Posted on 01/02/2005 12:56:31 AM PST by leight
Islam is keenly arguing for protection from peddlers of religious hatred but the problem lies with confused objectives. The argument is that it will safeguard against the vilifying of cherished beliefs but inevitably it will be used to shut down discussion of the behavior of religious icons that have been idealized to the point of distortion.
When Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain stated that he is concerned with the style of debate rather than the substance this is puzzling. For the problem is in fact one of substance! This seems to me to be a major problem for Islam, which, as Iqbal himself says, has immense love and esteem for Mohammed. I don’t doubt their sincerity in this respect.
How do you approach the faults ands contradictions in Mohammed’s life and character (matters of substance, not style) faced with this frankly unrealistic veneration of Mohammed?
I agree it is ridiculous to call Mohammed a pedophile but what if we consider just one example of his actual behavior in a sober manner? Did he behave and reveal revealtionsd ss to God's holiness in the same way as the Biblical prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Nathan? This question is logical and critical because Mohammed claimed to be the “final” prophet in a long line of Biblical prophets, some acknowledged in the Koran, (many of the major prophets are not acknowledged in the Koran). Those Biblical prophets often encountered God through an angel and the result was that they were convicted of God’s holiness, and of their own sin.
But more than that, they were called out of their sinfulness to be “seers” and speak God’s word. This word would be consistent with the earlier revelations. The crucial difference between these prophets and Mohammed is that those Biblical prophets did not use claimed revelations from God to excuse and justify their own desires.
Therefore the problem for Islam is that Mohammed was born after such prophets as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Nathan (Old Testament), John the Baptist (New Testament) and Jesus. Mohammed had the example of and the teachings of those prophets and of Jesus to follow (to be a prophet accepted by Christians, or Jews for that matter).
Jesus made it clear that the real purpose of the Law required that men could not end a marriage except on the limited ground of adultery. The Christian scriptures make it clear the leaders of the Christian church were to be of sound character with only one wife.
Mohammed however claimed that Allah had given him a revelation that allowed divorce on grounds other than adultery, and allowed men more than one wife at a time. There is therefore no consistency with Mohammed in terms of the revelations he claimed to receive and his own lifestyle when compared with Jesus’ revelations. The New Testament is the standard by which Mohammed should be judged by Christians because he had the opportunity to know the revelation of Jesus and the New Testament. It is true that there were prophets like David and Solomon who had many wives but their lives were in this respect a mess because of their practice and their desires. The particular prophets named above were unlike David and Solomon in this respect.
I therefore weigh Mohammed’s claim as a true prophet (a Biblical prophet) not by the customs of 7th century Arab tribal behavior but against the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the prophets such as Nathan and John the Baptist. I do this because Mohammed claimed to receive revelations from the same God that Jesus and the other prophets were understood to have received revelations from, and further claimed he was the final prophet of God. He bravely set himself up to reach up a standard that he could not in fact meet. He was sinful and his actions were often completely opposite of the behavior and revelations from God to those previous prophets and Jesus.
The result of this is that the idealised Mohammed is a man who is presented as a (almost?) perfect man, when he patently was not. This tension can be illustrated (and at the same time a comparison made with Christianity/ Judaism) with the marriage of Mohammed to his daughter in law Zainab. Recall the general excuse for Mohammed’s many wives was (apart from Allah granting him special dispensation) that Mohammed married mainly widows.
Mohammed was attracted to his cousin Zainab whilst she was still married to his adopted son. Allah “approved” his wish to acquire her as a wife by giving Mohammed a revelation that condoned his adopted son (Zaid) divorcing her so Mohammed could marry her. Islamic apologists put the marriage dissolution down to mutual incompatibility.
The question remains how did Muhammad’s desires and actions compare with Biblical prophets and the attitude of God as revealed in the Bible, the earlier revelation, to such desires and behaviour? Compare Mohammed's revelation with the God of the Bible's response to David’s lustful motives and infidelity toward Beersheba. David conspired for Beersheba’s husband to be killed. Nathan the prophet revealed God’s condemnation of his desires and deceitfulness and David repented. None of this occurred with Mohammed with respect to his marriage to Zainab.
Moving to the New Testament John the Baptist spoke in a similar way about Herod because he had married Herodotus, his brother’ wife. John was imprisoned and lost his life. Herod did not repent.
The contrast with Mohammed’s unrepentant behavior is obvious. The holiness of God of the Bible as revealed through those prophets compares graphically with the actions of Mohammed.
This could well be offensive to Muslims but I have assumed it meets the criteria set up by Iqbal of robust criticism. I am left to judge Islam by the actions of Mohammed, when contrasted with the Biblical revelation. This is because Mohammed self-corroborates his claim that the Koran, as revealed to him is the exact word of Allah. And Islam stands or falls on his claim.
I just hope Islam can see beyond its sincere “ immense love and esteem” for Mohammed to be objective about his life and character. However Christians are continually told that it is not advisable to criticise Mohammed to Muslims!
As long as truth is told with intellectual integrity and honesty I would like to think this critic has nothing to fear from hate speech. Time will tell.
Islam is a false religion. Now...Let them come and get me.
Relentless ridicule on the internet of the perverted Mohammad and his moon rock god is a really important weapon against the Islamofascists.
Muhammed married Ai'cha when she was six years old. He had sex with her when she was nine years old (consummated the marriage).
MUHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE. Get over it.
Vanities should be labeled as such.
Mohammed was probably FRENCH too.
Islam is a murderous cult run by thugs. It's kept Arabs in the Dark Ages for centuries, enslaved women, and caused misery for untold millions. Playing footsie with Islam is akin to Chamberlain making peace with Hitler and achieve similar results. (Goodbye Czechoslovakia, Hello Goterdammerung.) Now it's goodbye Spain and Malmo, Sweden. The Netherlands already see citizens butchered in the streets. In France, Muslim youth gangs rape gentile girls as sport. Now is not the time to let our knees get wobbly, GW.
“Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
This was the sentiment of Omar M. Ahmad, the Chairman of the Board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR, as told at an Islamic conference held in Freemont, California, in July of 1998.
islam is anti-Christ.
Man, if that was true about the six year old wife, then Mohammed was a pedophile - even if he managed to restrain himself until she was a whopping nine years old!
LET THE TRUTH BE TOLD AND THE LIE BE DAMNED.
Islam=Death,
Yeshua (Jesus) Gives Life!
Plenty of Muslims still don't get it.
They say, "Oh, things were different back then." This was, after all, some centuries ago.
Well, I say no.
So, if you lived 700 years ago...
If you ate people, you were a cannibal.
If you were a man and chose to have sex with men, you were a homosexual.
If you were 50 years old (Muhammed) and had sex with a 9 year old (Ai'cha) you were a pedophile.
Time changes nothing. Time is not an excuse.
That it was a different era doesn't excuse Muhammed any more than it would Hitler.
Muhammad had his hallucinations out in the Arabian desert..... Came home and started preaching them as holy revelations from a prophet. Himself, he proclaimed himself the prophet.
Islam is one of the 'false' religions as stated in the 'Book of Revelation'. Nowhere ever did God allowed marriages to more than one wife, nor underaged girls. Nowhere can 'Allah' be God, if calling to behead people, oppress people's freedom. God has given all of us a choice, which is either 'right or wrong'. The hypocracy within Islam teaching is almost contrary to od's word, and no matter how it is spun, Islam as it is is violent, and could never be the Word of God, God is Love, and everything about him is love, therfore beheading, killings, rapes, adulteries could not possible be part of it. Just my humble opinion!
Does Islam encourage murder?
Does Islam encourage lying or truth-telling?
Answer: If Allah isn't the Devil, Satan's got competition.
Except in the entire Old Testament. Polygamy seems to have died out among the Jews by Jesus' time. But there is absolutely nothing in the OT prohibiting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.