Also, how much slaving, warring, child-molesting did Paul do?Unfortunately child brides were rather common back then (as they are in many parts of the world today.) Including in ancient Israel. Including a famous saint we know about, who we might not want to call a potential child molester whose molestation was only averted by divine intervention. Or we could; but we have to be consistent. One can be a Muslim and believe that child brides and warfare are wrong (perhaps use a "concession to the times" argument just like we do for OT stuff) just as one can be a Jew and believe that warfare is wrong, that zionism is wrong. You may not find that consistent according to your reading of their religions, but it's do-able, and has often been done.
I don't know if you realize it, but you continue to throw standard pro-islam defenses at me, all of which just don't follow. For example, you brought up Paul and how we must imitate him. I then ask how much slaving, warring and child-molesting Paul did (in comparison to Mohammad). You ignore the slaving and the warring part and focus on the "St. Joseph married Marry when she was young" defense. By now others have already pointed out that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary, so point refuted. I would like to add that Mary would have only been about 14 years old. Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old. The age difference is huge. One is a teenager, the other is a child.
Because their scriptures and the Quran tell them to do it… That doesn't mean they don't try to understand why.
Um… okay, granted. The point remains that they must follow the Quran, and the example of Muhammad. Thus what the former says and what the latter did is important to the religion. Also, their religion has obedience as the bottom line.
How on earth am I doing that? By the questions you ask, and do not ask. By the words you use, and do not use, of course.
Then tell me what is wrong with my methodology. You keep saying how question begging it is, but haven't told me which question it begs. Again, here is my argument:
1) Muslims are required to follow the Quran and imitate the example of Muhammad (whom they believe to be sinless and the perfect example).
2) The Quran instructs wife-beating and Muhammad was a child molester, a slaver, and was a warlord, and a bully of other faiths, etc. etc.
3) Therefore it is permissible, (if not required) for Muslims to do the things described in premise 2.
Now explain to me why this criteria is wrong. It is entirely falsifiable. If you won't engage with this argument, then I think it's best if we end this.
Irrelevant. I could answer yes or no, and it wouldn’t change the pickle that Islam is in. Again, it's Islam compared to Islam.This is an artificial restriction we won't abide by in this thread.
And who is "we"? Sorry, but I started this thread and it was clear we are comparing Islam with Islam. Bringing in how bad Zionists can be (or whatever else) is a red-herring.
Unclear what you point is here.
If a Muslim today were to strive to literally copy Muhammad's life, then due to the reflective process, motivation, etc. involved, his life would be further from Muhammad's life than a Muslim who works a desk job and eats pork rinds.
Nicolas, with all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?! This makes me think you have only a vague concept of Islam. According to you, a Muslim who strives to imitate the deeds and character of Muhammad would be a worse Muslim than the ones who disobey the Quran and disregard the example of Muhammad? Either you give me Surahs or Hadith to back this up, or I will have to dismiss it as nonsense. Islam means submission. It's not some new-age reflective self-help book.
This understanding of Islam is so backwards, that either you drop it entirely, or there is no point dialoging with you.