Jump to content
Islamic Forum
BurningLight

Muhammmad And Ayesha

Recommended Posts

Why would Muhammad consider it a sin when child marriage was a relatively common practice back then? Did you check the link I posted?

 

Oh, and yes your question was answered. If David could murder someone and commit adultery and be a man after God's own heart and a prophet, then Muhammad could follow a relatively common marital practice and still be God's prophet. The religious world seems more than happy to accept David, and don't see why it wouldn't be even happier to accept Muhammad.

I said, Muhammad didn't consider it a sin! It is your comparison that makes it look like Muhammad did something wrong to a lesser degree. Can you send the link again? I didn't say David was a prophet. I said he was a king. Muslims consider David a prophet. David was not a man after God's heart for his murder and adultery. It was for his repentance. I said my question wasn't answered, because you didn't tell me what was questionable!

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
I said, Muhammad didn't consider it a sin! It is your comparison that makes it look like Muhammad did something wrong to a lesser degree. Can you send the link again? I didn't say David was a prophet. I said he was a king. Muslims consider David a prophet. David was not a man after God's heart for his murder and adultery. It was for his repentance.

No, my comparison is that Muhammad only violated some relatively modern taboos about marriage verses something that has always been condemned like murder and adultery and yet the later doesn't keep anyone from considering David a prophet so why would anyone feel hesitant about Muhammad on those grounds. Btw, Christians consider David a prophet too, our haven't you read the psalms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, my comparison is that Muhammad only violated some relatively modern taboos about marriage verses something that has always been condemned like murder and adultery and yet the later doesn't keep anyone from considering David a prophet so why would anyone feel hesitant about Muhammad on those grounds. Btw, Christians consider David a prophet too, our haven't you read the psalms.
Christians might, but not this Christian. David was beloved of God; a musican and he wrote songs. He was a king who confered with a prophet regarding God's will for his life and his people.

I know you weren't meaning to say anything negative about Muhammad, but you are making my point in this post. "Muhammad violated modern taboos about marriage" So for this reason, I said imo, don't you think it strains the universaility of him being the world's prophet? No one is making David the world's final prophet. If you bring up David's wrong in comparison, it is like saying Muhammad did something wrong to a lesser degree. I know that wasn't your intention, but what you said alludes to that if you can be honest about your comments. You still didn't answer my question. What is questionable about my comment or question?

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christians might, but not this Christian. David was beloved of God; a musican and he wrote songs. He was a king who confered with a prophet regarding God's will for his life and his people.

And when the New Testament quotes from the Psalms and says it was a prophecy? What does that make David then?

 

I know you weren't meaning to say anything negative about Muhammad, but you are making my point in this post. "Muhammad violated modern taboos about marriage" So for this reason, I said imo, don't you think it strains the universaility of him being the world's prophet? No one is making David the world's final prophet. If you bring up David's wrong in comparison, it is like saying Muhammad did something wrong to a lesser degree. I know that wasn't your intention, but what you said alludes to that if you can be honest about your comments. You still didn't answer my question. What is questionable about my comment or question?

No, for the reasons I already outlined. I don't know why you can't understand, but my point isn't that Muhammad is some how less bad then David, but more like a contrast: If you will accept something bad, why can't you accept something that is normal? You are the one saying that people can't accept Muhammad because he didn't follow the norms we currently have in place, but if you look at the norms of his day, what he did was not that uncommon. Now look at David, no matter what period or culture you put him in, murder and adultery would never be accepted. And yet he's a man after God's own heart. So if you can accept that of a person whose actions would be condemned no matter when or where he would live, then why couldn't you accept a man whose only "fault" is that his life displayed norms that were contemporary with the time period he lived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And when the New Testament quotes from the Psalms and says it was a prophecy? What does that make David then?
Just because one gives a prophecy that can come in the from of a song, that doesn't make them a prophet. Prophecy can be one of the gifts of God along with other gifts like the gift of tongues, word of knowledge, tongues, interpretation of tongues, discerning of spirits, healing and the list goes on.

 

I don't know why you can't understand, but my point isn't that Muhammad is some how less bad then David, but more like a contrast: If you will accept something bad, why can't you accept something that is normal?
lol, I was wondering the same about you. I don't accept something bad and you can do a survey on how many people believe a 55 year old man marrying a 6 year old is normal. Then maybe you'll understand my question.
You are the one saying that people can't accept Muhammad because he didn't follow the norms we currently have in place, but if you look at the norms of his day, what he did was not that uncommon. Now look at David, no matter what period or culture you put him in, murder and adultery would never be accepted. And yet he's a man after God's own heart. So if you can accept that of a person whose actions would be condemned no matter when or where he would live, then why couldn't you accept a man whose only "fault" is that his life displayed norms that were contemporary with the time period he lived?
I didn't say that. We are not discussing in terms of what was normal in the 7th century. It not being normal today is certain it seems to you, but it being normal in the 7th century, now, that is questionable. You see I am telling you what is questionable. Again, I will try to explain. It was not a question of what was allowed in the 7th century as much as it still being practiced and condoned today because Muhammad set the precedents of a prefect marriage model for Muslims. My question deals with how that relates to the universaility of Muhammad being the world's prophet when the world doesn't accept that as normal for today and tomorrow. IMO, I see that his paradigm for marriage didn't span the distance of the time because of it not matching with today's culture especially when it is the continuing marriage model in Islam today. I think it strains the universial aspects of him being the world's prophet, but it is clear you don't agree. We'll just leave it at that. David has nothing to do with this. No Christians accept what David did, but we accept that Jesus is David's descendant not Ishmael's and Muhammad is not Jesus' descendant; he is Ishmael's descendant and the Bible makes no claims that Ishmael was a prophet or David. Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because one gives a prophecy that can come in the from of a song, that doesn't make them a prophet. Prophecy can be one of the gifts of God along with other gifts like the gift of tongues, word of knowledge, tongues, interpretation of tongues, discerning of spirits, healing and the list goes on.

So, he wrote prophecies, but wasn't a prophet. I see.

 

lol, I was wondering the same about you. I don't accept something bad and you can do a survey on how many people believe a 55 year old man marrying a 6 year old is normal. Then maybe you'll understand my question.

Do you accept a murderer and adulterer as a man after God's own heart?

 

I didn't say that. We are not discussing in terms of what was normal in the 7th century. It not being normal today is certain it seems to you, but it being normal in the 7th century, now, that is questionable. You see I am telling you what is questionable. Again, I will try to explain. It was not a question of what was allowed in the 7th century as much as it still being practiced and condoned today because Muhammad set the precedents of a prefect marriage model for Muslims. My question deals with how that relates to the universaility of Muhammad being the world's prophet when the world doesn't accept that as normal for today and tomorrow. IMO, I see that his paradigm for marriage didn't span the distance of the time because of it not matching with today's culture especially when it is the continuing marriage model in Islam today. I think it strains the universial aspects of him being the world's prophet, but it is clear you don't agree. We'll just leave it at that. David has nothing to do with this. No Christians accept what David did, but we accept that Jesus is David's descendant not Ishmael's and Muhammad is not Jesus' descendant; he is Ishmael's descendant and the Bible makes no claims that Ishmael was a prophet or David.

I think that is a matter of interpretation. Muhammad either walked or rode domesticated animals wherever he went. Does that mean Muslims have to walk or ride domesticated animals wherever they go? Perhaps Muslims do believe that it is normative for 55 year old men to marry 6 year old girls, I don't know, but I know that their interpretation of the hadiths and Qur'an is often much more sophisticated and time aware than many give them credit for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, he wrote prophecies, but wasn't a prophet. I see.
Okay, I'll give you that. He was a prophet too. Acts 2
Do you accept a murderer and adulterer as a man after God's own heart?

I think that is a matter of interpretation. Muhammad either walked or rode domesticated animals wherever he went. Does that mean Muslims have to walk or ride domesticated animals wherever they go? Perhaps Muslims do believe that it is normative for 55 year old men to marry 6 year old girls, I don't know, but I know that their interpretation of the hadiths and Qur'an is often much more sophisticated and time aware than many give them credit for.

Of course I accept David as a man after God's own heart, and I don't reject Muhammad for his marriage relationship with Aisha. But that marriage model he has given doesn't fly in today's society. Imo, it is one of the things that put a strain on his office for the non Muslim world. I don't understand why you can see that!

I think Muslims accept David as well. Do you? Do you accept any prophets?

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that marriage model he has given doesn't fly in today's society.

Lots of things from Muhammad's time don't fly in today's society, including what I mentioned to you. BTW, Muhammad's marriage can serve as a fine model, you just have keyed in on the one element that is no longer normative. It's a criticism based on an anachronism, which is not the case with David. If you and the nearly three billion adherents of Abrahamic faiths are cool with David being an important figure in your religion, then again, I ask what is the challenge with accepting Muhammad? As I illustrated before, you don't even need to think the ages of the marriage are normative since you can always interpret it in the context of its time, something I have seen Muslims do plenty of times with verses in the Qur'an.

 

Do you? Do you accept any prophets?

You sort of need a God before you can start proclaiming which are his prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of things from Muhammad's time don't fly in today's society, including what I mentioned to you. BTW, Muhammad's marriage can serve as a fine model, you just have keyed in on the one element that is no longer normative.
That is my point. It is not normative to you and to most worldviews, but not to most Islamic worldviews. It is still the marriage model today in the middle east. I must be a very poor communicator for you not to understand my point. It is not just that won't fly; neither will cutting off a persons hands for stealing or stoning an adulter or putting to death one that leaves the Muslim religion under Sharia law. These are not things that were during Muhammad's time; they are still part of Islam today. When you say lots of things, you need to be specific. I could play it safe and generalize too.

It's a criticism based on an anachronism, which is not the case with David. If you and the nearly three billion adherents of Abrahamic faiths are cool with David being an important figure in your religion, then again, I ask what is the challenge with accepting Muhammad? As I illustrated before, you don't even need to think the ages of the marriage are normative since you can always interpret it in the context of its time, something I have seen Muslims do plenty of times with verses in the Qur'an.

You sort of need a God before you can start proclaiming which are his prophets.

Christians don't reject Muhammad as their prophet based on his marriage with Aisha; it is because we haven't been told in the Bible or the prophets that came before that we need to accept him has our prophet.

We simply have no good reason too. Yes, you need God before you can believe a prophet. I am awestruck that someone would find these discussion of interest not believing in God or not being sure God even exists.

Let me tell you a story 4 scientists got together to confront God. They said, "God we don't need you" God asked, "Why?" The scientists said "Because everything you can do, we can too; in fact, we can create life" God said, "Let me see you do that" so the scientist said, "Okay" as they picked up a hand full of dirt. God stopped them saying, "Hold off there, get you own dirt!" With that i say good night

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is still the marriage model today in the middle east.

Stop talking like all Muslims in the middle east marry a young girl. You are focusing on one of Muhammad's wives. He had other wives too and he treated all of his wives in a good way. Saying that his marriage to Aisha is the marriage model in the middle east today is disregarding his other wives and generalising.

 

Your question was do Muslims struggle with his marriage to aisha and I think you got your answer. His marriage isn't a problem to us because we know Muhammad was a great husband who cared for all his wives, quite frankly we do not care if non Muslims don't agree with it, and you may find that a problem but we know that Aisha loved Muhammad dearly. You disregard facts like the way Muhammad offered all his wives divorce and they all chose to stay with him. Had Aisha been unhappy she wouldn't stay with him.

 

I can understand why in todays world it is a controversial topic but unless you have evidence like statistics to back up this topic as being 'the marriage model today in the middle east' then don't say things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stop talking like all Muslims in the middle east marry a young girl. You are focusing on one of Muhammad's wives. He had other wives too and he treated all of his wives in a good way. Saying that his marriage to Aisha is the marriage model in the middle east today is disregarding his other wives and generalising.

 

Your question was do Muslims struggle with his marriage to aisha and I think you got your answer. His marriage isn't a problem to us because we know Muhammad was a great husband who cared for all his wives, quite frankly we do not care if non Muslims don't agree with it, and you may find that a problem but we know that Aisha loved Muhammad dearly. You disregard facts like the way Muhammad offered all his wives divorce and they all chose to stay with him. Had Aisha been unhappy she wouldn't stay with him.

 

I can understand why in todays world it is a controversial topic but unless you have evidence like statistics to back up this topic as being 'the marriage model today in the middle east' then don't say things like that.

 

Plus, the fact of which age Aisha was at marriage is not a function of the Messenger's role as Messenger. A role of the Messenger regarding marriage is that God will appoint wives and children for the Messenger, if God so chooses. The details of those marriages are usually not part of the Revelation, despite the Prophet being a vehicle to convey Revelation. This means that the names of the Prophet's wives, the ages of them, are at best not important for the Revelation. As it was not part of the Revelation, the details of the marriages are at best, historical narratives, and a function of Muhammad the person, not a function of the Messenger. This means historical narratives should never distract a seeker in their desire to know God and His Messenger and never be used to question the character of the Messenger. Being the Seal of the Prophets, God absolved the person of Muhammad from any wrong in fulfilling his duties as a Messenger (to include marrying who God appoints) and all the Prophets, to include Jesus, are also protected by this Seal which God created. A Messenger of God can never sully the reputation of Jesus, being described as the perfect man in the Qur'an.

 

To summarize, it is not important to know the details of these marriages unless you prefer the words of men over the Words of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus, the fact of which age Aisha was at marriage is not a function of the Messenger's role as Messenger. A role of the Messenger regarding marriage is that God will appoint wives and children for the Messenger, if God so chooses. The details of those marriages are usually not part of the Revelation, despite the Prophet being a vehicle to convey Revelation. This means that the names of the Prophet's wives, the ages of them, are at best not important for the Revelation. As it was not part of the Revelation, the details of the marriages are at best, historical narratives, and a function of Muhammad the person, not a function of the Messenger. This means historical narratives should never distract a seeker in their desire to know God and His Messenger and never be used to question the character of the Messenger. Being the Seal of the Prophets, God absolved the person of Muhammad from any wrong in fulfilling his duties as a Messenger (to include marrying who God appoints) and all the Prophets, to include Jesus, are also protected by this Seal which God created. A Messenger of God can never sully the reputation of Jesus, being described as the perfect man in the Qur'an.

 

To summarize, it is not important to know the details of these marriages unless you prefer the words of men over the Words of God.

You make good points for Islam. Are you sure you shouldn't revert to Islam? Besides, the points or posts I brought up most recently have nothing to do with this or what Lost in Paradise said. I never question how well Muhammad treated his wives nor did I address how much his wives wanted to stay with him or how his wives have any bearing on his message. That is a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make good points for Islam. Are you sure you shouldn't revert to Islam? Besides, the points or posts I brought up most recently have nothing to do with this or what Lost in Paradise said. I never question how well Muhammad treated his wives nor did I address how much his wives wanted to stay with him or how his wives have any bearing on his message. That is a different topic.

 

The Baha'i religion does recognize the Revelation of the Qur'an as being true. There is no need for me to "revert." In an Islamic forum, I just try to promote the Revelation of the Qur'an as well as I can. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

The marriage model you are discussing are based upon points not in the Qur'an. That is why I said what I did. Unfortunately, most in here will defend the models you criticize in the name of Islam, even though those models are not in the Qur'an.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Baha'i religion does recognize the Revelation of the Qur'an as being true. There is no need for me to "revert." In an Islamic forum, I just try to promote the Revelation of the Qur'an as well as I can. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

The marriage model you are discussing are based upon points not in the Qur'an. That is why I said what I did. Unfortunately, most in here will defend the models you criticize in the name of Islam, even though those models are not in the Qur'an.

That I criticize in the name of Islam? What criticizisms are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your question was do Muslims struggle with his marriage to aisha and I think you got your answer.
No that is not the question.
His marriage isn't a problem to us because we know Muhammad was a great husband who cared for all his wives, quite frankly we do not care if non Muslims don't agree with it, and you may find that a problem but we know that Aisha loved Muhammad dearly. You disregard facts like the way Muhammad offered all his wives divorce and they all chose to stay with him. Had Aisha been unhappy she wouldn't stay with him.
Have you read the recent posts on this thread? NO one questioned Aisha's love for Muhammad.
I can understand why in todays world it is a controversial topic but unless you have evidence like statistics to back up this topic as being 'the marriage model today in the middle east' then don't say things like that.
This video is just one of others that Muslims of good standing say they follow Muhammad's marriage model. I wouldn't make false claims!

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_youtu.be/F13gtjjDEgE"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_youtu.be/F13gtjjDEgE[/url]

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That I criticize in the name of Islam? What criticizisms are you referring to?

 

I believe you misunderstood my statement. Here it is.

 

most in here will defend the models you criticize in the name of Islam...

 

I did not say BurningLight. I said most (noun) in here (prepositional adjective) will defend (verb) the models you criticize (object of verb) in the name of Islam (prepositional adverb). Thus, "in the name of Islam" applies to define the type of defense the most will do. I am sorry that you included yourself as one who would defend in the name of Islam.

 

The criticism, well, the model of Marriage you are discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me tell you a story 4 scientists got together to confront God. They said, "God we don't need you" God asked, "Why?" The scientists said "Because everything you can do, we can too; in fact, we can create life" God said, "Let me see you do that" so the scientist said, "Okay" as they picked up a hand full of dirt. God stopped them saying, "Hold off there, get you own dirt!" With that i say good night

Cute. Of course, if you could just get God to show up and tell me it was his dirt, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cute. Of course, if you could just get God to show up and tell me it was his dirt, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's true, but that wouldn't be faith, and without faith, it is imposible to please God. He that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarded of those that diligently seek Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true, but that wouldn't be faith, and without faith, it is imposible to please God. He that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarded of those that diligently seek Him.

Yes, that's why God won't show himself, so so that he can save me from knowing he is there. Those poor disciples, all burning in hell because they saw Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that's why God won't show himself, so so that he can save me from knowing he is there. Those poor disciples, all burning in hell because they saw Jesus.
Why would they be burning in hell because they saw Jesus. They still needed faith to believe in God. Philip asked Jesus to show him the father and he would be satisfied. Jesus said, "How long have I been with you and you still don't know me Philip? He that has seen me has seen the father..." Philip still needed faith to believe what Jesus said as we still need to believe that today. Muslims don't have the faith to believe that Jesus and the father are one as Jesus stated in the Bible. I do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would they be burning in hell because they saw Jesus. They still needed faith to believe in God. Philip asked Jesus to show him the father and he would be satisfied. Jesus said, "How long have I been with you and you still don't know me Philip? He that has seen me has seen the father..." Philip still needed faith to believe what Jesus said as we still need to believe that today. Muslims don't have the faith to believe that Jesus and the father are one as Jesus stated in the Bible. I do!

They saw a transfigured Jesus. They saw Jesus do miracle after miracle. They saw a resurrected Jesus. They saw Jesus ascend into the sky with angels arriving shortly afterwards to help clear up any misunderstanding about what they just saw. How much faith does it take to believe after all of that? I wouldn't have any trouble at all believing.

 

Thus, according to you and your little pet theory of what Hebrews 11:6 means, Jesus just condemned all of his disciples to hell. What a meanie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They saw a transfigured Jesus. They saw Jesus do miracle after miracle. They saw a resurrected Jesus. They saw Jesus ascend into the sky with angels arriving shortly afterwards to help clear up any misunderstanding about what they just saw. How much faith does it take to believe after all of that? I wouldn't have any trouble at all believing.

 

Thus, according to you and your little pet theory of what Hebrews 11:6 means, Jesus just condemned all of his disciples to hell. What a meanie.

Sad Clown this is not my theory, and the verse is not an interpretation of mine; it is simply self-explantory. Even after seeing miracles, you still need faith to trust God for your salvation. How much more blessed will you be if you believe without seeing anything?

Edited by BurningLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sad Clown this is not my theory, and the verse is not an interpretation of mine; it is simply self-explantory. Even after seeing miracles, you still need faith to trust God for your salvation. How much more blessed will you be if you believe without seeing anything?

You didn't answer my question. How much faith would it require after seeing Jesus have the Holy Spirit descend like a dove from heaven upon him, transfigure, heal all manner of people including the dead, resurrect, and finally ascend into heaven? I'm pretty sure I could swing it.

 

And it isn't self explanatory. Look at that list of super saints you got in Hebrews 11. Every last one of them experienced tangible evidence of God and yet they are heroes of faith. And yet you want to poo poo any requests for the like, saying God couldn't come and tell me it was his dirt like in your story or it "wouldn't be faith". Now do you see how your little interpretation is adding things to the verse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Gospel, Jesus split one loaf of bread and fed 5,000. Yet, where were those people when Jesus was staked to a cross? Honestly, miracles don't mean anything without faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×