Friday, May 22, 2009
The Miraculous Qur'an: Scientific Miracles
Hey guys-- the first video generated a lot of responses from Muslims, including emails. They all failed to take into consideration one basic thing about the Argument from Scientific Accuracy: it is an argument used to try to get people to see the truth of Islam. Thus, it should have persuasive power, not just defensibility. What we argue online is whether it's defensible (I say it's not) but it falls entirely short of having any persuasive power.
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217PART 1
NMA,
I am neither a liar, nor ignorant, as I am aware of my religion and in history and teachings. And in matters that I am not knowledgeable, I ask those who are more knowledgeable, or I research the topic to satisfaction before I speak. I do not rely on hate-sites to supply me with material to attack other religious groups, nor do I take quotes out of context. The least you can do is read the Quran and read the biography of the Prophet (PBUH) before you speak about him. In addition, you do not disagree with any of my other points, so I will assume that they sounded logical to you, as far as the Prophet's (PBUH) marriage to Aishia is concerned, and I thank you for that.
Moving on, most of the Hadiths you provided (where men were killed) are regarding the incident of Banu Quradah, a tribe of Jews who lived in Madina. It will be very helpful for you to consider the context of the Prophet's (PBUH) verdicts before you condemn him to immoral character. It is not very fair if I call a person immoral for sentencing people to death, while I am ignorant of the fact that the person sent to death is a criminal worthy of his punishment.
There are a few things that we need to agree upon. First, is the permissibility of the death penalty in Islam. Second, is the rules of war: you honor treaties, and punish traitors and aggressors, attackers, etc. There is nothing odd in that. Treason in a capital offense in many countries. If you have issues with capital punishment, then that debate is not exclusive to Islam, but to many areas around the world, including the United states, thus we should leave it at that.
Another issue is slavery. Western cultures looks down upon slavery, and rightfully so, given the practices that they were engaged in during the colonial periods and the dark history of black slaves and indigenous populations around that world. However, during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) in Arabia, as well as Persia and the Christian empire, slavery was the norm. Captured enemies would be sold as slaves, as opposed to killing them off or putting them in large scale prisons. If you are interested in the issue of slavery, then I will be more than happy to talk to you about it, for now, it is sufficient to point out that it is a common practice during that time. Note that this practice still continues, but under a different name in our era, referred to as the prison industrial complex, where prisoners are incapacitated and thrown into forced labor with other prisoners for little to no pay. Read up on that and you will see that slavery under Islam (not the Christians or Persians) was a better alternative that preserved their rights. Slaves lived with their owners, and the owners were obligated to cloth and feed them from that which they clothed and fed themselves. Slaves were allowed to work and earn money, as well study, own property and even marry. On top of all that, owners were encouraged to free slaves as an act of charity, and in some instances, as repentance for some evil deed. In any case if you wish to speak about slavery then let me know (multiple versus in the Quran, as well as Hadith attest to this).
Given the above, lets us examine the case of Banu Quraidah: A Jewish tribe in Madinah. When the prophet (PBUH) entered Madina, he had signed treaties with the Jews not attack each other, and support each other if either were attacked by a third party, as well as other things (i.e. an alliance). The context of this was the battle of the Trench, also known as the battle of Al-Ahzab (Confederates). The Muslims built a trench on one side of the city of Madina and positioned their army there. In Madinah there were only women, children and old people. On the other side of Madina was the land of Banu Quraidah, who were supposed to protect the city from their end.
PART 2
Let us talk more about Banu Quraidah, and why the Prophet punished them. Before the incident of the battle of the Trench, another Jewish tribe, Banu Nadeer had attempted to assassinate the Prophet (PBUH). Instead of responding by war, which is what they deserved for attempting to murder the Prophet (PBUH) who is also their ally, he sent them an ultimatum; he gave them ten days to leave Madinah. Banu Nadeer rejected the offer and prepared for war. After a short seige, they surrendered and agreed to leave the city. The Prophet (PBUH) even allowed them to take whatever their camels could lift, except for weaponry. Some left to the Khaybar (another Jewish land around Madina) and other went elsewhere.
Now, during the battle of the trench, the leader of Banu Nadeer went to the Banu Quraidah and convinced them of breaching their treaty with the Prophet (PBUH). Banu Quraidah began preparations for war against the Muslims, as well as providing the confederates with supplies to fight the Muslims. News of this reached the Prophet (PBUH) so he sent some men to protect the women in the city. A man from among the companions was also able to cause discord (break the allegiance) between the Jews and the confederates. Thus, the Jews did not attack the city. One the battle of the Trench was over and the Prophet (PBUH) was victorious over the confederates, the Prophet (PBUH) turned his attention to the Jews of Banu Quraidah. The Jews were holed up in their forts, and had three alternatives, to accept Islam, under which their lives and wealth would be spared; to hold up the siege and fight the Muslims; or to preempt the Muslims by attacking them on Saturday (which was a day the Jews did not fight on, and thus could take the Muslims by surprise). None of these options appealed to them, so they sought diplomatic efforts. The Prophet and the Jews agreed to have Sa'ad Bin Muaad to give a verdict regarding their situation. Saad was a Muslim who was among the former ally of the Jews (before the Prphet (PBUH) came to Madina).
Saad ordered that all able bodied Jewish males were to be killed, and their women and children taken as slaves. And as such between six to seven hundred Jewish men were killed (a little more in other narrations), including the chief of Banu Nadeer, the instigator of the whole plot. Also, one woman was killed because she had killed a Muslim soldier by dropping a stone on him. Mind you those who chose to repent and become Muslims were spared their life and wealth; two men chose to become Muslim and thus retained their lives and wealth.
The source for all of this is the biography of the Prophet (PBUH) called the Sealed Nectar, by Saif-ur-Rahman Al-Mabarakpuri, published by Darussalam.
Now, knowing all this, is it not a fitting end for that treacherous tribe? They had amassed large quantities of weapons and armor to fight the Muslims, who were their their own townspeople, whom they had lived with and enjoyed protection, and were supposed to cover each others back. In the Prophet's (PBUH) most difficult time, being faced by the 10,000 strong army of the confederates (that outnumbered all of the inhabitants of Medina combined, including women and children), the Jews chose to betray him and kill him and his people. If Banu Quraidah had succeeded it would have spelled the end of Muslims. Then why do you hold it against the Prophet (PBUH) when he gives them what they deserve, that is, death. The punishment of a person who intends to kill another person, is death. Also, those who participate in the planning (accomplices) are also responsible. The punishment of a treacherous person is also death. These laws are still enforced today, its just that western countries are moving towards life sentences instead of capital punishment, but thats another issue.
PART 3
What defense is there left to defend them with? They were even given the option of becoming Muslims and joining them and repenting from their evil deeds, but they rejected and chose to continue with their evil. You cannot say that he didn't try to give them a way out. In the end, they chose their own death. The Prophet (PBUH) did not invent new laws to punish them, neither did he apply the law in a discriminatory manner. He agreed with the ruling of Saad, who said all able bodied men were to be killed, i.e. all those that were able to carry swords and fight.
So this answers the Hadiths regarding that incident (1,2,3,4,6 and 7 from the ones u quoted)
Regarding Chapter 33:26-27. There is nothing stated there that is not out of the ordinary during times of war. A tribe was defeated, their possessions and land were taken, and their women taken as slaves. This is no different than any practice of war. In fact, given improved standards of living and rights of slaves that Islam introduced, it was better than what other people during that time did. So I do not see the issue here.
The fifth Hadith (Volume 1, Book 11, Number 626) regarding burning those who don't pray is taken out of context.
I own Sahih Bukhari which you quoted from, and you are quoting half the Hadith, which obviously takes it out of context. The Prophet (PBUH) is speaking about the merits of congregational prayer, and talking about wanting to punish those who purposely avoid praying while claiming Islam (hypocrites). While the translation makes it sound like he ordered their houses to be burned, you can notice that the grammer is a little odd. In addition, you are not viewing this Hadith in light of other Hadiths. You see, in order to formulate an opinion, you need to know every authentic Hadith regarding the issue you are investigating. Sometimes certain Hadiths only include a single statement, while others contain a paragraph and include context in which the statement was made. If you read Hadith number 617 in the same volume (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11) you will understand what the Prophet (PBUH) meant. The hadith is posted below for your reference.
Volume 1, Book 11, Number 617:
Narrated by Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is I was about to order for collecting fire-wood (fuel) and then order Someone to pronounce the Adhan for the prayer and then order someone to lead the prayer then I would go from behind and burn the houses of men who did not present themselves for the (compulsory congregational) prayer. By Him, in Whose Hands my soul is, if anyone of them had known that he would get a bone covered with good meat or two (small) pieces of meat present in between two ribs, he would have turned up for the 'Isha' prayer.'
(Bold text is my own)
In essence, the Prophet (PBUH) is speaking in a hypothetical manner. At no point during his life did the Prophet (PBUH) order the burning of anyone's house for not praying. You can verify that for yourself. In fact, the Prophet (PBUH) refused to punish the hypocrites (those who claimed Islam but were enemies to it) unless they committed clear transgressions. What he said merely reflects his feelings towards those who claim Islam but do not respond to the call of Prayer. Prayer is among the central pillars of Islam, and not praying causes you to fall out of the fold of Islam. Indeed, for Muslims who are hypocrites, careless and negligent about their prayers, Allah has promised them a special valley in Hell (Quran,Chapter 107, verse 3 – 5). So I hope that settles this issue.
PART 4
The eighth Hadith (unsourced) is about slavery and buying and selling them – this is regarding the issue of slavery which is long and complex. I briefly discussed it at the beginning of this response. Let me know if you wish to talk more about it.
Hadith Volume 7, Book 62, Number 130 is about temporary contract marriage. Read this Hadith in the same book
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa':
While we were in an army, Allah's Apostle came to us and said, "You have been allowed to do the Mut'a (marriage), so do it." Salama bin Al-Akwa' said: Allah's Apostle's said, "If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so." I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: 'Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, "The Mut'a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful)."
In addition, it is reported that the Prophet (PBUH said): “‘I had given you permission to contract “temporary marriage” with women, but Allah has forbidden it till the Day of Resurrection.” (Imam Muslim). Any Muslim scholar will tell you that temporary marriage was lawful for a very short period of time (only during few expeditions which were difficult), after which it was banned. As you can see, this means that the Prophet (PBUH) had allowed it, and Allah revealed otherwise, so the practice was stopped. Al Tirmithi reports that the Prophet (PBUH) prohibited it around the time of the battle of Khaybar. Another hadith in Al Tirmithi states that it was prohibited once a certain verse regarding marriage was revealed. In essence, temporary marriage was a practice done before Islam, and continued on for a period until Allah prohibited it. Not very different from consumption of Alcohol, which was not banned until the Prophet (PBUH) settled in Madina.
Now, to the matter of the poets. If you understand the role of poets within the pre-Islamic culture of Arabia, you will get a good idea of why those three in particular deserved death. To make it short, poets where instigators, that is, they walk around town, or at gatherings, and speak about issues to sway the hearts of the listeners who included leaders and laymen. Poets would also be hired to raise the moral of fighters before a war. There were many poets who spoke against the Prophet, however, those three in particular were extremely evil. If a “poet” goes out on a daily basis and asks people to harm and kill another man, is the poet not responsible for the attacks that result? Yes he is, as the words the poet spoke where out of his own will, and those words caused harm. As such they deserved death. Just the other week there was a case in Canada where a girl told her boyfriend he should kill some other girl that she was jealous off. She tempted him with her body until he accepted and the innocent girl was murdered. The courts found both guilty of premeditated under and both were responsible. Those three poets who caused extreme harm to the Prophet (PBUH) through their words deserved death. I encourage you to research what these three specific poets were saying, and what their actions were towards the Prophet (PBUH) and his followers.
Now generally speaking, you can always make someone look bad if you tell half truths about him, and take his actions and statements out of context. Even I had some problems sometimes with certain Hadiths that just sounded wrong when read by themselves. But upon further investigation, I always found the Prophet's (PBUH) conduct was of the best level one could ever see. He was very lenient towards the Muslims. He was decisive against his enemies, while always giving them a way out. He was patient with those who claimed Islam but denied it in their hearts, until they brought forth a clear transgression.
NMA, I will also look into the other topics you listed:
Moon and Mountains
Why the Quran was revealed in Arabic
and Arithmetic of Inheritence
Let me know if there is anything else you would like some information about
yahya Snow... so... starting too call other hypocrites? Ok... thate's a starte on you; typicall on others, butt a starte nontheless in you dear Yayha Snow... we habe been onn this topique severall times, butt I'll go, ounce again, through it with you mie friende...
1) give me anie recognized Christian source thate presentes us withe the age off the blessed Mary...
2) can you distinguishe whate I saide "marry" and wahte you saide "giving birthe"...
3) was ladie Aiesha 6 when she was married?
4) was she 9 when she had her first sexual intercourse?
5) do you know whate was the age thate, att beast, the blesses Mary had when she gave birthe?
6) can you, now, see the difference?
thankes for your attention... God bless you...
Dear Abu Musa... thankes for your kinde wordes...
1) whie do you ask me for proves thate ladie Aiesha dod nott suffered from Stockholm Syndrom and then nottask your brother the Osama to give prooves thate her was ok in having married withe Muhammad when she did and consummed her marriege when she did?
2) do you know ANY case off any childe tahte suffered continuous sexual abusses at the hand off a man with whome she coulde have nott get appart (economicaly, socialy or, in this case, relligiously) thate did nott suffered from thate mental disorder?
3) then you saide (inn whate is becomming a jingle) thate «Your problem lies with applying your perceptions of "normal" to other cultures and societies»... so: do you habe a probllem in admitting thate there is, indeed, an universall commun ground off values and cathegories thate emerge from the onthological, biological and psychological dimension off all human beings? Or do you consider this a new source off colonialism?
4) then you saide: «Aisha was satisfied with her marraige»... ounce again: coulde she habe nott been like thate? And from where do you conclude suche things iff the islam' sources were filtered to enbellished the figure of Muhammad?
5) then you saide: «All her rights were preserved»... we woulde be berie interested in expecting from you some kinde wordes aboutte this aspect: whate rightes were you talking? whate rights were in apllience when thate happened? Can you presente them here? Butt even iff there were such rights, anie righte thate goes agains humanity (in itt's onthological, biological and psychological dimenstions) is nott a righte, rather an pseudo-righte thate is covering an unhuman and coward abuse off the weak;
6) then you saide: «Muhammad consumated his marraige with her after she reached puberty. So there is no issue there»... whate proffes do you habe this was the case? Let's ignore the fact thate the puberty is getting, even know, much earlier and still is around 12 years olde... butt even so: juste immagening a 50 years olde man having sex to a pre-teen girls is disgusting and un-human;
7) you then saide: «the concept of marraige is not only to have sex, it is also to provide a meaningful relationship, and to provide protection and comfort for both sides»... was nott Muhammad adopted? did he nott recieved a proper education and, inn your wordes, a meaningful relationship? Iff thate was his onlie concern towards ladie Aiesah he coulde habe adopted her (itt was nott needed thate someone's parentes her dead to do such thing); or he coulde have raised her as one off his daughters: he did nott needed her sexual conforte since he had so manie other women...
(will continue)
Part 2
8) then you saide: «If you were to accuse the family of being complicit in forcing marraige, then that accusation stands not only for young girls, but also for older ones»... yes: forced marrieges are nott the way it shoulde happen... gladely in Christianity we don't admitt thate anie longer: we overcomed cultural aspects thate were against the message off Jesus... will it happen the same in islam? I don't belibe since Muhamamd santionneted manie off those aberrante aspects in his liffe;
9) You priviously saide: «In addition, tha family of the bride are heavily involved in her matters, to ensure that her rights are perserved well»... yes, indeed, and wich famillie woulde not whante to habe her daughters married withe someone rich and powerfull thate coulde give them all status? Butt then: whate rightes? Whate rightes are you talking when someone gibes a 6 years olde baby in marriege?
10) then you saide: «that, however, did not happen in this case»... yes it did... her familie was eaggered to gibbe her in marriage eben before to the famouse Jubayr ibn Mut'im...
11) then you saide: «what is your evidence that Aisha was abused»... the actitude off her familie and Muhhamad's acceptance too marrie a 6 years olde babie and consumming it 2 to 3 years latter is nott an evidence off this?
12) then you saide: «what is your evidence that Aisha was forced»... can a 6-9 years olde babie refuse anything to her parents and super-star husband? Uhmmm? Can you probe us all she accepted her situation gladely?
13) butt the more explendid sentence was one thate I left to the end: «Muhammad is of exceptional character, and history attests to that. There is nothing in Islamic or non-islamic literature that points to anything other than that»... ok; iff you consider whate we all know about him in suche view we all know from whate lineage you are... although the evidences speak all againste you... and we habe alreadie debated all those aspects innumerous times in this blogg... Muhammad as a role-model? blaaaaaa and blaaa...
God bless you
Abu Musa... how... whate a gret sand washing you're doing from your own sources... when someone can say thate A is nott A, butt rather B, we're talked... see you att the sunset one off these dayes; you do nott desearve... the moste amayzing was to see you say thate you woulde consider OK iff some USA military started doing to Iraquis the same Muhammad did to others during war... this is the cumulous of teh lack off coherence... the worlde has changed, men as become more human except where muslims follow the wordes and deads of Muhammad... an hard facte to beliebe, butt a true one...
NMA,
I am having trouble following your explanation about it being two days short, could you please rephrase it?
Fernando,
Logic dictates that the onus of proof lies with the one making the allegation, not with the defendant, especially when the allegation challenges what is commonly understood as being the base case. As such, it is not up to me to prove that Ayesha was not abused. It is up you, who are making the allegation, to bring evidence to support all of your theories. So far, the only thing you have a problem with is age, even though it was continuosly said that this practice is the norm in that era of time for the all the cultures of that area. In addition, this practice has continued and only recently, due to the influence of industrialization and globalization haas begun to decline.
In addition, your talk of universal values and common ground is a little misleading because it makes an assumption that the age of marraige is included in these values; which it is not. These common values may include not killing, not murdering etc. However, the age of marraige has varried between cultures and across time, and should not be condemned outright just becuase it does not match today's current practices in the West. We can easily flip this arguement to show that the common values of the West are not practices everywhere, nor are they practices consistently in the West. Example being premarital sex. It is absolutely normal for this practice to exist in Western cultures. On the otherhand, this practice is not accepted in the Middle East, Indian Subcontinent, nor in Africa. In more conservative Western Cultures, this practice is frowned down upon.
You can also see the inconsistency in the application of the common value of premarital sex in the way laws are made. The age of consent (where two people can have sex if they choose to) varies from country to country; it goes anywhere from 19 - 12 in some European countries.
What I am trying to show is there is no universally accepted age of marraige. Implying that a young age is somehow "out of the ordinary" is a false statement given that the ordinary you use to measure it with is based on modern Western Culture values, which is in no way universal in both time or geography.
I hope that clears this issue up.
Abu Musa Said...
In addition, you do not disagree with any of my other points, so I will assume that they sounded logical to you, as far as the Prophet's (PBUH) marriage to Aishia is concerned, and I thank you for that.
That I do not disagree does not mean that I agree. I just did not want to interfere because others were already responding to you.
It needs time to go through your numerous and long posts and respond to them. So, will get back you on Saturday. In the meanwhile, maybe you can tell me how you will justify Mohammed's ordering the murders of 3 poets just because they criticized him. There is no point justifying those murders by mentioning the good things he had done because even the worst evil person does some good things in life.
Abu Musa said...
NMA,
I am having trouble following your explanation about it being two days short, could you please rephrase it?
Two days out of the four days mentioned in one verse was used for enhancement of the earth because creation of the earth is already done in two days. So that verse need not be taken into consideration. That leaves 2 days it took for the creation of the earth and 2 days for the heavens, which makes a total of only 4 days, not six days.
NMA,
There is no indication that the two days used for the modification of earth overlapped with the days used for creating the heavens.
Two days for creating earth, two days for modifying it, then two days for creating the heavens for a total of six.
The initial arguement was that they were eight days.
Verse 9: He created the earth in 2days
Verse 10: Ordained everything in it, all of which took 4 days (which includes the 2days mention in verse 9)
Verse 11: Ascended and subdued the heavens (that were smoke) and earth
Verse 12: completed the creation of heavens in 2 more days
In my last long post, I sought to clarify the situation which earned Banu Quradah the death penalty.
In addition to that, I spoke about the prophets character only near the end. That portion was not pivotal for my arguement, as the majority of the text was dedicated to Banu Quradah.
I apologize for the length of my posts. I realize it becomes tedious to go through all of them. However, multiple issues are raised at once, and I had to adequetly respond to them.
To be honest, my goal is not to convert, convince, or force anyone to accept anything that they do not want to accept.
My goal is to share as much information as possible with everyone here. It is up to the reader to make up their mind. None of us are responsible for what others believe. We are however, responsible for what we say. As such, I approach these topics with the utmost care and respect for all parties involved. I hope that everyone also approaches such topics with an open spirit.
Abu Musa said...
NMA,
There is no indication that the two days used for the modification of earth overlapped with the days used for creating the heavens.
Two days for creating earth, two days for modifying it, then two days for creating the heavens for a total of six.
Thanks Abu for your answers.
This is the first part of my initial post:
"The Quran 7:54, 10:3, 11:7 and 25:59 all state that Allah created the heavens and the earth in Six Days. The Quran 41:12 states Allah completed seven heavens in two Days and 41:9 states the earth was created in two days. So two and two make four, not six. That is two days short. Wait a minute, here it is in verse 41:10: 'He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;' Now, if we add this four days and the earlier four days, we get eight days but not six. So either it is two days short or two days extra."
So it is two days short or two days extra. Then you wrote about grammatical correctness, which you said would account for the extra two days. I think the overlap of days is unclear at best, so we can put this aside for the time being.
Now if grammatical correctness is a concern, let us go by the semantics. So "The earth is created in two days" means that the creation process was complete and we shouldn't take modification into consideration.So two days (for earth) and two days (for heavens) make four days, not six days. That is two days short.
As for the poets, your arguments are not convincing. Whatever they did, there is no evidence that anyone was murdered because of them. It looks more like, they had met Mohammed's challenge of writing something similar to the Quran or they criticized him for something he was extremely sensitive about. If your argument is true, these poets could have been imprisoned, not murdered.
Another question is, in the Quran, why did Mohammed order murdering the apostates?
Abu Musa saide: «In addition, your talk of universal values and common ground is a little misleading because it makes an assumption that the age of marraige is included in these values»... well, you can inpherr thate from mie wordes, butt I woulde rather you to express your own feelings aboutt the existence (or nott) off universal opinnion aboutte the respect off seomeone's rights (and duties, for thate matter) aboute whate is the recognized structural habillitie to be considered to be a childe... perhaps you might whante to reed the Declaration of the Rights of the Child or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or you're amoungue those who consider these to bee juste an expretion on western collonialism as there are no such thingues as an universalr understandingue off the basic and nuclear realitie off whate is a child and a human being... iff you denie this, then you may, indeed, say tahte the marriage age is nott in connection with those... thate we'll see...
then: the problem is not onlie weather aboutt 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 or 2500 years ago it was commun to 50 years old persons were allowed to merrie babies thate coiulde nott express theire free choice, butt iff those archaik behaviours are presented to nowadays as normative off an exemplarie and explendid way off lieving... as I saide: I'm verie glade to see thate Christianitye, in it's better and better understandibg off it's central message, ralized thate manie cultural aspects were againste its core believes and allowed teh societies thate emerged from itt to developp a self-constious and free actitude towards reality... We Christians do still say: no sex before marriage, butt we do nott kill those who do nott want to behabe as Christians cause the mesage off Jesus was nott "subdue", butt rather "choose"... there's no love without freedom: that's the azard to Christianity, butt that's the onlie way to respect the true God Who did not created satellites rather free beings capable off knowingg and loving Him (or reject so...)...
So: where do you habe proofs thate ladie Aiesha was a pubescent girl? Statisticaly thate was nott the case... the factes off nature do nott admitte enourmous exceptions...
No childe thate has been giben in marriege bie it's familie to another human being who has a clear advantage over her will eber be exempt from suffering the sexual correlatibe off the stockolm syndrom... eber...
mie prayer are indeed on ladie Aiesha (teh true one, nott the embelished one off the muslim sources...) and in all babies thate nowadaies suffer the same fatte off her justte bacause the man with whom she was forced to get marry and, consecuently, habe painfull sex (jueste imagine a viril meber off a 50 years old men entering the sexual member off a 8/9 years olde babie...) is presented as an exemple to be followed...
I habe mie students papers to read... be back in some daies...
God blees you all...
Abu Musa,
No one called you a liar or ignorant. I understand you are a patient and good man, like many Muslim individuals are.
Though the context is war, we cannot assume all prisoners Mohammed captured were guilty of waging war. But Mohammed ordered men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded indiscriminately, innocent or not . It is understandable if any ordinary leader of those times did what Mohammed did. But Mohammed, being a man chosen by God, should have known better than to kill indiscriminately. You cannot give times of Mohammed as an excuse, because God’s laws are timeless.
Why didn’t Allah reveal to Mohammed an ayah that stopped him killing innocents.
As an aside, the best argument against about death penalty is that it often murders the innocents because human judgment is unreliable.
You said, “Captured enemies would be sold as slaves, as opposed to killing them off or putting them in large scale prisons.”. But Mohammed did not do that. He killed all men and boys who had reached puberty. Others were sexually useful, so he enslaved them instead of killing them. “it is a common practice during that time” is not a justification for a God’s chosen person. Slavery in any form is not justifiable even if Islam provides slaves little extras (personally I feel uncomfortable with the practice of slavery mentioned in Old Testament). Also, one reason the modern day prisoners are forced to do labor because otherwise, prisons will not be bad places to stay and another one is to lessen the burden on the tax payer. And nowadays the West does not consider taking prisoners of war as ‘punishment’. There is no reason for ‘punishing’ an ordinary soldier (unless he or she did some real atrocities) for fighting , because they do so under order.
Do you think Mohammed was speaking in a hypothetical manner when he said “burn all those who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.” (Bukhari:V1B11N626). This sure sounds like an order. What Mohammed said in Hadith (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11, Number 617) you quoted maybe said in another context.
As for temporary contract marriage, the point is it was lawful for a short period of time and all-knowing Allah did not know about this until it was practiced for some time.
I could write more, but I tried to make it short.
Dear Nabeel,
May Almighty God richly bless you for taking a stand for the Bible and the Flag. You are an extraordinary young man and I would feel so much more secure if men like you were running our nation today. You are obviously very bright and express yourself logically and eloquently, without malice. Thank you for your vision and your passion for the cause of freedom and the Prince of Peace.
Let Muslims who purport to be a peaceful religion watch themselves and their goons on your Yutube clip at the Arab Festival. That is the very face and character of Islam...ignorant, militant, afraid of free speech and as barbaric as the "civilizations" which spawned their religion. One would think they would be bright enough to control their henchmen, at least on camera. After all, if they want us to believe they are peaceful, they need to ACT peacefully....which they decidedly did not. They pushed, shoved, hit, threatened, and lied. Let no one be fooled...Islam is not a religion or political system of peace. On the contrary, under Sharia law, you will be forced to shut up and do as you are told, or your tongue will be cut out.... That is peaceful? Their thought police will cut off your heads, if they don't like your thoughts. Enough discussion! I think it is painfully obvious what they are! Look at the riots in China right now. THAT is coming to America until we stop the evil of Islam. Complacent, comfortable, and ignorant Americans wake up! Madea
Post a Comment