Islam's Violent Verses...

Post Reply New Topic

One of the most common discussions about the religion of Islam is whether it promotes violence or not, those who argue it does usually provide examples of terrorist groups that spread terror in the name of Islam, therefore seeing these terrorist groups as products of this religion, there is a new trend on forums though, you will get a huge post containing various "violent" quotes from the Qur'an, but this should stop now, I will be a representative (not apologist) for Islam and debunk the violent verses claims, as well as other fallacious arguments; here it is:

1: Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile! He married Aisha at 6 and raped her at 9!

Answer:

This is just a lie, enough said, but I will continue and prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not a pedophile and Aisha was not 6 when married and raped at 9, she was 18, at minimum, when married to Muhammad and 27 when Prophet Muhammad died. Argument for this:

In determining authenticity of the related tradition (Hadith), it is necessary to consider how many different narrators can relate a Hadith back to the original source, be that source Prophet Muhammad, Aisha, or a companion. The more narrators exist and the more in agreement they are with one another, the more authentic we may consider the Hadith.

Virtually every narration that relates Aisha’s age at six is tied to Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, who then reports on his father’s authority. This is problematic for several reasons;

First, Hisham ibn ‘Urwah is the only person to narrate this Hadith. This is problematic because now, no opportunity exists for corroboration. Next, Hisham related this Hadith in his old age, a time during which he admits he suffered severe memory loss.

For example, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, a premier book on the credibility of Hadith narrators cites Ya‘qub ibn Shaibah to report, “Narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq.”[1]

Likewise, “Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq.”[2]

History records that Hisham emigrated to Iraq in his old age and suffered severe memory loss, after living in Medina for the first 71 years of his life.[3]

More specifically, Yaqub ibn Shaibah relates, “He [that is, Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after shifting to Iraq.”[4]

The Hadith that relate Aisha’s age at six are from Hisham ibn ‘Urwah after he immigrated to Iraq. Thus, such Hadith are not only isolated in their claim, but also unreliable due to his old age and extensive memory loss. Most critics and bigots wholly disregard these substantive inconsistencies due to confirmation bias.

On the contrary, several historical events and Ahadith narrations demonstrate that Hadhrat Ayesha was likely 15-16, or as old as 19-20 at the time of her consenting marriage to Prophet Muhammad. For example, Hadhrat Ayesha’s marriage to Prophet Muhammad took place one year after Hijrah (emigration to Medina), or around 624 A.D. She was the daughter of Hadhrat Abu Bakr. Tabari reports, “All four of [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives—the names of whom we have already mentioned—during the pre-Islamic period [i.e. pre-610 A.D.].”[5] Therefore, even if Hadhrat Ayesha were born in 609 A.D., only a year before Prophet Muhammad claimed prophethood, she would be roughly 14 at the time of emigration to Medina in 623, and therefore no less than 15 at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad. Both are a far cry from the age of six that stupid and ignorant bigots asserts.

Likewise, most historians report that Hadhrat Asmara, Hadhrat Ayesha’s elder sister, was ten years her senior.[6] The books, “Tahzibut Tahzib” and “Al-Bidaayah wa an-Nihayah,” both report that Hadhrat Asma died at the age of 100, in 73 A.H. or 695 A.D.[7]

This means that Hadhrat Asmara must have been no younger than 27 at the time of emigration. Hadhrat Ayesha’s marriage to Prophet Muhammad was in 1 A.H. when Asma was 28. This means that at a minimum, Hadhrat Ayesha was 18 upon her consenting marriage to Prophet Muhammad.

The above examples are not exhaustive. Several other authentic Hadith and well-recorded events discredit allegations that Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was six. The examples we have presented, however, should more than suffice that Aisha was not six, but instead, that she was a mature adult who married Prophet Muhammad of her own free will.

Sources:

[1] Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Vol. 11, pg. 48 – 51

[2] Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Vol. 11, pg. 48 – 51

[3] Mizan al-I‘tidal, Vol. 4, pg. 301 – 302

[4] Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Islami, Vol. 11, pg. 50).

[5] Tarikh al-umam wal-mamloo’k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, pg. 50 (Arabic, Dar al-fikr, Beirut, 1979).

[6] Siyar A`la’ma’l-nubala’, Az-Zahabi, Vol. 2, pg. 289 (Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risala’h, Beirut, 1992)

[7] Al-Bidaayah wa an-Nan-Nihaayah, Ibn-e-KathirIbn-e-KathirIbn-e-Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 372, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabiy, Al-jizah, 1933 and and Al-Bidaayah wa an-Nan-Nihaayah, Ibn-e-KathirIbn-e-KathirIbn-e-Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 371 (Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabiy, Al-jizah, 1933).

In conclusion; she is, as facts and background suggests, 18 when she married Muhammad and 27 when Muhammad died.

2: Islamic terror groups exist with a great majority of Muslim members, this means Islam is violent!

Answer:

I find this quite funny and it's surprising that when bigots and even rationalists hear this, they all agree.

But they should know this is a fallacy; Nazi, Maoist, Communist, New Atheist, Marxist, Stalinist, Lenin-Marxist, Fascist groups have all been dominating for several decades through history, majority of these members were atheists and have a common ideology on eradication of religion or theism, which points to an atheist-inspired purpose, should this be a legitimate claim to say that all atheists are violent through these groups, whilst ignoring that these groups did their terror for political motives and ignoring atheist Buddhists, Secularists Humanists and all other peaceful deity-disbelieving group, as well? I'm intelligent enough to know a minority aren't the representative of a whole label, but I see most bigots are not to know the same about say, Islam.

And to come with the follow-up argument; "... unlike those groups, these groups do it specifically in the name of Islam!"

This is yet another wrong argument, last time I checked, ISIS wish a country for power. Osama bin Laden said that 9/11 was committed because of US' support of Israel and, in his own words, "we declared a Jihad (justice) against US because it's unjust, criminal and tyrannical", not for Islam. These are political reasons as well.

It should be quite clear; no one should judge Judaism on Zionism or LRA on Christianity. Religions gets judged on their true fundamentals, holy books.

Now let's talk about those....

I will use Classical Arabic Dictionaries like Lisan Al-Arab ( لِسَانْ الْعَرَبْ Meaning: The Language of Arabs)by Ibn Manẓūr, and Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ ( الْقَامٌوسْ الْمٌحِيطْ Meaning: The Comprehensive Dictionary) by Abu Al-Tahir Fairuzabadi. And will also quote some explanations to some of these so-called 'violent' verses, so without further ado:

1- Kill all Non-Muslims:

Bigot's verse; "kill them (unbelievers) wherever ye find them.." [2:191]

Answer:

This is a confirmation bias fallacy, let's read in the context and observe word for word:

"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress; for God loves not transgressors."

The verse clearly states to fight those who fight you, yet do not transgress limits.

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you.."

This will assume that THEY would have expelled you, first, before YOU expel them as an eye for an eye.

"and (because) fitna is worse than killing."

Fitnah means "persecution" or "oppression" in this particular context, it refers to the reason why the unbelievers shall taste justice. Because persecution IS worse than killing. It means if a person persecutes without repentance and do it frequently, you are allowed to kill the person, but only if he is a criminal, not because of his faith.

"And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

Muslims are forbidden from fighting unbelievers around the Holy Mosque in Mecca unless the unbelievers attack first, in which case Muslims are to fight "until there is no persecution (fitna)".

How can you translate it any different? Even a Fundamentalist cannot misinterpret this verse.

2- Live to Kill:

Bigot's verse; "Those who believe fight for the cause of Allah..." [4:76]

Answer:

Let's read what lead up to that verse... "How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and for the cause of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender! Those who believe Fight for the cause of God" [4:74-76]

Explanation:

This is specific to those who have been oppressed. In order to help those who cannot help themselves is indeed a great deed and to shun away tyranny and help those who are weak and oppressed. Islam-critics seek to present a view of violence and hate on behalf of the Quran, however, when the verse is examined carefully in a correct context, their deceit is clearly exposed.

3- Crucify, execute and hut the hands off unbelievers:


"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land" [5:33]

Answer:

The story 5:33 is on starts way back but you can start from 5:27 where Adam's two sons. One of them killed the other. In 5:32, it's told that killing someone who didn't kill or terrorized is like killing the whole mankind. It also points out that many people were hostile towards the prophet in excess amount. 5:33 is said in light of that.

Furthermore, it's not an instruction. It merely states the consequences of their actions. It's the consequence for those who wage war and terrorize. 5:34 only asks for the transgressor to stop to be spared.

4- Smite their necks:

"I [God] will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle…" {8:12-13}

Answer:

Here is the context:

"When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger" [8:12-16]

Explanation:

Dear people, this is not an order to the Human believers, if however you see yourself as angels then your place is in the Heavens, not Earth, go smite some necks over there.

5- Do not befriend Christians and Jews:

Bigot's verse; "They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper." [4:89]

Answer:

"Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them." [4:90]

Enough said...

Rather than this being a debate, let it be a lecture; any questions on certain verses, I will greatly respond to and explain. Now, I'm going to sleep, but tomorrow, I shall answer all the comments.

Most Nazis were not atheists at all, but Catholic or Protestant. The Soviets officially were but they came in conflict with the church because they were tsarists and as usual for most of European history the clergy and the nobles worked together to oppress everyone else. Of course the next regime won't be too pleased with them.

And how is ISIS not motivated by religion? Their head of state is a self-proclaimed Caliph who even preached in a mosque. And they have people to enforce Islamic law. This is certainly a theocracy, which is not acceptable in modern times. And the foreigners who go there are all radical muslims, I haven't heard of any normal people going to Iraq or Syria to join ISIS. ISIS is even doing ethnic cleansing based on religion (Yezidi, Shia people).

I know most muslims are not like that at all, but there is a weird trend that makes certain groups more fanatic than before. What is written in holy books (Koran, Bible etc) actually doesn't matter. If it did, why do values change so much over time? Why are there so many sects based on the same books? Of course every group claims to have the right interpretation but as I don't believe in any of them it doesn't matter to me which one claims to be the One True Religion. Even the theologians disagree, so how can normal people EVER know what interpretation is the right one?
The only thing that counts is how these people behave. I think people should have the right to believe anything they want, as long as they don't force their beliefs on others. Now that is certainly done in conservative religious countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I know most muslims here are moderate but they suffer from a very negative image in the media. A few weeks ago there was even a pro-ISIS protest.

Mein Kampf has been a best seller in muslim countries for years.

For every Muslim who seems to justify Islam as a non-violent religion, there are dozens -- perhaps thousands -- more who exemplify Mohammed's "Kill All Infidels" fatwa by committing suicide attacks, beheadings, mass murders, and other atrocities against anyone whom they believe is not a "proper" Moslem -- even other Moslems!.

As for Mohammed's third wife, Aisha, the majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine or ten (according to Ibn Hisham), when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.

Try to imagine some fat slob of 53 "consummating his marriage" to a 10-year old girl, and you will understand the immediate revulsion that most westerners should feel toward this alleged "prophet".

That anyone would admire a pedophile is an atrocity unto itself.

3.5% of German population self-identified as "gottgläubig," and 1.5% were non-religious. Most of this latter 5% were committed Nazis, who left the churches in response and encouragement of the Nazi Party program to reduce the influence of the Christian churches in Germany according to historian Richard J. Evans in his book "The Third Reich at War" [p. 546]. I think you need to educate yourself more in history, Nazism's plan was to fight against Christianity, annihilate, and were predominately anti-Christian, popular examples are Martin Bormann and Joseph Goebbels. Hitler himself was an irreligious atheist who despised Christianity from the historical accounts we have. You're, thus, wrong about that.

But it seems that you chose to ignore my point, I didn't say "look at those groups, they fight for Christianity!" I just made an analogy on how absurd that it is to make such claims, because if you ignored those parts of my comment, I shall show you again; "should this be a legitimate claim to say that all atheists are violent through these groups, whilst ignoring that these groups did their terror for political motives and ignoring atheist Buddhists, Secularists Humanists and all other peaceful deity-disbelieving groups, as well? I'm intelligent enough to know a minority aren't the representative of a whole label, but I see most bigots are not to know the same about say, Islam."

This argument has been refuted and debunked. ISIS is not motivated by religion because Islam encourage no such thing and that's a fact, if you think otherwise, come with examples.

Groups like ISIS are only inspired and this can go back again to my first argument again on atheist groups:

Atheism is not a religion and has no belief systems to encourage atheists to "fight in the name of their belief", the only thing you need to be educated in atheism: disbelief in deity/deities. Exactly the same with theism.

But it doesn't mean it's perfectly innocent, because it can have a violent-encouraging belief/religion/world-views/doctrines within atheism, just like there can be in theism, and those are atheist-inspired (keyword; inspired, not motivated) and goes to fight for these doctrines, and thus; same claim can be made.

There is no motivation from either group, only inspiration, where you add up your own things upon that, but if a person categorize Islam in that, atheism can be too, which makes an atheist realize how absurd it is to make such fallacious claims and hopefully avoid from continue doing the same mistakes. And that proves him not to be motivated by Islam and vaguely inspired by Islam. Caliphs are not self-proclaimed, if by Sunni; a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives, in other words, a democracy. If by Shia; a caliph should be an Imam (Islamic priest) chosen by God from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendants), in other words, a republic.

From what we know about this self-proclaimed 'caliph', he was no Imam ever in his time, he was a terrorist in American prison. And he certainly weren't an elected caliph. A self-proclaimed caliph is the same as a self-proclaimed president. Nothing more than a dictatorship. No, it's not. "Islamic law" is a very broad word, saying "Islamic law" can be the same as saying "Western law".

There are no specific "Islamic law", it can be a lot of things determined by different sects, Ahadith, and so forth.

I can tell you one thing, the "Islamic law" by Taliban is definitely not Islamic, for example adultery or fornication in Taliban law is death after just an accusation with no proof, for the woman, but not for the man.

In Islamic law (as told by Sunni and Ahadith) goes under a court with at least 4 reliable witnesses that has all seen the act of penetration, if it is proved that they all had sex together, it's 100 lashes for both. If it's less than 4, it's nullified. This is a hard thing to prove.

I choose not to follow your perception of Sharia law due to its lack of monolith, the only Sharia law I believe in is sins that I must avoid. There have been quite a couple of non-Muslim Britons that has joined ISIS. The only thing you have to do is to say the Testimony for ISIS before joining. Shia people are Muslims, the fact that they are eradicating them proves them not to be motivated by religion nor are they Islamic.

The whole world is one Ummah, brotherhood and sisterhood, regardless of ethnicity, religion/irreligion or race. The fact that they do not respect this Ummah, which includes Shias. Proves them to not be true Muslims as they do not follow a true Islam. They are a radicalized Sunni group, not Islamic group. Take notes. I know that you don't think all Muslims are terrorists, just like all atheists aren't Marxists. But, I disagree with your point, the only difference between now and before is that these Muslim terrorizing groups gets more media attention than before. There exist 1.6 billion Muslims, but let's just say that "15-25 percent" of the world's Muslims are extremists, and that the remaining are "moderates". Based on the lower end of that range, that's 240 million of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims — the equivalent of every single Muslim in Sub-Saharan Africa. Where are the examples of such supposedly widespread extremism? Even if it is a mere 1 percent of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims is committed to violence, why is it that we haven't seen 16 million violent attacks? The Islamic terror are less than a percent of all Muslims and the number isn't growing among Muslims anymore than it grows among Hindus and Jews. I can help you. All Muslims (except for Ahmadis and Salafis) are monolith on Quran and has no different kind of Quran nor are they picking and choosing verses to fit their sect or have different interpretations.

The reason there exist such a thing as a Shia and Sunni is not because of an interpretation of Quran, but a disagreement on whether Ali or Abu Bakr (may God be pleased with them) were the caliphs after Muhammad's death, caliph translate into a 'successor' [to Muhammad]. Shias say Ali was the first, Sunnis say that Abu Bakr was the first.

Since there are no historical evidence to prove whom were the first between these two, it's a matter of opinion and you can choose yourself which one you think is the case. That's the fundamental difference between them both and it all happened right after Muhammad's death, before that, everyone were just Muslims, nothing more.

Most Islamic sects are based on disagreements on historical accounts and evidence during the time of Muhammad, not on Quranic verses.

Ahmadis (an heretic sect) and Salafis (what groups like ISIS belong to) are the only people whom their fundamentals are based on interpretations of Quran, far-stretched at that. I agree, countries like Saudi Arabia is a disgrace to what it once was back in the day. But you should blame the Saudi family that came to power by a coup, they are basically dictators. As well as Iran, before the 1979 revolution, Iran had the Shah of Iran, he was a good Muslim man who cared for his people and Iran was a peaceful and liberal country (supporting for women's rights, supporting for homosexuality and same-sex marriage, etc.), but he couldn't provide them more than what he had, this was upsetting to Iranians and they made riots against him because of Khomeini said that he could give them what they wished for and make the country better and the revolution happened, but after he was in power and the Shah exiled, it turned out that Khomeini was just lying all along for power and made his people to slaves, oppressed the hell out of women, antisemitic, made a law against homosexuals; choosing them to either be executed or become transsexuals and much more. You can't blame Islam for this, you should blame that these two countries are ruled by dictatorship. There was a time that Iran was as liberal as Turkey. I like to correct you on something; there exist no such thing as a 'moderate Muslim' and 'radical/fundamentalist Muslim', there are only practitioners and non-practitioners of Islam. Religious Muslim and cultural Muslim. In order to say 'moderate', it should mean that Islam is radical, which is a lie, the word 'Islam' is Arabic for "Religion of Peace", therefore saying "moderate Islam" is like saying "moderate Religion of Peace", what's a violent/radical 'peace'? And calling groups like ISIS for 'fundamentalists', which is basically a derogatory term for 'religious/practicing' is also false as it require to be religiously Muslim, which they are not, otherwise they wouldn't have killed as many innocents as they have. It's quite an insult.

mono·lith·ic

\ˌmä-nə-ˈli-thik\ adjective
1
a f, relating to, or resembling a monolith :huge, massive
b (1) :formed from a single crystal <a monolithic silicon chip> (2) :produced in or on a monolithic chip <a monolithic circuit>
2
a :cast as a single piece <a monolithic concrete wall>
b :formed or composed of material without joints or seams <a monolithic floor covering>
c :consisting of or constituting a single unit
3
a :constituting a massive undifferentiated and often rigid whole <a monolithic society>
b :exhibiting or characterized by often rigidly fixed uniformity <monolithic party unity>
— mono·lith·i·cal·ly \-thi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb


I don't know? WHAT AM I GONNA DOOOO!! !! !! !! !! !! !!?!?!?!?! !! !! !! !! !!

I will remain unafilliated.

Taking a verse out of context to fit a person's desire does not equate to a fact.

A proper Muslim is quite clear; a practicing Muslim, a practicing Muslim is a peaceful Muslim. Did you even bother to read "1: Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile! He married Aisha at 6 and raped her at 9!"? These "majority of traditional Hadith sources that state Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six and consummated at 9 to a 53-years-old Muhammad" has already been debunked if you bothered to read that comment, I guess that you deliberately chose to not to continue your narrowed and bigoted lifestyle. Keyword; "imagine", I could imagine the imaginary, but that wouldn't change the fact that Aisha was 18 at marriage to Muhammad, and it's quite pointless at that, too, as you try to spread deceit in a propagandistic way. Where do you have the evidence of Muhammad was a 'fat slob', idiot? I guess this was just a part of your 'imagine the imaginary'... You cannot even decide on her age. 6 or 7? 9 or 10? 18.

This is the perfect example of a story about an elderly who said to his friend that he met a man with blue shoes with a red stripe, the friend pass it on to his generation. It goes down that line, and after a father says to his child the same story with a few changes (such as it was a man who worked in the army), the child says it to his friends, but now, as children are as exaggerating as they are, it ends up being a cyborg with a purple glove with a yellow string. Same concept. Yes, but that's not the case due to the fact that she was 18 and the "immediate revulsion" is due to bigotry, confirmation bias and the ignorance of history, basically stupidity in the same sense as to be a White Supremacist. It's history that she was 18, read up on it on my comment. It can't be that hard for Americans, can it? 'Should'? Are you indicating that your imaginary conjecture is a fact? Stupid kid, the correct choice of words is 'would'. Bigots do not belong here. Also, no, I don't understand because your analogy is based on an imagination rather than historical evidence as compared to mine. True, good thing that's not Muslims, but Westerners whose Greek and Roman rulers were the best examples of pedophilia and pederasty. Margaret I of Denmark was a victim of being engaged to a pedophile king at the age of 6, this king was Haakon VI of Norway. Western world have quite some examples of child marriage that will be considered for pedophilia in their ruling governments that did not end until 1800s, when a law against it finally was made. Prophet Joseph, a great example for Western Christians, married to a 12 or 14-years-old Mary, when he was 90. Westerners still consider him for a patriarch with great legacy.

Admit it, you're wrong and dismissed, ignorant fool, but please continue if you wish to be the laughingstock here.

Yes. Unlike Americans, we care for history and the neutral perspective when speaking history, and we can read, we don't need a movie adaptation before losing it caused by short attention spans. I voted for 'no'.

It is well known that the muslim fascination with Hitler is an antisemitic thing.

You're an easy one...

1st) You shouldn't confuse Arab with Muslim, it makes you look like an idiotic fool. 2nd) Citation needed. 3rd) Arabic antisemitism isn't comparable to Nazi's antisemitism, even an idiot should be smart enough to know this.

Go home, kid. You've been dismissed.

why are there over forty million muslims in Europe?

If we sent 40 million europeans into India they wouldnt like it.

The thing is this was not that unusual in this century in many places. It was certainly not exclusive to Islam.

I think the notion of being 18 is revisionism, becuase there was no such concept of being an adult or being able to consent at 18 back then. In fact adulthood was most associated with puberty in early history.

I you think of the modern definition of childhood as we understand now that is Victorian.

Liveirarica I have some polls for you. These are about you personally, rather than all Muslims. I think they cover some important topics and i tried by best to cover all base, if you are interested in answering I give my thoughts.

Because there is freedom of religion. Most muslims here are guest workers and their descendants who were granted citizenship. They were not sent, they were invited because there was a shortage of workers in the 20th century. Muslims have also lived in the Balkans for centuries, and there are some native converts elsewhere as well.

Please do, I do not mind.

Overall i don't mind the Muslim religion and i have several women friends that are Muslim who share the same basic beliefs about GOD AND UNCONDITIONAL LOVE with me.

But and a big but, is it's just a religion made by humans and not by GOD and of COURSE IS NOT PERFECT.

THE SUGGESTION that a human being can suggest that a man, any man, is the Last prophet of GOD is simply ludicrous as we live in a very large and still evolving Universe, to the tune of billions of stars and associated planets.

That's quite a promotion to give to any silly little man.

And that's just a metaphor, as I care not about the stature OR PERSONALITY of Mohammad and can respect him for the good things he did do.

And more than likely the girl he had sex with was of puberty age, but age 18, not likely, just not likely, as that is more or less going by the laws of today, in view of centuries ago.

Instinctually, mentally and physically healthy male human beings don't go for women who cannot reproduce.

It's just a horrible fetish, sadly as it may be. And not likely it would have been acceptable in those years either per age 12 and under. Muhammad was a high profile RELIGIOUS LEADER, and there is just likely no way, it would have been tolerated no matter who people said he was, with due reason of course, as almost anything is possible when cultural and religious illusions come in to THE mix, with GOD aka Mother Nature True given HUMAN NATURE.

THE suggestion that Jesus is the ONLY SON OF GOD AND MUHAMMAD IS THE last prophet is indisputable evidence of that, my friend.

But again, any reasonable person must accept that no religion is perfect as they are written by imperfect humans, no matter how inspired they are by GOD, they are STILL HUMAN and imperfect in communication.

No. it's math. If Aisha's marriage to Prophet Muhammad took place one year after Hijrah (emigration to Medina), or around 624 A.D. She was the daughter of Abu Bakr. Tabari reports, “All four of [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives—the names of whom we have already mentioned—during the pre-Islamic period [i.e. pre-610 A.D.].”

Therefore, even if Aisha was born in 609 A.D., only a year before Prophet Muhammad claimed prophethood, she would be roughly 14 at the time of emigration to Medina in 623, and therefore no less than 15 (that is age of consent and sexually mature) at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad.

Likewise, most historians report that Asma, Aisha’s elder sister, was ten years her senior. The books, “Tahzibut Tahzib” and “Al-Bidaayah wa an-Nihayah,” both report that Asma died at the age of 100, in 73 A.H. or 695 A.D.

This means that Asma must have been no younger than 27 at the time of emigration. That would mean that Aisha’s marriage to Prophet Muhammad was in 1 A.H. when Asma was 28. This means that at a minimum, Aisha was 18 upon her consenting marriage to Prophet Muhammad.

Are you disregarding this fact because it coincidentally fall into civilized law? Would you rather imagine it as a 50-years-old with a 7-years old with no evidence other than conjecture because it fits to your idea and gives you an insult-card to use? I pity you... you're just blabbering on lies and criticize the greatest man ever by using lies as examples to support your accusations.

As for your other points, I do not bother. Let me have my opinion and you have yours [dismissed] opinion if you wish.