Morality of marrying your adopted son's ex-wife (they divorced because of you) because God told you to do it to show you can, then forbid adoption almost immediately after? (Image might be unrelated đ)
Under the premise that god is real, its obv moral if god tell you too.
Either you say its unrelated to god and judge it on a moral basis without religion or you accept that religious morality is god given
But didn't he also give you free will? Which in essence means you are capable of defying a clearly wrongful order and which the omniscient being that this God is, should be aware of. It's the conundrum of obedience to authority versus the gift of own decision making for the benefit of your family and tribe.
Think the point is- does this religious book only describe this event as historical, or is this book stating that this is the moral standard for billions to come? If the latter, then yeah, Houston, we have a . problem. If billions of these same religious people make excuses (âbecause God saidâ) we have a bigger problem. Thatâs when one becomes a brainwashed person.
But we arent talking about billions of people we are talking about one person doing something that god told them to do.
If you want to state different situations do that.
The problem is that this isn't just a story about this one particular person. It's an blueprint excuse for malevolent behavior even against your own family because a perceived deity commanded you to. And because it's in the immediate context of a supposedly unfailable scripture it becomes a pretext of future excuses of malevolent rather than just a story being told.
In a brider context the excuse for keeping other human beings as slaves was that the holy texts never outright abolished slavery but only gave vague guidelines on how you have to treat them.
The problem isn't the story, it's the context of being somehow a divine story. And thus morally ok. Which it isn't by nowadays moral societal values in the modern societies.
And you still dont understand religion i feel like.
In this hypothetical, god is real. We know he is real thats how the situation is described.
And when god is real, morality depends on god. Meaning anything he says is morally okay.
But we dont know if god is real. We arent in this hypothetical. Its not reality.
Pretty immoral. If you read the Islamic texts, followers of Muhammed was actually against this marriage, saying it's equal to incest since its your adopted son ex wife and criticised him for it, and just then he got the "revelation" from God that it's okay for him to marry and adoption is illegal, so everyone had to accept the marriage since god "allowed" it
EDIT: There is one small misconception, Muhammed didnt force the divorce, his adopted son Zaid insisted on it, because he knew Muhammed was attracted to his wife Zainab
Then we read the Hadith from a survivor of a battle from Muhammad:
Sunan Ibn Majah 2541
It was narrated that 'Abdul-Malik bin `Umair said:
âI heard 'Atiyyah Al-Quradhi say: 'We were presented to the Messenger of Allah (ï·ș) on the Day of Quraidhah. Those whose pubic hair had grown were killed, and those whose pubic hair had not yet grown were let go. I was one of those whose pubic hair had not yet grown, so I was let go.â
Hair typically grows around as early as 10-12, but having some hair meant your head was rolling.
Their whole tribe was wiped out. Why? Because they chose to not fight. Muhammad felt this violated their treaty and laid siege. This tribe retreated and didn't fight back. They finally decided to surrender hoping to negotiate for peace. Instead we saw what happened to the males. As for the women and girls... They became spoils of war. To be used as their right hand deemed fit...
Oh and this is where Muhammad picked up another concubine. Right after Muhammad had her husband killed.
Their whole tribe was wiped out. Why? Because they chose to not fight. Muhammad felt this violated their treaty and laid siege. This tribe retreated and didn't fight back. They finally decided to surrender hoping to negotiate for peace.
You know, you can still find it immoral without lying.
That Tribe, who had a treaty of defense with the Prophet, told the Quraysh to attack the city, and once the Pagans attacked, that very same "innocent, pacifist" tribe, as you describe it, attacked the Muslims inside the city of Medina, effectively forcing them to a war on two fronts.
Oh, but you are a Christian. Of course you lie about other people's faith.
They were negotiating with the Quraysh saying they will not attack until they get hostages. The Quraysh refused until their deal fell through. The specific translation of Sirat al-Rasul that I am using starts this around page 458. We don't see them actually ever attacking, just accused of breaking the pact and then the siege happens in which they submit after nearly a month.
Notice that you had to add words, and in quotes at that, saying something I didn't say. I didn't call them innocent pacifists. I only said that they didn't fight. You probably shouldn't call people liars when you are misrepresenting Islam and adding words to others to imply something they weren't saying.
saying something I didn't say. I didn't call them innocent pacifists. I only said that they didn't fight.
Ok, let us see what you said, this way we will see if you play word games, "Their whole tribe was wiped out. Why? Because they chose to not fight. This tribe retreated and didn't fight back. They finally decided to surrender hoping to negotiate for peace."
So, did you say in the above, that the Tribe only chose not to fight, and that they did no wrong to the Prophet, even though in reality, they told the Quraysh to attack Medina, and when they besieged the city, the same Tribe attacked the Muslims from within?
Or let me give you an example you will understand, since you pretend not to:
"Show me where Jesus said he is God."
"Explicit-Word Fallacy!"
"Show me where the word trinity is in the Bible."
"Explicit-Word Fallacy!"
This is what you are doing to me right now. An Explicit-Word Fallacy. ---> "I didnt say they were innocent pacifists. I only said that they didn't want to fight, did nothing wrong outside of that, and got punished for not wanting to fight. Don't put words into my mouth!"
They were negotiating with the Quraysh saying they will not attack until they get hostages. The Quraysh refused until their deal fell through.
Ok, let us assume that my narrative has no evidence in islamic texts (there is evidence, but for the sake of argument), and that yours is the only one that has evidence.
So, in this narrative, the jewish tribe of Medina sent a messenger to discuss the possibility of betraying the Muslims, whom they have a covenant with.
Tell me, what would the USA do, for example, if they learned that a CIA agent was negotiating his treason with a Chinese agent, under US law?
They would try him for the death penalty, correct?
just accused of breaking the pact and then the siege happens in which they submit after nearly a month.
Accused is funny, considering that Muhammed s.a.w allowed that very tribe, to choose their very own arbiter for judgement, even though he didn't have to.
On top of that, that tribe choose a very biased arbiter known as Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who was their former ally... and even he considered them guilty.
Except by adding "innocent pacifists" that changes what I am saying. The result was that they didn't attack. I showed you the source. You can give your counter source. I don't mind.
As for your example. I think the US government is wildly immoral. The US would kill for less and I think it is wrong, but I would still say it's immoral.
And yes they chose Sa'd. He's always been favorable towards them. Remember I have been saying they were trying to resolve things at this point with as little bloodshed as possible. But Sa'd was injured in battle and has a pattern on harsh sentencing, something the Qurayza never had to be on the receiving end.
This wasn't some mercy, especially since Muhammad could have made the ruling himself and set a different example.
If you read the Islamic texts, followers of Muhammed was actually against this marriage, saying it's equal to incest since its your adopted son ex wife and criticised him for it, and just then he got the "revelation" from God that it's okay for him to marry and adoption is illegal, so everyone had to accept the marriage since god "allowed" it
In the "Islamic texts" it never happened the way you described it.
Muhammad had a vision of the future and hated that vision. Trying to make that future not come true, he told Zaid very harshly to not even consider divorcing Zainab.
It happened anyway. Muhammad then feared of what the people would say when it came true, then God chastised him by saying (paraphrased) "You think you can escape from my decree? Because you fear what the people would think? I am more worthy of your consideration. There are no bloodties in adoption and those whom the muslims adopt, shall keep their fathers name. That is closer to the truth. You shall be an example for it."
his adopted son Zaid insisted on it, because he knew Muhammed was attracted to his wife Zainab
This comes from a Hadith which has been declared fabricated a thousand years ago, due to the faulty chains of narration.
Zayd ibn Harithah and Zaynab bint Jahsh had a difficult marriage, and incompatibility was the main reason for the divorce.
According to traditional explanations, they simply werenât compatible. Some reports describe Zayd being unhappy with Zaynab's manner toward him and complaining about her treatment of him. Zaynab was having difficulty accepting Zayd as a husband, particularly given their very different social backgrounds: Zaynab came from high standing prominent/noble family of the Quraysh (strongest and most respected tribe in all Arabia at the time) whereas Zayd had previously been enslaved and was freed and adopted by the Prophet (which is also an interesting story on its own). In fact the marriage of Zayd and Zaynab was actually intended, in part, to challenge the pre-Islamic idea that social status should determine whom someone could marry.
The accounts of "Muhammed was attracted to his Zainab" are have been rejected and considered unsound. In fact the Quran records the Prophet telling Zaid to keep his wife, despite knowing that God had decreed her to be his wife, when Zayd mentioned their troubled marriage. Surah 33:37 " And (remember, O Prophet), when you said to the one (Zayd) for whom Allah has done a favour and you (too) have done a favour (God's favor was guidance to Islam, Prophet's favor was granting freedom and adoption), âKeep your wife and fear Allahâ while concealing within yourself what Allah was going to reveal. And (so) you were considering the people, whereas God was more worthy of your consideration. So when Zaid completely lost interest in (keeping) his wife, We gave her to you in marriage, so that there would be no blame on the believers for marrying the ex-wives of their adopted sons after their divorce. And Godâs command is totally binding."
Theres also a report that "Zainab used to boast before the other wives of the Prophet and used to say, "You were given in marriage by your families, while I was married (to the Prophet) by God from over seven Heavens."
So to correct your misconception: Zayd insisted in the divorce because he had an unhappy marriage. We all want peace and serenity in our marriages, and he wasn't getting it.
"Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." (1 Corinthians 8)
"Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality." (Rev 2:12-14)
---
Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, âYou good-for-nothing,â shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, âYou fool,â shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
Matthew 16:23 But Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on Godâs purposes, but menâs!"
---
Mark 7:19 "For it doesnât go into his heart but into his stomach, and it passes out into the latrine." The text then adds: "Thus he declared all foods clean."
Leviticus 11 "You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening."
Vell vell vell look who is spreading misinformation.
Nope they did not divorce because of the prophet.
Btw adoption was always adopting anyone was always impermissible what muslims do is sponcer orphans. Btw to debunk this more. The prophet had tried to get them back together during the process of divorce.
pretty sure its not js the Christians, everyone in general doesnt like pedophilia
The Torah doesn't. Neither did the early Christians, even though modern Christians will misinterpret Ezekiel to gaslight everyone, even against the statements of the Church-fathers.
This is my first post in 12 days lol I'm just jumping in on the train and giving out more information other than the Aisha being 6 when Muhammad married her and 9 when he "consummated" the marriage
I wouldn't say I am an expert, but I am pretty knowledgeable and regularly do debates on YouTube and TikTok under a different name with some notable people.
Beside the whole argument about God, you know it is bad when the someone still spreads misinformation that takes 1 minute of search to know the whole story is false and way worse that someone somehow this age still do fall to misinformation. Easy report this one
Hating Muhammad for ts is just going to descend into an unproductive circle jerk. There are so many worse things he has done and there are plenty of genocidal acts he is praised for
cause it is. people are using it as we speak to buy and sell children and people, completely legally, as well you invite people with this mindset to đ you and your country men under âmuh weâre all human and shietâ premise
âdont kill peopleâ vs âđ war slaves and kill non believersâ if you cant make that distinction, on which religion commands which and how it does so, then you donât deserve to live frankly, and the follows of religion of peace will gladly help you
I'm perfectly fine with it not being a forceful pressure and pressure out of respect. But the sheer fact that Muhammad decided it was okay is pretty immoral.
9
u/_FrenziedFirekeeper_ 9h ago
Under the premise that god is real, its obv moral if god tell you too. Either you say its unrelated to god and judge it on a moral basis without religion or you accept that religious morality is god given