Argument #1: Muhammad was human, so therefore he was liable to sin, due to his human frailties.
This is a very fallacious statement.
Ethics:
A set of universal principles, which draw the boundary between right and wrong. Transcends all time, space, tradition, values, and culture.
Morals:
Certain values relative to a certain time, place, culture, setting, tradition, or ideology.
Moral values have always been in parallel with the setting of society. They are relative to those who interpret them in one way or another, they are no higher than the society. But ethics, on the other hand, is above the society, it transcends all cultural and traditional boundaries, it is fixed universally seperating "right" from "wrong".
What the Greeks use to do with their babies, was moral at that time. But it was not ethical. When the Arabs practiced infanticide, it was moral at that time, but not ethical.
Muslims claim that the advent of Islam met with the eradication of what was morally accepted at that time. Henceforth, we would have also expected Islam to eradicate such morally tolerable traditions, as marrying young girls. Right? Just as we said, morals is parallel with the culture of a society, but ethics is above it. Similarly, the prophet is supposed to be not in parallel with the society's culture/morals(since he claimed to have come to abolish it), but above it. From this, we would at least expect him to abolish the tradition that regulated old men to marry young girls. Is that not only logical to assume?
(Please read the following statement carefully)
You cannot morally relativize the actions of a man, who claimed to have come to abolish what was morally relative at that certain time. This is an oxymoron; an illogical statement. Its like saying a "circle-square". It is just not concievable.
How do we know that Muhammad was above humanity and supposed to be sinless?
"And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q. 68:4)
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q. 33:21)
And how do we know the Quran is above all humanity, irrespective of time, space, and culture? Because the Quran is supposed to be eternally from heaven, for all of mankind to follow. This is the Islamic claim. It came from heaven, how much more perfect can it be?
Argument #2: Everyone was practicing this primitive tradition at that time.
Although many societies practiced traditions of backwardness 1400 years ago, people were still consciously aware of what was ethical and what was not. I think the following hadith reveals this:
Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."
Conclusion:
Now we must pose the following question: if many great moral symbols, during pre-Islamic times, such as Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, were able to preach good values of right and wrong, without succumbing to the morally relative values such as stoning, cultural marriage, etc. considering most of them were not even believed to be prophets by the majority of people, then why the man 1.2 billion people see as a prophet, couldnt emulate the former 1400 years ago(with Ayesha)?
hello i saw this online yesterday and i had to say something foir this guy,,unfortunatly i lack of evidences i have some notes over what he said and i need help in arguments and examples
1.the fact that quor'an is over time space and cultures
2.the fact that everything that prophet mohamed does is because of what god has inspired him
3.the whole thing about marrying a nine year old,if u can give me details about the fact that girls in al jazeera become women at nine
plz reply fast because i want to teach that guy a lesson!
This is a very fallacious statement.
Ethics:
A set of universal principles, which draw the boundary between right and wrong. Transcends all time, space, tradition, values, and culture.
Morals:
Certain values relative to a certain time, place, culture, setting, tradition, or ideology.
Moral values have always been in parallel with the setting of society. They are relative to those who interpret them in one way or another, they are no higher than the society. But ethics, on the other hand, is above the society, it transcends all cultural and traditional boundaries, it is fixed universally seperating "right" from "wrong".
What the Greeks use to do with their babies, was moral at that time. But it was not ethical. When the Arabs practiced infanticide, it was moral at that time, but not ethical.
Muslims claim that the advent of Islam met with the eradication of what was morally accepted at that time. Henceforth, we would have also expected Islam to eradicate such morally tolerable traditions, as marrying young girls. Right? Just as we said, morals is parallel with the culture of a society, but ethics is above it. Similarly, the prophet is supposed to be not in parallel with the society's culture/morals(since he claimed to have come to abolish it), but above it. From this, we would at least expect him to abolish the tradition that regulated old men to marry young girls. Is that not only logical to assume?
(Please read the following statement carefully)
You cannot morally relativize the actions of a man, who claimed to have come to abolish what was morally relative at that certain time. This is an oxymoron; an illogical statement. Its like saying a "circle-square". It is just not concievable.
How do we know that Muhammad was above humanity and supposed to be sinless?
"And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Q. 68:4)
"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Q. 33:21)
And how do we know the Quran is above all humanity, irrespective of time, space, and culture? Because the Quran is supposed to be eternally from heaven, for all of mankind to follow. This is the Islamic claim. It came from heaven, how much more perfect can it be?
Argument #2: Everyone was practicing this primitive tradition at that time.
Although many societies practiced traditions of backwardness 1400 years ago, people were still consciously aware of what was ethical and what was not. I think the following hadith reveals this:
Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."
Conclusion:
Now we must pose the following question: if many great moral symbols, during pre-Islamic times, such as Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, were able to preach good values of right and wrong, without succumbing to the morally relative values such as stoning, cultural marriage, etc. considering most of them were not even believed to be prophets by the majority of people, then why the man 1.2 billion people see as a prophet, couldnt emulate the former 1400 years ago(with Ayesha)?
hello i saw this online yesterday and i had to say something foir this guy,,unfortunatly i lack of evidences i have some notes over what he said and i need help in arguments and examples
1.the fact that quor'an is over time space and cultures
2.the fact that everything that prophet mohamed does is because of what god has inspired him
3.the whole thing about marrying a nine year old,if u can give me details about the fact that girls in al jazeera become women at nine
plz reply fast because i want to teach that guy a lesson!
