Mansoor: Re Bamiyan , Babri & Meccan idols. Compare apples with apples not oranges

Submitted by Plato (India), Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06

>> Once again Plato! your are caught in your denial practice.

The post you sent has already given so many answers which are enough to prove your sanity level!<<

My sanity level will have to be decided by a psychiatrist. Last I checked with one she did not find anything seriously wrong, except that my tendency to pick on Muslim grandstanders may in course of time affect it.

>> You said I twisted the question on Bamian issue..which I certainly did not...I amply answered in the light of similar actions which you are unable to prove as justified...so why pointing finger on Bamian???? I can throw several more examples....the burning of Church and killing of Missionary Graham Staines and his two sons...Wow...you would close your eyes with black tape...and say...oh its not related with Bamian...How mean you are...It exactly relates...because it is related to religious tolerance..!!!<<

Let us compare apples with apples. You said Muhammad was justified 200% in destroying idols in the Kaaba where they had been worshipped for centuries because the place belonged only to Allah. Similarly, the Babri Masjid was built in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Ram. The Hindus feel that a foreign invader building a mosque there was sacrilege just as Muslims feel about the idols in Kaaba.

Why do you bring in the orange of Staines' murder into the picture?? You also murder Christians and Hindus claiming they blasphemed your prophet but they hardly get a few lines in foreign newspapers as they are ordinary people unlike a Western while missionary.

Just a few days ago, a Hindu Pakistani was clobbered to death for allegedly blaspheming the prophet. (http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2008/s08040060.htm)

>> What is your answer???? would you again twist my arms...and call me a negative minded person...no you can't because you are out of bullets...and nothing you can prove...<<

Read what I have written about comparing apples and oranges above.

>>You repeatedly raised questions about the age gap and circumstances of Marriages of my beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Although I replied you amply and justified that marriages were properly under commandments from Lord and permitted to Prophet Muhammad.<<

Your reply that Allah commanded the 53-year-old Muhammad to marry a girl still playing with her dolls would also mean that Bush was justified in attacking Iraq as he claimed he had talked to his god and got the necessary permission. Yes or No????

>>I also gave you reference of Bible for your satisfaction where Prophets were allowed to keep concubines and wives and even the scripture you follow had no objection. I don't want to repeat again and again what I have clarified very amply. I have no cure for your ill mind because your perception is highly maligned. Even after knowing the Islamic view, converting the fact and declaring it with negative approach is all your own judgment.<<

Bringing in the Bible and my scripture (what is it? The Vedas, the guru granth sahib, the dhamapada?) to justify your prophet's act of marrying an underage girl is revealing of the fact that you are not quite certain that what he did was right after all. Why else would you bring in ‘corrupted' scriptures into the picture. And remember that the portions of these scriptures allowing marriages of old men with sub-teen girls could be the corrupted portions. So your prophet could have been following the corrupted portions of Allah's outdated scriptures!!

>>It is true that each of those marriages was for a certain reason, either to honor a friend by marrying his daughter - in case of `A'isha…<<

Your prophet had a funny sense of how to honour a friend. Ask yourself, if a 53-year-old dear friend of yours asked to marry your 6-year-old girl still playing with her dolls, would you remain his friend? I don't know about Muslims but most non-Muslims would have him thrown out of their houses.

>>The way he married a 9-year-old girl was not out of the norms of both time and place, specially when you know that the girls of this region - desert - till now reach their puberty in an early time - nine and ten years old.<<

I can accept that 9-year-old girls were married off in those days, and even now. But to claim, as this author you have quoted says, it was a norm for 53-year-old men to marry such young girls is sheer dishonesty. No society could have survived if men had to wait for so long to marry (remember he says it was the norm).

Now remember that Muhammad was an example for all people for all time. The question is did he set a good example. If he was only following accepted customs and practices of other faiths however reprehensible they were, then why did Allah need to send this new messenger?

Muslims also claim that Muhammad's marriage to Zainab was to set an example against considering marrying your adopted son-in-law's wife as immoral. If Allah could order something like this why did he not order the Prophet not to marry a little girl who was not yet mature enough to understand the implications of marrying a man near his death bed (average life-spans in those days was perhaps less than 40). Is it justice on Allah's part to let a girl not know the joys of motherhood or let her suffer early widowhood?

>>So it was not an act of harassment to `A'isha or violation of her innocence, but it was a norm that would put a girl to shame if she waited any longer after this age without getting married.<<

You are saying a 53-year-old granddad marrying a six-year-old is not a violation of her innocence. Is this really Islam? Any normal girl would be disgusted, ashamed and terrified of being sent to occupy the bed of a 53-year-old man.

A girl of six/nine would not have any clue to what married life was all about. Where is the question of her being ashamed of not being married by then. What kind of fools do you take the readers of this forum to be??

>>Notice that her sister Asmaa was married to Az-Zubayr at the age of eleven, and so did most of the girls at that time without even considering the age gap between the bride and groom.<<

The author has not mentioned Az-Zubayr's age. Again was not the prophet sent to set higher standards than those of the time? I hope you are not saying that marrying off girls as young as six to 53-year-old men should be considered the gold-standard age difference between wife and husband even today because that was the case between Aisha and Muhammad.

>>Actually, there was a need for the Prophet to marry a girl at this age, in order to live long after his death to teach people lessons from his private life that only a wife would have witnessed.<<

You have now given us yet another reason for this unethical/immoral act of marrying a six-year old. You are now saying the real reason the prophet married Aisha was to ensure that she would survive him by many years (no thought to the poor girl having to live a sexless life as a widow for decades) so that she could pass on personal details of the prophet's life to his followers. Could the prophet/Allah not find a young woman in her twenties or so to do the job? Would 50 years not be enough to tell all that there was to tell about the prophet?

>>Thus, his many marriages and his marriage to a young girl were not something weird or to be ashamed of or even apologized for, from the criterion of his time as it may be now.<<

At last you have admitted that what your Prophet did in his time is something to be ashamed of by today's standard. Can you now understand why your Prophet was not a standard-bearer for all time to come?? Come clean, Mansoor!

>>Plato! Your problem is that you are unaware of the importance of commandments of your creator.<<

The creator's commandments may be important, but more importantly are they sensible and should we follow unethical commands like marrying six-year-old girls.

>>Muslims, submitted their personal will to follow the commandments. They don't feel ashamed or intimidated.<<

Once you submit your will to anyone, even Allah, you become a zombie, a robot following commandments which you believe come from your master. There is no question of feeling ashamed or intimidated. That is why you obey commandments like 9:111 which tells you to kill or be killed in the cause of your commander. That is why Muslims are not ashamed that their Allah calls unbelievers in Him unclean, deaf, blind and dumb.

>>Human minds have limited competency and you cannot understand the logic and long term impact attached to certain actions purely taken under God's instructions. I know disbelievers like you would like to cash in on the issues which for you look ugly.<<

Human minds do have limited competency but the competency of human minds which have surrendered their will to some other agency is severely limited. These minds can tell us that 2 and 2 make three since the being to which they have surrendered their minds tells them so. For instance a very old man marrying a six-year-old is considered a sublime act against all logic which would consider it cruel, except Islamic, because this Being allowed it.

>>I know disbelievers like you would like to cash in on the issues which for you look ugly.<<

Mansoor, I have not surrendered my will to anyone and so will not consider an ugly act to be beautiful. You can, since you have submitted yourself to someone else's will who tells you to accept something ugly as beautiful.

>>Allah will provide you ample opportunity to understand and realize the truth of a religion endorsed for us.<<

If these posts are part of that opportunity to understand Islam then they are only achieving the opposite end by driving me further away from it.

>>But if you still show restrain then…Allah instructs us to deliver you the following verses.

109. The Disbelievers

With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful.

[109:2] I do not worship that which you worship, [109:3] nor do you ….. [109:4] And neither I am going to….. [109:5] nor will you worship the One whom I worship. [109:6] For you is your faith, and for me, my faith.‖<<

If you read the underlined verse (109:5) you see Allah telling Muhammad that the unbelievers WILL NOT worship Allah, and then says they have their faith and he has his. Very tolerant.

This is a Meccan verse. Why then did Allah abrogate these verses with a surah like Al Tauba, and verses which say that no religion except Islam is acceptable to Allah?

Regards

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".