Questions for Muslims

[watrewks]

So I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm trying to understand a position different from my own. To all the Muslims here how would you defend the claim that Muhammad was a pedophile? Also, if Allah is merciful and loving, then why does he condone the killing of Christians and Jews in the Qu'ran? Why is it okay to spread your religion through conquest like Mohammed?

 

[YmirGF]

So I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm trying to understand a position different from my own. To all the Muslims here how would you defend the claim that Muhammad was a pedophile? Also, if Allah is merciful and loving, then why does he condone the killing of Christians and Jews in the Qu'ran? Why is it okay to spread your religion through conquest like Mohammed?

Is it asking too much for people to actually research questions before wandering into the room and peeing on the carpet? As our Muslim friends here on RF will attest, I can hardly be described as an Islamic apologist, but even I have standards.

Sorry, a Catholic asking Muslims to explain why it was okay to spread their religion through conquest is genuinely hilarious. Mr. Pot meet Ms. Kettle. Conquistadors ring any bells?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Antiquity shows life expectancy was low throughout most of the World. People did not have schooling and work to think about, especially women. Puberty was generally the sign showing one was at the age for marriage. No one took issue with people marrying young, and the word paedophile is a modern term used to label people who intentionally seek out underage children for sexual activity and grooming.

The Bible makes it clear, if you disobey God's Commandments, then you are at war with Him and His Messenger. The Qur'an is the Final Revelation from God, and is a clear warning for non believers. Leave the Holy Cities of Arabia, seek peace terms or fight.

Secular Western Revisionist Historians have looked at the archaeological data and concluded Islam was for the most part not spread through violence many people like to think.:

 

[LuisDantas]

Antiquity shows life expectancy was low throughout most of the World. People did not have schooling and work to think about, especially women. Puberty was generally the sign showing one was at the age for marriage. No one took issue with people marrying young, and the word paedophile is a modern term used to label people who intentionally seek out underage children for sexual activity and grooming.

What is your view of how those standards apply (or should apply) today?

The Bible makes it clear, if you disobey God's Commandments, then you are at war with Him and His Messenger. The Qur'an is the Final Revelation from God, and is a clear warning for non believers. Leave the Holy Cities of Arabia, seek peace terms or fight.

Not sure what to make of this, to be honest. At face value it feels rather belicous and un-religious.

Secular Western Revisionist Historians have looked at the archaeological data and concluded Islam was for the most part not spread through violence many people like to think.:

"For the most part" is not a very conforting qualifier.

 

[Augustus]

Secular Western Revisionist Historians have looked at the archaeological data and concluded Islam was for the most part not spread through violence many people like to think.:

It depends on how you classify spreading through violence.

Forced conversion was indeed generally quite rare (outside the Ottoman Devshirme), and during the early conquests the proto-Muslims made little attempt to spread their religion by any means let alone forced conversion.

It did largely spread as a direct result of conquest though, although this can be said about most pre-modern cultures so it is hardly unique in this aspect. It's no coincidence that the boundaries of the 'Muslim world' largely coincide with the boundaries of Islamic Imperialism though.

 

[Notanumber]

So I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm trying to understand a position different from my own. To all the Muslims here how would you defend the claim that Muhammad was a pedophile? Also, if Allah is merciful and loving, then why does he condone the killing of Christians and Jews in the Qu'ran? Why is it okay to spread your religion through conquest like Mohammed?

The big question is. Why did the Religion of Peace find it necessary to threaten death for anyone that decided to leave the faith?

 

[YmirGF]

The big question is. Why did the Religion of Peace find it necessary to threaten death for anyone that decided to leave the faith?

That's reserved for those who spoke out against Islam after they left the religion. Granted, this provides a loophole big enough to fly a couple of 767's through, but still...

 

[Muslim-UK]

What is your view of how those standards apply (or should apply) today?

What ever the rule of the land is should be followed; 14 yrs of age in Germany, 12 in Angolia, 13 in parts of South America, 12 in some U.S. States, 18 in Saudi Arabia etc

 

[Muslim-UK]

The big question is. Why did the Religion of Peace find it necessary to threaten death for anyone that decided to leave the faith?

A few reasons, in early Islam a large number of people leaving risked the collapse of the new Religion. There were those that left, then sided with the enemy to actively fight the Muslims, these apostates were attacked and killed. Later those who left and then conspired with the enemy against Islam using propaganda were targeted, and this last group are still pretty much despised today even though the Qur'an says, there is no compulsion in religion. Those that leave and get on with their lives without the need to write anti Islamic blogs or appear to talk shows to promote their latest books are left in peace.

 

[Notanumber]

A few reasons, in early Islam a large number of people leaving risked the collapse of the new Religion. There were those that left, then sided with the enemy to actively fight the Muslims, these apostates were attacked and killed. Later those who left and then conspired with the enemy against Islam using propaganda were targeted, and this last group are still pretty much despised today even though the Qur'an says, there is no compulsion in religion. Those that leave and get on with their lives without the need to write anti Islamic blogs or appear to talk shows to promote their latest books are left in peace.

Is that acceptable by modern standards?

 

[Notanumber]

That's reserved for those who spoke out against Islam after they left the religion. Granted, this provides a loophole big enough to fly a couple of 767's through, but still...

You may be right, but not according to this -

• Koranic verses, such as 2:217 and 4:89 and their classical, mainstream exegeses by seminal Koranic commentators such as Baydawi (on 4:89: "Whosoever turns his back from his belief [irtada], openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel") and Qurtubi (on 2:217: "Scholars disagree about whether or not apostates are asked to repent. One group say they are asked to repent and, if they do, they are not killed. Some say they are given an hour and others a month. Others say they are asked to repent three times, and that is the view of Malik [founder of the Maliki school of Islamic Law]..It is also said they are killed without being asked to repent.")
• Muhammad is reported to have sanctioned lethal punishment for apsotates in the two most important canonical hadith collections, i.e., Bukhari and Muslim, and the Muwatta of Imam Malik:

Blog: CAIR's silence on pastor's apostasy death sentence is deafening

 

[Muslim-UK]

Is that acceptable by modern standards?

What part? The events of early Islam or the modern ex Muslim bloggers?

 

[Notanumber]

What part? The events of early Islam or the modern ex Muslim bloggers?

Mainly the last sentence.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am interested in that answer as well. How much opposition to Islaam is deemed worth of actual hatred and/or active measures of retaliation, and for what reasons?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Mainly the last sentence.

Depends on the law of the Land. Some Countries class it as blasphemy and it's punishable. So in answer to your question 'acceptable' is decided by the majority people of individual Countries, a democratic process of sorts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Depends on the law of the Land. Some Countries class it as blasphemy and it's punishable. So in answer to your question 'acceptable' is decided by the majority people of individual Countries, a democratic process of sorts.

So it is proper for each country to reach its own conclusions on the proper boundaries of respect for Islaam?

 

[Muslim-UK]

So it is proper for each country to reach its own conclusions on the proper boundaries of respect for Islaam?

Yes the Law of the land is to be followed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Trusting the wisdom of the laws of the land is very often enough of a challenge on its own.

I really doubt it is all that easy for most Muslims when it comes to judgements about Islaam.

Edited to add: for instance, Shias and Sunnis do not seem to often have that much ease accepting those laws in territories ruled by majorities of the opposite sect, now do they?

Come to think of it, would you have anything to say about how wise and how necessary were the partitions that created current Pakistan and Bangladesh? Also, I assume that you do not necessarily recognize the authority of Israel over whatever specific lands it claims legal power over. Do you?

 

[icehorse]

@Muslim-UK

In several of your posts in this thread I'm inferring that you personally ease off on the claims of Islamic scripture being "timeless"? Hooray if you do.

 

[Spiderman]

Is it asking too much for people to actually research questions before wandering into the room and peeing on the carpet? As our Muslim friends here on RF will attest, I can hardly be described as an Islamic apologist, but even I have standards.

Sorry, a Catholic asking Muslims to explain why it was okay to spread their religion through conquest is genuinely hilarious. Mr. Pot meet Ms. Kettle. Conquistadors ring any bells?

Would you agree that Jesus didn't promote violence? Jesus preached that we should turn the other cheek and love our enemies. I know a lot of Catholics who believe the Church was behaving in rebellion to the teachings of Christ when conquest and the killing of heretics took place.

A lot of Catholics are ashamed of the Church History. Fortunately the Church was also building hospitals, schools, feeding the hungry, and performing works of mercy, but some of us shudder to think of things like burning heretics and capital punishment for certain pagan practices.

I wouldn't say that the faith itself promotes it. Christ strictly condemned such behavior. It is far from Christian.