Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
HalalCartman

Muslim Apologists and Why Islam is always wrong (Not Really)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salaam, Today I would like to speak about the Elephant Camel in the Room. As we know for approximately  the past two decades (especially) Islam's media image has been 

filled with malaise. In today's world it is ever so easy to connect to the internet and digest information, in consequence it easy to presume that you have superior knowledge in certain

subjects or area, Islam I believe is one of the least spared when it comes to pseudo intellectual trolls posting oh so very much one this religion. You know what I speak of, the

Rapist,Raider,Pedo etc...Moon worshipper? Before losing track on the vast creativity, ignorance and hate filled garbage, I want to focus on a new emerging class some may have

already seen it rear its ugly head, do you know what I speak of? I am speaking about the "Bourgeoisie, look at these Muslim apologists will they never learn :mod:?" class. I hope

everyone can debate together to deconstruct these arguments. It is vital given the situation and its rapid growth.

thanks in advance!

 

I will play Iblis's Advocate :dwarf: please join the conversation "haters" included

Here are two sites I suggest before starting 

https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/islamic-muslim-apologists--who-are-they

http://www.***.org/Authors/Arlandson/ten_reasons.htm

the below will be the first point this one nicks at me the most at the moment (it is pulled from the second site) I hope all can provide a clear defense.

  1. 4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.

    A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.

    W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina(1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:

    The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)

    It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)

    Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans "passed through" Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.

    To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).

    For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.

    Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace

 

Salaam,

 

Edited by HalalCartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI-

I've had my share of run-ins with people who take issue with Muhammad and Aisha. My usual response-

First, there is no unanimous opinion on her age. She could have been 6, 9, 10, a teenager, or who knows.

Second, let's assume she was married at 6 and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. It's not that I believe it, but we'll go with that anyway... the legal age of consent in the state of Delaware, more than 1200 years later, was 7. Nobody during Rasulallah's (saws) time, not even his worst enemies, levelled the charge of pederasty towards him. It's a relatively modern idea, because if he was one then America was certainly a nation of pedophilia in the modern era. People should understand historical context.

That usually gives them the case of the angry-face. Amazing what you learn before you become a Muslim in an effort to fight Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^ Similarly, south Carolina did not raise the legal age to marry to above 12 until the 1980s.

My Grandmother (b.1901) often told of how "mad" her older sisters got when our state raised the marriageable age to 14. I can remember her sisters, they died in their late 80s.

Then a girl l worked with in the 80s told of how her grandmother (in eastern Kentucky) was traded as a wife to a 12-year-old in exchange for a cow. She was 4. Yes, f-o-u-r and after WW2.

Releatedly, and I can tie this date to another event for the correct year, in 2003 a woman health professional in the US State of Georgia told that the average 10-year-old girl in her county had 2 1/2 sex diseases (STDs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the marriage age of Aisha, the sunni sayings and the shia saying are different.

From what I can remember and I do not remember the source, according to shia she was 17,18,19 at the age of marriage.

InshaAllah someone who remembers source can show you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of the Prophet Muhammad Pbuh and Aisha, Ammar Nakshwani addresses and raises several great points:
 

  • As Muslims, we shouldn't be apologetic  whether or not Aisha was 10 or 20 at the time of the marriage. It was the norm in both Arab and Western societies  at the time, for women to be married at a young age. Even till this day, some parts of Texas allow for marriage as young at 14 years. And as other Sc chatters pointed out, the age in America used to be even younger than that.
  • You will find Kings in different western societies  that were wed to girls as young as 10 or even more.
  • In the Catholic religion, Mary was said to be as young as 12 years when she carried Jesus, but her age hasn't made an uproar as the marriage of Prophet pbuh and Aisha.
  • All of Aisha's narrations praise the prophet pbuh . You will never find her stating how  her life was destroyed by him. She was in fact very jealous over him, and would demand he  spend more time  with her than his other wives .
  • You will not find anyone during the Prophet's (Pbuh)'s time accusing him of being a pedophile, because again it was the norm of  society at the time for a girl to be wed at a young age.
  • The Prophet (pbuh)  remained monogamous to Khadija until she passed away. If his intentions were  lustful than he would've took many  young wives at his prime age of 25. But he did not.
  •  the rest of his points are given in his video etc

     
Edited by Miss Wonderful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, A175 said:

FYI-

I've had my share of run-ins with people who take issue with Muhammad and Aisha. My usual response-

First, there is no unanimous opinion on her age. She could have been 6, 9, 10, a teenager, or who knows.

Second, let's assume she was married at 6 and the marriage was consummated when she was 9. It's not that I believe it, but we'll go with that anyway... the legal age of consent in the state of Delaware, more than 1200 years later, was 7. Nobody during Rasulallah's (saws) time, not even his worst enemies, levelled the charge of pederasty towards him. It's a relatively modern idea, because if he was one then America was certainly a nation of pedophilia in the modern era. People should understand historical context.

That usually gives them the case of the angry-face. Amazing what you learn before you become a Muslim in an effort to fight Islam.

Wow did not know the delaware thing thats somethin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Enlightened Follower said:

This brilliant, brilliant scholar also gives one of the best response to the Islamophobes and demonstrates the nature of morality, must see for anyone wanting to delve deeper into Islamic Studies or Hadith Studies:

 

 

 

Thanks for the AC Brown Videos, isn't it awesome that some like him exists giving lectures in a university you'd least expect at least imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, HalalCartman said:

Thanks for the AC Brown Videos, isn't it awesome that some like him exists giving lectures in a university you'd least expect at least imo.

Yes no problem, Allah(SWT) has blessed us to give us such knowledgeable and intellectual scholars like him, I would recommend people to watch his other lectures as well they are quite unique and inspiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now since everyone is delving into the Ayesha topic lets get to the mid-leveled specifics. Currently there are two types of defenses or point of views.

  1.  Logic based on Culture and time/history
  2. Shiite textual/The shia argument 

While both are great there can be problems with either or so let me produce my claims:

For the first perception It would be wonderful  to offer to say more analytical types of people (Lets for a second forget which one you may believe to be right). While this may be a great argument it would maybe disturb more emotional based people,people whom already come with a negative disposition and believe in every corner of there heart and mind moslems  or the new word which is all the rave "mudslimes" (-.- so funny right... right?:confused:) are mislead barbarians , so right off the bat not disputing Ayesha's age may make one think that all your trying to do is justify Ayesha age for your own beliefs.

The second perception offers a clean cut answer to abridge it we can say that starting since the Prophets time (PBUHAHP) many political implications,internal power struggles caused certain individuals including Ayesha to grow hatred and plot against him (PBUHAHP ). So we can determine that the heavily romanticized and oh so heart throbbing  recount of her "Marriage" is fake.   This is included with many many other citations and resources we know are the devil in the details and the reason our Islam has been tainted and is in the State it is in know.

      The Problem with number two is that unlike number one which is Sect neutral causes a great dis-balance and insecurity with the Cuni  sect. Yes you can stand with this point being sect selective but then one can turn around and say hey this is a Sunni Shia debate and after calling you out they can go after the Cuni brother/sister who was left out in the cold the dumbfounded Sunni gets REKT and becomes fuel for the propaganda machine and inches that much closer to its objective. DIVIDE AND CONQUER has always been the name of the game brothers and sisters! (If things have been unclear for perception #2 watch above video with sheikh).

Edited by HalalCartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***** WATCH IT WILL CLEAR UP ALOT*******  meant for english speaking audience

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, HalalCartman said:

DIVIDE AND CONQUER has always been the name of the game brothers and sisters! (If things have been unclear for perception #2 watch above video with sheikh)

I think we should promote/take perception #1 but if asked our own views explain both perceptions.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Enlightened Follower said:

I think we should promote/take perception #1 but if asked our own views explain both perceptions.

WS

But would that not be considered lying according to the video/sheikh (repost) therefore forbidden if it comes to the point to ask our own viewpoint would that not be contradictory as a whole muslim body?

 

 

 

 

 

Btw I agree with you 100% above is food for thought only difference is I would not wait to be asked for my view point rather after giving point #1 I would say "but" than offer my own view point #2. 

Edited by HalalCartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...