Thursday, January 8, 2009

Response to Javier on Child Brides

Notice how things work on this blog. I say something like "Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was nine" (factual statement), or "Muslims in Nigeria are resisting a minimum-age law for marriage" (factual statement). Then a Muslim replies with a series of speculations, fallacies, or outright deception, as if these are enough to answer my factual statements. Let's consider Javier's comments as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

JAVIER: David Wood you very well know that the Christians in Africa do this kind of act and in India hindus and Christians,Muslims marry girls at very low age which is a bit more prevailant with poor people.

So, since Christians, Muslims, and Hindus have been known to marry girls at a young age, I'm somehow being inconsistent when I point out that Muslims do it. Does this response refute my point? Not at all. My point is that Muslims demand the right to have sex with nine-year-old girls because that's what Muhammad did. A Christian would have no basis for making such an argument. Hence, there's a tremendous difference here. Christians are free to act in the best interest of women. Muslims are held back morally by the example set by Muhammad.

JAVIER: And not to mention your God=Holy spirit=jesus sexually impregnated mary at 11 or 12 and joseph who was 90 years old when he married Mary at 12. Oops isn't that pedophilia according to Christians of today which means Jesus, joseph God was pedophile ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC.

According to my logic? Does my logic tell me that Mary was 11 or 12? Not at all. I don't believe she was that young, though Javier may feel free to provide evidence for his claim. Until he provides evidence, all he's given us is a baseless speculation (all too common in his comments). Apart from this, I can't figure out why Muslims compare the Christian view of Joseph with the Muslim view of Muhammad. Joseph isn't the source of any Christian doctrine. In other words, it wouldn't affect Christianity in the slightest if Joseph turned out to be, say, an axe-murderer. [Note to Christian readers: I'll ignore the fact that Javier said we believe that the Holy Spirit equals Jesus. Here Javier has displayed his ignorance of Christian doctrine, but there's really no point in correcting him.]

JAVIER: PROOF=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

Now here's an amazing thing. Javier gives us a link and calls it "proof" that Mary was "11 or 12." Nowhere does this article say that Mary was 11 or 12! Indeed, the only reference to Mary's age is based on apocryphal writings that say she was "twelve to fourteen years of age." However, the text also says that these apocryphal accounts are unreliable, so I'm not sure how this qualifies as "proof," in any sense of the word.

So what do we have? As proof that Mary was "11 or 12," Javier links to an article which says that unreliable accounts list her age as 12 to 14. Is there any "proof" here that Mary was 11 or 12? Not a shred. [Nor is there any proof that Joseph was "90 years old." Again, this is based on apocryphal accounts. However, if Javier is willing to grant that everything in these apocryphal accounts is correct, I'd like to share a few passages with him. If Javier is consistent, he'll have to reject Islam and become a Christian! The only alternative is for him to reject the apocrypha. But if he rejects the apocrypha, why would he point to such texts as "proof"??? Sheer inconsistency!]

JAVIER: And marrying girls at one year old is a direct violation of islamic law unless she reached puberty and is capable of making decision.

I would like for Javier to show me this law in a reliable source. Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and she certainly hadn't reached puberty at that age. Moreover, the Qur'an disagrees with Javier on this. Surah 65:4 gives Muslims rules on how to divorce a girl who hasn't yet reached puberty. It's clear that if Muslims are allowed to divorce prepubescent girls, they are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. [Notice, everyone, that Javier makes a claim that runs contrary to both his prophet and the Qur'an. This is all too common in Islam.]

JAVIER: People in Africa, Asia tend to give away their daughter because of poverty its not an Islamic problem, its cultural problem. yes there are exceptions.

It's an Islamic problem when people refuse to act in the best interest of little girls because Muhammad is considered to be the greatest moral example in history. The United Nations has been begging Muslim countries to make laws that will protect little girls, but men who follow the example of Muhammad will always resist such laws.

JAVIER: But think about the Christian priest molesting children of all gender even males which is why the pope got really into it.

No true Christian will hesitate, for even a second, to say that these priests were sinning when they did this. Moreover, these priests certainly weren't following the example of Jesus when they molested children. Can Javier say the same about marrying young girls? Can he say (1) that Muslims who marry young girls aren't following the example of Muhammad, and (2) that men who marry young girls are sinning? I would like for Javier to say both of these.

JAVIER: And by the way Muslims countries are placing laws making it illegal to marry before 18 years of age.

Notice the generalization: "Muslim countries" (as if all Muslim countries are doing this). All Javier has said here is that Muslims in some Muslim countries, usually under pressure from the West, have decided to live better lives than Muhammad lived. Amen to that, my friends. I hope that all Muslims will reject Muhammad's example and will cease having sex with young girls.

Just to review, Javier claimed (a) that some Christians (not following the example of Jesus) have married young girls [IRRELEVANT, SINCE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OBJECTION]; (b) that Mary was 11 or 12 [SHEER SPECULATION, SINCE NOT EVEN THE SITE HE APPEALS TO AS "PROOF" SAYS THIS]; (c) that Muslim men may only marry girls who have reached puberty [HERE HE CONTRADICTS BOTH MUHAMMAD'S EXAMPLE AND THE QUR'AN]; (d) that this isn't a Muslim problem [DESPITE THE FACT THAT MUSLIMS ARE DEFENDING THIS PRACTICE BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF MUHAMMAD]; (e) that certain Catholic priests have molested children [THIS RESPONSE IS SO BAD THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN QUALIFY AS A TU QUOQUE FALLACY; HE'S SIMPLY THROWN OUT A RANDOM ATTACK THAT DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER THE POINT]; and (f) that "Muslim countries" are deciding to follow the example of the West rather than the example of Muhammad [I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS HELPS HIS CASE].

The amazing thing is that, when most Muslims read a response like Javier's, they think he has thoroughly refuted the Christian argument. In reality, he has refuted absolutely nothing.

49 comments:

Ibn said...

I have a really good argument regarding the Prophet(saw)'s marriage to Aisha(ra). I'll pass it onto the Muslim debater who'll be debating Wood on Muhammad's Prophethood, so too bad! you won't get to read it here.

David Wood said...

Hmmm. Since Yahya is the only Muslim I'm scheduled to debate on Muhammad's prophethood, I guess I know who's going to be refuting me with Ibn's awesome new argument. The suspense is killing me!

I've noticed that many Muslim debaters often try to catch their opponents off guard in debates, hoping that this will give them an advantage. (I wouldn't accuse Bassam of this.) Has anyone noticed that I use basically the same arguments everytime I debate? Has anyone noticed that James White and William Lane Craig use basically the same arguments everytime they debate. We have no need for surprises.

We can see how theology influences people's approach to debate. As Muhammad once said, "War is deceit."

Bryant said...

Yes David I noticed that too. Muslims are quick to hide arguments to catch Christians off guard. Shadid lewis said the same thing when he debated Nabeel. He kept saying over and over that he did not want to reveal his argument for his debate with you. As if catching someone of guard means your argument is irrefutable. They want to embarrass Christians on tape then claim victory.

Its funny how one acts when they know they have truth on their side. Christians say here is my argument, analyze it, and defend your position; Muslims say I hope to catch him so unprepared as to make my arguments look better than they actually are.

Ibn said...

I thought Sami was going to debate Wood on Muhammad(saw)'s veracity?

Yahyah, if you are reading this, then let me know if you are interested in my argument.

Sunil said...

Ibn,

>> I have a really good argument regarding the Prophet(saw)'s marriage to Aisha(ra). I'll pass it onto the Muslim debater who'll be debating Wood on Muhammad's Prophethood, so too bad! you won't get to read it here.


What is the problem if the argument is put to debate here (especially if you really think that it is a good argument)? If it is a good argument, it should withstand scruity, right? Then why so insecure about it? Anyone including the non-christians and non-muslims who may visit the site can clearly see that if the objective is truth, there should be no problem in subjecting it to rigorous debate. Hope some Muslim poster would correct you on the self-demeaning, self-defeating and immature statement made above (or better still, you see the folly yourself).

It is not about "arguments", but about truth and the objective of debates is that the best of truth should come out in course of time. It is not about rhetorical skills and there may be some good debaters who may seem to impress temporarily, but in course of time, truth will standout, because ultimately, 'truth always has the best argument'. That should be the objective in participating in debates. There should be no needs of any ‘tricks’ if one is honest. That people like William Lane Craig, James White etc (who debate some of the best minds out there), defend their same publicly known arguments shows the sincerity and genuineness (without any need for tricks to catch the opponent unawares or making a new argument in the last session where there is no opportunity to respond and so on). It is surprising that while talking on behalf of your religion, you chose to demean it. Please remember that there are undecided people out there who may be reading the comments and making their judgement on the sincerity/honesty etc of both sides.

Ibn said...

BTW Wood. Will you debating any Muslim on the concept of God in Islam and Christianity?

Sunil:Hope some Muslim poster would correct you on the self-demeaning, self-defeating and immature statement made above (or better still, you see the folly yourself).

What's so demeaning and immature about not wanting to reveal an argument till the actual debate takes place?

Fernando said...

Said Javier: «because of poverty»... what a shallow argument...

povertie is allways a justiffication for every barbaric actitude muslims do...

but we don't see that behaviours being comited in more poor countries that are not muslims, like Haity and many soun american countries... it's a cultural problem inserted in a religios horizon that legitimites it... appaling...

bie the way: who is Javier? He seems not having a clue about what he's speaking...

Ibn said: «you won't get to read it here»... yes, it's a pity... I'm feeling depressed about the shallow arguments that some muslims are posting in this blog... I was expectinga another good laugh from reading your words, mie friend Ibn... maybe latter?

Ibn also said: «What's so demeaning and immature about not wanting to reveal an argument till the actual debate takes place?... don't you see? It's the same psychological actitud like those kidds who we saw in muslim director movie "The story of a Turkish fammily" who said: "I have a bigger d*ck than yours, but I wont show it to you until it becames a fact"... hay, hay, hay... like we say in our dialect: hees hunpan nelleyroh...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Wood wrote:

Hmmm. Since Yahya is the only Muslim I'm scheduled to debate on Muhammad's prophethood, I guess I know who's going to be refuting me with Ibn's awesome new argument. The suspense is killing me!

Elijah writes:

Yeah I found it curious that Yahya immediately pops up on the blog as soon as the rumour comes circulates that Ibn and Yahya are the same persons.

I am not saying they are, but...

Fernando said...

Elijah wrote: «Yeah I found it curious that Yahya immediately pops up on the blog as soon as the rumour comes circulates that Ibn and Yahya are the same persons»...

Friend Elijah... you'll be surprised when you'll finde the truth... ? I'me tryieng to find a way to poste here somme evidences... it may take a whille, but I thinke I'mm goingue to manage it...

In the meanwhilee I guess I'm starting to gett really anxiouse, excited even, to listen to the majjor argument Ibn has founde... can it be true? Is it going to bee a great breackthrough? A copernic swift? How... I won't sleepe tonight!!!

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Ibn, you can send me it if you want, although I prefer just to use arguments which actually reflect my opinions, just send me it I'll tell u if I agree with it.

David, I have a feeling Javier is a christian by the way, or at least there is also a christian called Javier who occasionally posts on here... dunno.

Hogan, I don't take kindly to people who accuse me of being a liar unfoundedly, so yeah maybe its best we don't organise that debate. I expected a little bit better behaviour from you to be honest.

*Woops I meant to login as Ibn when I said that* ....Not

David, btw please do raise some new stuff for my debate... it'll be more interesting.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yahya wrote:

Hogan, I don't take kindly to people who accuse me of being a liar unfoundedly, so yeah maybe its best we don't organise that debate. I expected a little bit better behaviour from you to be honest.

Elijah replies:

Oh, but I did'nt say you were a liar. I did not even indicate that I found it problematic that you use two names, that is fine with me. I only said I found it curious.

If others have accused you of lying, then don't include me, I have been far too busy lately and hence unable to read all the interactions on this blog.

I suspected you to be Ibn since you reacted and began your posting when the rumour came up, and because Ibn uses Shia sources (if I am correct). Yet I certainly have no problem with you being Ibn, or Ibn being Yahya.

But ok, by all means, if you refrain from debating me in future, I shall respect your decision.

Nakdimon said...

I think that the account of Ayesha, as bad as it is, isn’t as damaging to Muhammad’s prophetic claims as is the account of Zaynab.

But that is for another time to address. hhehehe

Ibn said...

Yahyah, my argument is based on Sunni traditions. Will you be ok with that?

Nakdimon:I think that the account of Ayesha, as bad as it is, isn’t as damaging to Muhammad’s prophetic claims as is the account of Zaynab.

Let's address it here. Insha'Allah, I will silence you on this topic the way I silenced you on your spurious claims regarding the Quranic description of mountains. Funny how you ended up proving a scientific miracle in the Quran when you started out with the intention to disprove it.

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: “Let's address it here. Insha'Allah, I will silence you on this topic the way I silenced you on your spurious claims regarding the Quranic description of mountains. Funny how you ended up proving a scientific miracle in the Quran when you started out with the intention to disprove it.”

Proving science in the Qur’an? You silenced me? LOL

Give me a very big break! I stopped addressing you because you were, like you always do, reasoning in circles and re-interpreting your book again to try to make it stick. The words that the mountains are put ON the earth “lest it shakes” CLEARLY indicates that mountains are there to prevent the earth from shaking. Since we were merely repeating ourselves over and over again, what’s the use to keep going on about the very same arguments?

But I will certainly address Zaynab here, since you talk as big as you do. I’ll get back to you on this later, as I have to get going right now.

Later.

Fernando said...

Ibn said: «Let's address it here. Insha'Allah, I will silence you on this topic the way I silenced you on your spurious claims regarding the Quranic description of mountains»...

Thates what I was referring, my friend Ibn... let's keep them cooming... let's sheer it up the things... we all need a goog laught... thanks for youre precious help... you're a fantastique comediant!!! loooool

Ibn said...

I'm not as "fonny" as you Fernando.

Fernando said...

Ibn said... «I'm not as "fonny" as you Fernando»...

yes you are mie friendd... the prooff is that you allreadie manage to take the things I say without seeing in them an insulte to you...

your effordd to probe that mountains were necessairy to keep the earth without expeling semen (the magma that is bellow the tectonic plates) from its ribs and lungs was fantastiqly fonny... just kidding... seriously: you should learn more about scientific matters before tryieng to do copy and past from these our that site written by someone who doesn't have a clue about whatt they're speaking (apart of tryieng to dfend the indefensible)

as someone else said previously: "fonix"...

Jayman said...

David, Javier is probably correct that Mary was around 12 when she married Joseph. Though the apocryphal stories are not reliable history they have verisimilitude concerning Mary's age and are congruent with what we know about Jewish marriages of the time.

But it must be stated that the Holy Spirit did not have sexual intercourse with Mary (otherwise it wouldn't be a virginal conception). God created Jesus inside Mary's womb (I believe Christians and Muslims agree on this point).

Also, there is no indication that Mary was prepubescent and therefore no grounds for accusing Joseph of pedophilia.

David Wood said...

Jayman said: "David, Javier is probably correct that Mary was around 12 when she married Joseph. Though the apocryphal stories are not reliable history they have verisimilitude concerning Mary's age and are congruent with what we know about Jewish marriages of the time."

So what evidence is there that Mary was 12? (Please don't quote a third century source. And please don't say that it was common practice for girls that young to be married. It was common for girls throughout their teens to be married.)

Jayman said...

David, I did not say that Mary was 12, I said she was probably around 12. According to Raymond E. Brown (The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 123-124), Jewish girls were usually betrothed at the age of 12 or 13. They would then live in their family home for about a year before being taken into their husband's house. Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:27; 2:5 make it clear that Mary and Joseph were in the betrothal stage when the virginal conception occurred. Based on these two pieces of information, our best guess is that Mary was around 12-14.

Of course there will not be definitive proof of her age (the earliest source I am aware of is the Protoevangelium of James 12, a second-century document, which says Mary was 16 at the virginal conception). I responded because I did not find Javier's claim about Mary's age to be outlandish and thought it needed to be addressed directly instead of dismissed (plus, his notion that the Holy Spirit had sexual intercourse with Mary is a gross distortion of Christian doctrine). Even if Mary was 12 this is not an indication that any immorality took place.

Ibn said...

Nakdimon, I'm still waiting for your response regarding the relationship between Muhammad(saw) and Zaynab(ra).

Nakdimon said...

As a result of the big talk of Ibn, I will demonstrate how this episode of Zaynab bint Jash and Muhammad is devastating to his prophetic claims. Now when I say this, I will of course use the Bible as the standard by which to judge Muhammad as logic dictates. (and the Qur’an confirms) When we look at the previous revelation, we see the following ruling:

Exodus 20: 14. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, or whatever belongs to your neighbor."

We see here that we should not be covetous towards anything that belongs to out neighbour. Not even something as insignificant as his donkey. However, this is exactly what Muhammad did in regard to Zaynab bint Jash, the wife of his adopted son Zaid. Also, in the New Testament, the incarnate Son of God, Yeshua of Natzeret, affirmed that coveting some one else’s wife is equal to committing adultery in your heart:

Matthew 5: 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Notice the consequences of this sin. This is not a light matter. This is such a stumbling block that you are told to deal with such desires drastically. So according to both the Torah and the Brit haChadasha this practice, coveting the wife of the neighbour, is detestable. Not only that, when we go back to the Torah, we see something else. Numbers 15:30 we see the practice of “sinning with a high hand”.

Numbers 15:30-31 But if a person should act highhandedly, whether he is a native born or a proselyte, he is blaspheming Yahweh, and that soul shall be cut off from among its people. For he has despised the word of Yahweh [Heb. “ki d’var-Yahweh bazah”] and violated His commandment; that soul shall be utterly cut off for its iniquity is upon it.

These are sins that are done in defiance to God. These sins required the death of the sinner, with no remorse. This kind of violation is called “bazah”. So he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. Now, before we go to the episode of Muhammad, we will first look at a similar episode in the Tenach, namely, that of David and Batsheva. David coveted the wife of his neighbour Uriah, called Batsheva, found in 2 Samuel 11-12. He committed adultery with her, had her husband killed and took her to be his wife. To man, it was all good. But to God it was not! God then send His prophet Natan to David and after telling David a parable of David’s own situation, he asked for David’s verdict. David demanded the death of the one in the parable that acted unjustly. Natan then spoke the following words on behalf of God:

2 Samuel 12:7-9 And Nathan said to David, "You are the man. So says Yahweh the God of Israel: 'I anointed you as king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. And I gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that were too little, then would I add unto you like them and like them. Why have you despised the word of Yahweh [Heb. “Madu’a BAZITA et-d’var Yahweh”], to do what is evil in His eyes? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword and you have taken his wife for yourself as a wife, and you have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

So God was extremely angry with David for coveting the wife of his neighbour, taking his wife to be his own and putting Uriah to death. God then punishes David severely, doesn’t slay David, but slays his son instead. And more judgements befell David as a result of this act of defiance of Gods Word, the Torah. Yahweh doesn’t compromise His justice for NO ONE!

Yet, when we turn to the episode of Muhammad and Zaynab, what do we see in the Qur’an and the traditions?

The Messenger of Allah came to the house of Zayd b. Haritha [Zayd was always called Zayd b. Muhammad.] Perhaps the Messenger of Allah missed him at the moment, so as to ask, “Where is Zayd?” He came to his residence to look for him but did not find him. Zaynab bt. Jahsh, Zayd’s wife, rose to meet him. Because she was dressed only in a shift, the Messenger of Allah turned away from her. She said: “He is not here, Messenger of Allah. Come in, you are dear to me as my father and mother!” The Messenger of Allah refused to enter. Zaynab had dressed in haste when she was told “the Messenger of Allah is at the door.” She jumped up in haste and excited the admiration of the messenger of Allah, so that he turned murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly: Glory be to Allah the Almighty! Glory be to Allah, who causes hearts to turn” (Tabari, VIII.1).

To be honest, Muhammad’s initial behaviour is commendable. He tried to be a gentleman by not looking at her and not entering the house. But at the end his desires got the best of him as he ended up doing something condemnable. His admiration was excited, i.e. he coveted the wife of his adopted son and praised Allah for it to be the one who caused him to covet Zaynab! In other words: Allah made Muhammad covet the wife of his adopted son, causing the divorce and gave her to Muhammad. This is attested in the Qur’an as well:

Surah 33:37 And when you said to him on whom Allâh has bestowed Grace and you have done favour "Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allâh." But you did hide in yourself that which Allâh will make manifest, you did fear the people whereas Allâh had a better right that you should fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished his desire from her, We gave her to you in marriage, so that there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them. And Allâh's Command must be fulfilled.

So we see here
1) that Muhammad did covet Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son,
2) that Allah cause Muhammad to covet Zaynab and therefore the divorce,
3) that since Muhammad was a prophet “in the line of the previous prophets”, he couldn’t have been ignorant of the Tenach (which he was!) and should have known that coveting the wife of another man isn’t an act of God but a sinful act of himself. Therefore, where the God of the Bible considers this “sinning highhandedly” requiring severe punishment, Allah thinks this is perfectly OK.

This entire episode is damaging to Muhammad in the sense that this episode shows us that Allah is NOT the God of the Bible!

1 Yahweh forbids the coveting of the wife of your neighbour, yet Allah admits it
2 Yahweh punishes those who covet their neighbour’s wives, yes Allah blesses Muhammad
3 Yahweh hates the divorce and admits it only in cases of adultery, yet Allah condones it anyway

And since Allah is NOT what the Qur’an claims that he is, (i.e. the God of Avraham) Muhammad can be his prophet as much as he wants, he cannot be the prophet of the same God of the Bible, Yahweh. And therefore he is a false prophet!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Jayman: "I responded because I did not find Javier's claim about Mary's age to be outlandish and thought it needed to be addressed directly instead of dismissed (plus, his notion that the Holy Spirit had sexual intercourse with Mary is a gross distortion of Christian doctrine). Even if Mary was 12 this is not an indication that any immorality took place."

I find the claim to be outlandish. Given Miryam's adult and grown up response to the entire situation, I find it extremely hard to believe that she was as young as 12 or 14. Compare that to the report that Ayesha was still playing with DOLLS, and I rest my case.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Ibn,

Surah 33 is the most convenient situational revelation of any book in any religion ever.

I mean, when you have laws that say that speaking loudly in Muhammads presence nullifies good deeds, that is awfully convenient for the only person that supposedly received these words as divine revelation, don't you think? Immagine you saving the life of entire families and you come into the Ka'aba and scream "people, I have saved family so-and-so!", then the entire deeds are nullified, as if they never happened! Why? Because Muhammad happened to be in the Ka'aba.

When people get invited to eat at his place, they aren't to arrive too early to wait for his preparation, because that is "annoying".

And when you are finally done with your meal, don't forget to leave at once. Whatever you do, DO NOT sit for a chat! That, also, is "annoying" to the only one that gave you this "revelation"

When people annoy Muhammad, they are threatened with "humiliating torment".

And the list goes on. This is the "eternal guidence for all mankind"? I don't think so! Muhammad obviously didn't have the nerve to tell his companions that he didn't want to be bothered so he had Allah tell them for him.

Who was the servant and who was the master again?

LOL

Jayman said...

Nakdimon, Ayesha's age and maturity tell us nothing about Mary's age and maturity, especially since no one is saying they were the same age. It's irrelevant to either of our cases.

I don't see anything in the infancy narratives to show that Mary was particularly mature (or immature). Even if Mary displayed maturity it could be explained by her miraculous experience and not her age. Furthermore, a twelve year old can be mature.

In your opinion, if it were conclusively proven that Mary was twelve, would that indicate any immorality had taken place on the part of God, Joseph, or Mary?

Ibn said...

Nakdimon, your entire argument is based on a report from Tabari. If you didn't already know, Tabari got it from Waqidi. Regardless, if it can be proven that the story is dubious, then your argument fails.

To what extent is this controversial story plausible? The story is plausible if that was the first time Muhammad (saw) had seen Zaynab. However, given that the two were cousins and had known each other for a long time-Zaynab having been brought under the care of Muhammad(saw), it is chimerical that instead of falling for her when she was younger and, therefore, more attractive, Muhammad (saw) was taken aback by her beauty when she was well in her 40s and less attractive. As the Christian critique John Gilchrist, who was a prominent opponent of the late Ahmed Deedat, writes, "The biography of at-Tabari suggests that Muhammad was visibly moved by Zaynab's beauty when he beheld her on this occasion and in many works this incident has led to a severe censure of Muhammad because it seems that he had caused the divorce between her and Zaid and had manipulated the situation so that he could marry her. This censure may well be unfounded. Zaynab was his own cousin and Muhammad had known her for many years and it is hard to believe that after all this time he was suddenly infatuated by an opportune view of her beauty. There seems to be much merit in the argument that Muhammad would have taken her in marriage himself at first rather than give her in marriage to Zayd."

If, as you believe, Muhammad (saw) had a penchant for beautiful women, then he would have kept her all to himself rather than supervise her marriage with Zayd-as authentic traditions confirm. He did not marry her; therefore, he did not have a preference for beautiful women. If he wasn’t voraciously attracted to beautiful women, then he did not desire Zaynab even if we assume he walked in on her while she was undressed. This leaves us with only one plausible explanation as to why Zayd divorced his wife. It was not because Muhammad (saw) suddenly desired her, but because the two were not getting along. Add to this the fact that Zaynab looked down on her husband on account of his relatively humble position in society-Zayd being a freed slave, and was reluctant to marry him in the first place-agreeing to tie the knot only out of respect for her cousin; it is certain that the report as contained in Waqidi is a fabrication.

Considering what has been said thus far, you are faced with a dilemma. If you admit Muhammad (saw) was amorous, desiring only beautiful women, then you have to reject Waqidi’s story on account of its implausibility. If, on the other hand, you deny Muhammad’s lasciviousness, then you cannot say he was motivated by lust to marry Zaynab. If, however, he was not motivated by lust, then Waqidi’s account is false.

Its implausibility is one reason why the controversial story is to be rejected. Another reason is that it lacks an authentic chain of transmission. Since both the matn and isnad are dubious, it is sufficient reason to believe the story is an absolute fabrication.

Nakdimon said...

Dude, Ibn.

My argument was not based on Tabari alone. Sinds we can see the story is attested by the Quran, the objection remains and the story is valid. Even without Tabari, the objections are still valid as we can see them in the Quran. Tabari simply gives us the details. So you can't brush the argument aside.

Muhammad coveted the wife of his adopted son, Allah caused the divorce and sanctioned Zaynab and Muhammad to marry, something that Muhammad had in his heart, blessing the entire ordeal. Something that Yahweh in the Bible condemned outright, punishing David severely for. Therefore Allah CANNOT be Yahweh and Muhammad is the prophet of a false god!

End of story. Try again!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Jayman: "I don't see anything in the infancy narratives to show that Mary was particularly mature (or immature). Even if Mary displayed maturity it could be explained by her miraculous experience and not her age. Furthermore, a twelve year old can be mature."

The only thing that was miraculous is the conception of Yeshua. To claim miracles based on her mature behaviour is a lil bit of a stretch.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

Oh and Ibn,

Even if Muhammad was well acquainted with Zaynab, that is not a valid reason to reject the story. Because Tabari says that Muhammad said: Glory be to Allah, WHO CAUSES HEARTS TO TURN.

Meaning, that first he saw nothing in her, but after seeing her practically naked, he was aroused and lusted after her, i.e. HIS HEART TURNED TO HER! So actually the account of Tabari makes total sense!

Nakdimon

Jayman said...

Nakdimon, my main objection to your reasoning is that there is nothing in the infancy narratives to determine Mary's maturity level.

Nakdimon said...

I understand Jayman.

I understand.

Ibn said...

Nakdimon:My argument was not based on Tabari alone. Sinds we can see the story is attested by the Quran, the objection remains and the story is valid. Even without Tabari, the objections are still valid as we can see them in the Quran. Tabari simply gives us the details. So you can't brush the argument aside.

The Quran doesn't say anything about Muhammad(saw) walking in on Zaynab while she was undressed. If you want to go by the earliest and most reliable source, then you'd have to reject Tabari's a/c since according to the Quran (which is the earliest and most reliable source), it is not permissible for a Muslim to enter someone's house until he has been given permission to enter by the owner. As no scholar in history has declared this injunction abrogated, and there are no verses that allow Muhammad(saw) to break this rule, it is highly unlikely that Muhammad(saw) entered Zayd's house without his permission. Moreover, Aisha(ra) said Muhammad(saw) was the walking Quran. If he was the walking Quran, then he certainly did not walk in on Zaynab.

As for Al Ahzab 36:40, read it closely. Muhammad(saw) is rebuked for fearing men. If he was so overcome with lust, would he care what others thought? No. He was rebuked because he did not want to marry his adopted son's wife and cause an uproar in a society that viewed such a marriage between a man and his adopted son's divorced wife as incestuous.

Nakdimon:Even if Muhammad was well acquainted with Zaynab, that is not a valid reason to reject the story. Because Tabari says that Muhammad said: Glory be to Allah, WHO CAUSES HEARTS TO TURN.
Meaning, that first he saw nothing in her, but after seeing her practically naked, he was aroused and lusted after her, i.e. HIS HEART TURNED TO HER! So actually the account of Tabari makes total sense!

It still doesn't make sense. How can a man who felt no attraction to a woman when she was in her youth and incredibly beautiful, suddenly fall for her when she is in her 40s and relatively ugly?

As I said earlier, if you say Muhammad(saw) had a penchant for beautiful woman, he would have kept Zaynab all for himself and never supervised her marriage to Zayd. In that case, Tabari's a/c is false. If, on the other hand, you say Muhammad(saw) had no penchant for beautiful women, then he did not marry Zaynab because he was motivated by lust. So Tabari's a'c is still false.

All things considered, your case sucks!

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: “As for Al Ahzab 36:40, read it closely. Muhammad(saw) is rebuked for fearing men. If he was so overcome with lust, would he care what others thought? No. He was rebuked because he did not want to marry his adopted son's wife and cause an uproar in a society that viewed such a marriage between a man and his adopted son's divorced wife as incestuous. “

How convenient. That is not what I see. He is rebuked of caring what other people were thinking. That is possible even if you are overcome with lust and especially for someone like Muhammad who was claiming to be a prophet, this would cause problems for his reputation. And what is more convincing to your possible critics than a revelation from your god to seal the whole deal? A convenient situational revelation, but a “revelation” nonetheless. So NO, you haven’t explained away the difficulties at all. In fact, the whole thing becomes more plausible the more you object!


Nakdimon:Even if Muhammad was well acquainted with Zaynab, that is not a valid reason to reject the story. Because Tabari says that Muhammad said: Glory be to Allah, WHO CAUSES HEARTS TO TURN.
Meaning, that first he saw nothing in her, but after seeing her practically naked, he was aroused and lusted after her, i.e. HIS HEART TURNED TO HER! So actually the account of Tabari makes total sense!

”It still doesn't make sense. How can a man who felt no attraction to a woman when she was in her youth and incredibly beautiful, suddenly fall for her when she is in her 40s and relatively ugly?

As I said earlier, if you say Muhammad(saw) had a penchant for beautiful woman, he would have kept Zaynab all for himself and never supervised her marriage to Zayd. In that case, Tabari's a/c is false. If, on the other hand, you say Muhammad(saw) had no penchant for beautiful women, then he did not marry Zaynab because he was motivated by lust. So Tabari's a'c is still false.”


It is amazing to me how Muslims always manage to throw their own scholars under the intercity whenever they report something devastating about their prophet. Again, we can put Tabari aside and still come up with the following facts from the Qur’an alone:

1. Muhammad coveted the wife of his adopted son. (he kept it in his heart)
2. Allah insisted for Zaid to divorce Zaynab in order to give her to Muhammad
3. Allah fully supported the very thing in Muhammad that Yahweh severely punished David for, namely, willingly going against the commandment of Yahweh, therefore sinning with “a high hand”, the most repulsive sin in the Torah.

No matter how old Zaynab must have been or how you want to excuse your prophet, he was still longing to have the wife of his neighbour for himself. Allah endorsed it and exposes himself NOT to be the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. And therefore Muhammad is the prophet of the wrong god and thus a FALSE PROPHET!


Nakdimon

Ibn said...

Nakdimon:It is amazing to me how Muslims always manage to throw their own scholars under the intercity whenever they report something devastating about their prophet.

It is amazing how illogical and desperate Islamophobes become when they are cornered by Muslims.

Nakdimon:Again, we can put Tabari aside and still come up with the following facts from the Qur’an alone: 1. Muhammad coveted the wife of his adopted son. (he kept it in his heart)

You are basically repeating, like a Nazi, what you said earlier. I already covered this in my last post. Nothing in the Quran even remotely indicates that Muhammad(saw) coveted Zaynab. Moreover, you did not touch upon the other points I made.

Even though you have admitted to putting Tabari aside, in reality you are examining the Quran in the light of this obvious forgery which you have Islamophobically presupposed to be authentic. As a result, your arguments are circular.

Nakdimon:2. Allah insisted for Zaid to divorce Zaynab in order to give her to Muhammad

No, the verse says, "Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of God and thy favour: 'Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear God'". This is an allusion to when Zayd used to come to the Prophet(saw), even before the so called incident Tabari reported, and complain about how Zaynab was giving him a hard time. He wanted to divorce her early on, but the Prophet(saw) dissuaded him from doing so. Even the Christian critic John Gilchrist admits, "In his favour we must also remember that he steadfastly encouraged Zaid to keep her as his wife even when Zaid expressed a desire to divorce her. On the balance of probabilities Muhammad must be acquitted of the charge that he caused the divorce and took advantage of it to satisfy his own whims and desires."

Nakdimon:No matter how old Zaynab must have been or how you want to excuse your prophet, he was still longing to have the wife of his neighbour for himself.

Another circular argument. "Let's put aside Tabari and look at the Quran. The Quran doesn't say Muhammad coveted Zaynab. But Tabarai says so. Therefore, the Quran says Muhammad desired his cousin."

Nakdimon:How convenient. That is not what I see. He is rebuked of caring what other people were thinking. That is possible even if you are overcome with lust and especially for someone like Muhammad who was claiming to be a prophet, this would cause problems for his reputation. And what is more convincing to your possible critics than a revelation from your god to seal the whole deal?

That's the point. If Muhammad(saw) didn't care about what others thought, he would have forged a revelation that was absent of self-criticism. You guys believe he was a narcissist.As no narcissist criticizes himself, we can be certain that the doubts Muhammad(saw) harbored about this marriage were genuine. If, however, he was genuinely perturbed, then he could not have been driven by lust.

All in all, your case still sucks.

Nakdimon said...

It is amazing how illogical and desperate Islamophobes become when they are cornered by Muslims.

“Islamophobe”? Is that a derogatory word?


You are basically repeating, like a Nazi, what you said earlier. I already covered this in my last post. Nothing in the Quran even remotely indicates that Muhammad(saw) coveted Zaynab. Moreover, you did not touch upon the other points I made.

I don’t mind sounding like a Nazi. It would bother me endlessly if you would compare my reasoning with that of a Muslim. THAT would be scary AND insulting!

Even though you have admitted to putting Tabari aside, in reality you are examining the Quran in the light of this obvious forgery which you have Islamophobically presupposed to be authentic. As a result, your arguments are circular.

I only dropped Tabari because you obviously don’t want to deal with your scholar. And I can’t blame you, because everything you Muzzies claim is refuted by your scholars.


No, the verse says, "Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of God and thy favour: 'Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear God'".

And the verse also says: “and Allah's command shall be performed”. So in order for Allah’s command to be performed Zaid had to divorce Zaynab! So YES, my second point still remains an indictment to your precious prophet’s prophetic claims. And you can quote John Gilchrist all you want, I disagree. I can’t quote Ahmed Deedat to pin you down on something, can I? Then why do you quote John Gilchrist as though he is some final authority to me?

Another circular argument. "Let's put aside Tabari and look at the Quran. The Quran doesn't say Muhammad coveted Zaynab. But Tabarai says so. Therefore, the Quran says Muhammad desired his cousin."

You, my friend, are making summersaults to try not to deal with the entire episode. I don’t know what “And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light” means other than Muhammad wanting to have Zaynab as his wife. And given that your most authentic sources say that your prophet gave the most lavish wedding when he married Zaynab, indicates his desire for her. You don’t give an extensive banquet because you just married the “ugly old” woman you didn’t want to marry in the first place.

That's the point. If Muhammad(saw) didn't care about what others thought, he would have forged a revelation that was absent of self-criticism. You guys believe he was a narcissist.As no narcissist criticizes himself, we can be certain that the doubts Muhammad(saw) harbored about this marriage were genuine. If, however, he was genuinely perturbed, then he could not have been driven by lust.

Why would he fabricate a revelation that was absent of self-criticism? Actually, you would not, to avoid any suspicion. Since you wouldn’t criticize yourself, the revelation wouldn’t have come from yourself, thereby putting wool over the eyes of his companions. The “criticism” is almost non-existent in that verse. The fact that he DID care about what people would think, that this episode would be damaging to his reputation, he conjured up a revelation to fix the entire ordeal. So my charge still remains untouched.

But I can see that you don’t want none of this. I will remain silent again, and have you think that you “silenced” me on this point too.


Nakdimon

Ibn said...

Here we go again.

Nakdimon:And the verse also says: “and Allah's command shall be performed”. So in order for Allah’s command to be performed Zaid had to divorce Zaynab! So YES, my second point still remains an indictment to your precious prophet’s prophetic claims.

It seems you enjoy making a fool of yourself. Zayd divorced his wife BEFORE this ayah was revealed. This is attested to in Ibn Hajar's Fath Al Bari. As such, Allah did not command Zayd to divorce his wife, since that was already done by the time of the revelation of this ayah. Rather, He commanded Muhammad(saw) to marry Zaynab and not succumb to the popular opinion.
This conclusively disproves your second claim.

Nakdimon:And you can quote John Gilchrist all you want, I disagree. I can’t quote Ahmed Deedat to pin you down on something, can I? Then why do you quote John Gilchrist as though he is some final authority to me?

Unlike you, Gilchrist actually knows something about Islam. I quoted him to demonstrate that there are open minded Christians, unlike you, who recognize the implausibility of this story and do not argue merely to save face, as you are doing.

Nakdimon:You, my friend, are making summersaults to try not to deal with the entire episode. I don’t know what “And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light” means other than Muhammad wanting to have Zaynab as his wife.

I have already responded to this.

Nakdimon:And given that your most authentic sources say that your prophet gave the most lavish wedding when he married Zaynab, indicates his desire for her.

Not in the light of what I have shown.

Nakdimon:Why would he fabricate a revelation that was absent of self-criticism?

Because it is chimerical for a narcissist to expose his shortcomings to the world.

Nakdimon:Since you wouldn’t criticize yourself, the revelation wouldn’t have come from yourself, thereby putting wool over the eyes of his companions.

So was he or was he not a narcissist? If you say he was but that he strategically forged verses that were critical of him, then your argument is circular since you presupposing that he was a narcissist.

Nakdimon:The fact that he DID care about what people would think, that this episode would be damaging to his reputation, he conjured up a revelation to fix the entire ordeal.

Circular argument.

Nakdimon:But I can see that you don’t want none of this. I will remain silent again, and have you think that you “silenced” me on this point too.

Typical fundamentalist debate tactic.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/
Fundamentalist_debate_tactics

On second though, it is better for you remain silent considering that the case is not in your favor. If you firmly believe that you have somehow miraculously managed to defeat me here, then why not ask Wood to post our exchange on the main site and let readers judge for themselves?

Moi said...

Ibn said: «it is better for you remain silent considering that the case is not in your favor»

Is that a threat (typical muslim way of acting)? Or simple pure sightlessness?

Who’re this muslims that make posts in this blog? I just can’t believe they believe in what they’re saying… can’t they see the clear nonsense they make of themselves? That just can’t be true and/or normal… They’re like kinds playing and shouting: “My father is an extremist… if you don’t agree with my interpretation of the facts he’ll came here and show you how to go the paradise”… That’s why, more and more muslims are leaving their bankrupt faith… they’re number only increase because they have kids like other people have ideas…

Ibn said...

looks like this blog has another Islamophobe who is not so much interested in reading his opponents arguments as he is in attacking their characters.

Moi said...

Islamophobes? Are you talking of Muhammad?... He would be sorrie to see into what the religion he invented was turned by his followers...

But then, about phobias you Ibn know a lot better than a lot of people: truthophobia; politephobia; inteligencophobia… etc, etc…

What arguments are you talking about? It all a pile of Alka-Seltzer to allow other muslims to keep their infantile faith based in treats and lies… as you well know… what about Ivana Barayeva, Ahmed Yahya Yasin, Ibn Katim? What do you say about their arguments?

Nakdimon said...

Oh sure, Zaynab was this ugly old woman that Muhammad didn’t even want to marry, but Allah insisted him to marry her anyway, right? Here is what your scholars say in their tafsirs on Surah 33:36:

“Thus the Prophet (s) gave her in marriage to Zayd. Then on one occasion he [the Prophet] caught sight of her AND FELT LOVE FOR HER, “ (Al Jalalayn)


(And thou didst hide in your mind) her love AND THE DESIRETO MARRY HER (that which Allah was to bring to light) in the Qur’an, (and thou didst fear mankind) and you feel ashamed of people because of this (Ibn Abbas)


After having given her to Zaid ibn Haritha as a wife, the Messenger of Allah once caught sight of her, AND SHE MADE AN IMPRESSION OF HIM. At this sight he said: ‘Praise be to Allah who changes the heart!’ Previously his soul had turned away from her so that he had not desired her (as a wife). If he had desired her at that time, he would have asked her for her hand in marriage. Now Zainab heard of this praise and mentioned it to (her husband) Zaid, who understood AND TO WHOM ALLAH GAVE ANYPATHY AGAINST HER AND AVERSION TO INTIMACY WITH HER .…One may ask what the Prophet kept secret within himself. To this I answer: the fact that HE WAS DEVOTED TO HER IN HIS HEART. Others say: THE WISH THAT ZAID MIGHT SEPARATE FROM HER. (Al-Zamakhshari, also known as “Jar Allah” i.e. “Allah’s neighbour”)



Here is what Qurtubi says;

Muqatil narrated that the prophet married Zainab daughter of Jahsh to Zaid and she stayed with him for a while. Then one day the prophet –pbuh– came seeking Zaid but he saw Zainab standing; she was white skinned with a beautiful figure and one of the most perfect women in Quraish. So HE DESIRED HER and said, "Wondrous is Allah who changes the heart." When Zaynab heard the prophet’s exaltation of her, she relayed it to Zaid who then understood (what he had to do). Zaid said to the prophet, "O prophet of Allah, allow me to divorce her, for she has become arrogant; seeing herself superior to me and she insults me with her tongue." (Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=33&nAya=37)

Here your scholars Qurtubi and others say that your prophet desired Zaynab, contradicting your claim that she was ugly and old and that Muhammad actually didn’t want to marry her. Your entire premise is false! We also see that Zaid had no choice BUT to divorce Zaynab once he knew that your prophet lusted after her.

Qurtubi then gives a list of “privileges” that Muhammad had. The tenth is the following:
“Tenth: If Muhammad looks at a woman (and desires her) THEN IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER HUSBAND TO DIVORCE HER AND FOR MUHAMMAD TO MARRY HER. Ibn Al A’raby said, "This is what the servant of the two holy mosques has also said, as was clear to the scholars FROM THE STORY OF ZAID which also had this meaning."

Gee, I must be as ignorant of Islam as Al-Qurtubi and the rest. They all say the same thing contradicting you and supporting my premise! (and Tabari’s story!) They all make it perfectly clear that both Muhammad and Allah caused a rift between husband and wife. My point remains!

But go ahead though. Feed these scholars to the sharks too!

(Maybe I WILL ask David to put these posts in a separate blog. And just so you know... Since you are into quoting Gilchrist as an authority to me because he is more knowledgable of Islam then me, I will quote guys like Deedat and Naik as authorities for you too, because they are more knowledgable of Islam then you are.)

Ibn said...

Looks like we are back to square 1.

The traditions you quoted more or less say the same thing as Tabari-that the Prophet(saw) got attracted to Zaynab and desired to marry her. As I already noted, this is highly improbable for a number of reasons, the most notable being that the two were cousins who had known each other since childhood.

Since Zaynab had grown into adulthood before his eys, and he was not attracted to her when she was in her youth and, logically, more beautiful; it is highly unlikely that Muhammad(saw) would suddenly fall for her beauty when she was in her 40s and less good looking.

Regarding the illogical traditions, Allamah Shibli Numani-one of the greatest biographers of the Prophet(saw)-writes, "Historians other than Tabari have also quoted similar..stories. But the traditionists have treated them with the indifference they deserved. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, had an inordinate respect for written authority. Yet in Fath Al Bari, when ommenting on the Battle of Trenches and dealing with this story, he remarks: 'There have come to us many other such stories from Ibn Abi Hatim and Tabari, which Commentators have often quoted. But one need not dabble in them."

Hafiz Ibn Kathir, the famous traditionist in his commentary says, 'In this connection Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Jarir have quoted certain reports handed down by the ancients, which we should overlook as false. Imam Ahmad too, on the authority of Anas, has quoted a report regarding this incident which is Gharib and so we have ignored it." (p.116, Sirat An Nabi, Vol II)

Fernando said...

Hafiz Ibn Kathir said: «regarding this incident which is Gharib and so we have ignored it»...

yep... that's a typicall muslim atitude... if we don't like itt even there're solid histical proofs thate something is true (according to scientific and schollar criteria...) we just jump and simply igonre the evidences...

Ibn... just another questione: why are you writtinng such falsities and incongruencies? Don't you know that your pseudo-holie book forbides that one commits intelectual suicide?
وَأَنفِقُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ وَلاَ تُلْقُواْ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ وَأَحْسِنُوَاْ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

Don't run away like an elephant owner unless you want the flyying creatures came to gett you -- surah 105:3... ;) -- but answer the simple qustion I made to you...

Ibn said...

Fernando:yep... that's a typicall muslim atitude... if we don't like itt even there're solid histical proofs thate something is true (according to scientific and schollar criteria...) we just jump and simply igonre the evidences...

Yep, that's the typical illiterate Christian attitude...if we don't like what our opponents are saying, even though their claims are on strong grounds, we attack their characters and argue circularly.

Ibn said...

I'm still waiting for you to post our exchange as a new thread on the homepage, Nakdimon.

herrys said...

Well, it's an interesting debate. I come from Indonesia, a country with the greatest number of Muslim population in the world. I am a Christian though.
To be honest, this will explain why in Indonesia there many controversial marriage between an under aged girl ( below 17 years old ) with a middle aged man. Some of the the men are people with Muslim religious titles ( Kiai, Syekh in Indonesia ). This is allowed by public even when there's Marriage Law forbidding this kind of marriage

Bassam said...

David Wood said: My point is that Muslims demand the right to have sex with nine-year-old girls because that's what Muhammad did. A Christian would have no basis for making such an argument.

No David, they demand the right because there is no objective reason why they shouldn’t have that right. You said that the Christian would have no basis for such an argument. I disagree. There is no where in the Bible that prohibits the Christian from marrying a nine year old girl if it doesn’t result in any harm towards her. So you as a Christian would have no Biblical basis in taking away that right from someone.


As for the argument regarding Zaynab, the story is weak. Nakdimon the ignoramus thinks he knows what our scholars have said about the issue. See the following links:

Title of Link (clearly illustrates the weakness of the story)

Title of Link (I address it briefly here)

Title of Link (correctly notes that the story about the Prophet seeing Zaynab not properly dressed is weak because there is no chain of transmission for the story)

Title of Link

Title of Link

Bassam said...

Here's a more detailed and indepth article Title of Link

SophieB said...

Bassam - girls as young as 9 die painful, degrading deaths from sex. Aisha was just lucky she didn't die. Any girl who hasn't passed puberty is at a high risk of being damaged by sex, potentially permanently. The Christian model of marriage is based on the idea of a husband sacrificing himself for his ONE wife, the way Jesus sacrificed Himself for the church (you can read this clearly in the Bible in Ephesians). How self-sacrificing is it, Bassam, for a man to try to fit his penis inside the unformed vagina of a child who is not yet pubescent? Haven't you realised that the attempt alone could damage her internally? Have you thought about the psychological trauma such treatment of young girls causes? Jesus also says in the Bible that it is better to tie a millstone round your neck and jump into the sea than to harm a child, and there are passages to show that He believed the innocence of children was something to be respected, even emulated (if I had a Bible handy I'd look them up right now). Christians could strongly, strongly condemn the marriage of children on these grounds, yet when some brave Muslim woman has the guts to speak out against these horrifying practices in countries such as Yemen and Jordan, she is condemned as an apostate because your religion actually mandates this behaviour! Christianity doesn't! Mohammed DID this thing! Jesus definitely didn't!

There is also the crucial distinction that, unlike Christianity, Islam created an entire legal system to go with its religious aspect. This necessitated laying down laws regarding child marriage. There is no all-encompassing legal system in the New Testament, so this wasn't addressed. Perhaps Jesus just thought it was obviously wrong?

If you're criticising Christianity for not containing a minimum age of marriage, then surely you must see where this leaves Islam? At least the new Testament doesn't deal with the subject of child rape by saying it's an OK thing to do!! Why do you resort to (and fail at) this kind of one-upmanship instead of actually admitting the difficulties in your religion?

Final thoughts: Perhaps there is no mention of this in the New Testament because, unlike Mohammed, the New Testament contributors didn't actually expect the followers of God to rape children (yes, it is ALWAYS rape - when I was 9 I certainly didn't want what would have been an agonising ordeal, and I guarantee that neither did Aisha or any other 9 year old) - after all, you're the ones who follow the teachings of a child molester, not Christians.