Ameenah Matthews with Stephen Colbert
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Islam is a totalitarian political ideology created for the sole purpose of conquest and domination through terror.
mohamed was a warmongering mass-murderer, a liar, thief, rapsit peadophile and slavetrader
The United States of America is a totalitarian state that exists for the sole purpose of conquest and domination through terror and exploitation for the benefit of a small group of wealthy elite.
Our politicians and military are warmongering mass murderers, liars, thieves, and rapists, dedicated to keeping the majority of people on this planet barely subsisting in slave-like conditions.
I am a U.S. citizen. My government does not represent me.
Name one person Mohammed raped. Aisha was 20 when she was married so the fact you call Mohammed a paedophile has no grounds what so ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Ki6Tv9Vgg
How sad that a post about someone actually going out into the world to try and make it a better place is hi-jacked by ignorace and fear. I was taught, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything.
What I really like about this interview is that her talked to her as a person, not as a Muslim woman. It seems that whenever anyone interviews a hijabi, questions always relate to her “oppressed” life or her as a Muslim, as if that’s all she can be
Need more positive posts like this! Love it!
Mussadiq, why do you insist on repeating that lie? Seriously, 20? Why are you contradicting Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim? They both told us that she was 9 when your prophet started having sex with her. Are you wiser than they? Of course not. So deal with it. You believe that a man who had sex with a child is the greatest man to ever live. Accept it or leave Islam. And as far as rape goes, let’s consider the Banu Qurazya slaughter. According to Ibn Ishaq, after your perfect man finished beheading over 600 Jews in a single day, he took her as a slave, although she refused marriage (imagine that–what woman wouldn’t want to marry a man who had just murdered every male in her tribe). So he took her as a slave, and as Quran 4:24 tells us, sex with slaves is A-OK. Perhaps you wouldn’t classify that as “rape”, but it most certainly disqualifies him from consideration as the “most noble man to ever live”.
Well if you bothered watching the video you will see the dates given in the other hadiths do not match this video is proof. Accept or leave who are you to tell me what to do? Your life is so miserable your on facebook spreading wrong information instead of researching it yourself. Don’t bother telling me you have I doubt you learnt Arabic and read the Quran or any Hadith in its original language while gaining the full translation by yourself. Instead you probably go to Spencer and Geller for help and eat any bullsh*t they are willing to feed you.
Don’t bother posting back I won’t reply.
why would a man on a video 1400 years later then when your self proclaimed prophet lived be more correct than people who were actually there at the time?? i´ll tell you why these deceitful video´s are being made, it´s because the west would not accept islam as it is, that is why they are practising taqqiya on us. lies and deceit that is what islam is about
They don’t match the dates given? That’s pathetic, even for a Muslim apologist. Are the hadith collections of Muslim and Bukhari considered the most reliable? Do they both explicitly and repeatedly tell us that Muhammad started raping Aisha when she was 9? Do any of the other “reliable” collections offer any other age for when he started having sex with her? Of course not. And what is your source for claiming the “dates don’t match”? Let me guess, Bukhari and Muslim? And why do you accept these as correct? Because they don’t make the “perfect man” look like a child rapist? Right. See, just like Jonathan said, you have to lie, for what else could you do? Claim that even though Islamic “Scripture” makes it perfectly clear that Muhammad was a immoral liar, he is still somehow “the most noble man” to ever live? And who am I to tell you anything? Someone who’s sick of all the horrible evils perpetrated in the name of your ridiculous cult.
The sole source for the Hadith about the so-called child marriage/rape of Aisha was a distant relative of the prophet well over a hundred years after he had passed on. The anecdote does not logically match timelines for other events in her life, but it was later supported by those who had a vested interest in maintaining the custom of child marriages. The Canadian writer, Tarek Fatah explores the topic pretty comprehensively (and he is not the only writer to do so). Just an FYI, in the mid 1800s the Napoleonic code set the Age of Consent at 11 years for “women”. It remained so in many parts of the western world right into the early 1900s.
But theres new research that proves otherwise. How could she have bern younger than Muhammads daughter Fatima who was 11 when his first wife died…aisha was older than Fatima. And we kno he waited a couple of yrs before marrying again. Plus the Quran tells the muslims not to have sex with prepubecscent kids. Its dangerous for their health.
Lying for any reason other than to save your own life or someone in need of saving is forbidden. Lookit up in the Quran. And i dont kno about you but i have never heard of Taqiyyah before you people starting yelling it. I kno its a shiite thing. Done only when lives are at stake. Thats it. Im not shiite.
Plus its gross
No my source came from a Sudani scholar. From modern times :). Were not contradicting ourselves
I love how you wonderful beings all talk like youve lived with muslims for years, studied Islam by the Quran day n night, married a muslim lady, and converted to Islam yourselves. Seriously? We get it, your one of those nitpicking ppl who find little things that either arent logical, not researched well enough, or just downright lies. Those things have distorted your vision. You cant seem to look at us as whole, at Islam and our real doctrines of no lying stealing cheating raping murder forced conversion. You dont see the pillars of faith, or how we believe in Abraham or Jesus or Mary or Rachel or Gabriel, may God be pleased with them all. You dont even know that Jihad applies to inner struggle 1000% more than war you dont even know that Arab christians and jews say allah too, you probably didnt even kno those existed. You dont like Islam? I dont give a shit. Most of us dont. All i can say is, if you dont have nothing nice to say, dont say it. And educate yourself, with no bias in mind. Really just do it. If you dont want to, ok, cool.
So you wont interpret this as some muslim warcry in your deluded heads ill explain. It says may God guide you.
The only source, huh? Again, the hadith collections of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are considered the most reliable. Let’s take another look: Sahih Muslim 8:3110-Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: “Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.” That’s according to Aisha herself. So your “distant relative” lie has already been refuted. But let’s continue with more of Aisha’s own words: Bukhari 8:73:151-Narrated ‘Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet. Playing with dolls, huh? That sounds like something children do, doesn’t it? Well, when they’re not being raped by “perfect men”, it is. Let’s hear some more from Aisha: Bukhari 5:58:234-Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Sorry bout that, Linda. Come up with some better lies. And FYI, it doesn’t matter what the Napoleonic codes were. Civilized society has moved on. We now know it’s not only disgusting and vile for adult men to enter into sexual relationships with children, it’s a criminal offense. Unfortunately for Muslims, they can’t criticize such disgusting behavior, for to do so would be to admit that Muhammad is not absolutely perfect, and as that’s a key teaching of the Islamic cult, that can’t be done.
Super lunatic brothers are at it again huh? Nintendo should do a spin off or something. Two pitiful excuses of human life. Just wasting space.. That’s ok. When Sharia law wipes out other laws, you guys will be sorry That’s what you want to hear huh? I bet you would but that’s not the case. You chumps like the fear mongering and scare tactics. You’re the ones who are scared. Muslims aren’t thinking about those who oppose them. We’re just doing are thing. Submitting to Allah and stuff. You know? Probably not.. Losers
Poor old Jonathan – still unable to imitate a true scholar. If you ever bother to read a bit more, you may display a better understanding. Do you seriously think we have never heard the story you pasted? How do you imagine I found out about the source? Go back to school if you do not want to continue to be a laughingstock. As the poem said, “Drink deep or taste not…”. Or if you would prefer someone a bit earlier: “Knowledge without thought is useless but thought without knowledge is dangerous.”
The dolls thing.
So maybe if her father and mohammad were chilling and Aisha happened to be there does that mean he was looking at her? He wouldnt snub his best friend for someone he hadnt married yet. I could be chillin in your presence but does it mean your watching me, no..,
Marriage in Islam, its authenticated by katb al kitab, writing the papers and stuff. Even if it had been so, at 6 yrs Aisha would be known as muhammads promised and married like the party and stuff. Did he consummate the marriage? Until she hit puberty he couldnt have.
I still stand by my 18-20 years old theory. By the way, once she was with the prophet and some muslims on a trip through the desert. She, as were all the women, was underneath a veiled chair thrown thingy with a hood attached,each on a camel to protect them from the sun. So they stopped to take a break. Aisha left to go use the bathroom. Whenthey came to leave, they picked up her throne thing thinking she was in there. They leave. She comes back and sees them gone. So she waits. A muslim guy comes to take her back. So she sits on his camel and he leads them back to Yathrib. As they enter town people see them and start gossiping. They accuse Aisha of adultery. This was early in the marriage. How can one accuse a 9 yr old of adultry?
But of course youll ignore this fact, like abasa, fatima and all that. You only believe wat you want to. Thats called closemindedness.
Guys what if I just added jonathan on facebook, how about it jonny boy
So i see your suffering From depression….
Thats a beautiful baby you have there.
Lol im a stalker lol imma work for the CIA
Vitor i see your a big fan of Pammy Geller. Shes a liar. Doesnt know the difference between ghazu and fatteh.
Fatteh means to open, he opened mekka. To say it means invade would be contradicting the entire arabic language. Fatteh al kahf, opening of the cave, fatteh al inane, opening of the eyes. Comes from fatiha or the opening, first chapter of the Quran.
Go ahead and ignore that.
Guys im now definitley working for the CIA…
So in other words Linda, you lied, your lie was exposed, you have nothing with which to refute what was posted, and so you respond with some silly little philosophical ramblings and character attacks. How utterly predictable of a Muslim cultist. And Julius, if Muslims were just “doing their thing”, I wouldn’t give a damn. If you were just hanging out, pretending the pervert Muhammad was “Allah’s apostle” and that by doing what he said, you could go to heaven and screw virgins for an eternity, I wouldn’t give a damn. Waste your life, what does it matter. But the problem is that due to your cult, Christians are being slaughtered in the Sudan, Buddhists in Thailand are being slaughtered, young girls are being raped all over the world, girls are being murdered by their own family members for “betraying Islam”, minorities in Muslim lands are being horribly persecuted, kids are being denied an education because “all they need to know is contained within the Quran”, people are being killed for leaving Islam, etc., etc., etc. That’s why so many of us are doing everything we can to continue to raise awareness of Muhammad’s degeneracy, of the errors in the Quran, and cheering on all the Muslims who have broken free of the cult and will continue to do so in the future.
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman (2 chronicles 15:13) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18) OMG!!! If we don’t stop the Jews and the Christians, they’re going to spread Mosaic Law on us.. OMG!!!! They must be stopped now! Where can I sign up to fight this threat to our freedoms??
The education thing? Theres a hadith that says, “seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave”. Education is hugely valuable in Islam. Another hadith. “the ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr”
My dad pays more than 8 grand year to keep me in school.
Ive said this to anon and ill repeat. Things that go around in the world now arent wat islam perscribed. Like shiites and sunnis. Thats not in the Quran. Honor killings arent either. Its a known fact the govs that advocate for this are simply deluded and power hngry.. Even the theocracy and aristocracies themselves are condmened in the Quran, starting with Quraysh.
You dont read my comments huh.
Lol for islam to be a cult wed all have to be united
“And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at every place whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother.” (Genesis 20: 12-13) OMG!!! Now we know who to blame for incest!!! They must be stopped now OMG!!! Tune in next time for a very exciting episode of Super Lunatic Brothers!!! Spreading ignorance one day at a time
Hey Julius, unlike you, I actually read those dusty old things called “books” and I cited one of my sources. If you say I lied, it’s up to you to access the same author (he’s pretty well known) and point out how he got it wrong. However, if you would prefer the Internet, I’ll see what I can do.
Taken from one of Yarek Fatah’s articles: Did Prophet Muhammad Rape a Nine-year Old Aisha?
by Tarek Fatah
The allegation that the Prophet Muhammad married Aisha in the year 624AD when she was only a nine-year old girl, is not new.
However, the fact this controversy has surfaced on rightwing blogs, is something that has caught a lot of Muslims by surprise. It was sparked by a lecture in Toronto where the former Muslim, Syrian-American Wafa Sultan claimed, “As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was fifty-four.”
Wafa Sultan’s depiction of Prophet Muhammad as a child rapist seems to be a manifestation of her hatred of Muslims in general. She has no evidence of any rape having taken place nor does she have a record of Aisha’s age. However, what she does possess is a rage against her former faith that she expresses with wild abandon. In her book, A God who Hates, Wafa Sultan writes:
“Shouting has become their [Muslims’] hallmark and the main characteristic they use when they engage in conversation with someone whom they don’t agree with. Without it they have no sense of their own worth or existence; without it they have no sense eve of being alive. … On top of shouting their way through a conversation, they have acquired the habit of shrieking, and they take pleasure in hearing their own shrieks. They believe that the louder they shriek, the more they prove they are right. Their conversation consists of shouting, their talk is a screech, and he who shouts loudest and screeches longest is, they believe, the strongest. They fabricate disagreements so as to give themselves an opportunity to shout. They seek contradiction so that they can scream. … Islam canonized the Muslims’ desert nature, and from that moment on they were unable to acquire new ways of communicating with others.”
Just as Muslim anti-Semites denigrate Jews by claiming the ‘yahood’ have an incorrigible evil nature (fitra), Wafa Sultan too applies a similar diagnosis to describe the supposed unethical nature of the Muslim. She writes:
“The first moral question a person learns is the difference between the concepts of “yes” and “no”—in other words, the ability to decide what to accept and what to reject. … A Muslim lives his whole life and dies without ever having learned this lesson. Islamic culture has no clear concept of “yes” and “no.” The two opposites are confused in a way that makes Muslims’ behaviour incomprehensible to others who interact with them.”
…”Instead of relying on the words of bin Urwah as so many Islam-haters and Islamists do, I suggest we look at a few facts that prove that Aisha’s age on the day of her wedding could not have been lower than 14 years of age.
The historian al-Tabari informs us in his treatise on Islamic history that the father of Aisha, Abu Bakr had four children and all them were born before the year 610AD, the year of the advent of Islam. If, as is generally accepted, Aisha became Muhammad’s bride in the year 624AD, then she had to be at least 14 years of age, if not older on the day of her wedding.
Other calculations based on historical events place Aisha as old as 20 when she was became a bride. Ibn Hisham, the historian, reports that Aisha accepted Islam quite some time before Umar (the second caliph). This means she must have been at least a young girl in the year 610. Assuming she was five years old when Abu Bakr and his family converted to islam, the information puts the age of Aisha at 20 or more at the time of her marriage with Muhammad was consummated in 624AD.
Furthermore, most Islamic historians agree that Asma, the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than her. It is also reported that Asma died in 683AD at the ripe age of 100. If this is true, then Asma would have been 31 years old at the time of Aisha’s wedding with Muhammad in 624 and the bride would have been 21.
Of course, these facts do not suit either the Islam-haters or the Mullahs who sanction child marriage. Had the medieval caliphs or their court appointed clerics in the 8th century accepted these timelines, it would have taken away their right to fill their harems with young girls of their choice.
My critics may argue that I am juggling the dates to validate my thesis, but where is the evidence that suggests my timeline of historical events is wrong? If the critics of Islam argue that there needs to be a reformation in Islam, then why would we not err on the side of an argument that could end child marriages in the Muslim world? In the absence of any documentary evidence that Aisha was nine years old when she became Muhammad’s bride, why cling to to the gossip of one man, ibn Urwah, who served the courts of the caliphs. These were the very people who trampled all over Islamic doctrine by governing as hereditary kings and building empires on the backs of slaves.”
mohammed raped his female captives i.e slaves
lol, if aysha was 20 when they wed, then why did she bring her toys with her when she moved into mo´s house?? WHY DID MO GO ROUND HER PARENTS HOUSE TO WATCH HER PLAY WITH HER TOYS, you are just trying to practise taqqiya on us and it will not work, the cat is out of the box
The story about the toys is from the same questionable anecdote that you base your entire argument in. After about 200 years, how much reliability would you place in a story handed down from generations ( orally, not written) that conveniently supports the status quo but has no other evidence?
And you probably think of yourself as logical! XD
Linda, why don’t you stop embarrassing yourself? So you quote al-Tabari, a lesser hadith collector to make your case. Well then, let’s see what he had to say about Muhammad’s rape of Aisha: Al Tabari vol. 9: ‘A’ishah states: We came to Medina and Abu Bakr took up quarters in al-Sunh among the Banu al-Harith b. al-Khazraj. The Messenger of God came to our house and men and women of the Ansar gathered around him. My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. Jumaymah, my nurse, took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door, she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought [in] while the Messenger of God was sitting on a bed in our house. [My mother] made me sit on his lap and said, “These are your relatives. May God bless you with them and bless them with you!” Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.—– Yeah, I suppose I do think of myself as “logical”. The most reliable collections of hadith say that she was nine when Muhammad started raping her, no reliable source contradicts that, the best a Muslim apologist can come up with is that some modern day Muslim declares it a lie (with no supporting evidence, of course), then I accept the most logical conclusion, which is that Muslims believe a child rapist is the greatest man to ever live.
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I suggest you look at the whole article, rather than ignore the parts you don’t like. If you are having difficulty reading it, you could always get somebody to read it to you. http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/did_prophet_muhammad_rape_a_nine-year_old_aisha
Here’s another link that provides various sources: http://realdeen.wordpress.com/2006/07/30/real-age-of-hazrat-aisha/
Again, you’re embarrassing yourself. Why? Do you enjoy looking foolish? I read the article. Aside from the brilliant comment by the JIDF, it was another bit of worthless Muslims apologetics. What did the author do? Quote al-Tabari, a lesser hadith collector, and piece together an unconvincing argument that Aisha wasn’t 9 despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This, despite the fact that according to Tabari’s own words, she was nine when he started raping her. Again, all of the reliable sources claim she was nine. Muslims believe a child rapist is a perfect man. There’s nothing else to discuss. How about this: convince me that Muhammad is the perfect man in spite of how he was personally responsible for the massacre of the unarmed Banu Qurayza tribe. A tribe he could have forgiven, as a “perfect man” might have done, but instead had murdered, and then took Rayhana as his sex slave. Please, let me know how you justify continuing to believe Muhammad is “perfect”, despite such horrific actions.
RE: The apologetics piece. Interesting, as far as it goes, but ultimately meaningless. Meaningless, for all it attempts to do is put Muhammad’s actions into a historical context. But as we’ve established, historical context is inapplicable. Muslims believe that the Quran is almighty God’s eternal, unchangeable word. In the Quran, Muhammad is referred to as a “beautiful pattern of conduct for all people”. So Muhammad is either the perfect man for all places and times, or the Quran is false. Therefore, the onus is on Muslims to justify the perfection of Muhammad’s character. So please do that. Explain why you believe Muhammad is a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for all places and times when he did things such as this: Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’—Again, these people were unarmed. Muhammad could have forgiven them and let them be on their way. A “perfect” man might have done just that, even if he thought they might have done him harm in the future. Just to confirm his brutality, let’s take a look at what Tabari had to say: The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed—such a sweet guy, this Muhammad. So those are the males. They were warriors, perhaps it was necessary to kill them. But seeing as how he was a “perfect” man, surely he would treat the women and children well, right? Let’s take a look: The Prophet divided the properties, women, and children of Banu Quraiza among the Muslims after he had separated one-fifth for public purposes. Each man of the cavalry received two shares, one for himself and one for his horse. On that day, the Muslim force included thirty-six cavalrymen. Sa’d ibn Zayd al Ansari sent a number of Banu Qurayza captives to Najd where he exchanged them for horses and armour in order to increase Muslim military power—well, so much for that. Taking women and children and slaves and selling them off for weapons. So in light of these actions, please tell me why you have come to the conclusion that Muhammad is not only perfect by 7th century barbarian standards, but perfect irrespective of time and place.
I found out what Takiyyah. First, its pronounced Tukiyyah, with a u. Two, Shiite used it on Sunni Muslims because they didnt like the first Caliph and wanted a realtive of Muhammad, instead. Also, its a small shiite sect. The concept is used on muslims by muslims over politics, not religion. Please show me in the Quran where it says Tukiyya is permitted. Islam says to tell people about Islam truthfully. Its called dawa.
Btw, muhammad only had sex with his wife. When the ayah permitted men to have sex with their captives, you failed to see that we were supposed to be married, no doubt about that. Muhammad never had sex with anyone besides his wives, who were not slaves. They were all older widows from Mekka who needed protection. As Muhammads wives, they had that. He only had kids with Khadijah, who Aisha wasnt fond of (even though she was dead) and as a 9 yr old do you think shed be concerned with that? No but as a 20 yr old she would be. She was also accused of adultery. A child isnt accused of that. An adult is.
How can a child be accused of adultery then? Aisha was accused of adultery. Your good at finding hadiths, go look it up. You yourself prove to be contradictory
The story you have supplied about a massacre is not well supported. It does not appear in the Quran and there is no contemporary account. I know it’s tough for you, but try to think logically.
If you had bothered to read the articles, you would have noticed that the authors cite a number of sources. (But reading comprehension does not appear to be your forte, so I won’t push you on that point.)
I would think it embarrassing to repeatedly be made to look so foolish, but evidently not. Alright, let’s open our Qurans to 33:26, where we read, “And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew and ye made captive some. And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is Able to do all things”. So you’ve been exposed as a liar once again. And no contemporary account? Muhammad’s massacre of the Banu Qurayza took place nearly 1,400 years ago. Not a lot of surviving eyewitness, you know? But thankfully, his cowardly massacre was recorded by Ibn Ishaq, the most respected biographer of Muhammad, as well as all the “reliable” sources of hadith. So let’s hear it, Linda. How do you justify such a horrible man being “the most noble man to ever live”?
The story of the massacre survives only because Ibn Ishaq wrote nearly 100 years after the Prophet’s death. No archeological evidence supports it. You would think an incident of this magnitude would also be recorded by Jewish historians, but no Jewish text corroborates it. Although the story forms part of Hadith literature and the Sira, some present day scholars are suggesting that it may well have been an invention – like numerous other stories, respected or not. As for the Quranic passage you cited – the reference is vague (no mention of a particular tribe, and no details of casualty figures etc.) and any connection to the story of the Banu Qurayza is by creative extrapolation. While I realize this statement will probably not make me popular, even with some Muslims – there it is.
BTW – just a reminder – Ibn Ishaq wasn’t giving an eyewitness report, either.
Just another note: when I was studying psychology, we learned about the phenomenon of the “manufactured memory”. This refers to a situation in which, for various reasons, a person “remembers” a thing or incident which later proves never to have happened, even though the subject would initially have been ready to swear it was true. Manufactured memories are often rich in detail and can be recounted as complete, interesting stories, while genuine memory tends to be recorded in one’s mind as a series of impressions and pictures with some items vividly remembered and some not clear at all. The moral: be wary of tales written 200 years after the fact – especially if they are rich in miniscule detail!
//some present day scholars are suggesting that it may well have been an invention// Like whom? Ibn Ishaq was a devout Muslim, and of all the Muslim historians, his biography was written nearest the time of the “prophet”. And yet you reject his reports, and accept the words of “present day scholars”. Why? Does the “archeological evidence” support their claims? Please explain. //As for the Quranic passage you cited – the reference is vague (no mention of a particular tribe, and no details of casualty figures etc.)// But the point is still made: Muhammad, the man Muslims consider perfect irrespective of time and place, murdered unarmed men and then took the women and children captive. So please justify the Muslim belief that Muhammad is the most perfect man to have ever existed, especially when he had the opportunity to forgive people who posed no threat to him and instead had them killed and taken as his captives. And tell me, what do you accept of Muhammad’s life as true? You’ve said that you reject Ibn Ishaq’s reports since he wasn’t an “eyewitness”, and since none of the other hadith collectors were alive during Muhammad’s life, surely you reject all of their words too, correct? So do you believe that Muhammad existed at all? What is your evidence for doing so?
“Ibn Ishaq was a devout Muslim, and of all the Muslim historians, his biography was written nearest the time of the “prophet”. And yet you reject his reports, and accept the words of “present day scholars”. Why? Does the “archeological evidence” support their claims? Please explain.”
He was writing at least 100 years after the fact and there were probably no written documents to support him (not many people were literate at the time). How much credence would you give something that was handed down orally over 100 years (if, indeed, it was handed down at all. One researcher has even suggested that Ibn Ishaq could have fabricated the story in light of no other supporting evidence – it wouldn’t be the first time that ever happened!)
I love your second question, Vitor Palmer, “Does the “archeological evidence” support their claims?” Are you seriously asking for archeological evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN? That would put a lot of historians in a bind! XD
“But the point is still made: Muhammad, the man Muslims consider perfect irrespective of time and place, murdered unarmed men and then took the women and children captive. So please justify the Muslim belief that Muhammad is the most perfect man to have ever existed, especially when he had the opportunity to forgive people who posed no threat to him and instead had them killed and taken as his captives.”
Verse 33:26 “And those of the People of the Book who aided them – Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.
Waanzala allatheena thaharoohummin ahli alkitabi min sayaseehim waqathafafee quloobihimu alrruAAba fareeqan taqtuloona wata/siroonafareeqan”
(OK, genius, where does it way here that unarmed men were murdered and women and children taken captive? Have you decided to write your own interpretation? I think it is safe to assume that in this case the people mentioned did, in fact pose a threat to him, since that is the main point of this particular section.)
“And tell me, what do you accept of Muhammad’s life as true? You’ve said that you reject Ibn Ishaq’s reports since he wasn’t an “eyewitness”, and since none of the other hadith collectors were alive during Muhammad’s life, surely you reject all of their words too, correct? So do you believe that Muhammad existed at all? What is your evidence for doing so?”
NEWS FLASH: it is possible to accept that Muhammad existed because of the Holy Quran. As for the Hadiths, and other writings, although the Quran is considered divinely protected, the Hadiths are not. In fact the quran itself contains a warning about them in the following Ayah:
Luqman 31:6 cautions:
Wamina alnnasi man yashtaree lahwa alhadithi liyudilla aaan sabeeli Allahi bighayri aailmin wayattakhithaha huzuwan ola-ika lahum aaathabun muheenun.
But there are, among men, those who purchase idle Hadiths, without knowledge (or meaning), to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the Path): for such there will be a Humiliating Penalty.
//He was writing at least 100 years after the fact and there were probably no written documents to support him (not many people were literate at the time)// —So because he was writing 100 years after the fact, he should be dismissed. Tarek Fatah was writing 1,400 years after the fact, and yet you accept his views on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. Why? //How much credence would you give something that was handed down orally over 100 years (if, indeed, it was handed down at all//—So all the biographies and hadith literature should be disregarded? That sounds downright blasphemous, Linda. Best be careful about that, seeing how the “perfect man” treated those who left Islam. //Are you seriously asking for archeological evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN?// — Yes, I am. The Banu Qurayza massacre is amply documented by all Islamic sources that are considered reliable. There’s absolutely no reason to believe it didn’t happen. All these hadith collectors and biographers were devout Muslims. They most certainly would not include something that intentionally made Muhammad looked bad. And yet they all included the details of his slaughter of the Banu Qurayza. Muslims don’t deny that it happened. Search around the Internet, there are all kinds of articles written by Muslims that seek to defend what is so clearly indefensible. So if you’re going to take such a radical position, support it. //where does it way here that unarmed men were murdered and women and children taken captive?// —It says it all througout the hadith collections and biographies, but since you’re going to stick your fingers in your ears and say, “Doesn’t count, it’s not in the Quran”, we’ll just stick with the Quran. It tell us that Muhammad had some killed, and others he made captive. So here’s what I want: explain why you believe Muhammad is the most perfect man to ever live in spite of the fact that he had some people killed and enslaved others. He didn’t have to kill or enslave anyone. He could have freed them, even if it had the potential to cause him harm in the future. After all, that sounds like something a “perfect man” woud do. So convince me: there are billions upon billions of people who have never killed or enslaved or stolen land from anyone else. According to 33:26, Muhammad did all these things. So tell me, what makes Muhammad so vastly superior to all those who have never killed, enslaved or stolen land?—//it is possible to accept that Muhammad existed because of the Holy Quran//—But what convinces you that the “Holy” Quran is reliable? After all, its not as though almighty God himself handed it down to man. It was compiled by men after his death. How can you be certain they didn’t make mistakes? How can you be certain they didn’t completely invent the whole thing? Since you reject everything Ibn Ishaq reported since he didn’t write until 100+ years after Muhammad’s death, tell me why you’ve placed so much faith in the Quran, a document assembled by men.—//although the Quran is considered divinely protected//—What is your evidence that the Quran is divinely protected? How do you know it hasn’t been tampered with? Since you’re so insistent on “evidence”, I’m sure you have ample support for your claim. I look forward to reading about it.
Sorry mate, it looks like logic is not your strong point, so I don’t think anyone could convince you of anything. Didn’t you understand the quote from Luqman ? In fact, there are Muslims who reject all the Hadiths (they are known as “Quranists” and I don’t see anybody going after them for blasphemy). How entertaining that you, a non-Muslim, should be so outraged that a Muslim would insist on the basic rules of scholasticism before accepting something as “fact”, that you accuse me of “blasphemy”. The fact that a story was accepted by tradition does not “prove” it is true – even for Muslims. In fact, that is the very kind of thinking that creates trouble. How about the passage in the Bible that was taken to mean we should kill witches? People took this literally for centuries at the costs of hundreds of thousands (some historians even say millions) of innocent women. It was supported by some of the most respected Christian scholars in history, including some who were later canonized as “saints” (notably, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, but some prominent members of the Protestant clergy as well). Who accepts this passage now? Seen a good auto da fe lately? Of course not, because modern thinkers are aware that a) the passage is a translation and the original intent was probably quite different and b) time, place and context are taken into account. Why should Muslim scholars be less rigorous?
Why didn’t you bother addressing any of my questions? I would genuinely like to know why you disregard all the sources most Muslims consider to be the most reliable, yet accept the words of a Muslim writing 1,400 years after the fact. It doesn’t make any sense to me, so I want to understand the thought process that has led you to dismiss all Islamic scripture not contained within the Quran but yet accept the writings of a Muslim in the present day. You also totally failed to support your assertion that the Quran is “divinely protected”. Since you’re so quick to dismiss anything that was written after the time of Muhammad, explain to me why you believe the Quran, a document assembled by men after the death of Muhammad, is in fact divinely protected and has never been altered. Please provide your evidence. I’m not outraged by your dismissal of the writings of Ishaq, Bukhari and Muslim. The point was simply that many Muslims, following in the example of the perfect man, kill those who they believe have committed blasphemy or left Islam. Since you’re taking such a controversial stance by dismissing all of the hadith and sira, I hope that for your sake, you’re not surrounded by Muslims who take seriously Muhammad’s directive to, “Kill whoever changes his Islamic religion”. By the way, how do you justify Muhammad’s perfection, especially in light of such commands? You still haven’t gotten around to doing that, I see. Why not? Interesting that you bring up Biblical literalism. Speaking of literalism, it’s clear that throughout the Islamic world, many men are taking the Quran’s commands to “beat your wives if you fear disobedience” entirely too literally. What are you, as Muslim woman, doing to convince your fellow Muslims that this is no longer applicable, and that it should be expunged from the Quran? It’s also obvious that many are taking such Quranic commands as 8:39 entirely too literally. What are you doing to convince your fellow Muslims that such commands are no longer to be taken literally? Child marriage is still a huge problem throughout Islamic lands, as many Muslims strangely seem to believe that when Islamic scriptures make it clear that Muhammad started having sex with Aisha when she was nine, it actually meant she was nine when he started having sex with her, and that when 65:4 makes it clear that men can not only marry girls who haven’t started menstruating, but divorce them too, it actually means men can marry little girls who haven’t started menstruating, what are you doing to convince them that this understanding is incorrect and these texts should be expunged fromn Islamic scriptures. Yes, please tell me all about what you’re doing to reform Islamic texts and practices, as surely that would help to cure me of my “islamophobia”.
Your “questions” are all over the map, mate. I do not think it is possible to address them since they contain numerous presuppositions that one would need to prize apart to make any sense. Moreover, you appear to be afflicted with a really bad attack of verbal diahorrea which you appear to feel is battering your opponent with your erudition, but in reality makes your rambling posts very difficult to make any sense out of. Case in point, your opening sentence asks why I did not address any of your “points” (such as they were). Looks like you did not read them very carefully – I did. Your second sentence accuses me of disregarding “all the sources most Muslims consider the most reliable”. Have you conducted some sort of survey here? Please list all these sources that most Muslims consider most reliable so I can understand what the hell you are talking about – and don’t forget to include the means by which you arrived at the conclusion that “most Muslims” consider them so. After that, we can take it from there. You then ask me why I would consider as reliable the writing of a Muslim 14 centuries later. Well, first of all, I have actually read the writings of more than one researcher (Have you read the writings of ANY researcher in this topic?) The people I have accessed are reputable and knowledgeable enough in the fields of history and religion to make me trust them and their credentials. If you read their literature and follow the steps they took, it kinda gives you the impression that they know what they’re talking about. (What, exactly are YOUR credentials here?) Without going any further, I recommend the following people, in addition to Tarek Fatah: Fatima Mernissi, Mona Eltahawy, Dr. David Liepert, Amina Wadud, Nawal El Saadawi, Karen Armstrong, Gai Eaton. These writers are genuine scholars and articulate writers who have made religious and Islamic studies their life long careers. Because they are far more knowledgeable than either you or me, I am inclined to defer to their expertise. Have a look at some of their writing, and then you might be able to make a constructive discussion, once you understand where I am “coming from”. As for your complaint that many Muslim men misuse Islamic writings to oppress women – absolutely true. They do so out of ignorance, not out of knowledge, and many of the above mentioned writers, as well as many members of the modern Islamic clergy, are doing their level best to combat this. As evidence, a fatwa was recently issued by Canadian Imam, Syed Soharwardy against the concept of “honour killings”. In it, Soharwardy pointed out that the concept is completely unrelated to Islam and hence cannot be excused on the basis of religion. He then went on in detail to say exactly why this is so. The fatwa was issued in a public statement and broadcast across the country. It was also signed by over 30 other clerics. In 2008, Imam Soharwardy, also joined by others of the Islamic, and a few other faiths, walked across Canada to protest family violence – is that proactive enough for you? I’m happy to say there are many other religious scholars of his ilk. As for what I, personally, am doing: currently, I have also been working with various immigrant communities in the area of family violence prevention, and in my spare time I try my best to combat the ignorance promoted by people like you.
And I’ve read some of the works from the authors you listed. Armstrong, for example. I’m dismissive of her works, as she attempts to put Muhammad’s atrocities into a historical context. Her take on the Banu Qurayza massacre is interesting. Though she’s an apologist for Islam through and through, she has enough intellectual honesty to admit that Islamic sources make it clear that the massacre did occur. Rather than condemn Muhammad’s behavior as cowardly and evil (which it surely was), she attempts to rationalize it by saying he was simply a product of his culture. This fails of course, since Muslims believe that Muhammad is perfect irrespective of time and place, which means that Muslims therefore can’t rationalize any of his behavior in such a manner. Anyhow, regarding your claim that Muslims who engage in abusive behavior are doing so out of ignorance. Let’s say a Muslim man opens up his Quran to 4:34. The verse tells him that if he fears disobedience from his wife, he should beat her. He then turns his Quran to verse 33:21, which tells him that Muhammad is a beautiful pattern of conduct. From there, he turns to the hadith collection of Sahih Muslim, wherein he learns that when Muhammad’s child wife Aisha disobeyed him, he struck her hard enough to cause her pain. He then decides that since he has reason to believe his wife has disobeyed him, he will beat her. Will the beating that ensues be done out of ignorance or out of a correct application of the commands contained within Islamic scripture? That was nice of Soharwardy to do that. However, it would seem to me a lot more productive to seek to rid the Quran and sira and hadith of all the horrible negativity and violence towards women. Ridding Bukhari’s hadith collection of Book 6 Number 301 would seem to be a good start. Has he done that?
According to a number of scholars who have researched ancient Arabic, including Soharwardy, (who taught in Saudi Arabia, so I think you can safely assume he knows what he is talking about) 4:34 does not, in fact, command a man to beat his wife. It describes a course of action to be taken in an extreme situation (such as infidelity) – first chastisement, then bed separation and finally a symbolic blow with a toothbrush (exactly how much damage can one inflict with a toothbrush?) I first heard about this translation from Imam Soharwardy himself, but I have since read it in other writings as well. As for the Hadith which supposedly describes Aisha being struck – that is completely of character – hence, suspect. Sorry you will only be satisfied if an imam abolishes various Hadiths and rids the Quran of what you consider “negativity”. Are you similarly prepared to purge the Bible and ban the writings of all the ancient Christian scholars who endorse violence, femicide, and sexism? If so please let us know how you are planning to do it and how long you think it will take. However, I would recommend cleaning up your own back yard first. How about your ethnic community? Is it domestic violence-free? If not, you had better not put yourself in the position of a man in a glass house, busy throwing stones.
Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.
Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
You can use these tags:<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>