Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 10:04 PM

Gaza assault
Yesterday at 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

New Britain
February 01, 2025, 11:27 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 01, 2025, 11:55 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
January 30, 2025, 10:33 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Do you know all the answers?

 (Read 9922 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #30 - March 17, 2009, 06:35 PM

    Mo was almost certainly suffering from some form of infertility.
    Wasn't there some theory somewhere that he had some genetic disorder which caused infertility?

    I seem to remember some of the other symptons were large nose, whitish colour, large hands. I think there was also something about body odour - giving a possible explanation for wudu.
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #31 - March 17, 2009, 11:19 PM

    Quote from: hupla
    I seem to remember some of the other symptons were large nose, whitish colour, large hands. I think there was also something about body odour - giving a possible explanation for wudu.

    Some people argue that Prophet Muhammad suffered from acromegaly (here).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acromegaly

    "It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries... But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah"

    -Sayyid Qutb, Milestones
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #32 - March 18, 2009, 03:40 AM

    Thanks Peruvian! Smiley

    According to Ibn Ishaq, Mo was also getting fatter with age. Here's the amusing account:  Cheesy

    After the battle of Uhud, Muhammad tried to climb a hill to get a better view. Writes Ibn Ishaq:

    The apostle made for a rock on the mountain to climb it. He had become heavy by reason of his age, and moreover he had put on two coats of mail(1), so when he tried to get up he could not do so. Talha b. 'Ubaydullah squatted beneath him and lifted him up until he settled comfortably upon it.

    Source: The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah p. 383. (Context: pp. 370-391.)

    www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2272130/Fat-and-skinny-men-less-fertile-research-finds.html

    Mo the infertile & fatso! hush Maybe age & gluttony combined to make him infertile!


    In the Battle of Uhud, like all other battles, the messenger of allah was wearing Two armors. Two roman chain-mail replicas. He was standing as far back as usual. And when his soldiers broke rank and routed, he tried to route as well but could not climb a hill of sand. Because Two armors are too damn heavy in the sand.

    So one of his companions tried to help him up the hill and in doing so, suffered a fatal arrow from the kuffar (peace be upon them). Muhammad then pretended to be dead and the kuffar (peace be upon them) thought the companion was muhammad and rejoinced for killing muhammad.

    In winning the revenge battle at uhud, the kuffar (peace be upon them) showed great leniancy and tolerance for their time. They had lost 35 souls in Badr and had 35 prisoners taken. So they made sure in Uhud, they only killed up to 35 and only took 35 prisoners.

    Several notes I have on Uhud:
    * Uhud: For anyone who claims the jahiliya people were barbarians, they can stuff that claim, IMO. A single Saudi warrior from that Uhud raid, is worth Thousands of muttawa police today, as far as dignity and honor and civilization is concerned.

    * Uhud: muslim writers do not like to refer to the fact that muhammad went to raids wearing Two armors, was'nt his faith enough?

    * Uhud: It is my personal opinion that muhammad also had a double or had his men dressed to look exactly like him, else why would the kuffar think they killed muhammad, and subsequently stopped the raid?

    * A little note on Badr. Muslims, claim there was 300 warriors, who attacked 3000, and won. But in the end only 70 people in the batte were killed or taken prisoners. And some of those killed, were killed after the raid of aggression was over. As muhammad ordered some captured poet soldiers killed and thrown in a well.

    * Badr: I no longer believe the numbers muslims historians put forward. 3000 Qurayshi, only 300 muslims. 50000 angels. Then 1000 angels. etc.

    * Badr: In the balance of probability and IMO, there was only 70 people of worth in the Qurayshi caravan. Possibly another number of slaves, but nothing nearing the 3000 well armed defenders islamic writers and muhammad himself brag about.

    * Badr: He tracked the caravan, then buried 3 wells in a row, forcing the caravan to come into the kill-zone of his choice, then he attacked and killed and captured 70. He used desert piracy tactics and it worked for him.



    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #33 - March 18, 2009, 03:54 AM


      [Baal] Does ibrahim count? or do we prefer to keep quiet about the real father of that kid.
     


    Ibrahim was his son with Maryam al-Qubtiyyah - no?

    btw good answers Baal lol  Afro but I don't think they will accept them Wink

    There's some scepticism that Ibrahim may not have been his biological kid (ie. Maryam slept with someone else). However if this is the case then I don't understand why he would be so upset when Ibrahim died?

    After Ibrahim was born, Muhammad sent ali to kill a man rumored to be the father, family resemblance perhaps. The man was taking a bath in a lake, as Ali the butcher approached the lake, the man saw ali and saw the look on ali, so the man got out of the lake and showed to ali that he was a euneuch. So ali spared him.

    A Stupid story, but quite telling on the length muhammad had to go to dispel the rumors that the kid was not his. Also muhammad never really got close to the kid while he was alive.

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #34 - March 18, 2009, 03:58 AM

    It's based on the fact that none of his others wives became pregnant.


    Not even Khadija?

    I'm quite sceptical of it myself. Pulling out before ejaculating is only 70% effective as far as I'm aware.


    Still good percentage, no?

    I said 'other' wives, meaning wives not Khadija.

    While it is a good percentage it is not good enough. For every 10 times you have sex, 3 of those times you are likely to get pregnant (otherwise it would be a preferred method of contraception Wink) The fact that he only got one person pregnant during all those years is highly improbable.

    You misinterpret it a bit, 70% efficient, does not mean 3 failures each 10 intercourses. Else couple of my ex-girlfriends would have been pregnant 20-40 times per year already and over several years.

    70% can mean compared to other methods, or can mean on the long run if a couple exclusively uses the method of pulling out, and even then, spanning how many years? how long is 'a long run'? or the pecentage could just be insidious advertizing by a condom or pill manufacturer. I just need more information on that percentage.


    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #35 - March 18, 2009, 11:54 AM

    It's based on the fact that none of his others wives became pregnant.


    Not even Khadija?

    I'm quite sceptical of it myself. Pulling out before ejaculating is only 70% effective as far as I'm aware.


    Still good percentage, no?

    I said 'other' wives, meaning wives not Khadija.

    While it is a good percentage it is not good enough. For every 10 times you have sex, 3 of those times you are likely to get pregnant (otherwise it would be a preferred method of contraception Wink) The fact that he only got one person pregnant during all those years is highly improbable.

    You misinterpret it a bit, 70% efficient, does not mean 3 failures each 10 intercourses. Else couple of my ex-girlfriends would have been pregnant 20-40 times per year already and over several years.

    70% can mean compared to other methods, or can mean on the long run if a couple exclusively uses the method of pulling out, and even then, spanning how many years? how long is 'a long run'? or the pecentage could just be insidious advertizing by a condom or pill manufacturer. I just need more information on that percentage.

    Could be an overall percentage of several people perhaps? I saw that percentage quoted by someone else a while ago. I'm guessing it probably varies between people, the main cause of pregnancy in these cases is due to pre-ejaculation. I'm not sure how many men tend to pre-ejaculate though.
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #36 - March 18, 2009, 11:57 AM

    as far as I know Peruv's percentage is correct, but the percentage only applies at optimum times of her cycle..

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #37 - March 18, 2009, 05:21 PM

    Plus that only points to the actual chance with each session. Doesn't necessarily mean that you WILL get a certain number pregnant if you have sex 10 or a hundred times.

    "At 8:47 I do a grenade jump off a ladder."
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #38 - March 18, 2009, 05:24 PM

    Plus that only points to the actual chance with each session. Doesn't necessarily mean that you WILL get a certain number pregnant if you have sex 10 or a hundred times.

    I am not sure you she ever said that - she was talking about a percentage success rate.  It may never happen if someone is infertile, and it may happen everytime for others.

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #39 - March 19, 2009, 09:30 AM

    Plus that only points to the actual chance with each session. Doesn't necessarily mean that you WILL get a certain number pregnant if you have sex 10 or a hundred times.

    No, but there's a higher chance.
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #40 - March 19, 2009, 12:02 PM

    Why are we all talking about Mo pulling out before ejaculating? Mo would do that only if he didn't want any more kids right? Are there any hadiths\biographies\speculations claiming he didn't want more kids?
    What about his wives? Ayesha, Zainab & the war booties were quite young, wouldn't they want to be mothers? Also if people are polygamous, they usually have at least some kids or even an only child with each spouse, what reason was there for Mo, who otherwise was quite a horny man, to not want kids to such an extent that he would pull out every time he had sex with his harem of beautiful wives, but not pull out with old Khadija?

    In the kind of society Mo lived, having kids(especially sons, which Mo lacked) would be a sign of manliness, Mo with his large harem but with zero off spring from his bevy of wives, would be quite an object of ridicule. It would be another point against him, as far as his followers were concerned.

    So I want to ask, not whether Mo did pull out, but why would Mo want to pull out in the first place? 

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #41 - March 19, 2009, 02:27 PM

    Mo with his large harem but with zero off spring from his bevy of wives, would be quite an object of ridicule.  


    It was a point of ridicule and he was taunted with the name Abtar (cut off i.e. no-one to carry his name on)

    And I guess he ws quite stung by that as he came out with (I mean Allah revealed) "Inna 'ataynaaka al-Kawthar..." one of the small suras at the end, basically saying that we have given you abundance/plenty (Kauthar) and it is your detractors that will be cut off i.e. your progeny are the Muslims while the Kuffar of Makkah will die out.
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #42 - March 19, 2009, 02:34 PM

    Mohammed's first wife Khadija seemed to have kids till a pretty advanced age, she had a daughter when Mohammed was 33, she would be 48, makes me wonder whether the Shia view is correct & all children Khadija had were not Mohammed's daughters & sons, some of them were from Khadija's previous husbands.  Thinking hard

    www.al-islam.org/biographies/khadija.htm

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #43 - March 19, 2009, 02:41 PM

    Mohammed's first wife Khadija seemed to have kids till a pretty advanced age, she had a daughter when Mohammed was 33, she would be 48, makes me wonder whether the Shia view is correct & all children Khadija had were not Mohammed's daughters & sons, some of them were from Khadija's previous husbands.  Thinking hard



    I believe the Shi'ah take the verse "We have given you al-Kawthar (abundance/plenty) to mean Ali - and so they regard his 'family' (ahlul-bayt) as being continued through Ali.

    Sunnis regard al-Kauthar to mean abundance in the sense of Muhammad's ummah - and it is also said to be a fountain in paradise.

  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #44 - March 19, 2009, 02:44 PM

    Hassan,
    Why are we discussing Muhammed's fertility?
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #45 - March 19, 2009, 02:46 PM

    If he really wanted to liberate women he could've made it so that women carry on the family line, we are the ones giving birth after all!
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #46 - March 19, 2009, 02:52 PM

    Since we are somehow into Mohammed's fertility, I found this in Wikipedia,on the topic of "Genealogy of Khadija's daughters". I have copied & pasted this bit:

    Muslim view
    Regardless of which marriage they where born in, both Shi'a and Sunni view all the children with the high respect.


    [edit] Sunni view
    Sunni outright reject any notion of them being born anywhere but in Muhammad's marriage. Sunni honour Uthman as "possessor of the two lights", in reference to him being married to two of Muhammad's biological children. Sunni believe that Ruqayyah was born three years after the birth of Zainab, when Muhammad was 33 [2]. Many Sunnis hold that the claim that Fatima is the only biological daughter is pushed by the Shia in order to strengthen the legitimacy of the Shia Imams. If there were other biological sisters who had children, then they would have as much a right to claim the caliphate then Fatima's descendants.


    [edit] Shi'a view
    Shia scholars view them as born in previous marriages[3], and that this fact is obscured in order to give greater merit to the first Banu Umayyad Caliph. Those Shi'as view is that Fatimah was Muhammad's only biological daughter and the only one who married a Caliph, i.e., Ali. They argue it improbable for Khadija to have given birth to so many children at such an advanced age, while at the same time having abstained from having children in both her previous marriages. A third version also exists which views the two daughters as being the children of Khadijah's deceased sister [4].

    One source states:

    ? Who were Khadija's children by her second husband? This is another controversy that revolves round the other daughters or step-daughters of Muhammad besides Fatima. These daughters, chronologically arranged, are: Zainab, Ruqayya, and Ummu Kulthoom. Some historians say that these were Khadija's daughters by her second husband, whereas others insist they were her daughters by Muhammad. The first view is held by Sayyid Safdar Husayn in his book The Early History of Islam wherein he bases his conclusion on the contents of al-Sayyuti's famous work Tarikh al-khulafa wal muluk (history of the caliphs and kings). We hope some of our Muslim sisters who read this text will be tempted to research this subject. [5] ?

    Ali Asgher Razwy, a 20th century Shi'a twelver Islamic scholar states:

    ? It is not known with any degree of certainty who were these three girls. Most of the Sunni historians claim that they were the daughters of Muhammad and Khadija. According to some other historians, they were the daughters of Khadija by an earlier marriage.
    The Shia Muslims disagree. They assert that Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom were not the daughters of Muhammad and Khadija; in fact, they were not even the daughters of Khadija by any earlier marriage; they were the daughters of a (widowed) sister of Khadija. Khadija's sister also died, and upon her death, she brought the three girls into her own house and brought them up as her own children.

    According to the Shia Muslims, Muhammad and Khadija had three and not six children.The first two of them ? Qasim and Tayyeb or Tahir ? were boys, and both of them died in their infancy. Their third and the last child was a girl ? Fatima Zahra. She was their only child who did not die in infancy.

    The girls ? Zainab, Ruqayya and Umm Kulthoom ? could not have been the daughters of the Prophet of Islam. If they were, he would not have given them in marriage to the idolaters which the husbands of all three of them were. It's true that all three girls were married long before the dawn of Islam. But then he did not violate any of the imperatives of Qur?an at any time ? before or after he was ordained God's Messenger. And Qur?an is explicit on the prohibition of the marriage of a Muslim woman to a pagan. [6]
     ?

    Shi'a argue that there is a lack of narrations from Muhammad regarding his other daughters, and they use it to argue that if they held the same position in Muhammads eye, this would not be the case:

    Answering-Ansar states:

    ? If anything this serves as the greatest proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) was the sole daughter of Rasulullah (s). If these daughters indeed existed then Rasulullah (s) would have certainly apportioned them their share of inheritance as he had done with Sayyida Fatima (as). The very fact that we have no historical evidence of him ever giving them anything as a gift / inheritance is the clearest evidence that they did not exist. If they did exist then we have to accept that Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) were unjust. After all the same Prophet (s) who marries Sayyida Fatima (as) according to revelation from Allah (swt) marries the other three daughters to kaafirs!
    The same man that showered all manner of honour on Sayyida Fatima deeming her pain to be on par with his, giving her the title Leader of the Women of Paradise does not bother to relay even a single Hadith in praise of his other daughters. Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work Mishkat al Masabeeh, under the Chapter 'Bab Fadail Ahl'ul bayt' has 49 traditions with regard of the relatives of Muhammad including his uncle Abbas, even his adopted son Zaid. Curiously the author of a book that takes traditions from TEN esteemed Sunni works fails to cite even a single Hadeeth on the "other daughters" in this chapter. ... The truth is that Maula 'Ali ( was the only son in law of Muhammad as we read in 'Riyadh al Nadira' Volume 3 page 220, Dhikr Fadail 'Ali:

    Rasulullah said to 'Ali 'You possess three virtues not possessed by anyone else:

    You have a father in law like me.
    You have received my truthful daughter as your wife
    You have received pious sons such as Hassan and Husayn
    ... This virtue (Rasulullah being father in law) would not be exclusive if Rasulullah also had other son in laws! If Nawasib try to argue that Uthman's marriage may have occurred later we should point out that according to the Ahl'ul Sunnah the daughters of Rasulullah were married long before Sayyida Fatima, and were the wives of two of Abu Jahl's sons. Rasulullah could not have praised 'Ali for this exclusive honour if he had other sons in law. ... The famed title of Uthman 'Dhul Nurayn' coming from the mouth of Muhammad(as asserted by sunnis) is not present in any of the six esteemed works of Ahl'ul Sunnah. When the very existence of these daughters cannot be established then how can we accept that Uthman was the possessor of two lights? ... It is indeed ironic that the Salafi and Deobandi Nawasib reject the notion of Muhammad being created from Nur (Light), rather they deem him an ordinary human like us created from mud. Curiously when it comes to honouring Uthman suddenly he is deemed Dhul Nurayn 'the possessor of two lights'. If Prophet (s) is not 'Light' then how can Uthman become the possessor of 'Two Lights'? How can this then be used as an excuse that he married the 'supposed' two daughters of Muhammad? [7]

    Rashna wonders  If Ruqayyah was born when Mo was 33, Khadija would be 48. Isn't this a very advanced age to have kids back in the days when there were no fertility treatments & donor eggs? If we are into Mo's fertility, a rather unneccessary topic, we might just as well discuss Khadija's fertility too!  Cheesy
     

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Do you know all the answers?
     Reply #47 - March 19, 2009, 05:59 PM

    Hassan,
    Why are we discussing Muhammed's fertility?


    Coz we are bored? Dunno really  grin12
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »