69 million page views

Mansoor: The issue is not the number of wives but the ethics of acquiring them

Reader comment on item: Resisting Islamic Law
in response to reader comment: Plato is on Pluto

Submitted by Pluto (India), Mar 14, 2008 at 10:48

Mansoor, you wrote:

>>...Better understand that this issue is very primary. Prophets and God's Loved ones were allowed to have several wives and concubines and it is not a matter of shame<<

Mansoor, where in any of my posts have I questioned the Prophet's having multiple wives. You are indulging in the favourite trick of Muslims, distracting from the question at hand by steering away from the topic. The problem, my dear Mansoor, is not the number of women Muhammad bedded. The problem is the methods he used to get them into bed. Those methods were foul and that is what is a shame.

Safiya was married hours after killing her husband and family. Rehana was made into a concubine after massacring her tribe's males and enslaving women and children. Aisha was married over the muted protest of Abu Bakr that he was his brother and Muhammad dismissing the objection and saying he was his brother in religion, yet it was legitimate to marry his little girl. These were shameful acts, and not the act of a man claiming to be an example for all mankind. You have shifted blame for these shameful acts onto the phantom Allah by saying Muhammad had His blessings to do what he liked.

Let your god allow his loved ones to marry or bed as many women as he wishes as long as they go willingly (except a six-year-old girl, or a freshly widowed woman or a captured slavegirl). Can you laugh loudly at the way Muhammad forced himself upon these three women. If you can, then I can only weep for you and your religion.

Ram is generally supposed to have had only one wife, Sita. He may have had a harem but the Ramayana does not report any slave women kept against their will. It was Lord Krishna who had innumerable wives but none of them were captives or women on whom he forced himself. Big difference from your Muhammad, Mansoor. Hindus would have considered it a shame, unlike your Mercy to mankind if any of their deity's had forced himself on women.

You should update yourself on Hinduism. Rama is only a speck in the universe of Hinduism. The website you have given has no clue to what Hinduism is or was or will be. Hinduism is a living, evolving culture and philosophy not one that is stagnating in the sands of Arabia or the plains of the Punjab. Hinduism does not fall if Ram falls unlike Islam which will disappear if Muhammad is shown to be a fake or did not exist. Islam's existence is contingent with that of Muhammad. Hinduisim and Ram are not (or Krishna or Sai Baba…).

The link you have given me (http://site4daie.blogspot.com/2007/11/hindu-religion-exposed.html) is one of those innumerable dawa sites. This one thinks it has defamed Rama by saying he ate beef. That leaves Hindus cold. They ate beef in Vedic times. But if someone claimed Muhammad ate pork will you not wash your hands in red water and start chewing bullets?

>>The issue of marriages you love to raise is very very petty, because Muhammad PBUH cannot and will not be compared in terms of marriages and concubines to those mentioned in the above link. Better take advice from some wise person before you plan your reply next time.<<

You don't get it Mansoor. The issue is not marriages and concubines. The issue is what kind of marriages and concubines. The issue is not one of morality, the issue is one of ethics. Is it ethical to marry a six year old girl, is it ethical to marry a girl hours after having her husband tortured and killed, is it ethical to take a woman as a concubine against her will? This is what you (and Islam) have to answer not divert it to a non-issue of the number of women in Muhammad's bed.

You are the one comparing your prophets to other faiths' greats by giving us links to websites that defame Hindu and Christian gods and prophets.

It does not require a wise man to see through some of the prophet's marriages, it just requires a rational man or woman not befogged by religious propaganda.




Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)