Does Islam, in fact, Encourage Paedophilia?

Reading your answers to kaka, sattar, clearly you don't give ANY clear answers, except repeating many times the request to not take your views seriously since you seem afraid to state them clearly.

tahmed may appear illogical but at least he clearly says what he says.

Perhaps you may ask me about my monkey god. I will show you what it means to give clear answers, without hums and haws, and tons of sophistry.

Again, are ANY (reasonably substantial) accounts/narratives available fron NON-Muslims? If not, if the ONLY accounts that remain are the ones from people who consider Muhammad a prophet, then for ANY unbiased person, significant doubts remain about those parts that are very favorable toward him.

That's just basic logic, nothing judgemental. You may still believe whatever you wish, that's not the point, nor it ever was.
-----------------------

"Quite possibly," "may be"....man, I was trying to keep people from concluding that you are not just engaging in sophistry here. :(

Rahul, In order to understand #380, one has to understand what precisely Masadi was saying and what zee was agreeing with.

For me, it is hard to understand Masadi bhai between all his aholes, and other curses and abuses toward everybody who has a different point of view.

In genral though, I would expect Zee to right join with/support ANY Muslim of any views against a third party who was seen attacking (the reputation) of the Prophet in any way. So that is perfectly consistent, irrespective of what Folio and Masadi were discussing and how.
----------------------

sattar, whoa, man, don't get so defensive! In case you are curious about the Monkey God, I will be happy to answer all your questions, and teach you whatever you need.

We are just trying to figure out, after your helping question tahmed sahib, whether you have any consistent stand, or whether you, Dullahbatti wondered, are just a sophist.

If you are unwilling or unable to explain your own views without repeatedly referring to Monkey Gods (whom you do not understand at all), or without repeatedly requesting to be allowed whatever you wish to (as you do in your posts to kaka), then you limit what one can conclude.

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

And asking everyone to give you time to smoke, or take what you say with a grain of salt is pretty silly. It might entertain, but doesn't add to your arguments :)

Here’s one more parallel between Issa and Mirza Sahib that I forgot to mention:

Ahmadis believe that Issa (Jesus Christ) eventually died, and is buried in Kashmir. Kashmir almost went to Pakistan, but slipped away in the final countdown. The town of Sirinagar, where Jesus is buried, is a few tens of miles out of Pakistan’s territory (LOC).

Mirza Sahib is buried in district Gurdaspur. This district too almost went to Pakistan, but slipped away in the final countdown. The town of Gurdaspur, where Mirza Sahib is buried, is a few tens of miles out of Pakistan’s territory.

Moving on …

Kaka, here's some more …

According to recorded ahadith, Prophet Muhammad at times drew comparisons between Jew and Muslims … in that Muslims will have lots in common with Jews. He said that Muslims would become corrupt just like Jews … to the extent that if Jews engaged in indecency with their own mothers, so would Muslims. He compared Muslims and Jews with two identical shoes … each resembling the other.

Prophecy

In one of the hadith, he prophesied that one day, his ummah would be divided, such that one sect would be against the other 72 sects. And that this one sect would be on the right path. When asked more about this particular sect, he replied that they would be like my companions (refer to Parallels heading below for details).

Now, each sect argues that they are this one sect. And so do Ahmadis.

From what I know, Jews too were divided in 72 sects when Jesus Christ appeared.

Anyway … in 1974, Ahamdis were declared non-Muslim, unanimously by all other sects (72 in number). Ahmadis took it as an endorsement of their faith, and fulfillment of an age-old prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). More on this later …

Parallels

Note that early Muslims were persecuted for declaring their faith in Allah and His messenger. They avoided giving aazan and prayed in secrecy. They were not allowed to perform hajj either. Very similar is the case with Ahmadis. They are persecuted for declaring their faith in Allah and His messenger. They are not allowed to give aazan, and are forced to pray in secrecy. And they are not allowed to perform hajj either.

Below is the recorded prophecy of the Prophet (pbuh) about 72-versus-1 one sect. Note the details. Further below is the clip of one of Pakistani newspaper, Nawa-e-Waqt. Note the details. Note how newspaper heading matches the prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Abdullah bin Amar (RA) relates that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said "Surely things will happen to my people as happened earlier to Israelites, they will resemble each other like one shoe in a pair resembles the other to the extent that if anyone among the Israelites has openly committed adultery to his mother there will be some who will do this in my Ummah as well, verily the Israelites were divided into 72 sections but my people will be divided into 73 sections, all of them will be in the fire except one." The companions asked, 'Who are they O Messenger of Allah,' Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "They are those who will be like me and my companions."

News-clip from Nawa-e-Waqt (October 10, 1974)

Translation: “One of the special importance of this decision has been that on it the consensus of Ummah has been in substantially correct manner. Throughout the history of Islam, such an overwhelming complete consensus has never been reached on any important topic. Other than the big religious scholars, holders of Shar'a, all the political leaders and political leaders of each group have agreed on this consensus. Other than these, all sufia karam, aarifeen Billah, the leaders of Tassawaf and practices had complete agreement. Excluding Qadianis all the rest of 72 sects which are considered to be of Muslims, agreed and are happy on the solution of this affair. Among the leaders of the nation and a'maideen, there does not appear to be any group which does not have a joyous attitude towards this decision. Nation should take a notice of this."

+++

Kaka, once again I’ll mention … not to forget skepticism on your part. Each person explains things his way … and Ahmadis, myself included, are no different. So take it with a grain of salt ...

Kaka, here’s part of my view. I cannot emphasize this enough … that it may or may not make any sense to you and others. I realize that lines between faith and reason blur easily, and I am only human. So take it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I won’t dwell on “end of prophethood” issue. For now let’s assume that Ahmadi-Muslim view has its merit.

+++

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned appearance of Issa-ibne-Marriam among his followers. Ahmadis take this as a metaphor suggesting parallels between original Issa (from 2000 years ago), and a future prophet who will appear among Muslims.

It is like calling a smart person, Einstein; or a hardnosed person, Hitler. Such names reflect attributes shared between the individual and the historical personality.

Now, we can argue validity of such ahadith, who said what, and what-not. But I’ll skip over those issues for now.

Original Issa (aka Jesus Christ) appeared 1400 years after law-bearing prophet, Moses. Jesus did not bring a new law, but his aim was to bring Jews back to the law of Moses. During his time, Jews had deviated from Torah, their clergy had become corrupt, and Jews were occupied by an outside empire (Romans). Jesus tried to soften up the Jewish attitude towards violence by emphasizing patience and forgiving aspects of Torah (“turning the other cheek”).

Mirza Sahib (the prophesied Issa-ibne-Marriam, as accepted by Ahmadis) appeared 1400 years after the law-bearing prophet, Muhammad. Mirza Sahb did not bring a new law, but his aim was to bring Muslims back to the law of Muhammad. During his time, Muslims had deviated from Quran, their clergy had become corrupt, and Muslims were occupied by an outside empire (British). Mirza Sahib too tried to soften up the Muslim attitude regarding jihad by emphasizing patience and forgiving aspects of Quran (“biggest jihad is jihad against one’s own self”).

+++

Now, my understanding is that … quite a few Muslim scholars, from different sects, were expecting “Issa” to appear before the end of 14th century Hijri (~sometime in 19th century AD; or is it 20th century AD?, I lose track sometimes).

+++

A parallel to this is found in Bible also.

Some books of the Old Testament (OT) mentioned rising of Prophet Elijah to the skies. The last book of OT (Malachi) prophecies that Elijah will descend down from the skies when Messiah (Jesus Christ, the original one) appears.

In New Testament, we find that when Jesus claimed to be this Messiah, his disciples asked him about descent of Elijah from above the clouds. Jesus responded that his contemporary, Prophet John the Baptist (Yahya for Muslims) had appeared in spirit of Elijah.

+++

Furthermore, note that OT was interpreted to suggest Elijah had been physically lifted to the skies. Then NT book of Malacho was interpreted to mean that one day, Elijah would physically descend from the skies. This is very similar to Quran being interpreted to show that Issa was physically lifted to the skies, followed by ahadith, interpreted to suggest that Issa will some day physically descend from the skies.

As it turned out, Elijah never came back. Those expecting his physical descent from above the skies, did not accept Jesus. Similarly, Muslims await physical descent of Issa from the skies, and will never accept any prophet on this basis alone.

More later …

"Kaka, we can discuss this … but must you sound like you are pointing a gun to my head? Can I at least light up a cigarette?"
lol.Its been a pleasure to read you,particularly,on this board,sattar.
kaal
"All this differs of course from what zee believes in, he being a believer not only in the Quran but also in the tradition of the Prophet."
If I may ask,is #380 consistent with this statement?

Kaka, we can discuss this … but must you sound like you are pointing a gun to my head? Can I at least light up a cigarette?

You are asking questions … those mostly do not have straight forward answers. I can try to give my personal views … which may or may not make any sense …

For starters, I am inclined to say yes to both 1 and 2. Will try to post more later … in bits and pieces … (but what’s with this third-person speech???)

Kaal,

Holy cow man, you are really dragging this issue out! You should have jumped on tahmed when he was pushing his faith like a seasoned salesman. No? I am ok with a person worshipping a monkey-god if that works for him, but what’s with this obsession of yours?

+++

Re #427: Valid point; people may very well have their own motives in spinning accounts.

I am inclined to hypothesize that most historical accounts were narrated by Muslims. While your skepticism has its place, viewing the issue from a slightly different angle may lead to somewhat of a different conclusion: what if a significant number of people had accepted Islam because they felt Muhammad, and his message, were truthful? In such case, most narrators would be Muslims, who would simply narrate what they liked in Muhammad and in his message. No?

Conversely, if we assume Muhammad to be a false prophet, question remains … how would things be different in the case of true prophet?

I’ll mostly leave out your points 1-4; but brief response for now is: (1) yes, (2) no, (3) quite possibly, (4) maybe. And #429 and #430 are somewhat speculative and unclear, so will disregard …

sattar,

kaka would like some clarification too, if you don't mind. Please don't mention tahmed when you answer back.

Just to put our cards on the table, kaka would like to mention that kaka was born and raised a Muslim in Karachi. O'level, A'levels and then majored in philosophy and religious studies upto graduate level in US.

1. Do you believe that every statement in the quran is a true statement?

2. Is all of Quran of non-Mohammad source (meaning ghaib revelation).

3. Given that Mohammad is not the last of prophets, what makes Mirza Qadiyani as another one? What specific quality would you look in kaka, if he claims to be the newest one?

4. Mention one thing that is strange to even you about Mirza Qadiyani? The most auhtentic rumor which is hard to explain away etc.

Remember kaka's background when answering. You don't have to give the details of popular references. Use Urdu/Arabic liberally.

Lord, this may seem so complicated to non-Muslims, but I will try to explain, at least once!

Actually, sattar bhai too 'disscoiates' himself from Muhammad the person - other than asserting the latter to be a great and good person. So he too is a 'Quranist' of a sort, and quite like tahmed sahib. Their difference is one of faith and logic as the basis for "rejecting" the person, and over all that's associated with Mirza Sahib in particular.

All this differs of course from what zee believes in, he being a believer not only in the Quran but also in the tradition of the Prophet.

dullabhatti, I doubt # 428 was at all helpful in answering the question you raised.

Sattar, dullabhatti was asking what you yourself believed in. Please correct us if needed, but I would say, # 427 captures your point of view as far as we can tell.

Dullah,

sattar is NOT saying that the Quran is not the word of God. He is saying that it is, AND it gives special status to Prophet Muhammad (something that tahmed and other Quranists believe God would never do, hence feel free to dissociate themselves from Prophet the person).

dullabhatti,

You seem to be coming in the middle of a discussion, trying to make sense of it all. Some background may help here:

For starters, I personally believe in Quran and Muhammad (pbuh). Moving on …

Issue started with tahmed’s claim: that Quran is true word of god, which Muhammad faithfully conveyed, since Quran does not give any special treatment to Muhammad (#196).

Thrust of this argument has some validity. If Muhammad had authored Quran on his own, for his personal gain, he could very well have included verses granting him special status. Tahmed claims that absence of such verses proves that Muhammad did not author the Quran, but only faithfully conveyed what was revealed to him. Furthermore, Quran itself limits role of Muhammad to that of only a messenger, and nothing more.

Drawback of this argument is that … in several places Quran seemingly confers special status to Muhammad, and expands his role beyond that of a mere messenger. I highlighted this in posts #220 and #225; and again in #353.

The point I have made all along is that … tahmed's criterion regarding truthfulness of Quran, is negated by Quran itself. Either Quran is fake, or tahmed’s criterion is incorrect. Tahmed Sahib has refused to respond … and seems kinda upset since then. Was it something I said? ... I dunno ...

sattar, one 'problem' that one runs into when discussing Arabic history and the role and behaviors of personalities is that most (all?) history seems to be from the followers of Prophet Muhammad - people whose entire intellectual framework depends upon recognizing him as a messenger of God, and their own role model. Am I right in that beliefs? Or, is significant amount of history available also from those who opposed him and fought wars against him?

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

Dullabhatti

Sattar sahib walks a very fine line, so his views may be hard to grasp. He believes (correct me, if I am wrong, sattar sahib):

1. Prophet Muhammad was a messenger of God, the best one, but not the last one.

2. Great men are controversial, so we should not spend time digging into their actions and histories.

3. The message Prophet Muhammad brought, is, itself, perfect (not the messenger, as explained in 2) but the message has to be explained, clarified etc time to time, as to how it is applicable.

4. The person who brought the last message (Prophet Muhammad) and people who will explain etc this same message are special people from God. These people are assigned special roles by God, and are given special privileges (which we should take at faith value - see 2 about not getting nosy with or critical about them).


Did I get that more or less right, sattar sahib?

ajeya,

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.

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.

Sattar Sahib, no offense but your Islam has started sounding even more sillier than Tahmed sahib's.
You are saying Quran is not word of God, Mohammad made it up as he needed etc etc and then you come back and claim "I have complete regard for Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)."
I am not sure if you are confused or being sophist.

anil,

I am not sure if the problem lies with tahmed’s Islam or with tahmed himself … but somewhere in there, Sahib has issues.

He made boastful claims about Quran and tried to prove that Quran is word of god. But as I showed, his claims are negated by Quran itself. However, Sahib conveniently ignores evidence that counters his views. I am not sure what to make of his self-aggrandizing claims of rationality and truth he has found in Quran. But that’s not all …

Since I highlighted these contradictions, Sahib has criticized and disparaged Ahmadis, Pew_Research, and myself. However, what he has NOT done is critical here: he has not even attempted to explain contradictions between his views and actual verses of Quran. Such denial borders on intellectual dishonesty. But there’s still more …

Before any of this, he was criticizing Sufis, without anyone asking. Previously he has criticized other faiths for no reason. Why the need to put down other faiths, I fail to understand. But when someone criticizes Islam, he gets very defensive. He therefore comes across as somewhat insecure and at times, even hypocritical.

I am not sure if he gets this self-righteousness from Islam, or if he has himself to blame. I guess I dunno … but I am hoping we can stop analyzing him … and move on.