Why did prophet Muhammed (pbuh) marry Aisha at such young age (9)?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Are you now saying there is no evidence? You mean the imams made it up? Then the Islamic scholars lied, didn't they? And if they lied about that, imagine what else they lied about, I mean about Mohammed being the last prophet and all?

This is exactly what I am saying, many supposed 'Imams' lie on a daily basis, welcome to the real world, there is no evidence from the Quran to support these scholar's theories. Prophet Muhammed was the last prophet because it is mentioned in the Quran, do not be a fool. You clearly haven't studied anything at all.

But my point still is, the Quran said there were no warners, but yet said Abraham and Ishmael were to purify the ka'aba...in the time of the forefathers.

You have no point at all, that's the thing. The Quran said the Arabs had no warners before Prophet Muhammad, this is fact, I am writing in English. There is not link between Ishmael and the Arabs, so how could he warn them? Bring back you time travel theory haha.

Muslim claim of Mohammed and Ishmael

Muslims believe that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael. As proof of their position, Muslims refer to genealogies written around 770-775 A.D. by Ibn Ishak

Your sources are nonsense, all conjecture and speculation with no evidence from the Quran. Where are the verses from the Quran saying Ishmael warned the Arabs?? There is none at all, as far as Muslims are concerned if it isnt in the Quran it didn't happen or there is not definitive proof that it did. And just to prove you are a liar, you are going outside of the confines of the Quran yet again, despite saying that you are not.

Was I wrong? Did I really make a false claim? I said Islam teaches, I said nothing about the Quran saying it. Please read my post carefully. IF there were Imams and scholars saying it as early as 770 AD, then Islam taught it and some still teach it to this day.

No Islam never taught it, because it wasn't in the Quran! You was wrong. Even worse, you lied on different occasions especially about what Islam teaches. The Quran is the only source of information on Islamic teachings that you should be concerned with in this discussion. It is the word of God according to Islam and the Muslim, not the words of the Imam.

...Islam teaches it. I said nothing about the Quran teaching it.

WOW, you might need to retract that statement because you are clearly confused here. Islam teaches it but the Quran doesn't teach it ! are you on the drugs? What do Islamic teachings come from exactly, in your universe?

Again, my point is that your Quran says that there were no warners but then says Abraham and Ishmael were warners. So how can that be?

Contradiction.

It can't be, because your are misquoting and misunderstanding, where is the verse that says Ishmael was a warner, I told you before you need to add context to what you are saying, you can't keep singing warner, warner

The problem with this whole scenario is that it is an Islamic website, teaching that Ishmael and Hagar were in Mecca before the city was built, then a tribe came through. So then, Ishmael was a warner, according to this website and according to Islam. Is this Islamic website wrong?

While you are working so hard to refute me, you neglect what I said. I said "Islam teaches". I have presented three sources that indicate Islam does teach it. Whether you agree with it or not, that's up to you.

Of course I disagree, you have no idea what Islam is. It's not taught on a website, it's in the Quran, you can't change the teachings. This is where you have problems, your sources are so weak. Just stick to the Quran, what is your problem? No Muslim or website can go against the Quran, and claim to be a sanctioned belief. Your sources are contradicting sanctions beliefs, therefore they are wrong. Plain enough for you?

No Mecca, no ka'aba. If Abraham and Ishmael were there, then they were warners to the forefathers. And since the Quran says they had no warners, then you better get Abraham and Ishmael out of Mecca in the Quran story.

Yeah they were there, so what? Who were the forefathers that they warned? Describe these 'forefathers' do you have any names for them? The Quran says the Arabs had no warner before the Prophet Muhammad and that their forefathers were not warned, without saying who their forefathers were, what else do you want? Why should I get Abraham and Ishmael out of mecca though? What has that go to do with anything? Abraham and Ishmael have no link to the Arabs as evidenced from the Quran (the only islamic teaching you need to concern yourself with).

Noah was then a warner. So how can it be said that there were no warners, but yet it says there were warners, long before the forefathers?

Now you want bring Noah into this? Wow you are going through a lot of effort here, Noah doesn't fit into our scenario at all, if there was no link between Abraham and the Arab nation, why on earth are you bringing up Noah?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either there were warners or there were not. And if the Quran says that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Ishmael were warners, then it contradicts itself. I can't say it any more plainly.

But you haven't said it plainly at all, you leave it the most important pieces of information and pretend you are right. You keep singing 'warners,warners warners' what is a warner???? A warner of who??

OBVIOUSLY they were warners, in the general scheme of things, they were Messengers of Allah i.e. Prophets. According to the Quran, the Prohpet Abraham and Ishmael were not the warners of the Arab people no matter how much you sing and remix it. There is no evidence in the Quran that says the Ishmael spoke to the forefathers of the Arabs, or that he was linked to the forefathers of the Arabs, or even that he was linked to the Arab nation themselves in any shape or form. FACT!

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Zarathustra..all living in the time of the forefathers. The forefathers were warned.

The time of the forefathers!!!!! LOL who, what where? What is a forefather? Do you even know, how can you say in the time of the forefathers and not even elaborate, forefathers of what people or nation? Every nation is a seperate community, each of the nations received messengers from among them, that spoke their language. Now there is no mention in the Quran of the who the forefathers of the Arabs where, it just states that their forefathers did not receive a warning or the 'message'. And then it says the Prophet Muhammad was the FIRST warner for the Arab nation and the rest of the world to restore faith.

Your problem is that you do not want to accept that the Quran does not agree with what you or any of your sources are saying. And now you are going to tell me and 2 Billion Muslims that the Quran is not the Islamic teachings, but your websites and Imams are. Good luck with that

a reply to: WarminIndy

You said - ''If Abraham and Ishmael were there, then they were warners to the forefathers. And since the Quran says they had no warners, then you better get Abraham and Ishmael out of Mecca in the Quran story.''

Do not go outside of the Quran for information, you brought the original verse directly from the Quran (Surat Ya'sin 36:6)

1. Give me the verse directly from the Quran where it says Abraham and Ishmael were warners.

2. Now tell me who exactly did the warners (Abraham and Ishmael) give a warning to? These forefathers - what were their names, what nation were they from?

3. Then bring me the verse directly from the Quran where Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael are warning the Arab nation (the community of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh).


If you are unable to do this, you have nothing to discuss here.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Are you now saying there is no evidence? You mean the imams made it up? Then the Islamic scholars lied, didn't they? And if they lied about that, imagine what else they lied about, I mean about Mohammed being the last prophet and all?

This is exactly what I am saying, many supposed 'Imams' lie on a daily basis, welcome to the real world, there is no evidence from the Quran to support these scholar's theories. Prophet Muhammed was the last prophet because it is mentioned in the Quran, do not be a fool. You clearly haven't studied anything at all.

But my point still is, the Quran said there were no warners, but yet said Abraham and Ishmael were to purify the ka'aba...in the time of the forefathers.

You have no point at all, that's the thing. The Quran said the Arabs had no warners before Prophet Muhammad, this is fact, I am writing in English. There is not link between Ishmael and the Arabs, so how could he warn them? Bring back you time travel theory haha.

Muslim claim of Mohammed and Ishmael

Muslims believe that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael. As proof of their position, Muslims refer to genealogies written around 770-775 A.D. by Ibn Ishak

Your sources are nonsense, all conjecture and speculation with no evidence from the Quran. Where are the verses from the Quran saying Ishmael warned the Arabs?? There is none at all, as far as Muslims are concerned if it isnt in the Quran it didn't happen or there is not definitive proof that it did. And just to prove you are a liar, you are going outside of the confines of the Quran yet again, despite saying that you are not.

Was I wrong? Did I really make a false claim? I said Islam teaches, I said nothing about the Quran saying it. Please read my post carefully. IF there were Imams and scholars saying it as early as 770 AD, then Islam taught it and some still teach it to this day.

No Islam never taught it, because it wasn't in the Quran! You was wrong. Even worse, you lied on different occasions especially about what Islam teaches. The Quran is the only source of information on Islamic teachings that you should be concerned with in this discussion. It is the word of God according to Islam and the Muslim, not the words of the Imam.

...Islam teaches it. I said nothing about the Quran teaching it.

WOW, you might need to retract that statement because you are clearly confused here. Islam teaches it but the Quran doesn't teach it ! are you on the drugs? What do Islamic teachings come from exactly, in your universe?

Again, my point is that your Quran says that there were no warners but then says Abraham and Ishmael were warners. So how can that be?

Contradiction.

It can't be, because your are misquoting and misunderstanding, where is the verse that says Ishmael was a warner, I told you before you need to add context to what you are saying, you can't keep singing warner, warner

The problem with this whole scenario is that it is an Islamic website, teaching that Ishmael and Hagar were in Mecca before the city was built, then a tribe came through. So then, Ishmael was a warner, according to this website and according to Islam. Is this Islamic website wrong?

While you are working so hard to refute me, you neglect what I said. I said "Islam teaches". I have presented three sources that indicate Islam does teach it. Whether you agree with it or not, that's up to you.

Of course I disagree, you have no idea what Islam is. It's not taught on a website, it's in the Quran, you can't change the teachings. This is where you have problems, your sources are so weak. Just stick to the Quran, what is your problem? No Muslim or website can go against the Quran, and claim to be a sanctioned belief. Your sources are contradicting sanctions beliefs, therefore they are wrong. Plain enough for you?

No Mecca, no ka'aba. If Abraham and Ishmael were there, then they were warners to the forefathers. And since the Quran says they had no warners, then you better get Abraham and Ishmael out of Mecca in the Quran story.

Yeah they were there, so what? Who were the forefathers that they warned? Describe these 'forefathers' do you have any names for them? The Quran says the Arabs had no warner before the Prophet Muhammad and that their forefathers were not warned, without saying who their forefathers were, what else do you want? Why should I get Abraham and Ishmael out of mecca though? What has that go to do with anything? Abraham and Ishmael have no link to the Arabs as evidenced from the Quran (the only islamic teaching you need to concern yourself with).

Noah was then a warner. So how can it be said that there were no warners, but yet it says there were warners, long before the forefathers?

Now you want bring Noah into this? Wow you are going through a lot of effort here, Noah doesn't fit into our scenario at all, if there was no link between Abraham and the Arab nation, why on earth are you bringing up Noah?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either there were warners or there were not. And if the Quran says that Adam, Noah, Abraham and Ishmael were warners, then it contradicts itself. I can't say it any more plainly.

But you haven't said it plainly at all, you leave it the most important pieces of information and pretend you are right. You keep singing 'warners,warners warners' what is a warner???? A warner of who??

OBVIOUSLY they were warners, in the general scheme of things, they were Messengers of Allah i.e. Prophets. According to the Quran, the Prohpet Abraham and Ishmael were not the warners of the Arab people no matter how much you sing and remix it. There is no evidence in the Quran that says the Ishmael spoke to the forefathers of the Arabs, or that he was linked to the forefathers of the Arabs, or even that he was linked to the Arab nation themselves in any shape or form. FACT!

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Zarathustra..all living in the time of the forefathers. The forefathers were warned.

The time of the forefathers!!!!! LOL who, what where? What is a forefather? Do you even know, how can you say in the time of the forefathers and not even elaborate, forefathers of what people or nation? Every nation is a seperate community, each of the nations received messengers from And now you are going to tell me and 2 Billion Muslims that the Quran is not the Islamic teachings, but your websites and Imams are. Good luck with that

Isn't your entire point based on the thought that people only believe what is written in there ancient texts?!?
I can't speak for Muslims specifically, but in America the Christians believe all kinda stuff that's not in the bible. In fact I would bet money there are more christian beliefs from other places like "Dante's inferno" then the bible.


Kinda just jumping in here, but that's ridiculous to say " Muslims don't believe that! It's not in the Quran!" Every single person has there personal flavor of religion, no two

a reply to: Entreri06

Sorry but there is no personal flavour when it comes to Islam and Muslims. If it is in the Quran, it is correct, if it is not then it is up for debate and contention. If you read something outside of the Quran, that goes against what the Quran is saying, then it is wrong. Which is exactly the point I am making to one particular poster in this thread.

It is very simple like that. The Quran is the definitive source of knowledge for all Muslims, because all Muslims believe it is the word of God as revealed to the Prophet of Allah (Muhammad, PBUH) by way of the angel Gabriel.

Islamic teachings are derived from the Quran, and there are other texts outside it that you can use such as ahadeeths to compliment what is already written in the Quran so long as it does not go against the sanctioned beliefs in the Quran.

For example, the Quran will that you should pray, as part of your duty as Muslim. It does not describe how you should go about prayer (the specifics), and so we look at how the Prophet of Allah Muhammad PBUH prayed, and we follow that.

The way the Prophet prayed does not go against what is prescribed in the Quran, and so we follow his examples of praying 5 times daily, at set times, and following the correct physical manoeuvres of prostrating, and reciting the correct parts of the Quran during prayer.

a reply to: Entreri06

Quran is the most Authentic Islamic teachings and scripture..as it is stated in Quran..It is Allah's word and superior to all other kind of Hadith or records

If something associated to the sayings of Prophet Muhammad seems offending or contradictory to Quran...it should not be accepted..because the Quran itself does not contradict and needs to be undertsood in the light of its own verses.

Hence you do not need to go outside of the Quran to understand it, which is why I reiterate, stick to the confines of the Quran if you wish to contend any of the verses.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: Entreri06

Quran is the most Authentic Islamic teachings and scripture..as it is stated in Quran..It is Allah's word and superior to all other kind of Hadith or records

Prove it is Allah's word.

Can you do that outside of the Quran?

a reply to: WarminIndy


The Quran’s preservation alone is enough proof for me to believe it is the word of God. It is unaltered in it's 1400+ years of existence. And I have already proved to you that there is no mistake or contradiction amongst the verses contained within the Quran.


Muslims believe that God sent many revelations to humanity throughout history, and over time they underwent changes from their original form. However, God chose to preserve His message to humanity in His final revelation, the Quran.

You might wonder what evidence supports the claim that the Quran has never been modified? The Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammadp over a period of 23 years. The unique rhythmic style of the Quran made it easy to memorize, which has been the main source of its preservation.

God promises in the Quran, “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)” (15:9).

On the Quran’s authenticity - many people mistakenly believe that the Quran was authored by Prophet Muhammad. In fact, the Quran is the preserved speech of God.

Which proofs indicate that the Quran is the Word of God and not the writings of Prophet Muhammad? In the Quran, God addresses Prophet Muhammad, “You never recited any Scripture before We revealed this one to you; you never wrote one down with your hand” (29:48). In other words, Prophet Muhammad, who was known to be illiterate, neither read any previous scriptures nor wrote the Quran.

I do not need to prove anything to you, neither does any other Muslim. You can either choose to believe in it or not, and I do not engage in such discussions anyway - to each their own.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: WarminIndy


The Quran’s preservation alone is enough proof for me to believe it is the word of God. It is unaltered in it's 1400+ years of existence. And I have already proved to you that there is no mistake or contradiction amongst the verses contained within the Quran.

Prove it is the word of Allah, and not Mohammed.

You know, the atheists and agnostics challenge us Christians every day about God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, But we aren't talking about God here, we are talking about a book a man claims is revelation and Allah's word.

So prove it.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: WarminIndy


The Quran’s preservation alone is enough proof for me to believe it is the word of God. It is unaltered in it's 1400+ years of existence. And I have already proved to you that there is no mistake or contradiction amongst the verses contained within the Quran.

You know that Christians make that same rationale about their bible right? That is actually some pretty flimsy reasoning.

Also, no contradictions in the Quran? Riiiight... Contradictions in the Quran

I do not need to prove anything to you, neither does any other Muslim. You can either choose to believe in it or not, and I do not engage in such discussions anyway - to each their own.

You don't need to prove anything, but it certainly helps if you want skeptics to take you seriously. I view the idea that God revealed ANYTHING to ANYONE as rather dubious because there is zero evidence of God's existence. The Quran isn't evidence of God's existence either. It makes the same circular reasoning argument that the bible does in that it says that it is the revealed word of god and then the religious use that as proof that God exists and hence the book is therefore divine.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: WarminIndy


The Quran’s preservation alone is enough proof for me to believe it is the word of God. It is unaltered in it's 1400+ years of existence. And I have already proved to you that there is no mistake or contradiction amongst the verses contained within the Quran.

You know that Christians make that same rationale about their bible right? That is actually some pretty flimsy reasoning.

Also, no contradictions in the Quran? Riiiight... Contradictions in the Quran

I do not need to prove anything to you, neither does any other Muslim. You can either choose to believe in it or not, and I do not engage in such discussions anyway - to each their own.

You don't need to prove anything, but it certainly helps if you want skeptics to take you seriously. I view the idea that God revealed ANYTHING to ANYONE as rather dubious because there is zero evidence of God's existence. The Quran isn't evidence of God's existence either. It makes the same circular reasoning argument that the bible does in that it says that it is the revealed word of god and then the religious use that as proof that God exists and hence the book is therefore divine.

Krazyshot

As a Christian, I am always asked to justify my belief and faith. I can't use just the Bible, that is why I speak about the immediate presence of God in my life and in the lives of others that I have witnessed. While that isn't enough to convince people either, some people don't see it and others do.

As Christians, we are not only challenged by others, but our Bible as well to seek God. Even if we didn't have the Bible, we would still experience the presence of God. I have witnessed it many times.

But the Islamic faith is different, they are expected to take the words of Mohammed so literally, without evidence of his claims. Mohammed said in many places that only he experienced Allah and that only he was able to reveal what Allah said. And that is a dangerous thing.

Even in his day there were still those who rejected his claims because he at times would be confronted on a violation and then abrogate the Quran at that point by saying "Jibreel is here now, can't you see him?" and then say Allah made certain restrictions null for him only. That also is a dangerous thing to say to people.

Then the Quran rips off so many things from the Torah, Tanakh and the Bible, claiming the revelation of those previous books came to him. And yet it gets everything wrong.

The Jews have a 4,000 year history of recording their lives and civil laws, they were diligent in that. Their traditions, even though they might have evolved a little over time, the Jewish community still maintain their identity through them.

Christianity began as a Jewish sect and many traditions carried over, some other traditions were adapted and some evolved. But when whoever wrote the Quran came along, they misconstrued the written history of the Jews and Zoroastrians, as well as the Christians.

I think their allah must be a loan shark, he takes bribes

And Allah had already taken a covenant from the Children of Israel, and We delegated from among them twelve leaders. And Allah said, "I am with you. If you establish prayer and give zakah and believe in My messengers and support them and loan Allah a goodly loan, I will surely remove from you your misdeeds and admit you to gardens beneath which rivers flow. But whoever of you disbelieves after that has certainly strayed from the soundness of the way."

That is called extortion.

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]

Well now, allah is a gangster loan shark that you have to loan money to before you get to go to heaven. Is allah so poor that he needs loans from people or he beats them up? I want to hear the spin on this one. Cue the popcorn.....

a reply to: WarminIndy

And the funny thing is...Aisha isn't even mentioned in the Quran.

So how do we even know Mohammed married Aisha? If the OP and others say that they are Quran only and not Hadiths, the video itself can't even be used.

Didn't certain people on this thread defend Mohammed marrying Aisha and then told us that they are Quran only, when Aisha isn't even mentioned in the Quran?

The video is now therefore null and void if they are Quran only....oops. So much for Quran only.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Hey WarminIndy! You've been quite active in this thread from the start, and the thread of your activity has been quite interesting, so I hope you don't mind if I grab one end and yank at it to see what happens. It is not my intention to unfairly target you or anything, so please don't take it like that, though.

Way back on page 4 you said this. You've made this claim before as well, if I'm not mistaken:

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And the difference is this.. Jews and Christians are never permitted to lie. There may be some that do, but we are never, ever, ever, ever to lie about our religion or our faith, even when we are faced with death.

I've addressed this point elsewhere before, so let me just quote that:

originally posted by: babloy
Some interesting additions (since the time ran out for me to edit my previous post):

Jewish view on permissibility of lying- Surprise, surprise, it is permitted in certain situations.
Catholic view on permissibility of lying to save a life- Also permitted, but they really twist words about to make it so. They state clearly that lying is not permitted, so instead you should use "mental reservation".

Such expressions as "He is not at home" were called equivocations, or amphibologies, and when there was good reason for using them their lawfulness was admitted by all. If the person inquired for was really at home, but did not wish to see the visitor, the meaning of the phrase "He is not at home" was restricted by the mind of the speaker to this sense, "He is not at home for you, or to see you."

Sounds pretty much like lying to me.

I can find similar pronouncements from dozens of other christian denominations, but since there are so many, and every one can be responded with "Yeah, they say that, but that isn't what MY very specific church says!", seems pointless to mention.

Anyhow, you seem to have this idea that Islam is this monolithic singular entity. For example, to Charlie you said:

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Did you say it in Mecca?

Please, please go to Mecca and say it. I want to see a video of you doing so. I want to see you in Mecca saying to the imams that they don't need Hadith.

Can you do that on your next pilgrimage? You might say you are Quran only, but you can never say that in Mecca or Medina for that matter.

And what did those other Muslims say to you? Are you an imam? Are you a scholar? Or are you just a guy trying to reconcile your religion without the texts of your religion because you find Hadiths repulsive?

Why should Charlie "Say it in Mecca"? Do you think the Islamopope resides there? Or some God-ordained religio-council of elders? Do you think Mecca or Medina has some religious authority over Charlie or other Muslims? Which imams should Charlie say this to?
An "imam" is someone who leads the prayers for muslims. And by "lead", I mean stands in front of everyone else (or on the side sometimes in situations where a woman is leading men) and recites the parts of the prayers and everyone follows their movements so as to be in sync. By "lead", I DON'T mean you have to agree with the Imam's own interpretations or agree with every opinion.

There are many "Quran-only" groups of muslims all over the world. Personally, I accept the authentic hadith as part of Islam (but certainly don't agree that without them the Quran is useless), but some don't. Do I think these people are fakers or non-muslims or infidels? Of course not. Do the vast majority of muslims? Of course not. Do some small fringe groups? Maybe, but so what? Do you think that these Quran-only muslims never go to perform pilgrimage? Do you think they're not allowed to enter Mecca? Do you think Saudi passport control quizes you on whether you're a shia or sunni or specific tenets of belief? Of course not. BUT EVEN IF THEY DID, Islam certainly didn't give them moral or religious authority to do so.

Either way, I very much doubt that even if Charlie tried what you say, his voice would be heard above the crowded throng of chanting pilgrims.

Now, a stopover for a random question you posted (didn't see if it was replied to):

originally posted by: WarminIndy
I just read something interesting. Why is it forbidden anyway for you guys to eat pork when your Quran says it is ok?

Quran 5:5 This day are all things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. Lawful unto you in marriage are chaste women who are believers, and chaste women from among the People of the Book, revealed before your time.

Pork is lawful for Christians, and as we are the People of the Book, it is lawful for you as well.

Surat Al-Ma'idah [5:5]

Was it abrogated? You won't know unless you read Hadith....

It certainly wasn't abrogated. Pork and other pig related products are certainly not permitted to muslims, as can be seen from other passages of the Quran. This passage is talking about the food cooked by Christians and Jews in general. Some muslims even today are hesitant to eat food prepared/slaughtered by them, but this verse says it is ok. Not stuff that wouldn't be permitted anyhow (carrion, pork, alcohol, blood, etc.), but food they cook otherwise. For example, in Islam, kosher food is totally allowed for muslims (something that was very helpful to me in the US before halal food became more common).

(continuation from above, seems ATS enforces a post size limit now...)

You then get into an extended back-and-forth with ISeekTruth about...nothing in particular, as far as I can tell. You seem to object to Islam being considered an "Abrahamic faith", and yet it is, and this is totally acknowledged (as Islam, like Christianity, considers itself to be a continuation/completion of Abraham's message). You also claim that Ishmael didn't follow the same God, which again isn't true (he was circumcised as part of Abraham's covenant along with everyone else, and while Jewish sources consider him initially wicked, it is acknowledged that he repented). Then you drum up some point about how the Quran is contradictory because it says that Abraham and Ishmael were ancestors of Muhammad/Arabs, but the Quran says that arabs weren't warned. It seems this was the main point that ISeekTruth disagreed with and proved (and you backtracked after s/he proved the Quran makes no mention of Abraham/Ishmael being ancestors of Muhammad/Arabs).

Now I've never really investigated this particular point exclusively in the Quran, so I guess I'll have to defer to ISeekTruth's statements. It is true that Pre-Islamic (and perhaps even proto-islamic) tradition (not the Quran) states that Arabs are descended from Abraham through Ishmael. I personally have no issue accepting that. If I remember correctly, the Quran states that a prophet was sent to every people, until Muhammad (considered the final prophet), who was sent to all mankind. That Abraham and Ishmael may have been ancestors of the Arabs, and may have built/rebuilt the Kaaba has no bearing on this, since the Quran states that the Arab people had no prophet. I mean, if we go by your logic, Adam (who is considered a prophet in Islam, yes) and Noah are "forefathers" of humanity, so no one else gets a prophet.
You can't be a "warner" to a people if you are their forefather, you understand?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
But Islam also accepts the claim of Zoroastrians because they believe also in one god. So it really doesn't matter which god as long as it is one god, right?

Zoroastrianism is not the religion of Abraham or Ishmael or Isaac and Jacob, so how do you reconcile Zoroastrianism within that? And you guys claim there are 900 prophets that you are to know, so do you know the 900 prophets?

Zoroastrianism isn't an Abrahamic faith, but you accept it as well. No contradiction?

There is only One God. God may be known by many names, but those are just names, not the encompassment of God. As mentioned, every people were sent a warner/messenger, even the Zoroastrians. Islam is considered the final message, sent to all of humanity, instead of messages to individual groups which may have been for their time and their place, which were distorted as time went on. Nobody knows the the names of all the prophets. One tradition states there were 124,000 of them. Where did you get the 900 number?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Coins in the British Museum show that the first coins using the Kufic script date from the mid to end of the 8th century. The only script used during and after Muhammad's days was the Jazm script. Source= www.bibleprobe.com...

Something does not add correctly does it?

Perhaps the thing that does not add up is using a website called "bibleprobe" to learn about Islam? "Jazm" isn't a specific type of script, rather a category of a group of them, which include hijaz. Kufic was around even during the time of Muhammad, and there are inscription proofs of this. The inscription on the Dome of the Rock is the most famous example, from less than 60 years after the death of Muhammad, but there is also inscriptions from less than 15 years after Muhammad's death.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
The Hadith records that Muhammad allowed different versions of the Qur'an.

Different recitations of it, yes. If you can find an example of an accepted recitation that changes the meaning of the text, please do go ahead and post it!

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And I gave the links for Jewish marriages, women could not enter into contracts unless she was fully capable of understanding, and marriage was and still is a contract.

Actually, the Ketubah was a later addition. The Hebrew Bible never makes any mention of a ketubah, only of mohar (the bride price paid). The Ketubah came about as basically a pre-nup document that deferred the mohar if the husband's side was unable to pay it at the time. Basically just a "I promise I'll give the money later" as a form of protection for the wife. As for the marriage only being allowed if the woman fully understood and agreed, hardly.

Jewish Encyclopedia: Consent in Marriage Contracts
The consent need not always be expressed. Silence is regarded as voluntary consent (Yeb. 87b; B. M. 37b). Therefore, in marriage contracts, if a man gave a coin to a woman and pronounced the prescribed formula in the presence of two witnesses, and she did not protest immediately, the marriage is valid

And from the very same link you quoted, there is also

As a rule, the fathers arranged the match. The girl was consulted, but the “calling of the damsel and inquiring at her mouth” after the conclusion of all negotiations was merely a formality.

And the very contract you quoted makes talks about the husband being given the daughter by the father!

“I came to thy house for thee to give me thy daughter, Mibtachiah, to wife; she is my wife and I am her husband from this day and forever.”

...whew....long post! Coming around full circle to your final post (and the point of this thread):

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: WarminIndy

And the funny thing is...Aisha isn't even mentioned in the Quran.

So how do we even know Mohammed married Aisha? If the OP and others say that they are Quran only and not Hadiths, the video itself can't even be used.

Didn't certain people on this thread defend Mohammed marrying Aisha and then told us that they are Quran only, when Aisha isn't even mentioned in the Quran?

The video is now therefore null and void if they are Quran only....oops. So much for Quran only.

We know Muhammad married Aisha because of history. Even if one were "Quran only" (which I'm not, but some are), that doesn't mean that they ignore history (especially something as general as "Muhammad married Aisha"), just that they do not take religious instruction from the Hadith or accept the Sirah as being divinely binding, and they don't get into the issue of needing to authenticate specific Hadith/Sirah that they are following. Either way, I haven't seen the video posted at the start of the thread either, because I don't believe the evidence points to Aisha being 6 when she got married. The evidence in question has already been posted in this thread, so feel free to look over it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Compared to Mohammed, I am absolutely a freaking saint compared to him.

Even the atheists on ATS are freaking saints compared to him.

Even the pagans and Wiccans are freaking saints compared to him.

But you....what does that say for you? Defend the evil man because you don't want to admit he was a lying, murdering adulterer, even though the rest of the world knows it.

I would rather sit and listen to an atheist bash my religion all day long than have to hear Muslim defend a lying, murdering adulterer.

And you know what? We don't say the atheists should be stoned for not believing. And guess what, we have apostates from Christianity, they are on ATS all day long and not one time has any Christian ever threatened their lives.

Even our apostates are freaking saints compared to Mohammed. And we aren't killing them.

But now, tell us all on here, what is the recommended punishment be for me as a woman who denounces Allah and Mohammed?

What do you recommend from your Quran what should happen to me?

Curious, WarminIndy - do you believe Christians are being persecuted?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Yea that is how I feel about Joseph Smith as well. You can't just say you are the sole contact to god and your edicts are gods edicts. So we are in agreement here. To me, Muhammad was just a warlord using a more modern version of the leader is god thing. Instead of being a god, he becomes the sole conduit to god and therefore he can reason his words are infallible. Though, keep in mind there are prophets in the Torah/OT that have similarities to such behaviors. Moses comes to mind.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I didn't quite understand that specific point of WarminIndy, so I didn't speak on it, but aren't almost all "Prophets" the same way? Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Solomon, David, and everyone inbetween: There was one guy with the "Message", and then people that message was supposed to be received by, who just had to "take it on faith" that they weren't being lied to (and they often didn't, and fought hard against the messenger). Has there ever in history been a religion where the entire community was in contact with the deity together until the fulfillment of the message?
If what instead WarminIndy meant was that no one except Muhammad can speak to God or God can speak to them, then that is certainly not true in Islam, theologically or (as far as can be documented about such a thing) historically.

a reply to: babloyi

That's the way it came off to me, and I agree. Why is it always one guy is in contact with god and then they need to relay the message? Why can't god just contact everyone simultaneously so there is nothing that came be lost in translation?

Because people lie in order to make themselves seem special.

Fact.

a reply to: WarminIndy

To WarminIndy, I'd write the first issue that Muslims come across when reading their Qur'an begins as soon as chapter one. The chapters are arranged from longest to shortest, not by any recognizable chronological order, this alone would make reading and understanding any book difficult. Next there's the fact that there is quite literally zero context to many of the Qur'an verses, this is probably the least attractive thing about the entire book and makes understanding its message impossible. To the uninitiated reading this is a bit like walking into a conversation halfway through, you have no idea what's being discussed, who brought it up or why they've bothered saying it to begin with. The problem is we haven't jumped into the book halfway through, we've been reading from the very beginning, so why is very little of this Qur'an making sense? This is why orthodox Muslims aren't so silly as to write about being Qur'an only, they know themselves that the Qur'an is incomplete or even unreadable without the later traditions by which they add context to its passages. Removing the traditions of Muhammad would be like attacking the foundations of a house and expecting it not to come tumbling down, since we also don't get a clear picture of who Muhammad is from a reading of the Qur'an.

I've actually listened to several Qur'an only Muslims on the subject, and due to how contradictory the Islamic literature can be at times they make a fantastic case for being Qur'an only. But after having befriended them they're more than happy to share why they're Qur'an only, it's because they're (rightly or wrongly depending on your stance) repulsed by the sort of Muhammad they find for reading the traditions and historic biographies. They're disgusted by the figure and want nothing to do with him, still they belong to a Muslim household and can't bear the idea of coming out as an atheist or deist. With most being into deism as far as I can read them. Still it strikes me as absurd to embrace only the Muhammad of the Qur'an, as he's so hidden in the text it's hard to call him a historic person at all.

Do you think that these Quran-only muslims never go to perform pilgrimage?

To babloyi, would these Quran-only Muslims be operating within the confines of the Qur'an when they do this though? As a common criticism by ordinary Muslims of Qur'an only is that it borrows as it sees fit from the traditions. That's a big part of these conversations, when something is extra-biblical (the history of Joseph the carpenter for example) I reject it on many different levels, the authorship is questionable, the material is late and factually in error etc. So would you call it an unjustifiable break in their reasoning if they accept a lone order found in the traditions of Muhammad while yet rejecting the bulk and claiming to be Quran-only.

To Krazysh0t, about the ages of Mary and Joseph once more. You wrote you came to your conclusions based on an educated guess, which seems terribly vague and hard to get a firm understanding on. Nevertheless your guess seems to be based on comments like 'this was common practice in their time.' Or similarly: 'that was just how things were usually done in those times.' So rather than flog a dead horse in The history of Joseph the carpenter I wanted to add something I think we all can agree on. It seems as though your guess, and please correct me if I'm manhandling your words, is built upon the assumption that everybody married young in this time period, so you're applying a general rule to the individual circumstances of Mary and Joseph. But that's a wild way to come to a conclusion if true! Just reading over the Islamic literature shows how men like Muhammad married very late into his life, what's more he married an older woman. For example:

“Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: I married a woman, whereupon Allah's Messenger said to me: Have you married? I said: Yes. He said: Is it a virgin or a previously married one (widow or divorced)? I said: With a previously married one, whereupon he said: Where had you been (away) from the amusements of virgins? Shu'ba said: I made a mention of it to 'Amr b. Dinar and he said: I too heard from Jabir making mention of that (that Allah's Prophet) said: Why didn't you marry a girl, so that you might sport with her and she might sport with you?"

So despite enjoying his girls young (or virgin at least) Muhammad happily broke from tradition when marrying the much older (and not virgin) Khadija. That's why the educated guess idea based on the general rule "people married young" seems so unfit when applied to lone couples throughout history, since people broke from this rule many a time. Is there anything behind your dating Joseph's age between 30 and 40, in addition to dating Mary's age in the very specific range of pre-teen? As you wrote: 'I thought it was just common knowledge that an old man named Joseph married a pre-teen named Mary.' Is this coming from an assumption that old men generally married young girls?

Also, on a possibly more contentious issue, you wrote: 'But in the case of the claim made about Aisha, the earliest source of this claim came 200 years after he died, and no one even deemed to write about it in the Quran. So why repeat it as factual?'

I'd say the very plain answer would be something like Because Muslims largely accept these documents as reliable, so for most (Muslim and non-muslim alike) they're happy to agree upon these terms. But as you take the historic method seriously I'd write something more in-depth, I'd say that we use more than early dating to discover what's historic and what isn't. For example, an earlier poster wrote: 'Defending someone from a fairy tale, to discreted another fairy tale storie while using 21st century logic is funny as hell.' Or this from the same person: 'Your using the bible to defend your point, which is funny, try facts not man made stories.'

But the above poster was totally missing the point that we draw upon a historic method when writing about history past. It's only the least sophisticated believer who uses their holy book to prove their holy book. So when we're writing about history we ought to be using the following: eyewitness testimony, multiple attestation, dissimilarity between these accounts, the criteria of embarrassment, contemporaneous material (as you've written), amongst many many other criteria, some of which other posters could add I'm certain. That's why when sophisticated Muslim historians are pleased to write Aisha was married to Muhammad at such and such an age I'm more than happy to accept these judgements. Or perhaps it could be better written this way, our flawed evidence which comes to us by way of the traditions is superior to the uncomfortable feelings of modern day people who don't want to cast Muhammad in this light. The traditions around Aisha's age are stark and unembellished, they lack much of the Gospel plagiarism which later Muslims unfairly put upon Muhammad's lips (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 28, Number 3883) (sahih-bukhari Volume 3, Book 36, Number 469), nor do they contain anything miraculous which we as modern people would object to. All in all they have the tell tale signs of history, and lack the wild non-history we can sometimes find for reading ancient documents. I'll continue on from this...

To be honest, anything concerning Jesus is an educated guess since we aren't even sure he existed.

Would this be sure beyond a reasonable doubt? Because I think it's fair to say only people disinterested in truth would say something so wild as Jesus never existed. I notice when people write this they're either saying one of two things, they're either saying 'We don't have 100% mathematical proof that this man existed.' Which is just childish really, as we can't confirm something as recent as the moon landing or presidential elections under these rules. Or they're saying 'The Jesus of the Bible wasn't really a historical person.' And those kinds of objection are normally grounded in the person's anti supernaturalism or their inability to accept miracles or something otherwise, still they're less interested in the historic method nor the 27 manuscripts that make up the New Testament.

So there may be a kernel of truth somewhere in that account (for instance, Jesus could have just been a profound religious cult leader that bucked the Jewish status quo of the time and got himself killed for it).

How a Shmuley Boteach or Reza Aslan would imagine Jesus, or how they'd imagine jihad Jesus as people often call him. It's hard to take those theories seriously though. Shmuley for example rests his case on the faintest wisp of a Gospel passage, the rebuttal to his work in Michael Brown's The Real Kosher Jesus seemed almost too easy. Also, apart from bucking the trend as you put it, wasn't Jesus killed owing to the radical claims he made concerning his own identity, like claiming to be the apocalyptic Son of man from the book of Daniel (Mark 14:62) (Luke 21:27) (John 1:51.) Or for claiming to be exclusively God's son (Matthew 21:33–46) (the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas.) There are so many teachings deemed authentic by both conservative and sceptical scholars which would've had Jesus executed as a blasphemous criminal how the Gospels describe, so to write about a kernel of truth (how you describe it) seems overly sceptical. It's when modern theories like Jesus was a cynic philosopher are put to the test that we find only kernels. For example, to buy into this rebel without a clue scenario which modern writers bring about we'd have to believe that Jesus, despite making efforts to the contrary mind you, was being called God within decades or even years of his ignominious death upon the cross. A death which would've steered most Jewish believers in the Messiah away from making such claims, it was then an unjewish belief to hold (in a fashion.) We see these odd cultural happenings often where Jesus is concerned, also it appears in the fact that certain things Jesus taught belong to neither the Jewish communities of his day, nor the post Easter church of later days (Matthew 11:27) (Luke 10:22.) That's another great indication of something being authentic history too. N.T Wright in his The Resurrection of the Son of God book does an excellent job of setting aside history from fantasy like this. What's more on the subject of modern theories, any and all records of the Jesus which modern writers are imagining weren't just eclipsed by these Gospel accounts and the letters of Paul and by the early church fathers, rather we're expected to believe that the most accurate evidence of their Jesus has been lost until Reza and Shmuley hypothesized it in modern times!