Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

Kaal, I’ll level with you now.

Your issue with Ahamdis, as seen in your posts, seems to reflect your own issues. By your own admission you don’t know any Ahmadis, but you go ahead and disparage them anyway. This is not a healthy sign.

And here, on this board, is not the first time you’ve done this. This has gone on for several months now. Initially I was not sure what to make of it. But it now seems to be following somewhat of a disturbing pattern.

What compels you to opine on and to ridicule an unknown group of people, is puzzling. Note that I am not debating if Ahamdis are regressive or not … but I am wondering about your own insecurities. And then you demand objectivity from others! Do you see the irony? Or did I miss something?

Dude, you seem to have issues. These “circle of time” antics are cute once in a while, but they seem to be masking something disturbing. Perhaps you should pause and reflect … as you seem to be getting way over your head on this one ...

Kaka (#451), fair questions, but first, here's some more on #3:

Plague

Quran tells accounts of people who persisted in rebellion against prophets, and were therefore punished by the Almighty. Allegedly, something similar happened in the case of Mirza Sahib.

The issue is a plague that hit Punjab, around 1901. It seems that many (hundreds of thousands?) of people perished, with the plague affecting Ahmadis with a lesser severity, proportion wise. It seems Mirza Sahib, as one may expect from a claimant of prophethood, had prophesied divine punishment for those who persisted in rebellion against him. Today, verification of this plague and its affect may be a bit difficult to establish with reasonable certainty, unless, perhaps, if one decides to put much effort into it. Furthermore, could this plague be considered divine punishment?

A few months ago, a chowkie, a non-Ahmadi Muslim, mentioned this plague. Apparently he had looked into this matter with considerable effort. He was in agreement that the plague did take place and, perhaps more importantly, significant number of people accepted Mirza Sahib after this plague.

However, this chowkie was of the opinion that Mirza Sahib played on people’s fear and capitalized on the plague. Fair criticism, I thought. Then I offered an explanation, that the plague incident and Mirza Sahib have much in common with Quranic accounts of natural disasters and other prophets. E.g., Noah’s enemies got flooded; those who rebelled against Lot were punished by a natural disaster. Quran mentions some other people who rebelled against some prophet (name?) and their cities got destroyed by sand-storms.

Quran gives several accounts of prophets warning their enemies, who in turn were eventually hit by natural disasters. In that sense, Mirza Sahib is no different than those prophets mentioned in Quran.

[As a side comment, I am of opinion that … if no more prophets were to appear, Quranic accounts of prophets become somewhat irrelevant after the last prophet. However, much greater utility of these accounts is achieved if prophets were to continue to appear, as these accounts would then serve as reminders as to what may transpire, how to judge a prophet’s claims, etc. Now, one may argue that this Quran, prophet business is all hocus-pocus ... but that would be a different issue altogether.]

Eclipses

I’ll mention one more issue here.

Records indicate that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had mentioned signs for appearance of Issa. In some hadith, the place of “Qada” too is mentioned, which is similar to the orignal name of Qadian.

One of the signs mentioned by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was solar and lunar eclipses, on certain days and nights of the same month of Ramadaan, as signs of divine support for this prophet.

It is worth mentioning that in New Testament, Jesus is reported to have mentioned his second coming also. And he mentioned solar and lunar eclipses as signs of his reappearance (account of Matthew, for one). Furthermore, similar references are seemingly found in Hindu, as well as Sikh scriptures … suggesting eclipses as signs of appearance of a reformer of sorts.

When Mirza Sahib claimed to be this prophet, he was asked about these eclipses. Eventually the eclipses took place, in 1894 in the eastern hemisphere, and then in 1895, in the western hemisphere. The issue once again, is not as straightforward as it may seem … and some due diligence may be needed. Here’s a link with more details:

Click [Eclipses]

Note that there are arguments, and counter-agruments on the issue of these eclipses. You know the disclaimer: be skeptical of what you read and hear ...

Some more thoughts

What makes a person accept a claimant of prophet in person may be much more complex than that. Some people claim having visions about him before and after his claims, some are influenced by blind faith, some find some level of reason in his claims, some come along to be a part of what they perceive is a revolution. How a person chooses to connect the dots remains somewhat of a puzzle.

If one goes by the accounts, it may be difficult to fully understand why Bilal put with up extreme punishment and did not denounce Muhammad; why Omar, a fierce, staunch enemy of Muhammad, once day decided to accept him; why Israelites decided to follow Moses through the ocean and desert, even as an army chased them; why Noah’s people felt that his arc would save them from the flood. The list goes on and on. More later …

Once the "seal" is done away with, we reach very dramatic results - we open our eyes to entirely different kinds of religions - where everyone of us, each human individual, has the potential to be a "real prophet from God" - a leader to ourselves and to others. God becomes much closer to us, a concept personally accessible to each individual.

Whether that is a better appraoch to God or not is not the issue. The issue is that that kind of thinking is immeasurably beyond the head of Sattar sahib whose only contribution to "logic" has been to declare traditional Islam supposedly illogical, so he could find a way to declare Mr Mirza a new prophet. How silly one can get!

Sattar Sahib has no answers. Never did.

#447 Posted by sattar2

[ajeya, you too seem needlessly angry. I don’t get it … but keep it up, and this discussion too will go downhill.]

I thought my tone and language was very measured and polite. I hope you will not use the excuse that I am "angry" to abandon this debate/discussion. In the past many have used the excuse that I am a "hater" and "intolerant" and left the field suddenly.

Let me assure you that I am not the least bit angry.

[You are right in that “Muslim sources” have validated some very damning accounts of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Blasphemy laws, execution for adultery, killing apostates … are all based on such accounts.

Do note that these Muslim sources have also condemned Ahmadis as heretics.

My view is that Islam too has suffered at the hands of its followers, who made things up for political gains. This corruption, where patience and virtue got replaced by violence and coercion, is one of the reasons of their downfall.

Now, we can go in circles … citing one account against another, one verse of Quran against another, Quran versus ahadith, and so on. Two people reviewing the same information may come to different conclusions … and that’s ok. What is important is that people shun coercion and try to achieve peace and harmony in their communities. This is should be good enough, no?]

Actually, no - this is not good enough. As I mentioned in my previous post, instead of "going around in circles", we can be OBJECTIVE. So kindly pick ANY ONE of the accusations against your "prophet" and cite the pros and cons in the historical evidence that you have come across. This will help all of us see how you logically came to the conclusion you did. At the very least, we can see the arguments FOR and AGAINST him being guilty of THAT PARTICULAR accusation.

I think this is very fair and objective. Whatever conclusions anyone can draw, at least we can see why you feel the way you do.

So please go ahead.

And again - kindly don't abandon the discussion under the assumption that somehow I am "angry". I am not.

Thank you. (I'll even put in a smiley here - :-) )

Good work sattar!

It seems that once the roadblock of 'prophethood sealant' has been cleared, onlookers need only verify the honesty and integrity of the claimant and then decide accordingly. You must know that that should not be enough.

Suppose, the 'prophethood sealant' roadblock was not cleared even in Mirza's mind and maybe some Ahmedi (as opposed to the hard core Qadiyaani) do believe that Mirza is not a nabi (with all the bells and whistles of a full-fledged nabi). And with all the good work that Mirza did prior to his 'big premier', he still has had to have some 'light shining upon him' from the beyond in order to be accepted as more than 'just another brilliant Islamic scholar'. Do you get kaka's drift?

From another angle.. now that the 'prophethood sealant' has been removed from YOUR and most of the Qadiyanis' minds, what stops you from accepting that kaka is a prophet? Sure, you will look up kaka's felony record but what else? kaka has these dreams.. do you wanna know the content? kaka also loves dogs and upholds the truth regardless of ethnicity, gender or nationality? Please say this is not enough or KAKA IS GOING ALL OUT TO PREACH!!

sattar

You have not yet answered the very simple question: how do you know Kaka is not a Prophet from God? He is far more intelligent and more honest than some people you strongly believe in. I definitely am (is there a rule that there can be only one Prophet at a time?).

------------

You have a very self-seving belief in 'faith,' Sattar. There is no reason God should not recommend coercion when a true believer is confronted with certain types of people. God is God, after all, not your or my servant.

If you still don't see the irony of promoting faith yet insisting it be self-serving to you (yes, a whole bunch of semitic faiths are irretrivably insulting to others - perhaps you don't get that), then take it as the latest message from your own God, through me, if not from Kaka himself, your latest Prophets.

Kaka,

I did not get to #3 earlier, so here’s something now. Once again, it’s worth mentioning that this is only my take on the issue; I don’t want to assume much on your behalf.

+++

One of the things Quran mentions about prophets, when addressing people, is something like … “Allah has raised prophets from among you”.

One seeming message here is that, one will find prophets to be truthful, honest men even before they claim to be prophets. Conversely, if a person is known to be a forthright, honest, pious person all along, his claim of prophethood may be worth considering.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that when Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) started to preach openly, he gathered people and asked them if they would believe him if he told them that enemy’s army is hiding behind the hill?

People responded in affirmative, saying that they have known Muhammad to be an honest, truthful person. Then the Prophet (pbuh) went on the claim his messengership to the people.

Abu Bakr, etc.

Now, my understanding is that … much earlier, Abu Bakr, had (supposedly?) instantly accepted Muhammad (pbuh) when Muhammad (pbuh) told him about his messengership in person. And so did Khadijjah. This acceptance may not have been on blind faith completely. Having known Muhammad closely may have played some role in Abu Bakr and Khadijjah accepting his claim. Furthermore, it seems the then-existing scriptures foretold appearance of a Prophet. Abu Bakr and Khadijjah may have been familiar with those accounts. Some records seem to support the view that there was an expectation, among at least some people, about appearance of a prophet during those times.

Mirza Sahib

Now, this applies to Mirza Sahib as well, from what I know. Obviously, people who accepted him will claim that he was truthful. So was can go in circles. I”ll mention two things here:

1) Right here on Chowk, sometime ago, Urstruly was criticizing Mirza Sahib. He claimed something like … “Mirza was an honest, well-regarded person, and that he very well defended Islam against criticism raised by others (I think he used a phrase “Champion of Islam” … but I could be mistaken here) … but then Mirza got too greedy and decided to claim prophethood to further his gain, and the British supported him to create fitnah ...", and so on ….

I asked Urstruly if he understood the significance of acknowledgment that Mirza was an honest, decent man BEFORE he claimed to be a prophet. I then explained to him the issue of a prophet being well-regarded by others before he claims to be a prophet (Urstruly, correct me if needed…).

2) Conversely, I have looked into some criticisms of Mirza Sahib by his opponents … mainly related to, but not limited to, his writings. A non-Ahmadi I know had raised this issue and asked to explain obvious indecency in Mirza Sahib’s writings. I was myself puzzled, and looked up the references. There were 8-10 of them. In pretty much all the cases, merely reading the full paragraph explained away the objections.

Such false propaganda against Mirza Sahib, played in favor of Mirza Sahib, at least in my mind. Quran, from what I recall, also mentions enemy’s propaganda against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and the propaganda against Mirza Sahib seemed to fit that pattern.

I’ll pause here for now … (will be out for a day or so; will check back later)

Kaal,

Apparently this is not getting through your thick skull (Lord, have mercy on me! … [shaking my head]). OK, I’ll try again, so pay attention this time:

My issue with tahmed was not about his blind faith. Read this line 3 times. Done? Good. Here it is once again: My issue with tahmed was not about his blind faith.

My issue with tahmed had to do with him criticizing others’ faith. He has a habit of disparaging faith of Ahmadis, Sufis, Christians, etc. To add to the irony, he conveniently overlooks seeming contradictions of his own views.

If he did not criticize other faiths, would I have a problem with what he believes? Of course not! Do I have a problem with your faith? Of course not! Do you see the point???

Moving on …

If a person peacefully practices his faith, he should be left alone. Unnecessary arguments and criticism are counterproductive. This is the point I have made all along, but it seems you did not get it. This is why I pointed out your obsessive behavior. Give it up, for god’s sake.

+++

And don’t read too much into my posts to kaka. I am neither pushing my views, nor criticizing anyone else’s. And I have made this abundantly clear by repeatedly asking him remain skeptical of my views.

With his background, I can see kaka having genuine inquiries about Ahmadis (if PM had similar inquiries, I missed them). And I am responding mainly since kaka does not seem to have an axe to grind. And this is more than what can be said of your posts; which is very unfortunate.

ajeya, you too seem needlessly angry. I don’t get it … but keep it up, and this discussion too will go downhill.

You are right in that “Muslim sources” have validated some very damning accounts of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Blasphemy laws, execution for adultery, killing apostates … are all based on such accounts.

Do note that these Muslim sources have also condemned Ahmadis as heretics.

My view is that Islam too has suffered at the hands of its followers, who made things up for political gains. This corruption, where patience and virtue got replaced by violence and coercion, is one of the reasons of their downfall.

Now, we can go in circles … citing one account against another, one verse of Quran against another, Quran versus ahadith, and so on. Two people reviewing the same information may come to different conclusions … and that’s ok. What is important is that people shun coercion and try to achieve peace and harmony in their communities. This is should be good enough, no?

sattar, chalo, just pleaase answer Kaka's specific query in simple to understand terms, so we can see your criticism of tahmed's views is fair.

Kaal, holy cow man, you seem to have issues (rolling my eyes). You are getting more unhinged with each passing post. Learn to relax and to not get so obsessive. Moving on …

Your repeated offers at explaining the monkey god defeat the purpose. It is none of my business … and fails to interest me. No, seriously. Believe or worship what you want, but let’s go easy trying to impress it upon others.

And this is the point I’ve made all along: if people practice their faith in peace, it is futile, even counterproductive to criticize their faith. Apparently this did not through to you. I don’t doubt you can explain your faith quite well (… at least in your own assessment), but it’s your business, and no one else’s. So be content with what you have. Got it? Good!

Along the same lines, my responses may or may not make sense to you. And I’m still not sure what point you are tying to make. So let’s leave things at that and move on. Fair enough?

Folio

You may be right. Sattar Sahib can't seem to put together an argument the first half of which is not a plaintive, pitiable pleading about being left alone to his "faith" and the second half an ignorant comment about monkey gods.

There is a very deeply troubled and troubling group of people here, who need to be understood, and dealt with accordingly.
--------------------------

Anyways, let's all wait for our friend sattar sahib to answer Kaka's question.

Kaala Chakra,

'I will re-state my earlier guess: Ahemedi community is likely to be the among the most 'conservative' and closed-minded of all who call themselves Muslims. Among the most regressive groups of people, only they should be more likely to wear suits when travelling outside of their homes.'


U are very very close to the truth.

The pretence of ahmed/hamid's liberalism is a happenstance.

If Ahmedis are not branded as non-Muslims they'd in the forefront chanting slogans like 'death to India' & 'death to Hindus'.

Secondly their continuos rant aganit arab traditions and arab books (qoran & hadits) is another happenstance.

Trust me!

If that's not be case these guys wud NOT be naming their offspings with arabic names like Ahmed, Hamid, Yasser & Sattar.

If they truly oppose arabic books & traditions they'd be following the native names of Punjab (something similar to Indonesians who hardly use arabic names though they are Muslims).

So Ahmedis are true munafiqs (hypocrites).

Ajeya, you will have to wait very very long. You might even have to keep moving on.

--------------------------------

kaka

That question has been asked of Sattar Sahib before, by PM, by me, wihtout anyone getting any answers. There is a ...moving on...fetish at work here, whether any questions are addressed or not.

Why is your question so important, some others on Chowk might wonder. After all, our good friend Sattar keeps asking to take everything he says with a cartloads of salt? "Faith" is all he wants to be allowed to have, not reason, really.

Because, Sattar Sahib is engaging in a very poorly disguised pretense. Sattar Sahib is convinced that he has a "logically" better Islam than that of what he calls "mainstream" Islam. Not to mention, Ahemedis are spread out around the world 'logically' convincing others to their "faith," not asking others to join in their blind faith.

Nothing in Sattar Sahib's religion seems to make it anything remotely "logical." Without knowing any Ahmedis personally, and having read only Sattar Sahib here, I will re-state my earlier guess: Ahemedi community is likely to be the among the most 'conservative' and closed-minded of all who call themselves Muslims. Among the most regressive groups of people, only they should be more likely to wear suits when travelling outside of their homes.

#426 Posted by sattar2


[Oh ho bhei, itna ghussa? Your question is fair … but the way you are asking, the discussion will quickly degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Let’s proceed carefully, without jumping the gun here. ]

This is wonderful. Actually on Chowk I'm used to people just shutting up and then resurfacing after some time on some other board mouthing the same arguments they ran from the last time.

So excuse me for being slightly shrill there (in anticipation of the same thing happening).

Okay...so let's see.


[One may find contradictory records on a given historical issue. It is therefore not surprising to find some controversial accounts regarding Muhammad also. Note that history gets murky with passage of time – accounts get changed, even fabricated; evidence gets more subjective; facts become increasingly elusive, and interpretation of facts, more elusive still. Various scenarios need to be weighed against each other in efforts to come up with a one that seems more likely than others.

Muhammad was not only a (self-proclaimed?) prophet, but also a head of state of sorts. Arguably, people had good reasons to falsely associate things with him in order to validate their own agendas.

Controversial accounts, where Muhammad allegedly had people killed for leaving Islam, for blaspheming him, etc., should be juxtaposed with other accounts that bring to light a very humble, compassionate man. There is a big disparity between the volumes of these two different types of accounts, with the latter outweighing the former by a considerable margin.

It is for such reasons that I have formed my opinion in favor of Muhammad, rather than against him. And I have no beef if a person looks at the same evidence and comes up with a different conclusion. What is important is to be careful in one’s analysis and to give the benefit of doubt, as needed, within a reasonable limits.]

Yes, but whenever you judge someone dispassionately, you have to weigh things in their totality. For many many years, the accounts about muhammad by ALL AVAILABLE ACCOUNTS, by historians who are Muslims themselves, are unequivocal about the most damning accounts - in the koran or without. The weight of historical evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY against your "prophet". Therefore if you come to the conclusion that he was a good man, you are not making an unbiased judgement.

If you consider yourself objective, take ANY ONE of the damning accounts, and list the evidence for him and against him. I guarantee you that you will find VERY LITTLE to substantiate your judgement.

So I'll be waiting for you to show some reason (with evidence), how you reached such a conclusion.

sattar,

Since you laid your cards up front, kaka is pouring grains of salt all over your posts to make 'em palatable:). Mashalllah, you are doing a great job articulating what makes sense to you without resorting to the Sword of Certainty. Ever since kaka's irtidaad (rejection of traditional metaphysics), kaka himself has resorted to the participation of extra-terresterials in the shapes of Zeus, Apollo, Krishna et al to fill the 'god-shaped hole'. So don't worry too much about how it all doesn't make sense..

The second part of question #3 in 431 was meant to bring the focus back to what it means to accept someone as a prophet by someone who did not live on through 1947-74. All the 'derived' parallels between ibn Muryum and Mirza notwithstanding (since it would take 1947/1974 for events to shape up to support Mirza's contention), kaka is interested in what a person not too attached with khatm-e-nabuvvat dogma (and listening to Mirza teaching in person), should accept Mirza as a significant man from Allah (it seems that the only criteria for prophethood is to prove that Mohammad was not the last one.. and as soon as you proved that.. presto!, the smart guy who proved it is the new prophet WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT YOU WOULD CONTEND).

What about kaka's claim to prophecy? Is one of the drawbacks that kaka was not born 1400 years after Mirza and talks in third person to blend in with the morons?