Adopted son "said"? Not only was there no such person but half of these stories you are alluding to are not even part of Islam. They're common myths/Islamophobic stories spread around.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Adopted son "said"? Not only was there no such person but half of these stories you are alluding to are not even part of Islam. They're common myths/Islamophobic stories spread around.
You know who he's talking about.
Indeed, just pointing out his lack of knowledge.
And as it says in the wikipedia article
And it good of you to point that out but this was more about whether this adopted son of Muhammed ever existed.
Last edited:
What is this sentence
This immediately invoked in my head the “hats, optional” joke that George Carlin did about religion.
That was Umar. The second Khalifa.
God works in mysterious ways, especially the islam one. Have many wifes, they are inferior to you, when you die you get many virgins (what happens to the wifes? do they all applaud you?)
Come to think of it, maybe I was to harsh on religion. Islam does make some sense after all.
Are you and a couple of others on here fans of Sam Harris?
Just that your arguments read like his work.
The virgin thing is a mistranslation.
Same question to you. Fan of Sam Harris?
You do know that Islam is the first and only religion that put a number on how many wives?
Prior to the 4, anyone was allowed to marry as many as they wanted within the Abrahamic religions.
He had 7 kids.
Wasn't the point here more about Muhammed having multitudes more wives than what was prescribed for his followers for till the end of days.
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of Sam Harris since he started to sell rubbish applications for cash. I am a fan in the sense that I also read the texts before I comment or critique them.
I would love to discuss with you about what you call the mistranslation of virginity; I assume the same is for the stick to hit your wife with, etc. A discussion that can clear at least some of the grotesque elements of Islam would be welcomed, for my part.
It was common practise to marry many as you want etc. In Judaism and Christianity too.
The 4, with conditions was a ruling that came about after.
What has to be understood is certain rulings came about at certain points. So drinking wasn't banned for ages. Praying wasn't commanded until later etc
1) I’ve never really paid attention to the guy.
2) You’ve completely missed the point.
3) Again, missing the point.
Ive read his stuff but also refutations etc. I find his stuff primitive tbh.
I said the virgins in heaven thing was a mistranslation. Usually with these things (and likes of Harris) use Greek translations as a starting point. Doesn't help that the Greek translations were specifically mistranslated in certain places or things simply added to criticise. TBF it was the same with the Bible.
Virginity and the virgins in heaven are separate issues.
The al houris of Jannah is translated as virgins of heaven. When that isn't the meaning.
The stick thing you mention is interesting too. The siwak/miswak issue is not about allowing to hit the wife. Its about limitations and what constitutes abuse and at what level.
The conversation is a lot wider and starts with the notion of marriage and who is eligible to what in divorce etc.
A man has to pay Mehr (misused/misunderstood by many cultures today) to a woman he marries. This can be given straight away but really it's the money he must give her if he divorces her so she doesn't have hardships.
When a woman asks for divorce, in Islam it's called khulla. Now we get into the reason for divorce. If it's he is violent etc then he has to give the Mehr payment. If it's for no reason like that but because the want wants to remarry etc then she is not eligible for that.
Violence is judged by how much it is and what limits it exceeds. The miswak/siwak (which is really toothbrush not stick, but yeah it was a twig of a tree which was used for brushing teeth) is a measurement for what violence exceeds and and amount of compensation. It's not a license to hit with it.
That is a very brief snapshot. Remember there was no benefits systems etc.
I am surprised because pretty much all your arguments are what he has put forward. Even the psychiatry links etc.
What was your point?
That his revelations allowing him special privileges with wives that his followers did not enjoy is... rather suspicious... to put it nicely.
According to 9th century 'Islamic' AKA ruling powers sources. According to 7th century sources, the person who conquored Jerusalem professed to be the prophet of the Arabs.
Why don't Muslims have any 7th or 8th century sources about their prophet but other peoples do? Why was the oldest collection of Hadith from Ibn Ishaq's burned and censored?
I'll take a 7th century source on the 7th century over a 9th century source any day of the week.
I think Sam Harris is a dispicable apologetic for Israel's war crimes. And I didn't like him blaming Trump winning on BLM
That doesn't stop my view that Islam is a negative force overall.
Oh you don't like the way I spelt the name of Muhammed's step son, which some Muslims spell that way, because focusing on it embarasses the truth about Muhammed?
There's way more to be embarassed about with Mo, because unless your onboard for rape, enslavement, theft, plunder and genocide, the Mo being a hero and Islam boat isn't for you lad. You need to embrace those facets of his behaviour to make him the 'ideal human being'
The problem is not just the murder of the son (that didn't happen because of a miracle).
What kind of person hears a voice that tells him to kill his son, and accepts that this voice is god himself talking? And what kind of person hears the story of such a person and accepts him as a great prophet? And what kind of person believes in a god who *may* test your faith by asking you to kill your son?
The whole story is just training/conditioning in absurdities. If you accept this story as reasonable, you are ready to accept any other crazy demands from your religion. You can justify any crime. That's why *Obedience* is important in Christianity, and even more important in Islam. The main goal of all these crazy stories is to accept illogical orders and demands from persons of authority, the Imam or Pope who listens to god, while you are a mere human who can't hear god directly.
If the great Abraham was ready to sacrifice his own son, you little useless human should be ready to do *anything* for your god. That's the essence of the scam for all three Abrahamic religions.
I wasn't being serious.
Sure! The thing is, unfortunately billions of people are serious, and believe this bullshit Abrahamic story.
Ooh I see your hate spewing out. Did a muslim bully you or something to have so much trite islamophobic fantasies under your sleeve?
So long as it's good copium for you.
Tbh came across as a throw away comment.
Anyway he didn't really have the special privileges you speak of. The other pretty much has the same regulations until the point nobody did. As I mentioned the issue prior was there was no limitations. Judaism and Christianity at the tim didn't have any restrictions on number of wives. The concept of concubines was prevalent.
It helps understanding the times and points certain rules came in. Otherwise it's a distorted picture.
The point from my perspective isn't about right or wrong or agree and disagree. It's about context.
With yourself I feel you have a position you don't or can't budge from. This was evident earlier when even an atheist was saying to you that isn't so. But you insisted it was your position. Can't really argue with someone if that's how they feel.
It's pretty well documented in a variety of sources. Muslim, non Muslim , from the time to later on.
Things like death of Muhammad was pretty much down to the day and date. If all sources agree with that then any conquests happening with him would be miraculous to say the least.
I believe he might be referring to a source named The Teaching of Jacob the Newly Baptized. It doesn't state that Muhammad conquered Jerusalem, just implies that he was present with the Arabs as the invasion of Palestine commenced.
Might as well copy the relevant parts of the text here for anyone interested - it is the earliest recorded reference (July 634) to Muhammad (though he is not actually named), dated two years after his death according to the Islamic tradition:
Justus answered and said, “Indeed you speak the truth, and this is the great salvation: to believe in Christ. For I confess to you, master Jacob, the complete truth. My brother Abraham wrote to me that a false prophet has appeared. Abraham writes, “When [Sergius] the candidatus was killed by the Saracens, I was in Caesarea, and I went by ship to Sykamina. And they were saying, ‘The candidatus has been killed,’ and we Jews were overjoyed. And they were saying, ‘A prophet has appeared, coming with the Saracens, and he is preaching the arrival of the anointed one who is to come, the Messiah.’ And when I arrived in Sykamina, I visited an old man who was learned in the Scriptures, and I said to him, ‘What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?’ And he said to me, groaning loudly, ‘He is false, for prophets do not come with a sword and a war- chariot. Truly the things set in motion today are deeds of anarchy, and I fear that somehow the first Christ that came, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God, and instead of him we will receive the Antichrist. Truly, Isaiah said that we Jews will have a deceived and hardened heart until the entire earth is destroyed. But go, master Abraham, and find out about this prophet who has appeared.’ And when I, Abraham, investigated thoroughly, I heard from those who had met him that one will find no truth in the so-called prophet, only the shedding of human blood. In fact, he says that he has the keys of paradise, which is impossible.” These things my brother Abraham has written from the East."
From this book -https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520299610/a-prophet-has-appeared
It's interesting that the imam or pope issue isn't looked into more carefully.
The authority they claim to have isn't really there
Fair enough.
It's just the arguments put forth are almost verbatim his and from sam shamouns answering Islam type sites.
But then again the basis for theirs is the Greek translations etc so maybe it's coincidence
We may not agree on some thing's but always a pleasure reading your stuff. And you seem well versed in it and fair.
Last time I checked his number of wives > the number of wives any of his followers could have.
I don’t care. I’m not talking about either of those faiths or their leaders granting themselves special privileges.
Last night the you checked. Umar had 6 wives in total. Abu Bakr had 4. Yet these men only divorced some as they chose not to become Muslim. Would have been interesting if they had.
I know you don't care. It seems if you can find a negative about Islam you pretty much don't want to discuss any other view.
Let me explain something here. And sure you won't even try and understand but I'll say it anyway as others are reading too.
In Islam certain issues and key things happened or were being said/believed at certain times. These events usually ended with something happening that became a ruling or command.
So the command for 4 wives at any one time had a direct link to practices of people around at the time but specifically because of Jews and Christians as it was felt that they had chosen to change the commands or religious literature or simply allowed certain things to happen as if they were religiously ok.
Many of the sahabah came from those backgrounds. So had lives prior to becoming Muslim that reflected the times. This meant relationships and wives. The issue is most people don't look at what went before simply what happened after accepting Islam. And then usually just to find a way to be critical.
Someone mentioned Zayd before. Muhammads adopted son. But most won't delve into his story. And more importantly the changes in certain accepted aspects of life at the time.
Adoption them was like now. So Zayd became Zayd ibn Muhammed. Ibn meaning son of. Yet revelation and the in incidents that occurred changed his name back to Zayd ibn haritha. Because in Islam you never give up your biological father's name. And inheritance is an issue for the real sons and those rights can not be transferred or taken by any other.
Point being there is a whole lot more to certain situations and it changed the legal framework from the existing to the one we follow today.
But not more than 4 at the same time… correct?
That's no quite the revelation, the revelation here was a sort of admonishment or reprimand of you will, but let's say yes it was.
Society at the time took adopted sons as it does today as real sons in terms of inheritance etc.
Now Zainab was someone who grew up with Muhammad and was related to him. They knew each other from birth. Muhammad could have married her at anytime and she would have accepted as she was of high standing.
Her marriage to Zayd was refused by her initially as he had been a slave and later adopted by Muhammad. Hence taking his name (Zayd ibn Muhammad). She didn't feel he was up to her status/level. She married Zayd on the insistence of Muhammad. She was well known for her anger and wasn't easy to live with. Zayd wanted to divorce her and Muhammad told him to go to back to his wife.
Zayd eventually divorced her. In Islam a father can't marry his sons divorced or widowed wife. In Meccan society this included adopted sons wives.
The marriage between Zainab and Muhammad, which he stressed over hence the verse, was much discussed and maligned by non Muslims. Yet in Islam it set the precedent that adoption doesn't mean removing your biological father's name, or having rights that belong to "begotten" kids. Or in simple terms you simply don't adopt.
Now just to be clear this adoption in today's terms. It was and remained common for Arabs and Muslims to "take on" children or adopt but with a different definition to today.
So I can bring up another child. I just can't give him my name and he doesn't share my kids rights.
At the same time another rule in Islam is I can't marry a non related girl if she was breastfed by my mother or, as was the case in Arab society, a woman was employed to suckle multiple children. So Halima suckled Muhammad as his mother died. Any girl who also may have been suckled by Halima could never marry Muhammad and the issue of mehram would apply.
Correct. But 2 he married before he became Muslim were divorced due to not converting. Had they converted he would have had more than 4. And there would have been no ruling or precedent preventing him to do so.
The point being, and maybe badly made, that Muhammads life is under scrutiny whereas some of the other people not so much. If you look further into it then you will see a different picture of the time. I used Umar as he is well known too. However I accept it's a bad example
Okay, well Muhammad had between 5 and 9 at the same time.
But they didn’t, and he did, and by the time he’s Caliph, there’s a clearly stated rule that believers can have “2 or 3 or 4” wives that he abided by.
I’m not re-typing the entire revelation, so yes, the summation is accurate. It led to Zayd’s divorce and Muhammad’s 5th concurrent marriage.
The rest of the story you’ve typed there is irrelevant to that point.