Needless to go into details of what happened in India over the issue of Prophet marrying Ayesha at the age where she was only a child and the person (who is a woman of some minster of govt) only said that she mentioned what is mentioned in so many islamic books/hadiths.
My question is

Why prophet married so many women around 10-12 I heard. Was it to set an example of marrying widows and orphans? i cant get around this. This means it would be a sunna for every muslim man to just repeat the same and marry multiple? I heard its 4 as limit per Quran but then why Prophet kept more than 4 wives at a time(violation of quran verse)? Sunni says this was special permission for Prophet, again not understanding the wisdom.

Even if Ayehs age was 18-23, still why did the prophet find it necessary being in 53+ to marry a girl age of her daughter? i mean it is legally allowed but morally prophet should set an example of Not?. In todays time if a man in 50s marry a girl of his daughter age, people do not generally like this concept? morally not a wise thing to set an example. hence we see many sheiks or so called scholars in 50s marrying teen age girls? - because of what was reported with the prophet.
The only motive as i could understand is for lust of young girl by the so called old age men? However I read that in hadiths AYEHSA was proposed by the God thru angel as a wife for the prophet..? Am not saying i believe in these tales but then sunni people had to come up with such hadith to justify while in the first place if prophet did not marry such young girl, this would not be need.

Please note am not disrespecting or anything, its just i cant get past this concept that if i was in those times and i see the prophet am following setting an example, in his 50s marrying a virgin girl more than half his age? Would be uncomfortable?

Unless the whole historical facts are WRONG. As some says even the age of khadija being 40+ and widowed is also fabricated.
please comment

Its based on hadith sources. Not reliable.

Several biblical figures had concubines when they were not able to create natural children with their wives. The most famous example of this was with Abraham and Sarah. Sarah, gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham, while maintaining ownership of both maidservant and offspring. Their union produced Ishmael. Hagar gained the status of full wife in regards to Abraham, but nonetheless Sarah retained the status of main wife. Subsequently Isaac inherited Ishmael and Hagar along with the inheritance since under Hebrew law all property of a slave belongs to the master. This type of pilegesh is recorded in Jewish sources as being a singular case. All later cases of pilegesh recognized the pilegesh and guaranteed similar rights in the house as the legitimate wife. Since having children in Judaism was considered a great blessing, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands so they could have children with them when those women themselves where childless, as in the cases of Leah and Zilpah; and Rachel and Bilhah. The concubine commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife, and it was regarded as the deepest dishonor for the man to whom she belonged if hands were laid upon her. Even in the exceptional case of Sarah and Hagar, Abraham would have been obligated to treat Hagar as a full wife and she would have been treated as an equal by Abraham. Sarah's rights would have been regarding the technical legal status of being considered the inheritor and since the other wife and offspring would have been hers by ownership she became the legal albeit not biological mother of Ishmael.

Legal characteristics
According to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 21a), the difference between a pilegesh and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrewketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal ("kiddushin&quot, which was not the case with the former. According to R. Judah, however, the pilegesh should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.

Certain Jewish thinkers, such as Maimonides, believed that concubines are strictly reserved for kings, and thus that a commoner may not have a concubine; indeed, such thinkers argued that commoners may not engage in any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage.

Maimonides was not the first Jewish thinker to criticise concubinage; for example, it is severely condemned in Leviticus Rabbah. Other Jewish thinkers, such as Nahmanides, Samuel ben Uri Shraga Phoebus, and Jacob Emden, strongly object to the idea that concubines should be forbidden.

Any offspring created as a result of a union between a pilegesh and a man were on equal legal footing with children of the man and his wife. The only exception was the unique relationship between Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Isaac and Ishmael.

According to Rabbi Mnachem Risikoff, the institution of pilegesh is an alternative to formal marriage which does not have the same requirements for a Get upon the dissolution of the relationship.

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh

Looks to me it was a common Judaic tradition in Medina where large amount of Jews reside. This is known in Arab world as Urfi marriage.

Nikah 'urfi is a "customary" Sunni Muslim marriage contract that requires a wal (guardian) and witnesses but not to be officially registered with state authorities. Couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment, although there are many other informal ways in which people marry `urfi. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and at least two witnesses sign it, although others may record their commitment on a cassette tape and use other forms of documentation. Most Arab countries do not recognize 'Urfi marriages and do not allow partners to get a 'legal' divorce since the government does not recognize the legality of the marriage in the first place. Sometimes these relationships are a way for people to have sex with each other within what is perceived to be a licit framework. Nevertheless, the relationship is often kept secret from family members.

https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_%27urfi

This kind of marraige is discouraged in Quran to some extent because of abuses. Notice the case of contract (oath) and family not informed. Both issues the Koran talked about. Also the lack of dowry, which Koran also talked about.

In modern times in other areas of world it is similar to living with a partner without formally marrying.

Verse 9-29 is the only verse in the Koran that is not explicit. It talked about the people of the Book, usually meaning the Israelites. Most of the Koranic verses about fighting was concerning the pagans. I believe this probably is a implicit verse (mutashabihat). Perhaps dealing with the Jews of Mecca who were a smaller group of Jews than Medina. We know from Quran there was some referencing to fighting Jews allied with the pagans of Mecca but they were not the main fighting party.

But it is important to note that verse 9-29 is the only verses where the context is not clear. However the Koran covered the issue of fighting and it's legal reasons in many other verses.

The Koran also spoke about fighting against oppressors.

And what is with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?" 4.75

Also the prevent two believing parties from fighting each other.

If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). 49.9

Peace,

Bible that we have today is s beautiful book. With the Quran it seems nicer in Montenegrin (Bosnian..... it's all the same language)than in English. To me that Is.

Now, after reading both Quran and the Bible, I have noticed a very different writing style. Now, the Quran confirms those prior scriptures.

So if it's all from same God, why is the writing style so different?

Quran is word of God, Bible is Book of God. Jesus was the word of God and God talked to Moses. Different revelation styles. Np wprd of God came to Jesus, he was born with it. Moses talked to God . The word of God came to Muhammad by the Quran.

1682 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message

479-80 Say'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper.

1753-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe .... Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.

24.54. Say "Obey God, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear

8821 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe

3941 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper

6412 And obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon Our Messenger is only clear notification.

109.1-6 Say O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Self serving? rotfl

group

Kind of late but thanks. Been absent for some time.

All religions have a creation stories. The creation story tell us the difference between monotheism and polytheism. Monotheism before existence there was God. Polytheism believes in some form of existence before the gods.

Quranist come in four main categories. 1. Follow quran and Islamic traditions that does not contradict the quran and Islamic rituals 2 Follow quran and Islamic rituals only 3 Follow quran and previous scriptures. 4 Follow quran only. All are acceptable as long as you reject abrogation of any verse of the quran, or any tradition that contradicts an explicit verse of the quran and not make binding what the quran did not do so through an explicit verse. Explicit verses are verses that the majority agree in its interpretation. Some quranist also follow other religion rituals that does not contradict or violate the quran. All are acceptable.

What Palazi is doing is seeing the wahabis as his main enemies and is willing to side with anyone against them. This is common in human nature. Quranist in Egypt are cheering while Sissi is sending Muslim Brotherhood members to jail and death row. The quran reminds us to be just and fair even with those who wronged us. But that is very hard to do.

The Rabbi is concerned that the same attacks Wafa is doing on Islam can be done to Jews and Judaism.

Some people have said that the Koran says that the Torah and Gospel are corrupted and its no longer a book of guidance. They say Muslims say so. Some Muslims even have said that anyone who still follows these scriptures is no longer a believer but a disbeliever and will go to hell. However when asked to provide their evidence from the Koran they are mute and confused. This is because what they say and the Koran are complete opposites. Lets look at the Koran and what it say

Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)

But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)

Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? - And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful of what ye do. (Surah 2, Baqara, verse 85)

Say "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord...." (Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 6

If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)

Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth. (Surah 7, A'raf, verse 159)

As I did my research about this subject some time ago I was looking for where this evidence of the tampering and corruption is mentioned. How can God say the previous scriptures are corupted then order them to follow them. It even attacks those who refuse to follow it.

Whats more the Koran seems to indicate its a confirmation of the previous scriptures.

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; Surah 5 Verse 48

It even uses the previous scripture as evidence for the validity of the Koran

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that) was before thee... (Surah 10, Jonah, verse 94)

Muslims who follow Sunni/Shia Islam say these verses are concerning to originals. But these scriptures have not changed since the days of the prophet. In fact they are the way are today long before the prophet. So what scriptures was the Koran talking about. They then point to this verse as evidence.

2.79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

This is then used to support the tampering of the scriptures. However upon close examination, I see they failed to look at the verse before it and after it.

2.78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

So the Koran is saying those poeple were making things up but never said the Book itself has been tampered since those people never knew the book. It was confusing at first but then the next verse explained it

2.80 And they say "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days" Say "Have ye taken a promise from God, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of God what ye do not know?"

This is not in the Torah but its refering to the Talmud. The supposed "oral" traditions the Rabbis say was passed down to them.

The Rabbinic tradition arose from the Pharisaic tradition after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. In general, it moved away from traditional Judaism's emphasis on an earthly future for Israel toward the concept of reward in the life to come. Gehinom (Gehenna), according to rabbinic literature, is a place or state where the wicked are temporarily punished after death. Gehenna is sometimes translated as "hell", but the Christian view of hell differs from the Jewish view of Gehenna. Most sinners are said to suffer in Gehenna no longer than twelve months.Those who are too wicked to reach paradise are sometimes said to be punished forever. Other accounts reject the idea that a merciful God would punish anyone forever, in which case those too wicked for purification are destroyed (see annihilationism)

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

Also in the Talmud

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean&quot the wages owed him for work.

3.75. Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it.

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.

4.156 Quran
That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

The famous warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 71-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark chapter 7, from verse one through thirteen, represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.

Also

The Schindler's List Quote

The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives.

The book on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase

"Whoever destroys the life of a single human being...it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ...it is as if he had preserved an entire world."

However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud.

In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler's List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that "whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world" (emphasis supplied). The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives.

The Koran tells us about this and condemns this

5.32 On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land

"According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

"The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...

The koran tells us

4.157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not-

The Talmud then say

Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books&quot will have no portion in the world to come.

Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

The koran responds by

And they say "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. The Jews say "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but God will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. 2.111-113

http//www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

I think the Libertarian (aka Classical Liberal) position is the best and islamic by example.

What do you think?

Yeah in terms of limited authority of government over people's lives.

"If one speaks the truth to them today 2014; very few people would like to hear as well because they are cursed into being void of any sound judgment. Part of what the "Quranyoon" movement speaks of is the truth but few like to hear although the collective amount of people adhering to it causes a concentrated light to emit from the center, which may purify people should they be patient and steadfast and keep being in the light."

Which is what I am wondering. That this new level of extremism might change their attitude about being in denial that there is something wrong with Islamic thought as it stands. They hear always wonderful stuff in Juma' prayers and sermons but I am wondering if these extremism will make them question more and stop sugar coating.

Salaam,

I, personally, do not like the word "Quranists" referred to us. Wasn't this word started by our opponents to refer to us? The article also mentions we believe Qur'an is incomplete?? When? I have never heard anyone saying this. There is also someone saying we don't believe Qur'an to be the word of GOD??

I don't think majority of Muslim word will follow God through Qur'an only in future. They will still stick to their sects, but may they will evolve like the majority of Christians have.

Yes the term Quranist (quraniyoon) was initially used by the Egyptian authorities when they had a crack down on us on the 70s.

But what I wanted to know is whether anyone detected a change in how Muslims react to our message.

My country has the most of all European countries fighting for IS. Not only the sunnite indoctrination contributes to those figures, also the growing islamophobia. I guess that is not an issue in Indonesia. The growing islamophobia makes these muslims even more motivated to fight for IS.

I do accuse the sunni community of hypocrisy though. They might feel IS is wrong but the hadith and the sunnah they defend share the same principles with IS. We should use this caliphate as an example of what their unauthorized teachings lead to. It's hypocritical to defend the theology of sunnism while condemning the acts of IS.

Very good point.

James Foley was brutally murdered by the criminals who support hadith and sunnah. I strongly condemn this crime. It shows the true nature of the sectarians. This has encouraged me to take action. I've contacted a few political parties in my country today, to try and break the sectarian monopoly on islamic institutions in my country. This has to stop! These hadith-criminals are giving every moderate muslim in the world a bad reputation, not to mention how they are violating God. My thoughts go out to the friends and family of James Foley. I cant imagine their sadness.

http//www.marquette.edu/magazine/images/fall2011/bnr-phonecall.jpg

The butcher who executed this horrible murder was clearly using some kind of London accent. Many of these hadith-brainwashed fighters in IS are indoctrinated in Europe and the west. Many of the Islamic institutions are funded with government/tax money. We have to take a stand and break this deadlock. How will we ever defeat this sectarian monopoly on Islam if we just let them receive tax money to continue their indoctrination of muslims? We have to make a stand. We have to inform our political parties what these institutions really stand for and make it clear to them they do not represent Islam, in contrary they are creating state enemies.

I will not stop before I see this sunnite monopoly in my country broken and destroyed. It would be nice to have some mosques around that actually represent Islamic values instead of spreading propaganda for an evil-natured Caliphate and justifications for violations of human rights.

The muslim executive got called out in my country to distance itself from IS. They first refused, later they released a press statement saying they dont share the same islamic values. But they are lying. Ask them about their hadith and sunnah and you will find out, secretly they share the same values as IS. It's time to break down this sectarian wall for good.

I asked this question in another thread I started about the impact ISI is having on the Muslim world. You are right that the sects differences with ISIS is tactical and not strategic. They share similar values but differ in applications. They both believe that prisoners of war can be executed by orders of the Muslim ruler.

I was wondering the impact this might have on Quranist Islam. This might be a good opening for us to finally get Muslims to see these sects for what they are.

The author of the article regarded the change as negative. And fears atheism among Muslims...

Hmm..

Be of one with God

Right. Maybe he sees a similarity with the European protestant experience that led to a dwindling of religious attachment. I am also wondering if Quranist don't have enough exposure to make a difference and many Muslims will simply leave Islam altogether. Too many Muslims still do not know what a Quranist is. But never before has islam been such a destructive force as we see now.

We may be living in some interesting times.

Salaam all,
Thank you for your insights. I have done more research and gotten answers from those of other faiths since my last post. One of you said that "Muslim" Salat is a rip off of Zoroastrian "Namaz". It seems this is correct. I have learned from a Zoroastrian acquaintance that they also pray 5 times a day AND break their prayer into units. Considering that the 6 Hadith compilers (fabricators) were from Persia, this makes complete sense. And MOF, as for Salat positions being symbolic & not physical, with all due respect, I disagree. Look at the ancient religions from Arabia that still exist today & you will find that Gods Sunnah (way) doesn't change. The Jews, Sabeans (Mandaeans), Zoroastrians & Yazidis all STAND, BOW & PROSTRATE. And they all perform ablution. It is what it is and it has always been that way . That's how it looks according to all the evidence. And Quran gives us no reason to think otherwise. Peace!

Aamer.

As far as Rikat you need to look at Judaism for that. They also have Rakat units. Whats interesting is that Sunni sources claim Muhammad prayed twice a day before his night journey they claim. They have a hard time explaining that since they use that how do you guys know how to pray from the Quran arguments against us. I now answer them by saying the same way Muhamad knew how to pray before Gabriel supposedly taught him how to pray.

You are right about prayers in ancient times, The same could be said of many religions like Hinduism and Shintoism praying that way also.

When the Qur'an says the apostles of Muhammad are merciful to believers and harsh to disbelievers and command Muslims to wage jihad against disbelievers. I don't know much about Islam so may be someone could refute how ISIS go against Qur'an, because to me it seems like they are the ones following Islam properly whereas the "good" Muslims are not.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9606526.0;nowap

peace plato2,

You are essentially talking about using one verse and not considering it's context or using other verses. Anyone can take one statement or verse out of context and use it to justify whatever they desire - this is sometimes done to convince a lay audience.

If however, you want to follow Quran in its entirety, then one must consider all verses. Further reading

Misconception No freedom of religion
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/no-freedom-of-religion.htm

Misconception Islam and The Quran promotes a 'clash of civilisations'
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/islam-clash-of-civilisations.htm

Misconception Islam and The Quran promotes fighting, war and terrorism
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/fighting-war-terrorism.htm

Misconception Islam and The Quran promotes 'jihad' or 'holy war'
http//misconceptions-about-islam.com/jihad-holy-war.htm

man and war - as per Quran
http//www.tolueislam.org/Parwez/ICR/ICR_16.htm

Summary
The golden rule in Quran when it comes to fighting/war is one can only retaliate with equivalence or less. If peace is an option, this option must be taken. If anyone asks for your protection you must protect them.

I agree. This problems arises when we fail to connect all the verses concerning an issue together.