Well said. I hear many Christians say that the Pope, the bishops, the priests should not stick their nose in issues they can´t talk about, I hear many people say that it´s the Roman Catholic clergy that causes more Aids by forbidding people to use condoms, I hear only people who despise the abuse of kids by priests, I have seen some of the films you mentioned, I have read many books that criticize Christian beliefs, and despite of all this criticism there are no attacks (except for a few fanatic anti-abortion idiots in the US), no war. I seldom hear a Muslim say that maybe some things are wrong or outdated, that they look thoroughly at their rules, beliefs and traditions. No, ´we´ have to be respectful, ´we´ have to accept all that´s done in the name of a religion because the religion doesn´t allow people to think for themselves. I´m sorry if I insult someone, but I really get pissed off when I hear that everlasting moaning. It´s 2008 you know, grow up.

 Sui, can you give a summary of this text in translation and tell us why it irritates you, please?

Dear Fellows,

It is a complete and utter lie that Seyyidina Ayesha was ´Married´ to the Prophet [saw] at the age of 6 years.

She was bethrothed to effendimiz M [saw] at a ´YOUNG´ age according to the custom of the time, by her illustious father, Seyyidina Abu Bekr (ra).  Her ´Nikah´ and, later her ´Vida´a´ [tranfer as a wife] was at the age of 16 years [quite normal for the Arabs - and even now].

I can prove this from history.  let us examine the life of the Prophet (saw) ... because there lurks the nefarious   accusation of Paedophelia in the European mind ... where Paedophelia and incest is a common occurrence in the present society [I was born and live in England].

Prophet (saw) was the most kind, considerate, chaste, moral and loving person.  His whole youth was spent in monogomy with seyyidina Khadica [Hatice] ... 25 years older than him.  Apart from seyyidina Ayesha, ALL his wives were WIDOWS, whom he married for reasons totally removed from sexual desires [read his pure lifestyle].  He attained a position in life that he could have kept hundreds odf slave girls and married whom so ever he pleased from among the ´Damsels´ of the richest families.  Did he?  When he died he did not possess even a ´shekle´ of earthly wealth.  Paedophiles do not lead a life of such purity. They are not content with abusing just one ´minor´ it a pattern repeated throughout their life ... it ia character defect.  Do we witness this debauchery and lisentious pattern in the person of the Prophet (saw)??

A noted British author has observed: "No great religious leader has been so maligned as Prophet Mohammed. Attacked in the past as a heretic, an impostor, or a sensualist, it is still possible to find him referred to as "the false prophet." A modern German writer accuses Prophet Mohammed of sensuality, surrounding himself with young women. This man was not married until he was twenty-five years of age, then he and his wife lived in happiness and fidelity for twenty-four years, until her death when he was fourty-nine. Only between the age of fifty and his death at sixty-two did Prophet Mohammed take other wives, only one of whom was a virgin, and most of them were taken for dynastic and political reasons. Certainly the Prophet´s record was better than the head of the Church of England, Henry VIII." Geoffrey Parrinder, Mysticism in the World´s Religions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976, pg. 121)

"But do you mean to tell me that the man who in the full flush of youthful vigour, a young man of four and twenty (24), married a woman much his senior, and remained faithful to her for six and twenty years (26), at fifty years of age when the passions are dying married for lust and sexual passion? Not thus are men´s lives to be judged. And you look at the women whom he married, you will find that by every one of them an alliance was made for his people, or something was gained for his followers, or the woman was in sore need of protection." - - Dr Annie Besant (Dr Annie Besant in ´The Life and Teachings of Mohammad,´ Madras, 1932)

 

Allah destined him to marry Seyyidina Ayesha, so that she could survive the prophet (saw) for 50 years and the almost the whole Sunni Fiqh [Juresprudence] is based upon her dispensation.  The passage of History proved the segacity of this marriage.  As for accusation of adultery ... she was the target of slander by the enemies of Islam at the time, especially by the clan led by Abdullah bin Ubey, the arch enemy ... and Allah Himself absolves her and history proves this. 

 

By all means examine Islam as critically as you please.  But the moral character of the Prophet (saw) ... whether one believes in him or not ... is beyond any reproach.  It is unassailable from any aspect.  Every learned historian ... from every nation ... during earliest times to present day ... have nothing but marvel for this ´perfect human being´ who stands in the full glare of history like NO OTHER PROPHET of Allah.

 

It will not surprise me if people to day begin to accuse him of ´NOT BEING A HOMOSEXUAL´ ... like Christians say regarding their own holy people ... and quote this as a ´STRENGTH´ of the quality of their ´LOVE´ for humanity.

 

I do not need to twist the facts in order to apologise for efendimiz Muhammad.  He needs no defense.  But, I will say this to ALL MUSLIMS ... ´Ba Khuda deewana bashad ... ba Muhammad hoshiyar´ [Farsi] > ´Be as speculative regarding the nature of God as, you wish ... but be very careful with Muhammad (the beloved)´ ...

 

All Prophets of Allah, including efendimiz Muhammad (saw) were perfect human beings sent to guide us in morals.  Any misguided or careless remark regarding any of them IMMEDIATELY removes one from the pale of Islam.  By all means, examine Islam and Qur´an from every aspect ... but please I entreat you [if you wish to continue to remain Muslim] ... not to even think of ascribing even a minor criticism of the prophet (saw).

 

Ofcourse, "La ikraha fid din´, > there is no compulsion in religion, freedom of conscience is guaranteed.  One has full choice either to accept or reject islam.  BUT YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE PROPHET (SAW) AND HOPE TO REMAIN MUSLIM.   If a Muslim does it under an impulse, he/she will have the whole eternity to regret it.

 

If one wishes to join Salman Rushdie >>> welcome >> but he had the courage to admit that he is no longer a Muslim.  So one is free to make their choice.

 

[Note: If someone wishes to debate the question of seyyidina Ayesha´s marriage from historical sources, please feel free either to send me a private message or e-mail me to momtaazjung@hotmail.com.  The only caveat being that one must be genuine in their enquiry and not conduct and argument for arguments sake ... I have no time for that]

 

***Please be as BRAVE and COURAGEOUS as you wish to be, in discussing aspects of Islam, but do not relinquish impartiality, sobriety and norms of rational debate. 

 

Tazx1

 Tell me please, why can´t I be critically about your Prophet while I don´t believe in him?

Well then I would suggest looking at other career options if you aren´t happy with your compensation or have a discussion with your employer.  I have been in the employment business for almost 15 years now hiring individuals.  A good percentage of people don´t want to work and rather have things handed to them by us taxpayers.  There are plenty of jobs in our country that offer benefits including health insurance, why do you think we have immigration problems?  Heck, even McDonalds offers retirement and health insurance.  There is no excuse not to have a job.

Using your logic, what would Jesus do...he would say be thankful for what you have! 

As a non-Muslim you have every leave to criticise the prophet (saw) ... and use any language you wish.  My advice is to MUSLIMS, and Muslims only.

As for others, my advice is only to be dispassionate and rational ... ultimately the choice is there´s.

If a Muslim insults any Prophet, including Prophet Muhammad (saw), they are instantly beyond the pale of Islam.  This is fact.  I am not asking you to subscribe to this rule.

Tazx1

You obviously haven´t been to this site long enough to know we discuss injustices all over the world. 

 It aren´t YOUR streets as well?

That is completely not true, although I can believe that you see it that way. I do agree with you that in the US there is some anti-muslims feelings, and muslims are all thought of being terrorists or near-terrorists. However... people like you are not helping to change this. Just by responding in this angry way, denying that any criticism of Islam is correct and in fact much needed, by not seeing the problems with muslims and islam, you are only contributing to more racism. I think you can thank yourself for being part of the problem.

It is very ironic that you ask people to look very clearly and objectively at Muslims, but you yourself do not do that. You simply want other people to accpept YOUR ideas and opinions. Well....

 + 10000000!!

 Rational discussion is one thing ... hurling and exchanging denegrating language and senseless argument quite another another.  It not civilise to discard the issues and become personal.  Whoever indulges in this, they are not enhancing the ´Forum´.

My comments are NOT directed at anybody, they are meant to be a general plea.

I have no doubt been hurt by many unjudicious remarks directed at Religious personalities [of whichever religion] ... because the tone of comments seemed to inflame opinions rather than meant examine issues.  Nothing ought to be ´OUT of BOUNDS´, but suitable language is advocated when touching upon sensitive subjects.  If I visit someone in Turkey or Japan, and if they ask me to take off my shoes, I ought to respect them.

Religion, despite all said and done, is a metaphysical topic, which needs careful and sensitive handling.  I respect the feelings of Hindus, Jews, Budhists, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Parsees and people of no faith.  And, wish to advise fellow members to kindly observe a modecum of good sense.  Every right carries with it a reciprocal obligation.  One should always keep this in mind.  One being a Muslim implies that one does not subscribe to any other faith, but one does not go about denegrading other faiths.  Ostensibly this not ´being FRANK´ rather it is being rude.  To wear a dress to cover one´s nudity is not same as hypocracy.

Muslims love ALL the prophets of Allah and hold them very dear.  If one wishes to criticise any of them ... they should be aware of this ... and consequently moot the topic in a spirit of civilized enquiry rather than expressing a controversial opinion just to sensationalise and shock.  Within these parameters, everything is acceptable.  Good sense is all that matters ... and it is hard to define it.  Please, be sensitive regarding sensitive matters.

Tazx1