Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Prophets cannot be leaders or have talent in the matters of statehood and leading an army?Never-mind the observations that Prophet Muhammad restructured the primitive/barbaric Arabs into a major civilization and political entity? He also sought to improve the status of women in that region.
I'm not saying that, I'm merely saying he was a warlord.
When he migrated to Medina with his followers, he established a treaty with Jewish inhabitants/clans of Medina (notably Banu Qainuqah and Banu Nadhir) that they will not conspire against him and support his enemies in Mecca and that they will help each other in the hour of need. He actually believed in the possibility of peaceful and mutually beneficial co-existence of Muslims and Jews in Medina: http://www.inter-islam.org/Seerah/RelationswiththeJewsL1P1.htmlProphet Muhammad was such a charismatic and friendly individual that people were embracing Islam in droves after interacting with him. Unfortunately, Jews in Medina perceived Muslim immigrants as aliens and a threat to their culture and political ambitions and colluded with their enemies in Mecca (violating the terms of treaty) in order to oust/eliminate them from Medina. It was at this juncture, Surah Al-Maidah came: https://versebyversequranstudycircle.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/background-of-the-revelation-of-surah-al-maidah-ayah-51/
-- And Prophet Muhammad decided to act; he gave an ultimatum to Jewish clans to accept a new treaty (or) face banishment from Medina as punishment for violating the terms of original treaty (a large number of Jews chose the latter). However, this act of restraint would come back to haunt Muslims at a later stage when Banu Qainuqah and Banu Nadhir joined the forces of Mecca and collectively laid siege to Medina in order to eliminate its Muslim occupants in what came to be known as the Battle of Trench. To their utter shock, Muslims emerged victorious from this battle and decided to teach those jewish clans a lesson in its aftermath that led to the Battle of Ahzab (an event that is wrongfully projected in Western circles as a demonstration of persecution of innocent Jews at the hands of Muslims).
Problem is that those Jews were far from innocent and colluded with the enemies of Muslims in Mecca in order to eliminate/oust Muslims from Medina, violating the terms of treaty they had reached with Muslims earlier.
What do you mean when you say they "taught the jewish clans a lesson" ?
Authenticity of this information is in doubt; she was young but certainly not a child at the time of marriage. You can find ample information and explanation in this regard here: http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm#_ftnref3
I will grant you that we don't truly know the age.
The Battle of Ahzab against Banu Qainuqah....Did you know that Muslims gave Banu Qainuqah a choice about the form of punishment they should receive for their crimes against Muslims?
The name Sa'ad bin Mu'az should ring bells in this case and punishment was awarded in accordance with religious beliefs of that clan.
What about the Jewish man tortured with fire? What about the poets who he killed? Oh and speaking of the battle you just mentioned, let us look at the insanity of that from wiki:
[b]"According to Ibn Hisham, a dispute broke out between the Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa (the allies of the Khazraj tribe) soon afterwards when a Muslim woman visited a jeweler's shop in the Qaynuqa marketplace, she was pestered to uncover her face. The goldsmith, a Jew, pinned her clothing such, that upon getting up, she was stripped naked. A Muslim man coming upon the resulting commotion killed the shopkeeper in retaliation. The Jews in turn killed the Muslim man. This escalated to a chain of revenge killings, and enmity grew between Muslims and the Banu Qaynuqa"
Okay so we start off with a tiny bit of a crazy, then it suddenly gets ramped up to 11 when a Muslim man comes along and sees this shopkeeper with her clothes torn off and just flips out and murders the Jewish guy who did it.
Everybody in that scenario in batshit insane.
Islam does not encourages violence against Christians, Jews and non-believers in general. It permits peaceful co-existence with such people as long as they do not wage war against Islam and seek to eliminate Muslims. I find this code justified; live and let live remember?And why critic a religion while lacking in knowledge about its history and teachings? Fix your knowledge first and then offer your criticism. Blanket statements do not make your criticism credible and are likely to stir reaction in some quarters. 🙂
You don't need to be an expert to see these things IMO.
Some Islamic teachings are context-constrained and others broad in their application.Islam permits a man to employ physical methods to punish his wife under the following set of conditions:
1. Wife was found to be excessively disobedient or cheating
2. Wife was respectfully requested to mend her ways but she didn't listen
3. Separation in sleep (as punishment)
If the aforementioned conditions have been met and failed to work, then the man can strike at his wife but he is not permitted to 'injure' his wife in any case; therefore, a physical blow from a man should be an act of warning rather than a decisive blow. If nothing works than divorce is the next logical step.
It is important to understand that Islam has not made the aforementioned instructions (mandatory) to employ against a disobedient spouse. A man can opt to issue warnings and employ non-violent ways to punish a disobedient wife and/or have the right to divorce her if his marriage remains in turmoil; same goes for the woman. You are not bound to suffer if your partner is a moron.
Therefore, blowing an Islamic revelation out of proportion - does not helps an argument.
---
Slavery sounds like a strong word; captive would be the word.
Islam permits a man to marry a captive woman if she is a believer, granting her freedom and equality in this manner (Surah An-Nisa; verse 25).
Slavery was an unintended consequence of wars in ancient times. Men were likely to become a casualty in the battlefield leaving their women and children to fend for themselves afterwards. More often, victors would decide to fate of such women and children; they would either choose to slay them or to take them in slavery. Islam does not encourage slaughter of innocent and harmless individuals in the battlefield therefore taking such survivors as captives was the next logical step. However, Islam encourage its followers to take good care of slaves/captives, set them free, convert them to Islam and even marry them.
You may want to check the constitution of the state where you reside. 😉
And remember! Freedom of expression has consequences if not exercised with care. Every society has its shares of do's and don'ts. There is not such thing as an absolute freedom of expression.
I personally find freedom-based narratives utterly misleading. [/B]
It more or less sounds like you are saying it's okay to give her a little slap as a warning.