> His marriage to her was never based on a contract
How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ?
> it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet
Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies the rape of a 6 year old ? Do you have a daughter ? Do you think an agreement with the girl's father makes paedophilic rape moral ? Because your religion clearly is of that opinion. Note that your prophet has a lot of opinions on what he, personally, should be given, and something to fuck is often among the things he "gets" from his invisible friend, this is not a lone occurence. So answer this simple question : was Muhammad an immoral paedophilic rapist ? Or not ...
And to be honest, since Abu Bakr is a "rightly guided caliph" and made this agreement with the prophet, that means that BOTH the prophet AND the first ever muslim where paedophilic rapists. One organising the rape, one committing it. Muhammad, of course, claims this agreement was blessed by allah : so you can't even make the pathetic argument that it was just him, "not allah". Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations [1]. To be honest, actually reading the hadith you find a lot of that : verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations. You should try it, reading those texts around book 60.
> I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death.
The penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. As you very well know. Believe it or not, you do not just get to violate sharia whenever you want according to islam. The punishment for violating something haram knowingly, repeatedly or continuously ... is death, because this constitutes apostasy. I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ?
Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy, advocating not following sharia is proselytizing. Do you disagree with that ? Do I really have to dig up fatwas saying so ?
> We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps.
Reading this in a post that starts off by justifying the rape of a 6 year old girl, that is very reassuring.
> How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ?
You haven't pointed out any references so far.
> Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies...
You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through.
Back in the day, marriage at a young age was a norm, and the Prophet Peace be upon him did not commit anything foreign to the culture in this regards. Other people at that time, Muslims and non-Muslims, married young. Even in Western cultures up to a few hundred years ago, we see similar behavior.
I take it it is clear now that Islamically, the ruler is to be elected, and not passed down as you were trying to imply before.
> Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations[1]
The link you pasted was about Fatimah and Ali, Peace be upon them. Please link to the appropriate Hadith.
> verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations
Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on.
> penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death.
Again, citation needed. This is beyond a doubt not the case. Please cite your reference. A Muslim person can, for example, drink alcohol, knowing that it is not permissible, and knowing that there is a punishment if he is caught (lashing). The death penalty will never come into action here, regardless of how many times he repeats this sin.
> I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ?
I do. Citation needed.
> Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy
There are different degrees of apostasy (Kufr), and only one or two of them have the death penalty (e.g. Treason). Furthermore, not any action that constitutes apostasy will result in the person automatically becoming a non-Muslim (much less get the death penalty).
The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).
So now you're no longer responding to my request about listing a reference that the death penalty is to be enforced on Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, or it be enforced on Muslims who knowingly commit any sin.
Also, I'm still waiting for a reference you claimed to have that Aisha was wed to the Prophet Peace be upon him as a contract for AbuBakr's succession...
> Hey now you just implied that the prophet did something wrong
No. I specifically said he did not do anything outside the norm of that time. The Arab pagans were waiting on him to do anything different from the norm to criticize him, but they never did.
> which is related to Aisha's wedding according to the highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia
Again, put your citation as to who are these "highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia", and what exactly they said.
> It specifically mentions that these people are like the Jews.
It's not really my problem if you can't comprehend simple English. The Ayah does not mention that these people are "like the Jews"; it is explicitly talking about the Messengers, Scholars, and Rabbis, who were upholding the law on the Jews. It says that the Torah was a light from God to be used by the former to judge the latter. Again, complete construing on your part.
If you read the incident, it is saying that those two Jews themselves accepted what was mentioned in the Torah. Even today, you will find the same penalty in the Torah.
> Why don't you interpret for me what she meant here
Secondly, this quote does not imply in any way what you originally mentioned. Aishah is one of the highest regarded sources from whom to take Hadith and religion.
> Or how about we revisit the whole "allah has 3 daughters" saga ?
The story is false. If you have basic commandment of how the Hadith was documented you would be able to answer yourself here.
It seems you are just throwing out claims, some of which are documented as falsified, and some completely made up, without responding to my requests to cite references for these claims. I won't waste my time responding to a person who is purposefully twisting and making up stories, as well as refusing to respond to my rebuttals.
The article just mentions that Islam (similar to other religions like Judaism and Christianity) does not set a minimum age for marriage. Nothing really special here.
Aishah was not 6 when the wedding happened, so you can lay that issue to rest.
> 2) massacring
Any battle that happened was either (1) out of self defense, (2) after the other party broke a peace treaty.
3) stoning
Taken straight from the Torah, which I believe you must accept given you are Christian. Try finding any incidents of stoning after the Ayah for punishment of adulterers (by lashing) was revealed.
> 4) forcing other people to stone women
They came to the Prophet, Peace be upon him, asking for the penalty for what they did, which was then picked straight out of the Torah.
> If there is one thing islam promises more than anything else, it's that the caliph will win any war, any battle.
No it does not. The Muslims were defeated in the Battle of Uhud, way before any Caliphs came into rule.
> By the way, I take it you agree on the validity of the fatwa that it is haram for muslims to not live in the state of the caliph
You're moving away from the original subject. But no, that fatwa you're referring to is just one opinion. I already answered this before, as long as you're able to practice you're religion easily, and there are many other Muslims in the same place, there no issue God willingly.
> Dr. Salih bin Fawzan
He has been severely criticized for several things he said. What you have to keep in mind is that any fatwa can be challenged. It is an opinion of one or more persons, and not binding.
> Why don't you comment on the obvious fact that they were honorable and moral by NOT following that law
So they were honorable by explicitly deciding not to follow what they believe God revealed to them? That's some double standard right there. Why did they come to the Prophet, Peace be upon him in the first place? And why did they try to hide the penalty right in front of him? It's basically picking and choosing what they like and leaving what they don't like from the Torah.
> Note that you skirt around the issue of stoning for even suspected adultery.
There is no punishment for suspected anything in Islam. We have several Hadiths that have the same meaning: ادرؤوا الحدود بالشبهات (i.e. fend off penalties with suspicion). For the penalty for adultery to hold, there needs to be four witnesses, who witnessed the actual act (not just saw a couple hugging or kissing, for instance). If any one of them decides to change his word after testifying, then the supposed witnesses will be penalized. And for your information, not once did this take place in the history of Islam. And please don't bring up what is happening in Iran today; it does not carry weight religiously; even though it is quite tragic what they're doing.
> I take it you are a sunni then
I'm Muslim. I know the position of some of the Shi'ah with regards to her. At the end of the day, the proof is on the one making the claim. The sources they use to make these false claims about her do not hold up to scrutiny (they are falsified stories).
> because of the agreement between Abu Bakr and Muhammad
I'm still waiting for a reference, even if it were a Shi'i one.
> does the prophet get to have sex before marriage
Of course he doesn't.
> and then proceeded to immediately to massacre former parts of the muslim army in what is called the "apostasy wars"
Explicitly denying an established part of the faith (in this case, Zakah) constitutes apostasy.
At the end of the day, you're not bringing up anything we haven't heard before (or just making up stories I have no idea where you came up with), hoping that something would "stick" perhaps?. Rest assured though, that over the course of the past 1400+ years, there is nothing that scholars have not been able to refute, thank God. Even with my basic knowledge, I'm able to find out the chain of narration of claims you and others make, only to discover that they are fabricated stories, or picked apart and misconstrued to try to show a certain aspect while hiding the whole story.
How on earth can you call a tribal supremacist fairy tale and its reworked descendant fertility cult "based on rational reasoning"? I shudder to think of what else is getting past your filters if those are your standards.
It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament.
In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.
> It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason.
I'll point out that you just claimed that those four named sources were three people.
> In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers.
That's not that much shorter than the generally accepted time between the time of the events recounted in the gospels and the time that the canonical gospels were written.
> The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.
Again, false information. The Quran was written down during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, as was the Hadith. Both were both transmitted orally and through scribes. We have early scribes that were written during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, and later on narrations that were documented decades after him, and they match perfectly.
There are multiple Qira'aat (recitations) of the Quran, all of which have sound chains of narrations back to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. The variations among certain Ayat (verses) do not change the overall meaning of them. For instance, in one recitation, you would find the word "Malik" (ملك), meaning King or Lord; and in another, you would find "Maalik" (مالك), meaning Master, Possessor, or Only Owner. Both are authentic recitations which the Prophet Peace be upon him recited during his lifetime.
If you study the history of the Arabs and Muslims, you would know that they were extremely strict in how narrations were passed down, even before Islam. We have the chain of narration for the Mu'allaqat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat), and this was pre-Islam.
People recited both from scribes as well as from memory. Memorizing large amounts of information is something very uncommon today, but was common back in the day. There are people who used to memorize hundreds of thousands of Hadiths, with the chain of narration; and some people of that nature still exist to this day, though not as many.
Even today, when children memorize the Quran, they know where what Ayah is on what page. You can ask the child to start reciting from a random page, and he/she would.
Can you show me a reference that the Turks refuse to show the Quran they have to the public, or that there were differences between that one and what was discovered in San'aa?
How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ?
> it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet
Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies the rape of a 6 year old ? Do you have a daughter ? Do you think an agreement with the girl's father makes paedophilic rape moral ? Because your religion clearly is of that opinion. Note that your prophet has a lot of opinions on what he, personally, should be given, and something to fuck is often among the things he "gets" from his invisible friend, this is not a lone occurence. So answer this simple question : was Muhammad an immoral paedophilic rapist ? Or not ...
And to be honest, since Abu Bakr is a "rightly guided caliph" and made this agreement with the prophet, that means that BOTH the prophet AND the first ever muslim where paedophilic rapists. One organising the rape, one committing it. Muhammad, of course, claims this agreement was blessed by allah : so you can't even make the pathetic argument that it was just him, "not allah". Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations [1]. To be honest, actually reading the hadith you find a lot of that : verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations. You should try it, reading those texts around book 60.
> I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death.
The penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. As you very well know. Believe it or not, you do not just get to violate sharia whenever you want according to islam. The punishment for violating something haram knowingly, repeatedly or continuously ... is death, because this constitutes apostasy. I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ?
Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy, advocating not following sharia is proselytizing. Do you disagree with that ? Do I really have to dig up fatwas saying so ?
> We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps.
Reading this in a post that starts off by justifying the rape of a 6 year old girl, that is very reassuring.
[1] http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248