A more general question then.

If Mohammed sinned (according to the Islamic concept of sin, and your concept of sin), would you then (be able to) condemn it? If your concept of sin is the exact same as Islam, then this is an easy question to answer.

Let's say, killing someone 100% innocent of anything detrimental to someone else and/or detrimental to God's law. Would you condemn Mohammed if he did it? (the question if he did or did not is not of importance). This is a hypothetical situation.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/film/...mic.6280123.jp

I don't understand. If you have a copy of the translation and access to the internet, you can find everything you're asking for in half an hour.

He was free of sin. Whether we condemn it or not and show our displeasure means little. It's in God's hands whether the sinner (assuming he did sin) is punished or not anyhow. The sinner might repent without our knowledge. He or she isn't required to let everybody know; that's between them and God. Unless the sin breaks any law in society, it's not our place to publicly condemn it.

So like flesh blow up dolls? lol!

LOL Sure, I guess. I don't know.

Half an hour is a long time on the internet. Any pointers?

Come on, don't be lazy. Google reproduction in the Qur'an.

IF the Quran contains 'scientific' (for want of a better word) knowledge that predates human discovery what does it tell us that hasnt already been discovered. Is there any knowledge in there that still hasnt been found by science? or does it work similar to nostradamus' prophecies where they predict future events after those things have happened and people fit them to the 'prophecy'.

On an earlier note while I agree that the was mohammed a peadophile line is a pretty poor way to attack the religion I would ask why do people think it is ok to use the excuse of "well the thing x that prophet y did(any prophet any religion) was just in keeping with the culture of the time and we shouldnt judge them by our morals that we have gained through greater enlightenment or understanding" if these prophets are getting direct word from god they should be above this, surely god can say "look this slavery **** (for example) is pretty ****ed up dont do it and see if you cant pass along the word to pack it in too while your on eh, thanks" Surely gods morality doesnt come from what is culturaly acceptable in current human history unless he is purely a creation of man who then puts his own morality on to god. Again I will repeat that this isnt meant to say mohammed was a peadophile as I dont know enough about the story of him to make any kind of judgement on that i just think the well thats how it was done back then defence is complete garbage when assigned to someone who is a prophet rather than an average joe.


Edit: Fair play to Hardball for engaging in open discussion like this, clearly you have strength of belief that many dont to be so open kudos to you and I hope you get your virgins and all else that makes up your idea of heaven

Good question. Unfortunately, I don't know. As far as I know, everything mentioned in it was eventually discovered, like water being the element of life.

It wasn't intended to act as a foretelling book. You might wonder, "why would those things be mentioned in a book to a people who arguably couldn't care less of those facts at the time?" The book was intended for all peoples of the world for all time.

You probably won't like my response to the slavery bit, but here goes anyway. There weren't slaves in the traditional sense of the word (think ancient Egyptian slaves that were worked to death), they were domestic servants. They weren't abused, they were treated with dignity and respect. They had basic human rights according to Sharia law, AFAIK, but unfortunately some mistreated their slaves in accordance to the law. Freeing a slave was considered a good thing that helped clear sins at the time.


You could use that defense for the average Joe, as well. The difference between the two is that the prophet is the more pious man, so their intent is likely to be good. That isn't to say that the Joe will definitely have evil intent, obviously. It's not unreasonable to think that people back then engaging in such practices had the decency to wait until the girl was physically mature and able-bodied to bear children.

It's what I'm here for. Fair and open.

Originally Posted by kermit81
Again I will repeat that this isnt meant to say mohammed was a peadophile as I dont know enough about the story of him to make any kind of judgement on that i just think the well thats how it was done back then defence is complete garbage when assigned to someone who is a prophet rather than an average joe.

But this is how things are judged in history, we judge them by the status quo of the time not by our current morals or whatever. Do you bring up the point of being slave owners whenever talking about Washington or Jefferson?

I wasnt aware that Washington or Jefferson were prophets receiving word direct from God. You can use the excuse for an average person of the time but God is timeless and not bound to the morals of the time so could tell his prophet that slavery (whether the slaves are treated respectfully or not) is bad, that marrying a girl to young to know her own mind is bad, that whatever action you want to take from the time is bad. That is my point a prophet has a direct line to god and should be able to learn from god that Slavery is wrong rather than simply doing as his fellow man does. Washington and Jefferson however great some of their deeds may be are after all normal men with no God whispering in their ear. Mohamed, joe smith, jesus and any other prophet gets word from god so doesnt have the excuse that they are just doing what there fellow man is doing. The big guy can tell them its wrong no matter when in history they are.

Age limits for being old enough to marry vary with times in history and location, the location part even to this day. There isn't an innate indicator of a girl being old enough to marry and I doubt theists claim there is a God given one. It's purely a varying, evolved, geographic thing decided by the lawmakers of that area, same as speed limits.

It's not like if there were a prophet alive today wanting to marry a 15 year old God would say "OK, move to Thailand to do it though, oh and by the way on the way to the church ignore the 50 speed limit I think 70s fine".

I find it remarkable that you are the least bit impressed by such an obvious statement. It would have been far more accurate and impressive to say that carbon is the element of all life (but no one knew this at the time so they wrote something plainly obvious instead). If you interpret the water statement broadly to mean that water is essential for life, it is accurate enough, but even animals know that, especially desert dwellers whose entire lives revolve around finding access to it. It's funny to think that humans needed a God to tell them that when it was already common knowledge to the entire animal kingdom. Surely you don't see anything impressive about desert-dwelling humans knowing that water is the 'element of life' when clearly anyone who doesn't have access to it for more than a few days drops dead? Anybody at any time could have made that statement with very little difficulty.

I think I may have muddled it a little bit. The verses do a better descriptive job.