Amun Khonsu posted:

Keep in mind that although Muslims believe in the Bible (New Testament), we don't rely on it for our belief system because the earliest writings are from 132AD (in aramaic) and wasnt cannonized until 325AD (in greek). Furthermore it has no isnad. Yes, 100 to over 300 years after Jesus.

Immortan posted:

It's widely accepted among anyone other than ideological driven apologists such as yourself that he engaged in pedophilia. He certainly had and promoted a heavily patriarchal worldview that oppressed women to begin with. I'm not even getting into the abhorrent massacres of apostates and nonbelievers. You could at least modify your tone into less of a casual and carefree one when discussing pedophilia, it isn't a laughing matter.

Blurred posted:

Just to distract from paedo chat for a moment, this actually isn't true. None of the new testament books (in fact none of the biblical books at all, with the exception of some passages in the book of Daniel) were composed in Aramaic. All the new testament books were composed in koine Greek. Furthermore, virtually all scholars would date all of the nt corpus to prior to 132 ad. Only 2 peter and Jude were likely to have been written after the first quarter of the first century, but the authentic Pauline letter were written 15-30 years after the death of Jesus (~50-65ad) and the gospels some time after this (~70-100ad). We have a fragment of the gospel of john (the last gospel to be written) which dates to 125ad, so that sets a pretty solid terminus ante quem for the gospels at least. Lastly the nt wasn't canonised in 325ad (you're thinking of the council of nicea which addressed unrelated christological issues among other things). If you want to get technical, the biblical canon wasn't formally set until the council of Trent in the 16th century, but the exhaustive list of 27 books which make up the nt was largely set by the end of the second century.

Immortan posted:

***vitriol, diatribe and ignorant rant***

Amun Khonsu posted:

Now you are delving into the "science of hadith" and if you dont understand the historical and cultural context, isnad (chain of narration), and the nature of the hadith, jurisprudence regarding Isnad and how to apply them then it's best not to make such assertions.

You are assuming the many hadith about her age is correct. In fact, many hadith are not accurate and contain errors. They after all, were written some 200-300 years after the Prophet's death. Hadith are basically "hearsay evidence" and have many classifications of authenticity of isnad, not accuracy of content. Despite the most authentic hadith being considered "authentic", it doesnt change the fact that they were written 200-300 years after the fact and are secondary to Quranic verses which were written immediately during the time of the Prophet who saw and authorized Quranic verses himself.

Keep in mind that although Muslims believe in the Bible (New Testament), we don't rely on it for our belief system because the earliest writings are from 132AD (in aramaic) and wasnt cannonized until 325AD (in greek). Furthermore it has no isnad. Yes, 100 to over 300 years after Jesus. The Prophet never saw our books of hadith and Jesus never saw the Bible to authorize it.

We draw truths based on them but understand that there may be errors.

Aisha's marriage was arranged by her father Abu Bakr and it was not consummated until she was of age to legally accept the marriage. The age is highly debatable due to the errors highlighted by true historical events recorded in the Quran and other hadith that make contradictions. To arbitrarily say 9 years old without taking into account the many other hadith that contradict this is a serious error.

http://www.discoveringislam.org/aisha_age.htm

Amun Khonsu posted:

"Modern standards" in the United States alone very greatly but all are very early regarding marriage. According to various US state law, a girl with her parents consent can marry and have sex in that marriage in her early to mid teens. Check it out and lets talk modern standards in relation to the ancient marriages of the Prophet Muhammad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_the_United_States Specially note the ages: Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Texas

surc posted:

Can we just agree that people did stuff back in the day that would not be socially acceptable today without debating the merits or accuracy of child-loving for like 30 posts, and also without some weird attempt to discredit a dude because obviously god would have made him act in a way we find ok right at this exact moment in time or whatever? This poo poo is retarded and both sides come off creepy obsessed with the exact definition of child-loving.

I just wanna read about the actual religious beliefs and expand my understanding of spiritual thought, not this poo poo.

Fuzz posted:

Semi relevant to yesterday, on an aside, but since Jesus is so prominent in the Quran (he and Mary account for the bulk of storytelling in the Quran), a lot of Muslims actually celebrate Christmas in the US, though it's more about fasting and then eating a big dinner than gifts or any of that other Roman stuff.

Fuzz posted:

Semi relevant to yesterday, on an aside, but since Jesus is so prominent in the Quran (he and Mary account for the bulk of storytelling in the Quran), a lot of Muslims actually celebrate Christmas in the US, though it's more about fasting and then eating a big dinner than gifts or any of that other Roman stuff.

NihilismNow posted:

Over here (Netherlands) there is a popular muslim facebook group that tells people celebrating christmas or even wishing people merry christmas is one of the gravest sins possible. So i kind of doubt this.

quote:

Now that we are heading to the end of the year, we wanted to drop you a note regarding [my son] involvement in upcoming Christmas activities. Firstly, let me say we value the rich cultural and religious diversity and learning the children receive here at [School]. We understand that, like us, [School] promotes and values this diversity.

We are on the second half of the term and without doubt the excitement of Christmas is coming for many people in the college. There is some information we need to make you aware of concerning [my son] involvement in certain holiday activities.

Our religious guidelines require that, although we can learn about other faiths and even participate in some activities there are other activities that we are not allowed to participate in. The main activities that [my son] should not be participating in is the Christmas songs that have a "religious" theme that are included in the Christmas concert programme.

To explain without getting into great detail, our religion is Islam and as Muslims we are not allowed to sing songs of worship or songs that venerate or glorify religious figures of other faiths. It violates the primary tenet of our faith that makes us Muslim, which is the first pillar of our faith and clearly defined in the Qur'an.

There are lots of Christmas songs that [my son] can sing with his classmates so long as they do not have any religious theme or figures in them. However, I am not certain that barring changing the school's choice of songs these can be "cherry picked" for a few children that may be Muslim, Jewish or other faiths. If the school is unable to accommodate this request by altering the choice of songs (as I'm certain it may not be feasible) then I would kindly like to request that during the times when there is concert practice for this event that the school find something else for [my son] to do.

In addition, this theme of this core religious guideline of ours applies to the drawing of religious figures.

We appreciate in advance your understanding concerning this exemption on this matter. We'd be happy to come in to discuss if further explanation is required.

Kind Regards

Fuzz posted:

Don't confuse modern Arab society with anything Muhammad was pushing, because it's become so hosed up and corrupt and it's not actually supported if you read the rules laid down in the Quran, let alone just look at the Prophet's own life, particularly with regard to his first wife.

Amun Khonsu posted:

I dont know how this thread got hijacked by individuals who feel the need to distort and circumvent the facts about the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. However, now that you feel good about yourselves, respect the OP and purpose of this thread and take it elsewhere please. Lets move on.

Agreed.

Amun Khonsu posted:

It worked like a charm and is a fine medium that satisfies all sensible sides of the debate.

Immortan posted:

Don't call something "fact" that you cannot prove.

Immortan posted:

Holy poo poo, yes he did. The indulgence of historical revisionism among religious apologists is hilariously onerous these days, especially w/r/t to Islam.

Amun Khonsu posted:

There is evidence that Aramaic was the dominant language in the area, though greek was a language spoken commonly for conducting business. Today's "Greek" bible has Aramaic word references all throughout it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus#Aramaic_place_names_in_the_New_Testament).[

quote:

We dont know what language it was composed in, but it would most likely not be Greek since all of the disciples were Jews who spoke Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic for non-business related matters (and especially religious matters). I had some articles given to me by a friend who identified that there were papyrus fragments recovered that are in Aramaic that date to 132-135AD. I seemed not to have written that source down in my articles. Ill have to do some research on this again to re-confirm.

quote:

Regarding the canonization of the Bible, it was 395 A.D under Constantine's supervision, along with 300+ Greek Bishops (who excluded the Latin Church Bishops) from Greek half of Rome.

ashgromnies posted:

Immortan posted:

Isn't interesting how historians and apologists differ on this issue?

HEY GAL posted:

Can you please repost the historians you cite, i think i missed that

ashgromnies posted:

He never will, he is a literal unironic Trump supporter and this is his schtick: making claims contrary to visible evidence and then never substantiating them.

Fuzz posted:

To give perspective, women couldn't even vote in the US until after WW2

ashgromnies posted:

He never will, he is a literal unironic Trump supporter and this is his schtick: making claims contrary to visible evidence and then never substantiating them.

MrNemo posted:

I'm sorry I didn't hear any references in that post from the guy who thinks it's super crucial to cite sources when making claims.

Blurred posted:

When did your son choose to be a Muslim, just out of curiosity?

Blurred posted:

There is the occasional Aramaic word in the gospels, but that wasn't the language they were written in, I can assure you. Mark elaborates on the meaning of certain Aramaic terms in his gospel - why would he have done that if he had written in Aramaic?


Jesus and his apostles would have spoken Aramaic, yes, but they didn't write any of the new testament texts. When a text has been written in a different language and subsequently translated, it's usually possible to tell based on syntax, idiomatic language and so on. There is nothing at all to indicate that the nt texts were written in anything other than Greek (with the possible exception of hebrews and the hypothetical q gospel) and all of the earliest manuscripts are in Greek. If there are any Aramaic versions of any nt text dating to the early part of the second century, then that would certainly be brews to me.


You seem to be a bit confused. Constantine wasn't emperor anywhere near that time, and I don't think there were any major councils (certainly not an ecumenical one) in that year either. Like i said, the canon of the bible wasn't decided formally within the Catholic church until the council of Trent in the 16th century:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

Edit: noticed that you used 325ad in your previous post. That was the year of the council of nicea, but -like I said - the council of nicea didn't make any pronouncements about the biblical canon.

MrNemo posted:

I'm sorry I didn't hear any references in that post from the guy who thinks it's super crucial to cite sources when making claims.

Immortan posted:

Except I've never asked for a source because Muhammad's pedophilia and genocidal actions are well known among a significant segment of historians with no ideological agenda.

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

It's well known among a significant segment of SA posters without no ideological agenda that your gimmick is tedious and comprehensively played out. gently caress off.

Blurred posted:

When did your son choose to be a Muslim, just out of curiosity?

Lassitude posted:

Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose.

That said, this is not in any way different from any other religion. The only difference is that no other religion kills people for choosing an alternate path (if they're allowed to), as far as I'm aware.

Lassitude posted:

Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose.

That said, this is not in any way different from any other religion. The only difference is that no other religion kills people for choosing an alternate path (if they're allowed to), as far as I'm aware.

Lassitude posted:

Muslims believe that everyone is by default born Muslim. They believe Islam is by default the religion of the human race, and anything else is a deviation from the correct path. So if you're born to Muslim parents, you are invariably Muslim yourself. And if you choose to reject that, you are put to death for apostasy (in nations where shari'a is enforced). Muslim children do not get to choose.

That said, this is not in any way different from any other religion. The only difference is that no other religion kills people for choosing an alternate path (if they're allowed to), as far as I'm aware.

Immortan posted:

Islam is the only Abrahamic religion which allows and condones polygamy in addition to this. It's shameful how Turkey (a NATO member) is gradually succumbing to islamism under Erdogan; where practices such as these become the norm.

Amun Khonsu posted:

Islam forbids polygamy.

Amun Khonsu posted:

It tolerates polygyny but discourages it by placing limitations.

Immortan posted:

This is the sort of insufferable double-talk among religious apologists that I mentioned earlier. Please tell me that you find polygyny reprehensible.

Amun Khonsu posted:

Ask me a question about Islam and I will answer it. Ask me about myself in PM. Otherwise gtfo. This is not a debate thread. Its an "Ask us" thread.

Immortan posted:

I'm asking whether you believe polygyny is repugnant or not.

E: Whats with these ninja edits you keep doing, I can't keep up.

Amun Khonsu posted:

Ask me a question about Islam and I will answer it. Ask me about myself in PM. Otherwise gtfo. This is not a debate thread. Its an "Ask us" thread.

Respect the OP and the purpose of this thread, ffs.

Hogge Wild posted:

Ops don't get to write new rules here, and normal users don't get to moderate threads. Ask/Tell isn't your personal soapbox, people can disagree with you. Also, your pedo apologism is really creepy and you should stay away from children.

Amun Khonsu posted:

I apologize to those who have been reading this thread in dismay over the negative crap being posted in it. I have devoted my spare time to answering questions based on my knowledge and experiences. Im not going to continue to engage the diatribe, vitriol and hate-mongering from clowns as I have better things I can be doing.

From here out, I will be growing my IGNORE list, so that I can focus on answering questions, discussing and learning with you. I expect people not to agree with me, that is how we (I) learn. However, if people are going to be disrespectful and offensive clowns intending to cause trouble and derail the thread, then BLOCKED.

I suggest that the others answering questions and reading this thread do the same, if you havent already done so