Q8.41 we read that Mohammed was entitled to his share of the booty (including women), in fact 1/5 of it and his followers might have thought that unfair but conveniently the name of God is appended to that of the prophet so how exactly was Allah supposed to take his share of the booty including the women?

If what you say is true regarding booty then it was the best chance for Muhammad's followers to rebel against him cuz after all then it would seem they were being used and abused under the name of an imaginary God by Muhammad? Right? Or you think that his followers were dumb, all of them? Especially affter Uhud's defeat, these followers would have every reason to reject Muhammad because apparently Muhammad's "imaginary" God did not even help Muhammad win the battle....

 

[Hugo]

@ Hugo: So what if she was "swinging" on a swing in a garden? How does that affect her ability to marry? I've seen 40 year old men playing with toy cars. I've seen 35 year old blokes playing with cell phones gadgets as if they are toys. Just because you think that only chidren swing on swings, it does not mean that ONLY children swing on swings. I'd like to swing too if I am in the mood. What a foolish argument.

I mentioned the swing because that comes from the words of Aisha herself. If you think it right that a 50 year old man can have sexual relations with a 9 year old girl then say so openly so we KNOW what and how you think and one presumes that you would allow it to happen to your daughter?

If I look at your argument it appears to be that because grown men like small cars or cell phone gadgets or fancy a ride on a swing then logically according to you sex with children is legitimate - if my argument was foolish yours is abhorrent.

 

[CosmicPathos]

I mentioned the swing because that comes from the words of Aisha herself. If you think it right that a 50 year old man can have sexual relations with a 9 year old girl then say so openly so we KNOW what and how you think and one presumes that you would allow it to happen to your daughter?

If I look at your argument it appears to be that because grown men like small cars or cell phone gadgets or fancy a ride on a swing then logically according to you sex with children is legitimate - if my argument was foolish yours is abhorrent.

Why do you assume that just because I believe in something then I should follow it? I believe that Muhammad pbuh had the exclusive right to marry a 9 year old. This belief of mine can remain intact even if I would not want my 9 year old daughter to be married off. Of course if Muhammad pbuh were to ask for her hand, I'd have no hesitance in giving her away to him (pbuh). But the question is that would he want to marry a 9 year old if he were to be present in today's world? God knows but by no means was his marriage to Aisha, a girl of 9 years, a criminal act in 7th century AD.

The point is that Aisha was not a child at 9 years old. You think she was. I think she was not.

Secondly, Aisha (ra) does not claim anywhere that she feels she was married off early and she seems to have no concerns with it.

 

[جوري]

There are those that try to claim that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) might have possibly had wealth as a motive to fabricate Islam and his Prophethood.
However, when one examines the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) one would see that this does not seem at all to be plausible.
One argument that opponents put forth is the fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had several houses and they would quote Surah 33:53 in order to demonstrate this. However, just because one has several houses this does not necessarily imply that the houses are luxurious or are filled with luxurious possessions.
The Prophet's house was not built of any precious stones just like the Kings of the past:
Nearby, rooms reserved for the Prophet's household were built of stones and adobe bricks with ceilings of palm leaves. [Bukhari 1/71,555,560; Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/56], cited here)
Umar ibn Al Khattab (arguably, the second greatest companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and is also the second caliph after Abu Bakr) states that:


Saheeh Muslim


Book 009, Number 3507

I visited Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he was lying on a mat. I sat down and he drew up his lower garment over him and he had nothing (else) over him, and that the mat had left its marks on his sides. I looked with my eyes in the storeroom of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I found only a handful of barley equal to one sa' and an equal quantity of the leaves of Mimosa Flava placed in the nook of the cell, and a semi-tanned leather bag hanging (in one side), and I was moved to tears (on seeing this extremely austere living of the Holy Prophet), and he said: Ibn Khattab, what wakes you weep?

I said: Apostle of Allah, why should I not shed tears? This mat has left its marks on your sides and I do not see in your storeroom (except these few things) that I have seen; Caesar and Chosroes are leading their lives in plenty whereas you are Allah's Messenger. His chosen one, and that is your store! He said: Ibn Khattab, aren't you satisfied that for us (there should be the prosperity) of the Hereafter, and for them (there should be the prosperity of) this world? I said: Yes.


So here we observe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) definitely did not live in a palace nor slept on luxurious beds.

Others argue that Allah made the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealthy through conquests and they put forth the following narration:

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs."


They would also state that the Qur'an says that the Prophet would receive a fifth of the war booty and cite verses from the Qur'an such as Surah 8, Verses 1 and 41.

However, as we can see the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not take this money in order to live luxuriously. He used to take that money and give it away in charity instead of keeping it for himself. (See Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 4, Book of One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah, Hadith number 326, where Umar ibn Al Khattab says "So this property was especially given to Allah's Apostle, but, by Allah, neither did he take possession of it and leave your, nor did he favour himself with it to your exclusion, but he gave it to all of you and distributed it amongst you till this property remained out of it. Allah's Apostle used to spend the yearly expenses of his family out of this property and used to keep the rest of its revenue to be spent on Allah's Cause. Allah's Apostle kept on doing this during all his lifetime.")

The Prophet (peace be upon him) would use whatever wealth was necessary in order to take care of his family. Now one may argue that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used this (i.e. fabricating Islam) as a means to take care of himself and family.

However, this doesn't seem to be very convincing. Couldn't the Prophet (peace be upon him) find an easier way to earn a living? Why did he go through years of persecution in Mecca and endure humiliation and ruin his reputation amongst his friends and relatives for this purpose?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to actually be wealthy before his Prophethood (while he was trading with his wife Khadija). Thus, why the need to fabricate a religion?

Also, the Meccans offered the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealth and fame in return for him to stop preaching Islam, but he refused. To this offer he replied:


By Allah, if they put the sun on my right and the moon on my left to leave this matter, I would not, until Allah shows me otherwise or I die trying for its sake. (Ibn Hisham, As-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah, Volume 1, page 265)


If his motive really was for wealth then he would have taken the deal.

Also, it's not like the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his wives were living luxuriously:


Saheeh Muslim

Volume 7, Number 324

Narrated Abu Hazim:

I asked Sahl bin Sad, "Did Allah's Apostle ever eat white flour?" Sahl said, "Allah's Apostle never saw white flour since Allah sent him as an Apostle till He took him unto Him." I asked, "Did the people have (use) sieves during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle?" Sahl said, "Allah's Apostle never saw (used) a sieve since Allah sent him as an Apostle until He took him unto Him," I said, "How could you eat barley unsifted?" he said, "We used to grind it and then blow off its husk, and after the husk flew away, we used to prepare the dough (bake) and eat it."

Book 024, Number 5185:

A'isha reported that the pillow on which Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) reclined was of leather stuffed with palm fibre. (See also Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 8, Book Pertaining to Making the Heart Tender, Hadith number 463)


Despite his responsibilities as a prophet, a teacher, a statesman, and a judge, Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to milk his goat, mend his clothes, repair his shoes, help with the household work, (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith number 23606 and declared authentic by Shaykh Albani in Saheeh Al Jaami', Hadith number 4937)

Opponents would cite the following verse from the Qur'an:
Surah 93:6-8
Did He not find you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) an orphan and gave you a refuge? And He found you unaware (of the Qur'an, its legal laws, and Prophethood, etc.) and guided you? And He found you poor, and made you rich?

They would then argue that this refers shows that Allah made the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealthy.
However, we have to put into consideration that this Surah was revealed early in Mecca and that is why Ibn Abbass was of the opinion:
And he also said: (Did He not find thee) O Muhammad (destitute) poor (and enrich (thee)) with the wealth of Khadijah; and it is also said this means: and made you content with that which He gave you? The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Yes, O Gabriel!" (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ?Abbâs, Commentary on Surah 93:8, Source)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) married Khadija who was wealthy. However, the Prophet married Khadija way before he became a Prophet. So it's not like the Prophet (peace be upon him) used Islam to gain wealth.
Or it could simply mean that Allah made him rich in a spiritual sense:

æóÞóÇáó ÇöÈúä ÚóØóÇÁ : æóæóÌóÏóß ÝóÞöíÑó ÇáäøóÝúÓ , ÝóÃóÛúäóì ÞóáúÈß​

And Ibn Attaa' said: And He found you poor in spirit, so He enriched your heart. (Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 93:8, Source)


Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) could have easily stolen the goods of the Meccan Kuffar that he had in his possession (since one of his jobs was being a caretaker of people's goods) while migrating to Medinah. Rather, he ensured that their property was fully returned to them despite their ill treatment of him. (This also goes to show how the Kuffar still trusted him with their property even though they accused him of fabricating Islam):


On the night of the Hijrah, Muhammad confided his plan to 'Ali ibn Abu Talib and asked him to cover himself with the Prophet's green mantle from Hadramawt and to sleep in the Prophet's bed. He further asked him to tarry in Makkah until he had returned all things left with Muhammad to their rightful owners. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, Chapter: Al Hijrah or the Prophet's Emigration, Source)


This event is also recorded by Al-Bayhaqî in As-Sunan Al-Kubrâ Volume 6, page289 and Sheikh Al-Albânî declared it to authentic (hasan) in Erwaa Al Ghaleel, Hadith no.1546.

In conclusion, the argument that money could have been a motive for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to fabricate Islam does not really hold any water. If he was really in it for the money then we would expect to have seen him living a lavish life, yet this is far from reality. Just because the Prophet (peace be upon him) had much wealth in his possession, that doesn't mean that he spent it on himself. Rather, he used it for the benefit of society (e.g. helping orphans).


Feel free to contact me at [email protected]

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/w...ammad__peace_be_upon_him__to_fabricate_islam_

 

[جوري]

I mentioned the swing because that comes from the words of Aisha herself. If you think it right that a 50 year old man can have sexual relations with a 9 year old girl then say so openly so we KNOW what and how you think and one presumes that you would allow it to happen to your daughter?

If I look at your argument it appears to be that because grown men like small cars or cell phone gadgets or fancy a ride on a swing then logically according to you sex with children is legitimate - if my argument was foolish yours is abhorrent.

isn't it equally abhorrent for the 'mother of god' to be wed to a 95 year old man while she herself is a child? or even if I am to ignore that the 'mother of god' married a 95 year old, don't you think it is abhorrent that god should impregnate a child with himself? what a terrible burden for a little girl to come back to her village and be viewed as an adulteress at 12 yrs of age.. Do you also find it equally abhorrent that in your bible virgins should be kept for 'war booty' and the rest killed, and how about finding it abhorrent for a 'righteous man' to get drunk and bed both his daughters and father his grandchildren?

I mean if your level of 'abhorrence' is this fantastic, it is a wonder to me at all why you subscribe to Christianity?

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Why do you assume that just because I believe in something then I should follow it? I believe that Muhammad pbuh had the exclusive right to marry a 9 year old. This belief of mine can remain intact even if I would not want my 9 year old daughter to be married off. Of course if Muhammad pbuh were to ask for her hand, I'd have no hesitance in giving her away to him (pbuh). But the question is that would he want to marry a 9 year old if he were to be present in today's world? God knows but by no means was his marriage to Aisha, a girl of 9 years, a criminal act in 7th century AD. The point is that Aisha was not a child at 9 years old. You think she was. I think she was not. Secondly, Aisha (ra) does not claim anywhere that she feels she was married off early and she seems to have no concerns with it.

This is an interesting point and argument (which I do not subscribe to) and the way you have constructed it not on a mass of evidence but on a single event and person and as it happens this way of thinking is the focus of a lot of research. I am out of station right now so if you will allow I will respond fully in a few days time because the ideas are in fact central to truth and falsehood and in religion where material evidence for God is absent, crucial.

 

[Hugo]

I should follow it? I believe that Muhammad pbuh had the exclusive right to marry a 9 year old. This belief of mine can remain intact even if I would not want my 9 year old daughter to be married off. Of course if Muhammad pbuh were to ask for her hand, I'd have no hesitance in giving her away to him (pbuh). But the question is that would he want to marry a 9 year old if he were to be present in today's world? God knows but by no means was his marriage to Aisha, a girl of 9 years, a criminal act in 7th century AD.

I appreciate your honesty here even though I find what you say shocking and that you would not admit of any consent by your daughter. But this does open up a point of discussion and I think you will easily see its relevance to the Aisha story and how you or I might see it and learn from it. I wonder do you even ask yourself why we have such difficulty learning what we most need to know to mitigate our most destructive behaviours. It’s a kind of self induced stupidity where we are wholly unable to learn what others are telling us and often those others are the most gifted and insightful of people.

Take the famous stoic Greek philosopher Epictetus (AD55), who commented on human behaviour this way "it is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinion of things". In other words it is not what happens to us that determines our behaviour but how we interpret it. For example, facing a failure of some kind one person sees it as a new challenge, another as abject defeat while someone else will see it as punishment he or she deserves. So critically, our decisions about what to do follow from the interpretation we have made surrounding what has happened or what we see or hear or read. So this uncertainty lies at the heart of what we need to know to understand ourselves and behave differently. So more often than not we are not responsible for what happens to us but we are always responsible for how we interpret it. Sadly, though we seem to dislike taking responsibility for ourselves as much as we dislike uncertainty.

Modern neuroscience has shown that we cannot see reality directly, all we ever get are guesses or interpretations that our mind creates about what is going on and since no two people ever have exactly the same neuroanatomy or experience, no two people ever interpret anything in exactly the same way. In a way this is frightening as it means that each of us lives alone, in our own world of meaning so if everything is a guess and approximation, events can and will invalidate our ideas, show them to be false or weak and all we can do is hold on to what we really know is untrue, get rid of what we thought was true and replace it with new ideas or possibly modify our previous knowledge. All this can be traumatic and cause considerable stress and tension but inescapably your future depends on how you respond.

We have all had the experience of feeling good, being in control then suddenly you see you have made an error of judgement or an unavoidable fact emerges that shakes the many ideas underpinning your whole sense of being a person - the “I”, the “me” the “myself” gets invalidated by events. Meaning that now you have to go through a period of uncertainty until new ideas or understanding emerges. That is why we cling to supposed certainties because we are terrified of new ideas sometimes this goes as far as breakdown or panic disorders. If you get through it you emerge wiser and stronger from the invalidation of your ideas. For example, in the Wizard of Oz Dorothy and her companions emerge wiser and stronger from the invalidation of their idea that the Wizard could solve all their problems. Paradoxically and in contrast Othello in the Shakespeare play is destroyed by the invalidation of his belief that his wife Desdemona had been unfaithful.

One way of escaping this dilemma is to lie to ourselves because we don't have the courage and strength to face the truth of the situation - indeed we often lie about lying by saying is its denial or someone is economical with the truth or white lies. We lie at a public level as well and conspiracy theories abound and these give us a way of avoiding the truth or taking the blame and better still we can put the blame and responsibility on someone else!

Unlike lies, truth requires evidence to support it. But no matter how much evidence we accumulate, our truths will be an approximation not absolute certainty - certainty exists only in our fantasies. Lying give us the temporary delusion that our personal and social worlds are intact, that we are loved, that we are safe, that we are right so we are not likely to be overwhelmed by the uncertainty in a living world we can never fully know. But we cannot escape uncertainty: it's part of our very being and sooner or later we have to confront it. Lies always have a network of consequences we did not expect or intend. In the short term lies will protect us but in a linked-up, complex world the consequences can be mega disastrous. After all when we lie, we multiply the inherent difficulty we have in trying to determine what is going on around us. Lying damages our brains and we create confusion around us. (Based on the article: New Scientist, 19 June 2010 "Tell me lies, tell me sweet lies" by Dorothy Rowe page 28)

 

[aamirsaab]

Judging an act that occured 1400 years ago by the standards of today is a flawed argument. If one were to bring such an argument into an essay, and have it marked, it would fail. For two reasons:
* you are failing to understand retrospective data, and then making an argument around it
* in this particular case, you are also using appeal to emotion.

Both of these fly in the face of logic.

Now, with that cleared up, shall we get back on topic?

 

[Rhubarb Tart]

I think we are on topic because the 'new' dimension I have suggested here is that something good/bad might be defined not by the act itself but by the person who carries it out

According Hugo, he is on topic.....

 

[Hugo]

Judging an act that occured 1400 years ago by the standards of today is a flawed argument. If one were to bring such an argument into an essay, and have it marked, it would fail. For two reasons: * you are failing to understand retrospective data, and then making an argument around it * in this particular case, you are also using appeal to emotion.
Both of these fly in the face of logic. Now, with that cleared up, shall we get back on topic?

This I find intriguing, for you moral standards are relative and I assume therefore that Sharia and the sayings and doings of the prophet can be safely consigned to history because our modern standards are so much superior to them.

I am not sure how many essays you have written but usually the idea is to include examples and discuss them because one hopes it is possible to learn from the past. Of course we have to see things in context but that does not mean we have no values with which to judge, commend or condemn the past. On your argument and flawed logic I simply dismiss Hitler's atrocities as being a product of its time and therefore understandable and pardonable.

The reason this is on topic is that we are looking at what makes something good and one possible way is to consider past events as exemplars. I see nothing wrong with that and we logically should not automatically sanctify or condemn the past.

 

[جوري]

Judging an act that occured 1400 years ago by the standards of today is a flawed argument. If one were to bring such an argument into an essay, and have it marked, it would fail. For two reasons:
* you are failing to understand retrospective data, and then making an argument around it
* in this particular case, you are also using appeal to emotion.

Both of these fly in the face of logic.

Now, with that cleared up, shall we get back on topic?

ah but you forgot one thing, which is his inability to defend similar incidents if not far 'worse' by his understanding/judgment in the religion he chooses to subscribe to.. does that make him the very definition of cognitive conservatism?

Still waiting on why a 12 year old was wed to a 95 year old, and why god would choose a young child to carry him and give birth to him!

 

[جوري]

This I find intriguing, for you moral standards are relative and I assume therefore that Sharia and the sayings and doings of the prophet can be safely consigned to history because our modern standards are so much superior to them.

I am not sure how many essays you have written but usually the idea is to include examples and discuss them because one hopes it is possible to learn from the past. Of course we have to see things in context but that does not mean we have no values with which to judge, commend or condemn the past. On your argument and flawed logic I simply dismiss Hitler's atrocities as being a product of its time and therefore understandable and pardonable.

your very definition of 'atrocity' is rather fickle and makes you a hypocrite in the process at best..

why do you deflect away from answering the tough questions? firstly in the comparative thread, secondly in the health and science section where I posted two very specific questions in which you are to apply the knowledge you know to practical purposes and then here where you fail to defend the happenings of your own book and the god you worship before quickly making far less illogical events akin to a hitleresque act!

no one is interested in a 500 word essay that has no relevance to the topic at hand, least of which when said topic is introduced by you!

 

[aamirsaab]

This I find intriguing, for you moral standards are relative and I assume therefore that Sharia and the sayings and doings of the prophet can be safely consigned to history because our modern standards are so much superior to them.

Not everything is black and white. Some things have changed since 1400 years ago (like social customs), but I'm sure you will agree that today the following are still crimes, which have not changed over the past: theft, murder, alcohol related crimes and so on and so forth.

I am not sure how many essays you have written but usually the idea is to include examples and discuss them because one hopes it is possible to learn from the past. Of course we have to see things in context but that does not mean we have no values with which to judge, commend or condemn the past. On your argument and flawed logic I simply dismiss Hitler's atrocities as being a product of its time and therefore understandable and pardonable.

Except you didn't take the social context into consideration. You are ranting about the Aisha marriage (keyword is MARRIAGE which you critics seem to forget), which has been explained millions of times AND the social context is there for you to read/understand - you ignore this and then make an argument surrounding that ignorance, which is why it would fail in an essay (not to mention there are hadith stating she was older than 6, showing your bias and appeal to emotion argument).
Your counter argument of Hitler is embarassing; you and I both know genocide is a crime today as it was also during Hitler's time and centuries before it.

The reason this is on topic is that we are looking at what makes something good and one possible way is to consider past events as exemplars. I see nothing wrong with that and we logically should not automatically sanctify or condemn the past.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with that. Except, as already stated, you choose to ignore the sole factor as to why such an event was considered good. It's not merely the fact that it occured that makes it good, but the reason (and in this case, social customs) behind it.

 

[Hugo]

Not everything is black and white. Some things have changed since 1400 years ago (like social customs), but I'm sure you will agree that today the following are still crimes, which have not changed over the past: theft, murder, alcohol related crimes and so on and so forth.

I quite agree but you were the one calling for modernity and all I was doing, as you are now doing is saying that that past is the only place we can learn from

Except you didn't take the social context into consideration. You are ranting about the Aisha marriage (keyword is MARRIAGE which you critics seem to forget), which has been explained millions of times AND the social context is there for you to read/understand - you ignore this and then make an argument surrounding that ignorance, which is why it would fail in an essay (not to mention there are hadith stating she was older than 6, showing your bias and appeal to emotion argument).

Firstly, I did not 'rant' but quoted from the book "Wives of Mohammed" written in 1959 by the very well respected scholar, Bint al-Shati' - unless of course you regard al-Shati' as ranting? You speak of social context and it is fair to bring that in. I have not ignored context and the fact that this happened and cannot be undone. But are you now saying that child marriage was acceptable then and therefore moral or are you saying, as others have done that this was a special case? But what my whole post is about, my substantive point is what teaching do you take from the Prophet's example with Aisha - does that example mean that marriage and its full consummation with a child is acceptable in Islam, is it therefore good and to be emulated - do you now see what these posts are about?

 

[جوري]

Firstly, I did not 'rant' but quoted from the book "Wives of Mohammed" written in 1959 by the very well respected scholar, Bint al-Shati' - unless of course you regard al-Shati' as ranting? You speak of social context and it is fair to bring that in. I have not ignored context and the fact that this happened and cannot be undone. But are you now saying that child marriage was acceptable then and therefore moral or are you saying, as others have done that this was a special case? But what my whole post is about, my substantive point is what teaching do you take from the Prophet's example with Aisha - does that example mean that marriage and its full consummation with a child is acceptable in Islam, is it therefore good and to be emulated - do you now see what these posts are about?

You in fact do a great deal of rant.. btw I am quite familiar with Aisha abdur'rahman and her work, which part of your quote is a direct quotation of her writing? further, Aisha (bint as'shati') had her scholarship and PhD in Arabic language and literature, which doesn't make her a scholar in theology.
lastly, which part of the 12 pages here did you find difficult to understand with regards of customs and laws, and most importantly.. should child marriages be sanctioned in christianity given that your God slept with a 12 year old, was born of her while she was married to a 95 year old? Hopefully you can move beyond your inertia and offer a response to the tough questions, I think you've tired all of us with your, well rant/diatribe!

all the best