Afghan Lawmaker refuses to look at HBO's Isobel Yeung during interview

Pretty obvious answer here.

Did the Prophet have concubines? Yes, as was common in pre-Islam Arabia as well as the majority of civilization for centuries before then. Slavery was also rampant from before and after Muhammad. How many slaves were free by Muhammad?

Unless the context of each situation is made known, then yes it is out of context. Considering he was more than a religious leader and participated in many battles, assassinations do not give that negative connotation you are desiring for.

Not mentioning that this was normal practice prior to (and for centuries after) Muhammad would be considered out of context. Trying to draw moral equivalences from modern times with events from over a thousand years ago is disingenuous. Child marriage has been a major issue in India and has occurred prior to Islam reaching it.

But yes, continue to use your straw man arguments as if they actually mean something.

 

Apparently the last messenger of God and best example of a Muslim for the rest of mankind to follow for the rest of time until the day of judgement cannot transcend his own era's customs and traditions that through man made progress has objectively shown those practices to be morally abhorrent.

Do you really want to play this game with me?

 

I don't think any Muslim has ever claimed that Muhammad was able to tell the future and that therefore he should have not engaged in practices that were considered normal during his time.

Do you really want to continue making ridiculous statements that continue to display your fallacious line of reasoning by attempting to draw moral equivalencies from events from over a thousand years ago to modern times? Be my guest, but it only shows your inability to construct a valid argument that is not inherent flawed with mindless rhetoric.

 

Really... A prophet of God, the last messenger of God, the best example for all Muslims for the rest of time until the day of judgement and he couldn't have God tell him "Hey, since you are going to be a leader and example for Muslims to follow for the rest of time, maybe... just maybe you shouldn't hold sex slaves?"

I mean what the **** is the point of Islam and religion in general to be a system for moral guidelines and structure if it can't get something as very basic as "Don't own sex slaves. Sex slaves are bad". Really... You seriously are going to pass that bull**** apologetic excuse by me? You are going to have to do much better than that.

If someone was truly a prophet of God especially the LAST PROPHET of God as Muhammad claimed, he would be a transcendent figure who's moral system would not be held back by customs and traditions of his time. In Christian lore, Jesus lived 600 years before Muhammad yet he never had to hold sex slaves. He never had to tell his followers to assassinate rivals/dissenters. He never had to force a 6 year old into marrying him. At the very least Jesus was a transcendent figure who introduced new ideas such as religion being a personal relationship rather than elaborate traditions enforced by the government.

When Kanye West is a better example of a morally sound character than the 'last messenger of God', that should have any rational thinker skeptical.

You know what I find absolutely ironic... Part of the 'evidence' that many Islamic apologists use to 'prove' that the Quran was the word of God is the 'scientific miracles' even though they have been debunked many times. If you are not in your bubble of cognitive dissonance you should ask yourself the question "If Apologists keep on using the notion that the Quran predicted scientific discoveries, then why couldn't it have a moral system that transcended it's time?". Muhammad had the ability to received scientific information that transcended his time(allegedly) yet not a moral system. No, that would be asking for too much.

 

What I find interesting is that Hydhypedplaya actually seems like a relatively intelligent guy (in contrast to some others) and still seems to so strongly believe in all these fairytales.

 

The problem is that many, many, many Muslims in 2015 still look at the teachings and practices of a man from 1500 years ago as the end all, be all for moral authority. It isn't used as a back drop or even an influence, but an actual complete guide for life.

That isn't a straw man argument, it is a reality and it is extremely dangerous.

 

Almost half of this country still believes the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are faked. It's no wonder they don't buy into global warming.

 

pre-Islam Arabic peninsula was a mixed society when it came to faiths. Some historian argue the actual birth place of Judaism took place in Northern part of today's Yemen. There are still traces of humans bones in historical battle fields between early Christians and Jews (city of Najran) , it was widely spread, it even reached far places like in Ethiopia.

Slavery was an important aspect of societies ,the Prophet helped changed the economical-social implication to the point it was no longer a corner stone of retaining power and entitlement .

a salve given rights , a contract, and drastic improved treatment. The Master became liable and requested to feed, care ,and share his privileges . The quality of food it self should be equal between the two and ultimately encouraged to free them

Concubines were treated different, their born children were no longer became slaves. One of the Prophet's wife name is :Maria the Coptist. She was gifted by the Coptic Church of Egypt then the prophet freed her , that how it was common during that time.

There are misconception to how slavery different from known slavery practice in NA:

1- the slavery were from all races , religions, from Arab/Jewish tribes or Africa,Persian-Romans and such
2-any individual could be at risk of being salve at given circumstance
3-slavery went both ways , Arab/Jews were enslaved by their opponents from other geographical places
4-most prominent figure of Mohammed's early believer and companions were enslaved at that times
5- freeing Salves was a primary mission, Under Islamic legislation, and part of waiving sins was built entirely on the concept of freeing a salve .

One thing to note, the Prophet had a young salve who was rescued at some point then freed, he was called for most of his life as : Zaid son of Mohammed , until one verse of Qur’an prohibited calling a person to a non-biological father . The description of their relationship indicate a great treatment like this :

the prophets was riding his horse for a mile and Zaid was walking , then Mohammed would walk and Zaid would ride the horse for another mile (despite the fact one of them in his late 50s and the other-one was a teen. )BTW: Zaid at later time was reunited with his biological family ,but decided not to joined them.

Notable to mention :
By the time of Mohammed's death, he freed over 43,000 former salves in Mecca-Medina alone.

The practice of salary widely changed to the point (Mameluke empire =Salve Empire) was established during 1200s .

 

So the all-knowing, supposedly perfect dude who is supposedly God's last prophet, had slaves.

Who cares if he let him ride a horse or donkey or goat. He had slaves. He was a warlord. He raped children.

That's all you need to know to not take him as your idol and example on how to live.

End of story.

 

The dude would murder husbands and turn the widows into either slaves or his 'wife'. I'm sorry, but I don't see how he HAD to turn widows that HE MADE into slaves or a forced marriage opportunity because it was an acceptable practice during that time? Was it like those horror movies where if the one morally okay guy in the group of evil rapists doesn't want to be apart of the gang rape but the group won't trust him if he doesn't take part and might kill him so he has no choice but to take part? I can understand if he didn't ban sex slavery overnight because it was too ingrained in the culture but why DID HE HAVE TO PARTAKE IN IT HIMSELF? Why couldn't he, the last messenger of God, and the best example of a Muslim for all of mankind for the rest of time until the day of judgement, transcend his cultural norms that today we know as objectively morally wrong?


Imagine if sex slavery existed today and was socially acceptable. Imagine if I had an epiphany that the practice was morally wrong but realized that it was so ingrained in our society that I can't just immediately force others to stop it. This is the argument that apologists like Exiled are making right? But that all falls apart if in this hypothetical scenario I STILL HOLD SEX SLAVES MYSELF.

This is nothing more than apologist's tactic. Muhammad at the very least shouldn't have held sex slaves of his own.

Sex slavery is just ONE example of the many horrible moral examples that would entail following Muhammad as the 'last prophet' and 'best Muslim'.

 

I don't have problem with debating whatever ,I just don't want it to last forever I just see no point of repetitively debating the exact things over and over , specially when i have the intellectual edge, it become unfair process

take notes from those :you have a harsh argument made by gylnch , you have valid critical thoughts from Deji, or at least you should have some sort of hummer like Buck_Trog. reference and pack your claims with valid sources ,add some substance to the topic, it is terrible to learn nothing with all this time invested on deaf-talk like.

that's being said ,When dealing with Religions , it always helps to look at it from Historical or Human anthropological perspectives. This will minimize bias and separate to some extent facts from myths.

Before arguing was ( Mohammed )Perfect, or despicable , or just a normal person with flaws and such, let's examine these allegation :

was he a War-Lord! This was a slogan during early time of crusaders campaigns. Mohammedans will invade your land and enslave you women ! Did they really think of him this way?
Most likely they did not care much , it was a call to restore unity in Europe who was infected with all types of conflicts . As a matter of fact , it was smart deceptive move to do that time.

But in reality, before Mohammed wage a war, he set humanitarian rules, exceed in most part of what's in Geneva convention in regard of rules of engagements . Among these strict of rules the following :

1you don’t start a battle without warning first
2- you don’t kill non-fighters
3-you don’t kill elderly
4-you don’t kill Child-reins-Infants
5-you don’t kill Women
6-you don’t harm proprietress and possessions unless its no other ways to go around
7-you don’t cuts trees
8-you don’t kill herds and live stocks
9-if they become Muslims ,you immediately stop.

That ultimately will lead to this : Prisoners of wars , what to do to them:

-if they become Muslims , they would be set free
-if they refuse to be Muslims then there are 2 options: pay taxes and keep a promise of not waging a war or fight again. Or bail them self out .

And the most important part : NO Torture , you don’t starve them, you must feed them and provide necessary aid

For Women prisoners : same that apply to men with added option : if you marry one , you would be set free.

This option is what some call: Slavery Sex. They compare voluntary marriage to one men to Prostitution!!!

[youtube]/yhl0Jw5JW0c[/youtube]

 

More asinine reasoning here. If Muhammad could force God to tell him what the future entailed, surely the All Powerful, omnipotent traits ascribed to God in Islam would be flawed. Again, you are drawing moral equivalences from something that was considered normal 1,600 years with modern times. That is a fallacious line of reasoning and only displays how inept you are to construct a valid argument.

Again, you are drawing moral equivalences from something that was considered normal 1,600 years with modern times. That is a fallacious line of reasoning and only displays how inept you are to construct a valid argument. Seems like repeating it may be the only way you can comprehend something so basic.

Do you complain that every year in America, millions of Americans celebrate a federal holiday which originally celebrated the birthday of a man who owned over 300 slaves? Do you complain that this same federal holiday now encompasses all US Presidents, including those who have ordered assassinations attempts on numerous foreign leaders?

Oh, so you do believe that Muhammad was a fortune-teller. I was not completely sure from your previous posts.

Except the only items about Jesus' life that are believed by Christians were handpicked by a council 300 years after he had lived. Anything that was contentious or they did not believe showed Jesus in a good light was not considered canon. The concept of the trinity did not exist within early Christianity, yet it is now a central pillar in Christianity today.

Except that the historical Jesus was a heretic who was advocated ideas that ran counter to the established government at the time. The crimes Jesus' was purported to have committed (blasphemy) would have been death punishable by stoning. Yet the story is that he was crucified, which is something that was reserved for rebels against the state.

The rest of your "argument" is more useless rhetoric complaining that Muhammad should have been able to predict the future

 

So do many Muslims (e.g., ISIS).

 

That is true, but quite a low blow to fchowd0311 to show that he is employing the same invalid line of thinking as terrorists.

 

Yes I do and it's actually a pretty popular movement and at the very least Columbus or U.S. presidents aren't self proclaimed
last messengers of god' that represent the best example of a morally sound man for all of mankind for the rest of time.

You do know that in Islam, the Quran and the prophet are the last revelations that will ever be reveled to mankind until the day of judgement? Right?

 

That's not what I said.

In fact, I think what he is pointing out is that the excuse that something was ok 1,600 years ago is an invalid one, when at the same time using a guy from back then as a role model for all times in the future.

Personally, I can possibly accept and excuse that someone was doing what everyone did back then (if that was true, which I doubt), but then I cannot accept that person as the perfect role model when we later learned that what everyone did back then was terrible.