It's not like Christians feel compelled to call their sons "Jesus"

I don't believe Hindu's feel compelled to name their children after deities.

I can't help but feel that this practice is religious blasphemously . I believe naming your son after a prophet from your religion is mockery to that particular religion and prophet, and ultimately an offense to God.

You've never heard of a Mexican named Jesus?

Lol, yea. But it's pronounced Hey-seus most of the time. Naming your children Jesus is a terrible idea. It causes a glaring difference on that individual due to overwhelming historical reference to Jesus, "God's son".

I bet you nothing pisses off Jesus more than that.

I'm unsure, but I've considered it the old, "I'm gonna do what my daddy done done, cause that is how he respected his daddy who done done what his daddy done done...ad infinitum (ad nauseum)".

A fad doesn't have to be a new thing. It can be people doing the same damn thing forever for weak reasons. It's the habit thing. Eg: it's just easier to keep doing the same damn thing over & over. Even if you suspect/know that it the WACK!

It's not like Christians feel compelled to call their sons "Jesus"

You've never heard of a Mexican named Jesus?

Lol, yea. But it's pronounced Hey-seus most of the time.

Because people all over the world, regardless of their native language, pronounce it GEE-zuhs :rolleyes:.

It's not like Christians feel compelled to call their sons "Jesus

No, but they do name their children, Mark, Luke, Simon, Peter, Mary, Noah, Paul, etc.

Certainly Christians do have way more choices from their Book. It's not like Moe had 12 disciples, let alone a zillion other characters to choose from.

Eg: Adam, Moses,Abel, Aaron, etc.

What do Muslims have? Moe & Fatima?

and mohammad's billion and a half other wives

and mohammad's billion and a half other wives

Huh...yeah. The only one I ever hear about is Fatima.

Huh...yeah. The only one I ever hear about is Fatima.

well he did have another named aisha. She was 12

Certainly Christians do have way more choices from their Book. It's not like Moe had 12 disciples, let alone a zillion other characters to choose from.

Eg: Adam, Moses,Abel, Aaron, etc.

What do Muslims have? Moe & Fatima?

there is Ali and ibrahim (really, a muslim version of abraham) are two others i can think of


well he did have another named aisha. She was 12

7 actually

7 actually

Nine. (http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm)

Either way, Mo' was a sick fuck.

Nine. (http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm)

Either way, Mo' was a sick fuck.

How so?

Nine. (http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm)

Either way, Mo' was a sick fuck.

More like a bad-ass motherfucker/P.I.M.P/HMFIC/AAwesome dude/Gangsta and REAL Nigga

that and/or the very first /b/tard; I've heard some say

How so?

HUR HUR PEDOPHILES ARE EEVILL ITS UNNATURAL DIE YOU CANT DO THAT ON THE INTERNET ILL KIILL YOU FUKKIN PEDOS GUYS LOLI ITS WRONG

More like a bad-ass motherfucker/P.I.M.P/HMFIC/AAwesome dude/Gangsta and REAL Nigga

that and/or the very first /b/tard; I've heard some say



HUR HUR PEDOPHILES ARE EEVILL ITS UNNATURAL DIE YOU CANT DO THAT ON THE INTERNET ILL KIILL YOU FUKKIN PEDOS GUYS LOLI ITS WRONG

Shut up you autistic retard.

How so?

Don't be facetious.

Shut up you autistic retard.



Don't be facetious.

Unfortunately, I was being serious.

Unfortunately, I was being serious.

If you think paedophilia is acceptable then that is your decision, not mine.

If you think paedophilia is acceptable then that is your decision, not mine.

Oh I see, you're comparing standards of living 2000 years ago to societal norms of today.

My mistake, I thought you had an actual point somewhere.

Sorry :(

Oh I see, you're comparing standards of living 2000 years ago to societal norms of today.My mistake, I thought you had an actual point somewhere.

Sorry :(

Once you've learnt to count, because you're currently out by about 600 years, I might start paying attention to the rest of your drivel.

Shut up you autistic retard.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y275/robertnmike/Pure%20Pwnage/NO_U.jpg

Once you've learnt to count, because you're currently out by about 600 years, I might start paying attention to the rest of your drivel.

I'm sorry, 1400 years ago. I just used an even number, I'm sorry.

I'll take it you don't have a retort, that's fine. I never really expected you to come back with anything anyway.

Better luck next time Brit.

I'm sorry, 1400 years ago. I just used an even number, I'm sorry.

I'll take it you don't have a retort, that's fine. I never really expected you to come back with anything anyway.

Better luck next time Brit.

Your lack of basic numeracy notwithstanding, there is nothing to retort to.

Your lack of basic numeracy notwithstanding, there is nothing to retort to.

Well, it really wasn't a miscalculation or lack of numeracy skill. I'm not aware of the proper date, I just know it's roughly 2000 years ago.

You may as well concede now, you know you're incorrect, prejudice/judgmental/British, etc. I suppose that's why you're focusing so on the number rather than the actual argument.

It's fine, I understand.

Well, it really wasn't a miscalculation or lack of numeracy skill. I'm not aware of the proper date, I just know it's roughly 2000 years ago.

You may as well concede now, you know you're incorrect, prejudice/judgmental/British, etc. I suppose that's why you're focusing so on the number rather than the actual argument.

It's fine, I understand.

He's British. He's quite fine with sending boys to Public School where the older ones sodomize the younger ones. ;)

Though in fairness, girls did used to marry earlier. 18 was starting to get old. Don't forget that it used to be rare for anyone to live past 50. If chances are good you'd be dead not much past 40. You can't wait forever to be an adult.

He's British. He's quite fine with sending boys to Public School where the older ones sodomize the younger ones. ;)

Though in fairness, girls did used to marry earlier. 18 was starting to get old. Don't forget that it used to be rare for anyone to live past 50. If chances are good you'd be dead not much past 40. You can't wait forever to be an adult.

Hence my comment.

he's british. He's quite fine with sending boys to public school where the older ones sodomize the younger ones. ;)


hes a fagger a fucking fag


faggot

Common fucking sense OP,

It's used out of respect.
Muhammad "Real name" "Father Name"

Like for example
Muhammad********** Atif ************Aslam
^Out of respect---------^Child real name---^Father name.

So when you call the person, you can use Atif Aslam or Atif or the full name
Muhammad Atif/Muhammad Atif Aslam.

Tradition and cultures are different in many regions, but Muhammad has been used for showing love and devotion towards the Prophet.

Also Fatima,Ayesha/Aisha are frequently been used in Muslim world out of respect.

You can't judge another religion unless you are one of them.

Also the controversial issue of Muhammad (PBUH) marriage to Hazrat Aisha (RA) was one of the required decisions at that time, do a little research on the topic and you will know, the part Hazrat Aisha (RA) played in the compilation of Quran.

Is it also a traditional way of showing/knowing that someone follows the Prophet without just coming out & asking, "Do you follow the Prophet you dirty infidel?!...You do? Peace be upon you, my brother."

MOST, if not all of the history drawn about Islam and Mohammed is from the Hadiths (oral traditions). The Hadiths were written down and recorded 300 years after Mohammed's death. These weren't eyewitness accounts by any means. These were supposed sayings passed down from generation to generation like a long ass game of Chinese Whispers.

What's funny is that you don't find an mention of these bullshit traditions in the Qur'an.

Common fucking sense OP,

we're not Muslim or live in Central/Southern Asia...

MOST, if not all of the history drawn about Islam and Mohammed is from the Hadiths (oral traditions). The Hadiths were written down and recorded 300 years after Mohammed's death. These weren't eyewitness accounts by any means. These were supposed sayings passed down from generation to generation like a long ass game of Chinese Whispers.

What's funny is that you don't find an mention of these bullshit traditions in the Qur'an.

Because they have nothing to do with the Qur'an.

The Hadith is a composition of the actions and life of Muhammed(aka a Man), not the word of "God" aka the Qur'an.

Since the 7th century they've been debated by Islamic scholars. A good deal of Muslims don't regard it a part of the religion at all, but merely an extension of their life.

Also, there's a shit load of Zoroastrian, Christian, and Jewish influence in Islam; the traditions the Qur'an was supposed to wipe out found a way back in via the Hadiths.

ALSO, all Hadith collectors were Persian. There is Persian influence in modern day Islam.

And if they are told: “Follow what God has sent down,” they say:
“No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing!” What if their
fathers did not understand anything and were not guided?

Also, there's a shit load of Zoroastrian, Christian, and Jewish influence in Islam; the traditions the Qur'an was supposed to wipe out found a way back in via the Hadiths.

ALSO, all Hadith collectors were Persian. There is Persian influence in modern day Islam.

And if they are told: “Follow what God has sent down,” they say:
“No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing!” What if their
fathers did not understand anything and were not guided?

If you analyzed all three Abrahamic Monotheistic religions you'll find a great deal of overlap.

Because they have nothing to do with the Qur'an.

The Hadith is a composition of the actions and life of Muhammed(aka a Man), not the word of "God" aka the Qur'an.

Since the 7th century they've been debated by Islamic scholars. A good deal of Muslims don't regard it a part of the religion at all, but merely an extension of their life.

They don't have anything to do with the Qur'an. I agree. That's the whole point. But, the Hadiths ARE considered a part of the religion. What's more is that a majority of these contradict the Qur'an.

“‘Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent
down to you this Scripture fully detailed?’ Those to whom
We have given the Scripture know it is sent down from your
Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. And
the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and
justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer,
the Knower.” (Qur’an 6:114-115)

If the Qur'an is fully detailed and complete, what need do Muslims have of the Hadiths? Why not burn them all and follow just the Qur'an.

If you analyzed all three Abrahamic Monotheistic religions you'll find a great deal of overlap.

So, which overlaps should one take as authentic and which as farce?

Azure, were you raised in a Muslim household? You seem to have the basic knowledge of Islam (moreso than most people here). I urge you to read some of the articles on this site: http://free-minds.org/

Azure, were you raised in a Muslim household? You seem to have the basic knowledge of Islam (moreso than most people here). I urge you to read some of the articles on this site: http://free-minds.org/

Nosir, my parents are fully non-religious. I'm anti religion, whatever the form.

EDIT: Jehovah's Witnesses site?

Nosir, my parents are fully non-religious. I'm anti religion, whatever the form.

EDIT: Jehovah's Witnesses site?

Not a Jehovah's Witness site.

Not a Jehovah's Witness site.

I see that now, lol.

If you analyzed all three Abrahamic Monotheistic religions you'll find a great deal of overlap.

very correct. They worship the same god. I remember people saying the Abrahamistic religions could arguably be considered the same religion with large sectional differences.

Have to lol @ Jesus and Moses being in the Qu'ran as prophets before Mohammed

So, which overlaps should one take as authentic and which as farce?

it depends on your POV. Arguably you could reconcile al the differences.

Christians worship the Trinity. Except Unitarians.

Well, it really wasn't a miscalculation or lack of numeracy skill. I'm not aware of the proper date, I just know it's roughly 2000 years ago.

Fine. I'll settle on blind ingorance.

You may as well concede now, you know you're incorrect, prejudice/judgmental/British, etc. I suppose that's why you're focusing so on the number rather than the actual argument.

It's fine, I understand.

In the same sentence that you accuse me of being culturally judgemental, you make a judgement based on your prejudices towards the British?

Spare me your moronic hypocrisy.

If in terms of reproductive biology you think the age is irrelevant, then I suggest you do some reading as to why risking getting a 9-year old pregnant is a bad fucking idea, especially 1400 years ago.

ultimately an offense to God.

IMHO, that concept is a superstition. For one thing, God, being God, cannot be offended.

For another, God is not a person, but an abstraction.

As a rule, naming chldren after saints or whatever is done as a show of respect.

... and the person being respected is dead.

and can't hear you

Fine. I'll settle on blind ingorance.

Well so long as you stop crying about it and at least attempt to respond to what I said, I'll accept that.

In the same sentence that you accuse me of being culturally judgemental, you make a judgement based on your prejudices towards the British?

I didn't once state that you were an idiot because of your Nationality, I merely pointed out that you were British. That IS correct, right? As much as I may despise the majority of British people I've met thusfar, I can't say I'm predisposed to making judgments about them without first looking at the situation.


If in terms of reproductive biology you think the age is irrelevant, then I suggest you do some reading as to why risking getting a 9-year old pregnant is a bad fucking idea, especially 1400 years ago.

Biologically and possibly much more so medically it's a terrible idea, we know that now as well informed people. I was merely pointing out that it WAS common practice back in the day, among many cultures. Like I said however, you're using modern day bias to analyze history.

I don't advocate having sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent girl, despite what your simplistic mind may be telling you.

Well so long as you stop crying about it and at least attempt to respond to what I said, I'll accept that.

Forgive me for finding it pertinent to 'cry' about you being out by more than 500yrs.

I know, it's such a minor point. :rolleyes:

I didn't once state that you were an idiot because of your Nationality, I merely pointed out that you were British. That IS correct, right? As much as I may despise the majority of British people I've met thusfar, I can't say I'm predisposed to making judgments about them without first looking at the situation.

Correct and irrelevant.

Biologically and possibly much more so medically it's a terrible idea, we know that now as well informed people. I was merely pointing out that it WAS common practice back in the day, among many cultures. Like I said however, you're using modern day bias to analyze history.

I don't advocate having sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent girl, despite what your simplistic mind may be telling you.

It wasn't common practice to claim to be a prophet of God, moron.

If you can't figure out why that should make a difference, then I'm not going to waste any more effort on you.

Muhammad means "favored by Allah" or roughly that. When I was a Sufi muslim, I chose the name Jabreel Abdul Rahim, which means "man of God, slave of the Redeemer". There are other names of God that are popular among muslims such as Rahman, Hakim, Abdullah (slave of God), Jabbar, etc.

Actually, there is a very preeminent Vaisnava Hindu tradition (think Hare Krishna) in which devotees are named after Vishnu, Krishna, or other devotees with the suffix "dasa or dasi" which means "devotee of". Popular names are Narayana, Damodara, Jagganatha, Kumar, Rama, Hanuman, Gopal, Caitanya, Sancaracarya, Radha, Kunti, Saraswati, Amritananda etc.

At the time of death, if a person's last word is the devotional name of a spiritual master, friend, son, daughter, or wife, then the individual has a good chance of attaining the spiritual world or reincarnating in a Vaisnava family.

At the time of death, if a person's last word is the devotional name of a spiritual master, friend, son, daughter, or wife, then the individual has a good chance of attaining the spiritual world or reincarnating in a Vaisnava family.

How convenient.

If your last word is a name of God, then you call the Vishnudhutas at your passing and avoid hell.

Mohammadeanism has something like that too. If you profess belief in God and acknowledge Mohammed as His prophet, your sins are forgiven or some shit. The verses about the Pharaoh in the Qur'an on the other hand paint a different picture. Wishful thinking doesn't over-ride your deeds.

Biologically and possibly much more so medically it's a terrible idea, we know that now as well informed people. I was merely pointing out that it WAS common practice back in the day, among many cultures. Like I said however, you're using modern day bias to analyze history.


Why would 'common practice' make something ok? People still slaughter billions of animals FOR PLEASURE and force dying people to lie there and wither away in pain, but that doesn't justify it. Furthermore, do you think these girls just volunteered to go off with an old man they didn't know? They were just took by his military.

Why would 'common practice' make something ok? People still slaughter billions of animals FOR PLEASURE and force dying people to lie there and wither away in pain, but that doesn't justify it. Furthermore, do you think these girls just volunteered to go off with an old man they didn't know? They were just took by his military.

No, I never stated it was morally correct to marry 9 year old girls, I think I said quite the opposite a couple posts back.

It was common practice at the time, and he's applying a modern bias to something that happened centuries ago, which is quite stupid.

Do you know who Ai'esha was? Surely if you had a proper understanding of that, you wouldn't suggest that she was "took by his military".

I'll give you a hint, she may or may not have been Abu Bakr's daughter.

It wasn't common practice to claim to be a prophet of God, moron.

If you can't figure out why that should make a difference, then I'm not going to waste any more effort on you.

Well no, it wasn't common practice to claim to be a Prophet of God in those times, nor did I state it was.

Surely you aren't suggesting that a man who lived in the 600's was expected to live by modern morals and standards, are you? You can't be that stupid.

Much as your Royal Family lived as the times dictated, so did he, and everyone else. Although, I don't remember reading the part about Mohammad having sex with his relatives as often as the Brits did.

Bump.

Islamic scholars

oxy-moron