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:

1 – 200 of 217   Newer›   Newest»
Fernando said...

Well Doctor Nabeel... I'me sure someone will wante you to explaine, using some remowned dictionary, all the wordes in this new video, making paralelisms withe all the ethimology of them in sanscritous and antieant englishe (I reckon you know thate the antieant english is not teh samme as the presente day english...). Never the less, I still thinke your positions are well presented and very clear. Thankes!

Anonymous said...

Nabeel

Right On, You are going after the Quran the way anyone should go after the Quran. Read the text. Ask what is the plain read if that text? Is that plain reading of the particular text historically or scientifically accurate? If the answer is no to these questions, there can only be one conclusion. The Quran is a false book and Mohammed was a false prophet..

faktb said...

Well said.

Also, the Quran is written in such a disjointed and ambiguous manner that one can twist the words to make it mean something entirely different.

In any case, and at the very least, what the Quran lacks are CLEAR proofs.

Anonymous said...

Sami Zaatari has recently attempted to bait unbeleivers into Islam using Islamic miracles of jannah. He baited them by promising them sex!

http://keithtruth.blogspot.com/2009/05/sami-zaatari-baits-men-into-islam-with.html

Look how Satan made this peoople act so filthy.

nma said...

KeithTruth said..
Sami Zaatari has recently attempted to bait unbeleivers into Islam using Islamic miracles of jannah. He baited them by promising them sex!

What those fools don't realise is that since Allah is a great deceiver and doesn't care to deceive Allah's own people, all that sex and wine out there in Allah's heaven is just a ruse to get the Devil's enemies killed.

nma said...

faktb said...

Also, the Quran is written in such a disjointed and ambiguous manner that one can twist the words to make it mean something entirely different.
That is why it is difficult (but not impossible) for a sane person to meet the Mohammed's challenge to write Suras like those in the Quran. But obviously a lunatic with sufficient motivation and inspiration from Satan can easily do it.

Fernando said...

Keth Truth said: «S.Z. baited them by promising them sex!»...

strange, isn't itt? We Christians explaine the message off Jesus; muslimes explaine the pleasures of sex...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Good job Nabeel

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I is obvious that much of the Qur'anic so-called miracolous statements related to modern science are hardly anything but plagiarized ideas from the ancient Greeks.

For example the Qur'an clarifies that the non-believers in Muhammad's time believed that the heaven and earth were fused and then departed; this is obvious if one reads for example Lucretius.

Muslims tend to claim that this is a divine prediction about the Big Bang theory or the earliest nebula, but the idea proposed here is far from what modern science proposes.

Furthermore, Lucretius and others, those unbelievers which the Qur'an is referring to clearly belived that the earth was a an enormous entity from which the heavens expanded, and this, if one grasps the ideas of modern science obviously contradicts the Big Bang theory and the early nebula theory (and by the way Aristotle describes the early nebula with incredible scientific insight, quite ironic that a Greek philosopher should possess clearer insight into science that the author of the Qur'an).

Then Muslims tell us that the Qur'an reveals that the ancient universe was smoke or as smoke.

If the Qur'an refers to gas here (this is what Buchaille, Shabir Ally, Yahya Harun, Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah vividly exclaim), I will agree that this is fairly accurate, but a number of problems remain, firstly this gas emerged from the earth according to the theory which the Qur'an adheres to, while in modern science the gas formed into galaxies, giant stars that exploded and formed into lesser stars (depends which theory you follow), which initially in the process cause the earth to appear.

Secondly, this gas according to Aristotle (who provides significant insight into this matter from an ancient perspective) may simply refer to the cloudy heaven; and there maybe clear indications from both the Qur'an and the Hadiths that the Qur'an here is simply referring to the cloudy heaven.

Furthermore and thirdly the exact phrase 'the heavens were smoke' is also found in the writings of the church father Irenaeus in 170 AD who refers to the ancient ideas of his time.

The fact is if I really wanted to seek God based upon the prediction of modern science I would rather turn to Greek philosophy, how about Origin who reveals that individuals of his time assumed that the earth and the planets emerged from the sun, at least that is more scientifically accurate than the central earth theory if one reads the Qur'an with the instruction of Allah to compare it with the knowledge of the ancient unbelievers.

We could continue: how about life coming from water? Well also a Greek idea! How about the seven heavens and the seven earths? Well again found within the writings of Ireneaus and Origin, the Talmud and Greek philosophy.

The same goes with sex in plants embryology, semon production and a number of other things.

One hardly needs to know much about ancient Greek science to realise that the author of the Qur'an used the sources and ideas of his own time.

Fernando said...

Brother Hogan Elijah Hagbard said: «the author of the Qur'an used the sources and ideas of his own time»... do you mean bie thate tahte allah was a geek god?

Fernando said...

Sorrie... I meante, obviouslie, «do you mean bie thate thate allah was a greek god?»... maibe it juste studied in Athens or in Maniaki...

Royal Son said...

I wonder if muslims consider people like Socrates, Pythagoras, and Aristotle to be prophets, and if not, why not?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

lol Fernando,

Allah certainly seems to lean toward the Greek worldviews. I simply wonder, who are these unbelievers in Muhammad's time who saw that Allah separated the heaven from the earth?

Certainly a significant number of these scientific references are Greek in their origins, while a number are Jewish in origin (note however, 'Jewish in origin' does not imply that these ideas were revelations, they were shaped with Jewish traditions).

I wonder where the concept of the sun setting in a muddy pool originates; someone told me that the idea originates from the Arabs. But I have so far failed to find the source. Whereas the separation of heaven and earth, the heavens being smoke, the universe expanding and bouncing back, life originating from water, etc, these are all ideas that can be traced back to the pre-islamic religions and philosophies.

Personally I could never even consider islam a religion of God after doing these studies, and it concerns me that muslims today still hold onto the religion of islam despite the comparison of islam with pre-islamic sources.

I deplore the fact that people like Osama Abdallah actually deceive their muslim believers into continually adhere to such a religion by the means of alleged prediction of modern science, while the entire science in the Qur'an was plagiarized from earlier sources and often presents a science that is so utterly mistaken and wrong.

Osama Abdallah said...

Nabeel,

No one is *reinterpreting* the Holy Quran. What you continuously fail to see is the following:

1- The specific Arabic words that Allah Almighty use in the Noble Verses that are Scientifically Miraculous, have a variety of meanings to them that went in perfect harmony with the benioun 1,500 years ago, and are now going in perfect harmony with us as well. There are many other limited words in meanings that Allah Almighty could've used. But the fact that Allah Almighty used these specific Words demonstrates that there is something behind them.

2- The fact that Allah Almighty Promised in the Holy Quran to reveal to mankind His Divine Miracles in the Holy Quran further proves that His, the Almighty, Choice of specific Words wasn't by chance.
As to the back bones and ribs, TARA'EB, according to Lisan Al-Arab meant several things that were inside the head, inside the body and in the groin area. Since words ANTARIOR LOBE didn't exist to man back then, then the best word for them to ENCOMPASS ALL OF THEM is TARA'EB.
More on this is coming on my web site, insha'Allah, very soon...

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Nabeel,

As to shooting stars, as I explained in the debate, THE WORD IS SHAHAAB and not NOJOOM (stars). There are billions upon billions of comets in our galaxie alone, and there are endless dark energies and cosmic rays in our galaxy and in space. These could be the things that Allah Almighty referred to regarding blocking and intercepting the Jinns.

Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/shooting_stars_lie.htm
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Sorry, for my first post above, I forgot to give my link where I gave AMPLE REFERENCES to the meanings of the Holy Words with examples of proverbs, sayings, Hadiths, and Holy Verses using Lisan Al-Arab dictionary, and other great dictionaries such as Al-Muheet, Al-Muajam Al-Waseet and several others at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm
Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

According to Ousama Abdallah, "comets", "dark energies" and "cosmic" coulde be the thingues «blocking and intercepting the Jinns»... loool... looool... loooool... looooool... I just can't stop laughing... I eben almost choqued without breath.. he juste can't understand thate the problem persistes... loool... looool... loooool... looooool...

in respect to the subject in debate in this threade, allah lookes like thate student of mine thate, one day, when asked where, in the trigonometrique circle, was the 90 degree point, said: "in the ciercle"... yep... with thate kinf off gereralization he was certaintly true, butt did he knew anything off trignomety? Noops... does allah nows beast? I don't think so... butt then when someone publiquely saide he's muslim only because of the scientific miracles, no wonder he has to do all the chicanes he can nott to became an apostate...

Osama Abdallah said...

http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm
Sorry again, the link I gave above was missing the m in the .htm.

Like I said, since words like the "Anterior Lobe", "Cerebellum", "Gonads", and other medical words WERE NOT KNOWN TO MAN 1,500 years ago, and since TARA'EB (plural of TAREEBAH) meant many of the organs that were inside man from his head to his groin, then the most suitable word for the beduions 1,500 years ago was indeed TARA'EB.
Thanks and sorry again for the typos that caused for multiple posts. It honestly was not intentional.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Fernando,

The Jinns are invisible, and the Universe too is filled with invisible energy and forces that scientists today have confirmed.

What is so funny that you almost choked from laughing about any of the things I said? There are a lot of mysteries in the Words that Allah Almighty used in the Holy Quran. Only those whom are led to the Right Path would understand:

www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Royal Son said...

Osama, do you believe that Socrates, Pythagoras, and Aristotle were prophets?

Fernando said...

Osama Addalah saide: «Only those whom are led to the Right Path would understand»... thates (and I'm sorrie to say this to you Osama, butt it seames you simply are unhaware off this aspect) a fascist comment... perhaps you'll wante too refraine using itt... butt feal free to continue to use itt...

Aboute "invisible things in the universe" (cosmic rays, dark energies... and so one inn your wordes...)... Osama: those natural and physical things are only inviseblle in a speciffic leight of lighte... are you saying thate those invisible things cann destroy jines justt because these, in your opinion, are also invisible? according to your argumente thoughts can also destroy jines juste because they're both spiritual realities... please Osama... are you beingue serious? How can you pretend people to believe in you/islam?

I'll refrain to explaine to you whate I found foony in your comment... it's clear to eberyone to see... please, Osama: keep posting your comments: it's a greate flavour you're doing to the cause off all who believe islam is dangerous to one's healthe...

as we say in our locall dialect: baitte phother karalloh...

faktb said...

TARA'EB (plural of TAREEBAH) meant many of the organs that were inside man from his head to his groin, .....

So this word Tara'eb could mean ANYTHING internal. Do you still really believe that this was a scientific miracle? If Tara'eb means ANYTHING, then of course you will get the correct word.

Sorry but this kind of reasoning is absurd.

Fernando said...

Osama the saide: «the most suitable word for the beduions 1,500 years ago was indeed TARA'EB»...

Hurray!!! Finnally!!! We agree in some pointe Osama... The massage of the qur'an is onlie true and scientificly correct to someone with the mentality off the beduions 1,500 years ago...

Osama: is nott the qur'an the eternal word off god valide as suche to everione in everi time? So: why would it's author onlie be interested in being scientific correct to a specifique public that no longger existts? Is this nott the moste perfect example thate:

a) either it's author was not allah, buut rather a beduion off 1,500 years ago;

b) or iit's author is indeed allah and its massage was onlie valid to beduions off 1,500 years ago...;

ounce again: According to Ousama Abdallah, "comets", "dark energies" and "cosmic rays" coulde be the thingues «blocking and intercepting the Jinns»... loool... looool... loooool... looooool...

Fernando said...

faktb said: «If Tara'eb means ANYTHING, then of course you will get the correct word»...

presisely mie point when I wrotte mie comment off May 26, 2009 1:09 PM... dude... how intoxiqued muste bee someone to think like thate...

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "The Jinns are invisible, and the Universe too is filled with invisible energy and forces that scientists today have confirmed."

Why are we to believe that "jinns" who exist as immaterial beings, are chased around by concrete material in space? Also, why did none of the great scholars of Islam and exegetes deduce from the wording of this verse that it is about anything other than visible material in the cosmos?

Furthermore, why does your Allah need to fend off the evil jinns with things that he supposedly created? Is he not all-powerful? Are the jinns not required to submit to his commands and will? Why does Allah shoot missiles at "spies"?

Even if what you are saying about this verse is true [which I am convinced it is not], it still makes absolutely no sense from a theological perspective. This all just seems like 7th century superstition.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "the most suitable word for the beduions 1,500 years ago was indeed TARA'EB"There is a reason why, from an Islamic perspective, this answer is unacceptable. The Muslims tell us that the Quran is the literal letter-by-letter speech from God. If your claim about the nature in which the Quran was revealed is true, the the words of the Quran must not be limited to only words commonly known to "beduions 1,500 years ago".

On the contrary, if your claim about the nature of the Quran is true, it cannot be mixed with the understanding of the speaker [Muhammad] in any way. If it is mixed with Muhammad's understanding, or limited by his capabilities, then it ceases to be the "pure speech of Allah" as the Muslims claim. It then becomes a human's interpretation of Allah's message.

If Allah intended to communicate a concept without a word that was commonly known at the time in Arabic, what was he to do? Unwittingly, you have just permanently limited Allah's vocabulary to that of a 7th century bedouin. How you may ask? Well, because the Quran is 'uncreated', existing as Umm al-Kitab, the eternal tablet in heaven. This means that Allah himself has been eternally unable to discuss concepts such as "dark energies", "cosmic rays", "seminal vesicals", "anterior lobe", etc, etc [the list would be astounding]. We can only conclude that Osama has a vocabulary that excedes that of Allah and his 'perfect book'.

The reason this is a problem is that Islam teaches both Allah and the Quran exist outside of time and Allah as the creator of time itself. Remove the variable of time, and ask yourself: Why is the eternal creator and his eternal book, his revelation to be applicable for all time, limited to the vocabulary and understanding of a 7th century Arabic viewpoint?Along with his failed defense of scientific accuracy within the Quran, Osama has pointed out why the nature of the Quran and the Muslim claims about how "revelation" functions are contradictory.

Sepher Shalom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Osama Abdallah said...

Faktb,

You said:

"TARA'EB (plural of TAREEBAH) meant many of the organs that were inside man from his head to his groin, .....

So this word Tara'eb could mean ANYTHING internal. Do you still really believe that this was a scientific miracle? If Tara'eb means ANYTHING, then of course you will get the correct word.

Sorry but this kind of reasoning is absurd."

My response:

The Noble Quran did State that Semen originates from several or many areas in your body, faktb. Like I told Nabeel, since OUR TECHNICAL NAMES SUCH AS "ANTERIOR LOBE" AND OTHERS did not exist to man 1,500 years ago, then this word WAS THE BEST CHOICE FOR ALLAH ALMIGHTY TO USE.


Sepher,

Much of your churches praise people like Miss California, a female who exposes 99% of her nakedness to the public. Obviously, nudity is ok in your religion. Plus, open sex and sexuality are a way of life to you. So yes, much of your christians are cum lickers and suckers. It's a fact, not an opinion.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

David Wood said...

I feel Osama's third and final ban coming on. I don't allow this sort of talk against Muslims, so I would expect the same respect shown towards Christians.

Osama Abdallah said...

My comment was out of line and I apologize. Even if get banned, it's ok. It was still wrong. I am sorry.
The point I was trying to make was that open sexuality is too much in the West and it's only getting worse.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

And I have also violated this Command from Allah Almighty:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: For thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. (The Noble Quran, 16:125)"

So once again, my sincere apologies. I got carried away with the naming of the article too. I will change its name to a more proper one, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Much of your churches praise people like Miss California, a female who exposes 99% of her nakedness to the public. Obviously, nudity is ok in your religion. Plus, open sex and sexuality are a way of life to you. So yes, much of your christians..." [I won't repeat the rest of your filthy comment]

I notice you were unable to interact with any of my previous comments exposing the complete bankrupt state of your logic. It would seem your manners and public decorum are equally bankrupt.

It is clear that your particular arguments about the wording of the Quran are impossible to reconcile with the Islamic claim about the nature or the Quran's revelation, and with the opinion of your Islamic scholars and exegetes. It is also clear that your arguments attempting to defend "scientific miracles" in the Quran are illogical.

You remind me of the bully on the playground in elementary school that is embarassed by losing a game of basketball, so he punches his playground chum in the nose and says, "See, I told you I was better than you."

Osama, I had a rebuttle with Scripture references to refute your absurd claim about Biblical morality, but then I realized this is just a big game that you play when your arguments are exposed as nonsense. You make attacks hoping to provoke emotional responses and defenses of things that are completely off topic. This will not work with me.

Quit with the carnival games of diverting the discussion into insults and non-sequitors when you are unable to maintain your arguments. I am eagerly awaiting for you to respond to the substance of my arguments above in this thread, assuming you are capable [and assuming you are not banned from this blog, which I honestly hope you ARE, as your behavior deserves it].

Fernando said...

Osama... whate do you mean bie «much of your christians are cum lickers and suckers»?

faktb said...

Thank you Osama, You said,

". . . then this word WAS THE BEST CHOICE FOR ALLAH ALMIGHTY TO USE."

Do you realise how primitive Allah and His Quran is?

It's like me naming every organ in my body "organ".

So "organ" means heart, liver, kidney, stomach, etc.

It's like Allah making a scientific statement such as, "Blood flows in the body from the organ through the organ around the organ under the organ and to the organ and ends up in the organ."

Please stop calling this a scientific miracle.

Also, please be courteous with your language. I deeply respect and value your views and contributions. Our dialogues are precious. I'd hate to see you get banned for foul language. Many blessings to you dear brother.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama Abdallah wrote:

There are billions upon billions of comets in our galaxie alone, and there are endless dark energies and cosmic rays in our galaxy and in space. These could be the things that Allah Almighty referred to regarding blocking and intercepting the Jinns.

Elijah replies:

Osama,

Firstly, if we take the Hadits into consideration, the reference here is to meteorites; Muhammad and his companions watch a shooting star when Muhammed includes this Qur'anic idea.

Does the Qur'an really refer to comets or dark matter or particularly to supernovas as some muslims claim?

Not really!

The Qur'an says:

Quran-67:5: And We have (from of old) adorned the lowest heaven (sky) with lamps, and We have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans…

This is obviously a reference to the lights that Muhammad and his followers observed every night in sky, not dark energies or comets, thus your interpretation here Osama is laughable.

I will let you argue this matter over with Kathir one of islam's most authoritative scholars who writes:

And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps”, means, the stars and planets which shine on the people of the earth (Kathir, vol.8, 2000: 523).

Furthermore are you aware of the speed of a Jinn?

According to the Qur'an a Jinn journed from Solomon in Israel to Yemen 2000 Km in the twinkling of a eye. Now that is quite a speed.

Probably the fastest celestial speed you find except for the speed of light is probably a supernova which emits its matter with 30.000 km a second.

This totally debunks the Qur'anic idea of stars, meteorites or supernovas or whatever to target a flying jinn, since the jinn outspeeds all these without the slightest problem. As a matter of fact at jinn could take a deep nap on the very surface of a supernova only a second prior to its explosion and still easily withdraw itself into empty space.

So Osama could you please explain this jinn busting fits the realm of science.

So my conclusion here is first, that we are still looking a stars being mistaken for meteorites in the Qur'an. This would fit the views of the ancient mind, and by all means Muhammmad or the authors of the Qur'an sojourned in that very era of understanding.

Notice that the ancient world did not view the stars to be great masses as we have recently discovered, some even taught they were earthly stones snatched by ether and put on fire when they reached the sky.

Secondly my conclusion is that a jinn can escape the speed of any entity in space, possibly even the speed of light, does the Qur'an not say that a jinn can ascend the throne of Allah in a day which is equal to journey of 50.000 years (Sura 70: 4),

or Osama is the universe really that small?

fot said...

There seems to be alot of anti-Muslim sentiment here. Thats a shame when Dr Qureshi at least provides a respectful approach in his videos.

I do think that Dr Qureshi did well in his debate with Osama Abdullah but that does not mean (for me particularly) that his approach and therefore his conclusions are correct.

Peace, fot

Royal Son said...

Osama, despite trying to pass over your ridiculous posts my eyes still managed to catch some of the most devilish words I have ever seen.

Western society and Christianity are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. The perverse things going on in western society have NOTHING to do with Christianity, and nothing to do with the bible.

Secondly, can you please tell me if you think that Socrates Pythagoras, and Aristotle were prophets?

Thank you.

Royal Son said...

Also, just a question for the moderators - how did that post managed to slip past?

Unless of course the intention is to leave it up as as testimony of the sick and evil mind of Osama Abdallah, which I can understand.

Fernando said...

fot said: «There seems to be alot of anti-Muslim sentiment here»... fot: please do not confuse the denouncing off islam's true nature (whiche is made) and the respect everie muslime deserves... thankes...

Osama Abdallah said...

Royal Son,

When it comes to Chastity, a word that is extinct in your societies today, the Western societies take the back seat. Interestingly enough, all of them claim to be Christians. So obviously, there is something ill or wrong about Christianity. That is really all of my point. I know that Jesus Christ was not like this. But nonetheless, your societies are ill and need a lot of help. May I suggest Islam?
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Royal Son said...

Osama: Which of these groups do you consider to be kufar ? -

Wahabi
Shia
Salafi
Sufi
Ahmadiyya

Also, tell me which countries have majorities of people claiming to be muslim but are kufar?

I look forward to your response.

nma said...

Osama Abdallah said...

But nonetheless, your societies are ill and need a lot of help. May I suggest Islam? Four wives, pedophelia,slave girls, wife beating, stoning, beheading, terrorism, blowing up innocent people, betraying family members to book a few houris in heaven, taqqiya, killing apostates etc. are exciting and tempting offers (from a satanic point of view).

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama,

As a matter of fact there is equal or even worse immorality taking in place in muslim countries than in the West.

I know for a fact from Christians living in Muslim countries that the university life is as immoral as in the West. boys sleep with girls, boys sleep with boys and girls sleep with girls.

I know also that the practice of homosexuality in some muslim countries probably multiplies the western practice of homosexuality possibly a hundred times.

I believe that muslim leaders mean well when they separate males and females but it simply does not solve the problem of imorality.

Furthermore the high number of cases when mullah's (islamic priests) sexually violate their students is a common knowledge among muslims in their own countries, but nothing that has received as much attention as the case of catholic priests having engaged in such behaviour in the West.

At the same time pedofila is much more common practice in muslim countries in the West.

And not to forget, much like in the West you are gona find both male and female prostitutes, including children prostitutes in most muslim countries.

Notice also that a number of Arabic countries allow porno channels to be broadcasted, much like they permit it in the West.

So this whole thing about condemning the West while elevating the moral situation in muslim countries as some kind of a a high moral example is to me kind of ridicolous.

I guess both the Western and the muslim society needs transformation, and may I recomend Jesus.

At least if he is the role model it will end the practice of old males marrying child brides, it will end divorces, it will end rape of female captives, it will end the rape of none-muslim females, it will end completely the shiah practice of mutta marriages, and a whole lot of other immoral practices.

Hence I would recomend Jesus much more than I would recommend a religion such as Islam.

Osama Abdallah said...

Royal Son,

Wahabies and Salafies are the same thing. Wahabies/Salafies and Sufies are Sunnis. Shias are Shias. Ahmadiyyas are like your Mormons. They have their own prophet. The African-American "Nation of Islam" are the same thing. They have their own prophet.

Sunni-Islam are the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population, where at least 90% of all Muslims world-wide are Sunnis.

Your question showed a great deal of ignorance about Islam. You have names for your sects within the Protestants' group alone that are at least 4 times more than the names you mentioned for the Muslims. And, you do have different major sects within Christianity: Protestants, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Coptics, Russian Orthodox (there is probably a different name for them... I am not sure), etc....
I hope this helps.

nma,

You are another ignorant and hateful christian. You said:

"But nonetheless, your societies are ill and need a lot of help. May I suggest Islam? Four wives, pedophelia,slave girls, wife beating, stoning, beheading, terrorism, blowing up innocent people, betraying family members to book a few houris in heaven, taqqiya, killing apostates etc. are exciting and tempting offers (from a satanic point of view)."

My Response:
1- Four Wives. What is wrong with polygamy? Polygamy is a social solution to many marital problems. And for your information, polygamy is highly discouraged in the Holy Quran: www.answering-christianity.com/polygamy.htm

Polygamy is also allowed in both the Bible's Old and New Testaments:

www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

2- Pedophelia. If you mean marriage with young girls is pedophelia, then please GO TELL IT TO THE CHRISTIAN SAM SHAMOUN WHO SAID TO ME THAT HIS GRANDMOTHER was married at the age of 12. Yes, twelve. And why is marriage pedophelia to you?

3- Slave girls. We don't have that today. In fact, Islam came to fight slavery and end it. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/human.htm
4- Wife Beating. I am all for it if she violates my dignity, especially in public, after the 2nd warning. After that, both spouses are commanded to either divorce or remain married in peace. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/beating.htm
5- Stoning. Stoning of the married adulterer and cutting of the hands of the theif might look harsh to you, but they do keep the society in line. I'd take that anytime over the MORAL DECAY AND CHAOS that your societies are suffering from.
6- Beheading. Beheading of criminals such as murderers and rapists is a fair judgment.

7- Terrorism. Much of it is phony like the 9/11/2001 lie.

8- Blowing up innocent civilians. How are they innocent when they ethnically cleanse people out of their homes? My grand father lost 70 donums because of settlers. Are we not allowed to blow them all up into a MILLION PIECES IF WE COULD? You tell me. Why is it ok for you to go kill people in the name of Christ like you did in Iraq and not ok for others to defend themselves?

9- Betraying family members. I am not sure what you mean by this one.

10- Taqiyya. If lying to the enemy is sinful to you, then all Christians including Jesus Christ himself deserve to go to Hell and remain in Hell.

11- Killing of apostates. This is a debated issue among Muslims. You can visit: www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm to see that peaceful apostates are to be spared.

Your dark, deep and blinding hate is obvious. I hope that you see the Light of Islam someday.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama Abdalla wrote:

1- Four Wives. What is wrong with polygamy? Polygamy is a social solution to many marital problems. And for your information, polygamy is highly discouraged in the Holy Quran: www.answering-christianity.com/polygamy.htm

Elijah replies:

The Qur'an seems to refute your excuse of Polygamy:

O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave-girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers . . . .(Sura 33: 50)

I simply don't see how this serves to solve any solution within the societal problems, quite the opposite; this is a permission that intentionally solves the problem of lust.

Osama wrote:

Polygamy is also allowed in both the Bible's Old and New Testaments:

Elijah replies:

Where, Osama, in the New Testament does it explicitly condone polygamy?

Osama wrote:

2- Pedophelia. If you mean marriage with young girls is pedophelia, then please GO TELL IT TO THE CHRISTIAN SAM SHAMOUN WHO SAID TO ME THAT HIS GRANDMOTHER was married at the age of 12. Yes, twelve. And why is marriage pedophelia to you?

Elijah replies:

You are right pedofila is not when a twevle year old is married to 12 or 14 year old, but pedofila is when a 9 year old is married to a 50 year old.

Osama wrote:

3- Slave girls. We don't have that today. In fact, Islam came to fight slavery and end it. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/human.htm

Elijah replies:

That is a blant lie Osama, the Arabic world is full of slaves. There are at least 70.000 Sudanic Christian and animist slaves in Islamic captivity. The number used to be much higher.

Hence slavery and islam still walk hand in hand today.

Osama wrote:

4- Wife Beating. I am all for it if she violates my dignity, especially in public, after the 2nd warning. After that, both spouses are commanded to either divorce or remain married in peace. Visit: www.answering-christianity.com/beating.htm

Elijah replies:

So you actually beat your wife Osama or you would do if necessary.

I must say, that worries me.

Elijah replies:

5- Stoning. Stoning of the married adulterer and cutting of the hands of the theif might look harsh to you, but they do keep the society in line. I'd take that anytime over the MORAL DECAY AND CHAOS that your societies are suffering from.

Elijah replies:

I have to admit that we need much tuffer rules of punishment in the West, I agree.

However, that needs to come from a religion that punishes those who rape girls from other religions, hence not Islam.

Osama wrote:

6- Beheading. Beheading of criminals such as murderers and rapists is a fair judgment.

Elijah replies:

I agree (many Christians will probably disagree with me here), but based upon the Bible I do not see it wrong to execute murderers and rapists.

Osama wrote:

7- Terrorism. Much of it is phony like the 9/11/2001 lie.

Elijah replies:

So you do not believe that muslim terrorists were behind 9/11?

Osama wrote:

8- Blowing up innocent civilians. How are they innocent when they ethnically cleanse people out of their homes? My grand father lost 70 donums because of settlers. Are we not allowed to blow them all up into a MILLION PIECES IF WE COULD? You tell me. Why is it ok for you to go kill people in the name of Christ like you did in Iraq and not ok for others to defend themselves?

Elijah replies:

I understand your frustration, but in that case would you condone that Christians in Indonesia blow up Muslims for similar attrocities, because it has to go both ways. Or what? Or would we not not move on and live a better life if we seriously considered the teachings of the Lord Jesus on reconciliation.

Fernando said...

Osama... you're, ounce again, going down the wrong pathe... your wordes are a "summa" off darke argumentes and amizing boggus factes... Osama... pleasse: don'te goo through thate darke pathe...

may youre heart open to the infinite love off Jesus Christ our true God.

Osama Abdallah said...

Elijah,

Where in your entire Bible is it forbidden for a 9-year old girl to get married? In your sources outside your Bible, Mary is said to have been 11 when she married 99-year old Joseph. Now whether this is true or not is not the point, even though THE ROMAN CATHOLICS BELIEVE IT IS TRUE. The point is that the fact that such fact exists in your sources PROVES THAT YOUR BIBLE DOES NOT CONDEMN IT.
Like nma, your deep hate is blinding you to even speak logically.

As to the rest of your points, I've provided the links that answer you and refute you in great details in my post above. I do not intend on messing this thread up with endless debates.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Hogan Elijah,

I forgot to give the link to your pedophilia nonsense that backfires worse at the Bible:

www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm
One more point Elijah, do you honestly believe that out of the THOUSANDS OF WIVES THAT YOUR PROPHETS married, none of them was around 9 years old?

And again, show me where in the bible is it condemned for a 9-year old girl to get married.
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Elijah said:

"Elijah replies:

So you actually beat your wife Osama or you would do if necessary.

I must say, that worries me."

My response:
No I do not beat my wife. She is an honorable woman; so honorable that she even wakes me up in the middle of the night to pray the Morning Prayer on time.

The point I made and I also made in previous posts is that flirty and loose women do cause and have historically caused wars among families, tribes and even nations. A woman can be a deadly and fatal poison to everybody if she decides to. To me personally, if I find a man with my wife in bed, then trust me, one of them better reach my 380 semi-automatic before me because both will be dead if I reach it.

That's my say.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

the Osama, in another outburst off ignorance saide: «THE ROMAN CATHOLICS BELIEVE IT IS TRUE»... no they do nott... the Catholic Enciclopedia simply gibbes a testiminy to whate some bookes (thate were not accepted as truthfull) speakes about thate facte... the Osama... grow up...

Another pointe: does the qur'an prohibites someonne fromm eatting mannure? It does not, so it allows itt... in your own twisted logique... the Osama... grow up...

another stupid question from the Osama: «THOUSANDS OF WIVES THAT YOUR PROPHETS married, none of them was around 9 years old?»... we can't imagine whate is nott saide (otherwise we can also imagine thate Muhammad made all sort off thingues to ladie Aisha thate the qur'an do not condemn...)... butt then: how manie times do wie need to tell to you thate no one else than Jesus is our modell? Do you habe some problem in learning? Iff you wante to debatte, please gett your facts righte... the Osama... grow up...

the Osama... none off your wordes present anie true ebidence to the aspects brother Elijah pointed/asked to you... can't you juste read whate is saide?... the Osama... grow up...

may youre heart open to the infinite love off Jesus Christ our true God.

Royal Son said...

Osama doesn't learn.

Osama doesn't want to learn.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

I am glad that you did the right thing by apologizing. Please back your words with action by not displaying the same inappropriate behavior again.

Based on your apology I am removing the comment where I linked to and quoted your words on Keith's blog. Since you have apologized I encourage you to remove your comment from this thread where you repeated the insult.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said:"I forgot to give the link to your pedophilia nonsense that backfires worse at the Bible:"I will not call Muhammad a "pedophile" as this is a clinical diagnosis that is difficult to apply to someone that has been dead for over 1,400 years. However, I will point out a few simple facts that form the basis of my objection to your claim above:

1) Muslims have made Muhammad's behavior the basis of morality in their societies, and seek to copy his actions. Muhammad's Sunnah not only allows but actually promotes old men marrying and having intercourse with young girls. It's not just "halal". It's a positive command [be like Muhammad]. Sheikhs and Mullahs explain the virtues and benefits of giving young girls to middle aged men.

2) You speculate without any proof on the ages of brides of Biblical figures. Even if your speculation is correct, we are under absolutely no positive command to copy their behavior in this regard. There is no Sunnah of Joseph, or Solomon, etc etc.

3) Our Master, Yeshua, has commanded us to respect and abide by secular laws. Whatever age of consent is in our secular jurisdiction this is the Biblically approved minimum age, as long as it is not younger than full sexual maturity, which is what the Tanach teaches and the Messianic Scriptures affirm. Now here are two major distinction that you seem unaware of > a) Biblically, its not only consummation that is set at this age its the union into marriage as well. b) minimum age is full sexual maturity, not first menstruation. In Biblically based Hebraic culture its considered shameful to give a young virgin to a much older man. Additionally its prohibited to give a woman in marriage before full sexual maturity. Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is condemned on both accounts.

4) The Quran gives guidelines for divorcing a girl before her first menstruation, and provides a waiting period of three months that is intended to ensure the about-to-be-divorced girl isn't pregnant. Look at the below Ayah and commentary:

65:4 - Hilali-Khan trans. - "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allâh and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him."

"Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible."
(Maududi vol.5 p.620)

Considering all of the above information, Osama, I have one simple question for you and wonder if you will answer: Do you believe it is your right as a Muslim to marry a prepubescent girl?

nma said...

Osama, You are another ignorant and hateful Muslim. Some of your responses have been refuted by Hogan Elijah Hagbard. Here are answers to some others:


Osama's Response:
1- Four Wives. What is wrong with polygamy? Polygamy is a social solution to many marital problems. And for your information, polygamy is highly discouraged in the Holy Quran: www.answering-christianity.com/polygamy.htm

Polygamy is also allowed in both the Bible's Old and New Testaments:
Mark 10:5-12 explains what is wrong with polygamy and thus New Testament implicitly discourages it.

Osama's Response:
2- Pedophelia. If you mean marriage with young girls is pedophelia, then please GO TELL IT TO THE CHRISTIAN SAM SHAMOUN WHO SAID TO ME THAT HIS GRANDMOTHER was married at the age of 12. Yes, twelve. And why is marriage pedophelia to you?Answer to this is given by Hogan Elijah Hagbard. Also, if he was a prophet of God, Mohammed should not have done it. His excuse that Allah condoned his pedophelia is a contrived one. Answer to your question is another question: If someone marries a five year old and have sex with here, isn't that pedophelia?

Osama's Response:
3- Slave girls. We don't have that today. In fact, Islam came to fight slavery and end it. Now that is taqqiya. Visit:http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.htmlOsama's Response:
4- Wife Beating. I am all for it if she violates my dignity, especially in public, after the 2nd warning.Whether you support it or not, it is still evil.

Osama's Response:
5- Stoning. Stoning of the married adulterer and cutting of the hands of the theif might look harsh to you, but they do keep the society in line.Stoning and beheading is still evil. There are other but humane methods of punishment. Also:""He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Osama's Response:
6- Beheading. Beheading of criminals such as murderers and rapists is a fair judgment. There are civilized methods of punishment.


Osama's Response:
7- Terrorism. Much of it is phony like the 9/11/2001 lie.


Your resposnse is taqqiya at its best. Sorry, my mistake, it is the Jews who did it!

Osama's Response:
9- Betraying family members. I am not sure what you mean by this one.An example of this is a 16 year old son betraying his widowed mother and her lover to authorities just because he was convinced that he would be in heaven for doing so. This happened in Afganistan and is not uncommon in Muslim communities.


Osama's Response:
10- Taqiyya. If lying to the enemy is sinful to you, then all Christians including Jesus Christ himself deserve to go to Hell and remain in Hell.


Again, your response is Taqqiya. Jesus Christ never lied or condoned lying. You might misinterpret the Bible verses to falsely show that He lied but that again is taqqiya at work.

faktb said...

Osama,

In Christianity, we acknowledge that prophets are sinful. Prophets are not our example (as they are for Muslims). Jesus is our ultimate example.

So it doesn't matter if a prophet in the Bible married or did not marry a nine-year-old.

OSAMA
Since Muhammad is your example, do YOU find it OKAY for you to marry a 9 year old when you are 53 years old?

Fernando said...

the Osama... all your commentes and attemptes to defende the imposible are borderingue the moste sicke I eber testimonied in mie liffe... And I habe testimonied manie taqqyia, attackes onn Christianity and stupid argumentes bie manie muslimes, priour and after mie former experience as a muslime in Phillipine and Indonisia... the Osama:

1) juste trie to gett youre factes righte;
2) do nott trie make falsities into truthes;
3) do nott attacke the Bible and Christianitie with falsities;
4) do nott defende the qur'an and islam with falsities;
5) do nott persiste inn the samme errores thate were infinete times debuqued; is you habe some problem in learning, att leaste haboid mention those...

the Osama... please: staie outt off the dark path: itt will onlie take you intto fear; and fear onlie will take you into pain; and pain onlie will take you into hatte; and hatte onlie will take you into the impossibilitie off convertion...

the Osama... mai God, the Trinitie, open your lovely heart...

Osama Abdallah said...

"Osama,

In Christianity, we acknowledge that prophets are sinful. Prophets are not our example (as they are for Muslims). Jesus is our ultimate example.

So it doesn't matter if a prophet in the Bible married or did not marry a nine-year-old.

OSAMA
Since Muhammad is your example, do YOU find it OKAY for you to marry a 9 year old when you are 53 years old?"

My response:

I don't care what Prophets do and don't. If their action was against what Allah Almighty allowed, then their actions are sins, and if their actions were PERMITTED BY ALLAH ALMIGHTY, then their actions are ok.

Polygamy and marriage of very young girls were permitted in the Bible and very widely practiced as well.

As to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and upon all of the Prophets of Allah Almighty, marrying a 9-year old girl at the age of 53 and whether or not he is my example, this really is outside Islam, or is something very minor in Islam. Copying the Prophet is not mandatory nor is Commanded in the Holy Quran nor Hadiths. Allah Almighty Said that in the Prophet a great example for us to follow, because he was:

1- A Humble man.
2- A Righteous man.
3- An Honest man.
4- A loving man to his wives.
5- A well-mannered man who never spoke foul.
6- A very physically clean person.
7- A forgiving and merciful man.
etc....

These are some of the virtues of Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/muhammad.htm for detailed proofs.

Also visit: www.answering-christianity.com/good_manners.htm to see the beauty of Islam in manners.

I love these virtues of my beloved Prophet and I try my best to copy them and be like him in them. But as to marrying a 9-year old girl today, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR ME TODAY, AND THEREFORE, I WOULDN'T DO IT. His age being 53 does not bother me because back then it was ok with almost all of the societies and all of the religions, including Christianity. I personally would not do it. I would not follow that example because we are different today in lifestyle and many other things.

I hope this helps.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

the Osama... let's for the momente forget that Muhammad is the “al-insan al-kamil” ande, according to the qur'an, the role model for ebery muslime, can you prove thate «then it was ok with almost all of the societies and all of the religions, including Christianity»?...

withoute a cleare unswer without redirecting to your virus infested site we'll assume you can't...

the Osama... can you probe thate the marriega off pre-pubescent girls was/is ok in the Bible?

the Osama... if allah orderes an un-humanne actione, woulde you consider itt ok nontheless? would be a muslmie less human than ani atheíst thate have an human heart?

withoute a cleare unswer without redirecting to your virus infested site we'll assume you woulde...

the Osama... please: staie outt off the dark path: itt will onlie take you intto fear; and fear onlie will take you into pain; and pain onlie will take you into hatte; and hatte onlie will take you into the impossibilitie off convertion...

the Osama... mai God, the Trinitie, open your lovely heart...

Osama Abdallah said...

Fernando,

No Muslim calls Prophet Muhammad “al-insan al-kamil” (the perfect human being). In fact, here is what Prophet Muhammad said:

Narrated 'Umar: "I heard the Prophet saying, 'Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophets, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 654)"

I HAVE NEVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE HEARD ANY MUSLIM CALL THE PROPHET or any Prophet Al-Insan Al-Kamil. On the contrary, we always say: AL-KAMAAL LILLAH (Perfectness is only for Allah).

No Prophet is perfect and no human being either. Allah Almighty Said:

"If Allah were to punish Men for their wrongdoing, He would not leave, on the (earth), A single living creature: But He gives them respite For a stated Term: When their Term expires, They would not be able To delay (the punishment) For a single hour, just as They would not be able To anticipate it (for a single hour). (The Noble Quran, 16:61)"

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

the Osama... aboutt Muhammad as the “al-insan al-kamil” I'll probide somme muslimme sources to you:

1) http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/weismann.html;

2) Azizoddin Nasafi - "Kitab al-Insan al-Kamil";

3) Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki - "Muhammad al-Insan al-Kamil";

4) Seyyed Hossein Nasr - "The Essential workes"... for this one I'll eben probide a page since I habe it just in front off me: 65 (this book probides more than 200 names off people callin Muhammad as such...);

5)'Abd al-Kerim Jili - "Muhammad al-Insan al-Kamil";

6) http://www.sufilive.com/Attach_Yourself_to_Prophet_Muhammad_saw_-1461-print.html

7) http://www.dartabligh.org/web/Al_Furqan/files/Al-Furqan%201-3%20Feb16.pdf

are you, the Osama, willing to say publiquely thate none off these authores are muslimmes?

we all be righte here waitting for a kind worde from you...

the Osama... mai God, the Trinitie, open your lovely heart...

Fernando said...

the Osama... aboutt Muhammad as the “al-insan al-kamil” I'll probide somme muslimme sources to you:

1) http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/weismann.html;

2) Azizoddin Nasafi - "Kitab al-Insan al-Kamil";

3) Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki - "Muhammad al-Insan al-Kamil";

4) Seyyed Hossein Nasr - "The Essential workes"... for this one I'll eben probide a page since I habe it just in front off me: 65 (this book probides more than 200 names off people callin Muhammad as such...);

5)'Abd al-Kerim Jili - "Muhammad al-Insan al-Kamil";

6) http://www.sufilive.com/Attach_Yourself_to_Prophet_Muhammad_saw_-1461-print.html

7) http://www.dartabligh.org/web/Al_Furqan/files/Al-Furqan%201-3%20Feb16.pdf

are you, the Osama, willing to say publiquely thate none off these authores are muslimmes?

we all be righte here waitting for a kind worde from you...

the Osama... mai God, the Trinitie, open your lovely heart...

Osama Abdallah said...

Fernando,

The links you gave are all Sufies. Sufies are a cult and an extreme minority. They call themselves THE MYSTICAL BRANCH OF ISLAM". They hardly represent 3% (if even) of the entire Muslim 1.2 billion population.

Do you want me to bring MORMONS' philosophy about Jesus being an ANGEL and debate you with it? That would be a waste of everybody's time and a desperate move. I've already provided the Noble Quranic Verses from the Holy Quran and Hadith from Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that say Muhammad was not kamil (complete to perfectness or perfect). I can provide you much more. I don't need Sufies absurdities to debate.

Among their other absurdities is that they believe in people come back from the dead and people being raised to Allah Almighty without dying. They are a minority cult that is hardly relevant.
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

Ok, the Osama... fromm know onn we know Suffies are nott, in youre wordes, muslimes... ok... that's clear too me... I do nott consider mormonism being Christianity... butt I do thinke you're anologie is nott valluable since the CORE message off Christianitie and mormonism is totalie different, and that's nott the case between watte you call "muslimes" and Sufies... butt let's turn this page...

nevertheless, Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki is nott a suffie: he's a sunni scholar fromm Saudi Arabia; and Muhammad Rizvi Sayyid is a shiia schoolar and author... and in Seyyed Hossein Nasr's book he quotes sunni scholars as: Hakim al-Nishaburi; Muhammed Hamdi Yazır and Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri... and some other xiia: Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni... so... the factes speak for themselfs...

the Osama... peace on your heart...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I have to say that this was kind of a weak refutation of my objections by Osama Abdallah:

Osama wrote:

Where in your entire Bible is it forbidden for a 9-year old girl to get married? In your sources outside your Bible, Mary is said to have been 11 when she married 99-year old Joseph. Now whether this is true or not is not the point, even though THE ROMAN CATHOLICS BELIEVE IT IS TRUE. The point is that the fact that such fact exists in your sources PROVES THAT YOUR BIBLE DOES NOT CONDEMN IT.
Like nma, your deep hate is blinding you to even speak logically.
As to the rest of your points, I've provided the links that answer you and refute you in great details in my post above. I do not intend on messing this thread up with endless debates

Elijah replies:

In the Song of songs a girl who has not yet formed her breasts is not given in marriage (Song of Songs 8: 8-9); hence this seems to be the understanding even in the times of Solomon, namely that 7-9 year old girls are not ready for marriage or sexual intercourse; your prophet was not of that universal opinion, neither was Allah.

As to your source of Mary being 11 and Joseph being 99, the information is taken from a Catholic encyclopedia; this information is found no where in the early traditions of Christianity.

It comes from a Gnostic source written in the second-third century AD, and you are wrong if you believe that Catholics believe this source to be true.

The encyclopedia you are referring to does not indicate that; rather the encyclopedia refers to the information to provide an entire summary of a variaty of opinions.
You keep asserting that these are our sources, Osama you need to do your homework, these are not our sources.

Furthermore, your methodology can be used upon the Qur’an, if I find any idea that appears repulsive or destructive of islam in any encyclopedia or book or source written by a muslim, then you are in fact saying that these can be taken logically to describe what islam truly is; in that case Osama Islam would be logically destroyed within a month.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama wrote:

I forgot to give the link to your pedophilia nonsense that backfires worse at the Bible:
www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm
One more point Elijah, do you honestly believe that out of the THOUSANDS OF WIVES THAT YOUR PROPHETS married, none of them was around 9 years old?

Elijah replies

I assume you are referring to kingdom Solomon here

Firstly, Solomon had 700 wives not 1000 just to correct that, he had 300 concubines though, much like in Islam when you engage with your multiple number of wives and your slaves girls

However, let me point out here that what Solomon did was acting against the Law of God, in the Mosaic Law kings were not allowed to have many wives (Deuteronomy 17); thus he was not acting or representing a prophet of God or a godly king at this point

Which concludes that his harem life was sinful; which concludes that harems are sinful to anyone.

So did he have sex with nine years old or? Nobody knows, if he did, he did wrong and practiced pedofilia.

Does that answer your question?

Solomon by tradition being the author of the Song of Songs which abhors marriage with little girls, I doubt he did, at least when he practiced God’s religion

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama wrote:

And again, show me where in the bible is it condemned for a 9-year old girl to get married.

Elijah replies:

Well I did show you a verse from the song of Songs.

Another indicator which you will fail perceive anyway is the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the New Testament, it simply fails to fit in the New Testament teaching that a fifty years old man can have sex with a nine year old girl.

However, let me elaborate on this, I do not see it appropiate for a nine year old to marry anyone.

I do however recon the marriage of a 12 year old as possible in certain circumstances and in certain cultures and in certain times. I have personally no problem with that.

I am however inclined to agree with the Talmud here, that it was a disgrace to marry a 12 year old girl with an old man; ussually a 12-13 year old girl in the Jewish culture was married to a younger man, ussually 17-18 years of age; in that culture, time and situation I can accept that, but a 50 year old marrying a 12 year old or a 9 year old that is disgraceful, does not matter how romantically you set it up.

Osama read the book of Proverbs it instructs the males to enjoy the wives of their youth and be faithful to them; that was the trend among Jews, and that seems to be a universal attitude to marriage.

So let me summarize it: the major problem is not the marriage of a nine year old girl, even though I am against it, the problem is; the nine year old girl marrying a 50 year old man.

Osama Abdallah wrote:

No I do not beat my wife. She is an honorable woman; so honorable that she even wakes me up in the middle of the night to pray the Morning Prayer on time.

The point I made and I also made in previous posts is that flirty and loose women do cause and have historically caused wars among families, tribes and even nations. A woman can be a deadly and fatal poison to everybody if she decides to. To me personally, if I find a man with my wife in bed, then trust me, one of them better reach my 380 semi-automatic before me because both will be dead if I reach it.
That's my say.

Elijah replies:

Ok fair enough

Well... I am glad you don’t beat your wife

But still this whole thing about wife beating worries me

You are saying that the Qur’an refers to loose women, can you confirm that?

Also I would like to know, when a husband acts rebelliously against his wife or flirst around, who will beat him, his wife, his children or will he simply beat himself

Could you please expound upon that?

To me it seems that Islam here proposes a merely male authoritative religion that categorizes a wife among her own children.

Is your wife aware of your opinions?

Would she approve of them?

Would other muslim women reading this blog approve of them?

Fernando said...

Brother Hogan Elijah... berie good pointes when dealling with teh Osama... sometimes I juste want to deal with him in logic termes since he's totallie biased against the Bible, butt your points were pretious... may Godd bless you...

faktb said...

Thank you Osama for your clarity.

I'm glad that you will not marry a 9 year old girl when you are 53 years old.

However, you are unable to condemn or find morally repulsive the marriages today in Saudi, etc in which a 40 or older man marries a 12 or younger girl.

Please adjust your position. We must together take a stand against these morally reprehensible practices.

Please think about these young girls today and take a stand on their behalf. Oh the horrors they must endure!

How would you like it if some 50 year old man married YOUR 9 year old daughter (if you had one).

Osama Abdallah said...

Hogan,

I read your Song of Songs verses:

Song of Solomon 8:8-9
8 We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown. What shall we do for our sister for the day she is spoken for?
9 If she is a wall, we will build towers of silver on her. If she is a door, we will enclose her with panels of cedar.

MY RESPONSE:

Neither is Song of Songs a Law to be followed, nor do your verses give any age limit. The young sister's breasts not shown yet means that they did not start coming off of her body. Girls as young as 7 or even younger start having breasts that distinguish them from boys. Heck, for you, I'll go for 10 years old! She's still too young. Your whole argument is desperate.

By the way, the Holy Quran did give a clear indication to when girls and boys are allowed to get married. When one becomes BALAGHA ASHUDDUH, then he or she is allowed to get married and take his/her inheritance too. Please visit: What is the minimum age for marriage in the Holy Quran?

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm

As to the Roman Catholics' sources being Gnostic, that is nonesense. You have certainly not provided a shred of evidence for anything. Not only that, but as I proved during my debate with David Wood, YOU ARE GNOSTIC. Christians are Gnostics. But regardless, the Catholics' sources come from apocryphas, gospels, and early writings that didn't make it to the canon. The "Christian" world wasn't just divided between Gnostics and non-Gnostics. That is a lie that christians continue to circulate out of desperation to mislead the ignorant.
As to DEUTERNOMY 17:17, it says that a king must not have MANY WIVES. This still allows polygamy. How little is "not many wives?"

You further said: "You are saying that the Qur’an refers to loose women, can you confirm that?"
Women showing NUSHOOZ are women who are any of the following:

1- Very defiant.
2- Very loose.
3- Can't be trusted (they lie or BS to much to a point where they've lost all trustworthiness).
4- Curses her husband and dishonors him.
5- etc....

A nashiz woman is not a woman that is too tired to make you the cup of tea that you requested in the evening. No, that's what what defiance is. A NASHIZ WOMAN is one that does major major problems. When life with her becomes a WASTE OF LIFE due to her never-ending major troubles that she causes, then she becomes a nashiz woman. She is also a woman that is too dangerous for your kids' upbringing; a woman that you do not want your daughters, for instance, to be like.

I hope this helps.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

faktb said...

Actually, the Quran says that Muhammad IS your example.

033.021

Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.

Also see 068.004

And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality.

Osama Abdallah said...

Sorry one point I forgot to mention is that it seems that the Noble Verses that I gave in www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm seem to have come after the Prophet's marriage with our mother in Islam, Aisha, since the Prophet's marriage with her was during the early days of Islam.

Thanks,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

faktb said...

QUESTION FOR OSAMA

What do you make of TODAY's marriages in Saudi and Yemen between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl?

I know that YOU WOULD NOT do it, but my question rather is:

DO YOU FIND IT ACCEPTABLE?

Osama Abdallah said...

Hogan,

When Solomon married his 100s of wives, did he marry them before he was a king or after? If he married them before, then Deuteronomy 17:17 may not necessarily be used against him.

Also, if Solomon was receiving inspirations from GOD Almighty to write his books, then why would Solomon commit such sins against GOD Almighty? Same thing with his father David. If he truly wrote the books of Chronicles, Kings and Psalms and others, and they were truly GOD Almighty's Holy Words, then why would he commit major sins against GOD Almighty such as murder and adultery against his neighbor and his neighbor's wife?

It seems to me that Israel as ruled by gangs and thugs and not by Prophets of GOD Almighty, if we take the Bible's accounts. Why would this be surprising when all of their history is made up of struggles for power and civil wars among each others.

Thanks,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

The Osama... as I said before: get youre factes right... those gnostic sources were nott acceptesd as Christians... that'es wie theyre're not in the Bible? Do you habe a problem to understand?

About the marriage with pre-pubscent girls in the Bible, manir bloggers (broters nma and Hogan and eben I) gabe you a perfect account for thate... Do you habe a problem to understand?

the Osama... please: staie outt off the dark path: itt will onlie take you intto fear; and fear onlie will take you into pain; and pain onlie will take you into hatte; and hatte onlie will take you into the impossibilitie off convertion...

the Osama... mai God, the Trinitie, open your lovely heart...

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "It seems to me that Israel as ruled by gangs and thugs and not by Prophets of GOD Almighty, if we take the Bible's accounts. Why would this be surprising when all of their history is made up of struggles for power and civil wars among each others."Are you kidding me? Considering how the early Caliphs were all violently murdered, Aisha led a war against Ali and his followers, the way one group was constantly usurped by another in Islamic history, and the various sects are still killing each other today I have absolutely no idea why you would engage in this type of criticism. Osama, are you a hypocrite, ignorant of your own history, or in denial?

I tried to think of nicer sounder options, but quite frankly these were the only 3 I could come up with.

Osama said: "Also, if Solomon was receiving inspirations from GOD Almighty to write his books, then why would Solomon commit such sins against GOD Almighty?"If YHWH waited around for perfect sinless people to use for his purposes, then there would never be any inspiration of anything written. This is just common sense Osama. It's also funny on the one hand, how you distance yourself from well entrenched ideas about Muhammad's Isma ("impeccability, protection from sin"), but on the other hand you criticize our belief that Solomon and David were sinners yet were used as inspired authors to accomplish the will of the Creator.

Also, it seems you have fully abandoned your failed attempts to defend the scientific errors in your Quran, and have chosen to focus on issues related to attacking the Bible instead. Probably a smart move considering the hopelessness of your original efforts.

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher said:
"Osama said: "It seems to me that Israel as ruled by gangs and thugs and not by Prophets of GOD Almighty, if we take the Bible's accounts. Why would this be surprising when all of their history is made up of struggles for power and civil wars among each others."
Are you kidding me? Considering how the early Caliphs were all violently murdered, Aisha led a war against Ali and his followers, the way one group was constantly usurped by another in Islamic history, and the various sects are still killing each other today I have absolutely no idea why you would engage in this type of criticism. Osama, are you a hypocrite, ignorant of your own history, or in denial?"

Response:

We do not consider Aisha, Ali, Abu Bakr, othman, Omar and others be Prophets of GOD Almighty nor do we consider their words and writings Divine Revelations from GOD Almighty.
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama wrote:

I read your Song of Songs verses:

Song of Solomon 8:8-9
8 We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown. What shall we do for our sister for the day she is spoken for?
9 If she is a, we will build towers of silver on her. If she is a door, we will enclose her with panels of cedar.
MY RESPONSE:

Neither is Song of Songs a Law to be followed, nor do your verses give any age limit. The young sister's breasts not shown yet means that they did not start coming off of her body.
Elijah replies:
Firstly, I did not refer to Song of Songs as a law from God but as an example of the practice and view on child marriages of the time, I even pointed that out in my last rebuttle
Furthermore, even if I did use Song of Songs as a means to stress the Law of God and you correctly pointed out my the wrongness of my hermeueutic, then why do you Osama utilize every example of narrative to establish the the Law of God in the Bible.
For example in this same context you have referred to the multiple number of Solomon’s wives and you continually enforce your argument that Solomon’s conduct here was in line with the Law of God, even though I have explicitly pointed out from Deuteronomy 17 that it was not.
Are you not shooting yourself in the foot here.
Furthermore as to your response, the very fact that her breasts are not yet grown means that she underaged as simply as that, Aisha was 7-9 nine year old when she married Muhammad and engaged in sex with this 50 year old man, which would logically suggest that she would be in a similar age as this young girl in Song of songs.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama wrote:

Girls as young as 7 or even younger start having breasts that distinguish them from boys. Heck, for you, I'll go for 10 years old! She's still too young. Your whole argument is desperate.

By the way, the Holy Quran did give a clear indication to when girls and boys are allowed to get married. When one becomes BALAGHA ASHUDDUH, then he or she is allowed to get married and take his/her inheritance too. Please visit: What is the minimum age for marriage in the Holy Quran?

Elijah replies:

Osama, I ought to inform you to the American police

Let me get this straight, a 7-10 year old girl has breasts that distinguish them from boys hence they are ready to be engaging in sex with 50 year old men,
shame on you Abdallah, this is getting slightly sickening

Is it me sounding desparate or is it just me pointing out what is logically and morally wrong?

As to your reference to the Qur’an on girls and boys getting married, firstly we know from biological and social studies that seven or nine year old girls are not ready for sex, no matter what the Qur’an presumes

Furthermore, if you read my previous response I clearly pointed out that the main problem was the marriage between boy and girl, but girl and grand-father

So can you please expound on this, should 50 year old men marry 7 year old girls

Osama wrote:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm
As to the Roman Catholics' sources being Gnostic, that is nonesense. You have certainly not provided a shred of evidence for anything.

Elijah replies:

Can you show us in from my previoius reply where I even indicated that Catholics are Gnostics, I have never stated that, neither do you believe that
So I don’t know what shred of evidence I am to bring

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama replies:

Not only that, but as I proved during my debate with David Wood, YOU ARE GNOSTIC. Christians are Gnostics.

Elijah replies:

Now I would like to see some shred of evidence

In what sense am I a gnostic

Are you aware of Osama that the
Qur’anic view on Jesus’ crucifixion is based upon dualistic Gnosticism?

Do not drag us Christians into this mess, just because the author of the Qur’an had to borrow Gnostic sources.

Osama wrote:

But regardless, the Catholics' sources come from apocryphas, gospels, and early writings that didn't make it to the canon. The "Christian" world wasn't just divided between Gnostics and non-Gnostics. That is a lie that christians continue to circulate out of desperation to mislead the ignorant.

Elijah replies:

You need to clarify yourself here, which sources have the Catholics borrowed and which Catholics

Furthermore, just because an early writing did not make it into the Canon does not make it heretical.

Well in the early days Christians were divided primarily between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism, Judaizers were often normal Christian but held on to the Law as well, other groups such as the Ebionites and others, denied Paul and the prophets but they followed a number of Christian doctrines, such as the death of Jesus and the resurrection.

If you are assuming that the Ebionites were Muslims, think again, they believed as I said in Jesus death, his resurrection, a number of them denied Jesus virgin birth, which is found in the Qur’an and others opted for divine adoptionism (which goes against the Qur’an), they used the Gospel of Matthew (which confirms the Qur’an), and Irenaeus points out that they follow a number of Gnostic teachings.

Osama wrote:

As to DEUTERNOMY 17:17, it says that a king must not have MANY WIVES. This still allows polygamy. How little is "not many wives?"

Elijah wrote:

Even though you are right so what? Solomon having 700 wives broke with the commandment of
Deuteronomy 17

Osama wrote:

You further said: "You are saying that the Qur’an refers to loose women, can you confirm that?"
Women showing NUSHOOZ are women who are any of the following:

1- Very defiant.
2- Very loose.
3- Can't be trusted (they lie or BS to much to a point where they've lost all trustworthiness).
4- Curses her husband and dishonors him.
5- etc....

A nashiz woman is not a woman that is too tired to make you the cup of tea that you requested in the evening. No, that's what what defiance is. A NASHIZ WOMAN is one that does major major problems. When life with her becomes a WASTE OF LIFE due to her never-ending major troubles that she causes, then she becomes a nashiz woman. She is also a woman that is too dangerous for your kids' upbringing; a woman that you do not want your daughters, for instance, to be like.

I hope this helps.

Elijah replies:

Not really Osama,

You are saying that when a women because an annucense to her husband and he gets bored with here, I mean as you say she becomes a wast of his life

Then you are allowed to beat her

Again, I find this repulsive Osama

And you did not answer my question as to when the man becomes defiant, when the man curses his wife or wastes her life
Then who will beat him up?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Osama wrote:

When Solomon married his 100s of wives, did he marry them before he was a king or after? If he married them before, then Deuteronomy 17:17 may not necessarily be used against him.

Elijah replies:

Does not matter when he married them, he broke the Mosaic Law

Osama wrote:

Also, if Solomon was receiving inspirations from GOD Almighty to write his books, then why would Solomon commit such sins against GOD Almighty? Same thing with his father David. If he truly wrote the books of Chronicles, Kings and Psalms and others, and they were truly GOD Almighty's Holy Words, then why would he commit major sins against GOD Almighty such as murder and adultery against his neighbor and his neighbor's wife?

Elijah replies:

You somehow get the idea that individuals who conveyed the Word of God could not sin

Muhammad himself sinned

And Solomon had actually turned his back on God at this point

Osama wrote:

It seems to me that Israel as ruled by gangs and thugs and not by Prophets of GOD Almighty, if we take the Bible's accounts. Why would this be surprising when all of their history is made up of struggles for power and civil wars among each others.

Elijah replies:

Well, Muhammad was the one who attacked caravans and towns, killed and enslaved people and even condoned the rape of female captives

You can’t use these arguments on Jesus, the apostles, Paul or the Christian teaching in the New Testament

Yahya Snow said...

I do believe that the Quran contatins clear scientific and historical miracles. This is something that will require clarification at a later date. We must also keep in mind that subjectivity will never get us anywhere...we must try to unbias ourselves and free ourselves from any shackles of ill-feeling we may have towards each other's faith.

I believe a comment from keithtruth contained within this thread is a typical example of 'shackles of ill-feeling' towards Islam and Muslims.

By the way, I would urge you to view brother fotfoundation's response vid to Dr Nabeel's vid (concerning science, Quran, Backbone etc)

link to first part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMQPkDKnOCM

it would also be nice if somebodey could include both parts of the response video on this blog to balance things out and see the counter-argument...hint, hint :)

ps...i have NOOOOO idea how to do it, not that technologically savvy:(

peace and love

faktb said...

QUESTION FOR OSAMA (I repeat; please answer)

What do you make of TODAY's marriages in Saudi and Yemen between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl?

I know that YOU WOULD NOT do it, but my question rather is:

DO YOU FIND IT ACCEPTABLE?

Fernando said...

Brother Hogan saide: «Osama, I ought to inform you to the American police»... and creating the impossibilitie for all these goode laughes we habe withe the Osama? Never the less this kind off mentalitie is insanne and dangerous...

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Why would this be surprising when all of their history is made up of struggles for power and civil wars among each others."

To which I replied: "Are you kidding me? Considering how the early Caliphs were all violently murdered, Aisha led a war against Ali and his followers, the way one group was constantly usurped by another in Islamic history, and the various sects are still killing each other today I have absolutely no idea why you would engage in this type of criticism. Osama, are you a hypocrite, ignorant of your own history, or in denial? I tried to think of nicer sounder options, but quite frankly these were the only 3 I could come up with."

To which Osama replied:"We do not consider Aisha, Ali, Abu Bakr, othman, Omar and others be Prophets of GOD Almighty nor do we consider their words and writings Divine Revelations from GOD Almighty."

To which I now reply: Osama, your original comment was about historical events. I replied to your comment in the context of historical events. We weren't talking about who is a prophet in this matter. The issue at hand is one of history, and your inconsistency in regard to it, not inspiration.

I dealt with your inconsistency in objecting to a sinning Solomon and David being used for inspiration in the second part of my comment, which you did not quote from, and made no response to.

Since you seem to wish to return to your objection about inspiration, I'm wondering, have you any comment on your clear inconsistency of rejecting the idea of Muhammad's Isma (impeccability, protection from sin), yet at the same time criticizing our belief that a Solomon and David can be used for revelation as also be sinners? If you grant that Muhammad did sin but accept he can be a used for divine revelation, why do you take issue with Solomon and David sinning yet being used for divine revelation?

Unknown said...

This is quite the website you have here, Nabeel. I appreciate your efforts in trying to come to an understanding. My only wish is that some of the comments here were more... civil and not condescending - it makes anyone look foolish.

As someone who converted to Islam based on the scientific merits of the Quran, I think some of the points you raised still have merit. Now, the way I see it, syntax and semantics of language have evolved since the time of the Prophet (AS). Perhaps you feel that you have to read into some of the versus because a particular scientific concept has been explained to you differently - as such your understanding might be biased to that particular explanation. It is possible, no?

I think you might be interested, if you haven't already seen this, in this debate between Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik on 'The Quran and the Bible in the light of science'. The go into GREAT detail about the embryo question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-j_WRUDaw4&feature=PlayList&p=235BD82BC398718D&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15

On a different note - from looking over some of the comments, I see that a lot of the Christians here believe that the Prophet (AS) was inspired by satin. But what do you have to say about the following verses from the bible? Honest question!

John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,

John 16:12-15
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."

Now I know that some of you will argue that Jesus (AS) is referencing to the holy spirit. But I ask you, what has the Holy spirit done for you in the past 2 millenia - what has he brought that is new - things that Christ (AS) never mentioned?

And I'll propose another suggestion - does the Quran not testify of Jesus, and glorify him and his mother?

Don't you think its interesting that the way you look at Prophet Muhammad(AS) is the same way the Jews looked at Jesus (AS) when he arrived? At the very core of it all, what does Muhammad (AS) preach that is different from Jesus (AS)?

Quran,112:1
Say Allah is uniquely one.

Bible:
Mark 12:29
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

I'm sure you've seen this, but I'll remind you again.

"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)! Come to
common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.' If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).' (The Quran, 3:64)

Salaam Brothers and Sisters

nma said...

Alizar said...
As someone who converted to Islam based on the scientific merits of the QuranSir, you are totally duped. What you think as scientific verses are very vague statments that can be interpreted in any manner and science deals with specifics not vagueness. Also, almost all such statements are not original, but borrowed from the Greeks' and others' knowledge of that time. And some Quranic science are totally wrong.

There are many websites, including this one, that expose the false claims of scientific miracles in the Quran. Have you read any of their articles?

Alizar said...

Now I know that some of you will argue that Jesus (AS) is referencing to the holy spirit. But I ask you, what has the Holy spirit done for you in the past 2 millenia - what has he brought that is new - things that Christ (AS) never mentioned?
Why should the Bible mention Mohammed, a man of inferior morality?

There are people here, much more qualified to answer your question than me but here is my humble answer:

You cannot deny that Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, brought many new things that Christ never mentioned. This itself answers your question. Also, every Christian who is guided by the Holy Spirit, not only learns new things like how to cope with the modern world but glorifies Jesus everyday. It is the Holy Spirit that does it.

Also, these are some of the holes in your argument:
1) Jesus talked about "Sprit" and Mohammed was not a "Spirit".

2) Jesus said: “All things that the Father has are Mine". Muslims do not accept the fact God was Jesus's father. So you don't accept this statement that Jesus made, but you twist Jesus's other statements conveniently to fit Mohammed, which is ridiculous.

3) Again, Jesus said that he would be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. The Quran says Jesus was not crucified. If you believe Quran, what is written in the Bible was not truthful. Now how can you quote from a book which you believe is not truthful to support the claim that Jesus's statments are about Mohammed? Muslim apologists don't make much sense.

Alizar said...
Mark 12:29
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
You overlook the fact that NT and the Christians maintain that God is one. NT does not say that God is more than one. No Christian will say God is more than one. The problem is that the Trinity is a hard idea for a simple Muslim mind to grasp.

Sepher Shalom said...

Alizar said: “I see that a lot of the Christians here believe that the Prophet (AS) was inspired by satin. But what do you have to say about the following verses from the bible? Honest question!”: John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me”; John 16:12-15 12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."”Here is why Muhammad is not mentioned in John 15:

John 15:26-27 “26“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. 27You will testify also, because you have been with me from the beginning.”

The text says in v26 “whom I will send to you”. The “I” in that verse is Yeshua. Did Yeshua send Muhammad? No Muslim will say He did. The text in v26 says “whom I will send to you”. The “you” in that verse is the Disciples. Was Muhammad sent to the Disciples? No. In order to claim this verse is about Muhammad you have to agree that Muhammad was sent by Yeshua, and you have to violate all context of the verse as well as make it an unfulfilled promise. The promise here is that the Disciples will receive the Spirit of Truth. This is obviously not some person that was born about 600 years after the Disciples died. Now read the bridge between v26 and v27, “he will testify on my behalf. 27You will testify also, because you have been with me from the beginning.” In this portion, “he” [the Spirit of Truth] will testify on behalf of Yeshua in a similar manner to how the Disciples will testify of Yeshua. Obviously, Muhammad had nothing to do with the Disciples testifying of Yeshua during their lifetimes.

Here is why Muhammad is not mentioned in John 16:

John 16:12-15 12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."

Once again, the “you” that is being spoken to in these verses, are the Disciples. When it says “will guide you into all the truth”, it means the Spirit of Truth will guide the Disciples. There is absolutely no way to claim Muhammad guided the Disciples in any way whatsoever, as he was born about 600 years after they died. The following verses say, “He will disclose to you” several times. “You” = the Disciples. Muhammad disclosed absolutely nothing to the Disciples. Furthermore, the discussion about the “Spirit of Truth” begins in John chapter 14. Let’s look at the qualifications of the Spirit of Truth in chapter 14: He will be with the Disciples always (v16), He cannot be seen by the world (v17),He lives with the Disciples already at the moment this verse was spoken (v17), He will live in the Disciples (v17) He will be sent in the name of Yeshua (v26), is the Holy Spirit (v26) [Yes, that’s right. The Bible explicitly states it is the Holy Spirit being talked about in v26].

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2

As you can see, Muhammad does not even come close to fitting the description of the Spirit of Truth spoke of in John chapters 14-16. In fact, I don’t think I could pick a better section of Scripture to NOT be about Muhammad if I tried. As mentioned above, the text explicitly state who the Spirit of Truth is at John 14:26 - [“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything that I have told you.”] Muslims, you should your claim about these passages being about Muhammad. It’s absurd and laughable. Quite frankly, the only way I can understand someone actually buying that these verses are about Muhammad is if they have never opened a Bible and read through John chapters 14-17.

Here is another detail that is often overlooked: The Spirit of Truth cannot lie or condone lying. Muhammad did both. This further disqualifies him –

Sahih Bukhari:V5B59N369 ”Allah's Apostle said, Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle? Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslamah got up saying, O Allah's Apostle! Would you like me to kill him? The Prophet said, Yes, Maslamah said, then allow me to say false things in order to deceive him. The prophet said, “You may may say such things.”Tabari VII:94 ”…..Oh Messenger, we shall have to tell lies. “Say what you like”, Muhammad replied. You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.”Sahih Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’Alizar said: ” But I ask you, what has the Holy spirit done for you in the past 2 millenia”Since those words were spoken, the Holy Spirit has inspired the writing of the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, James, Peter, Jude, John, the book of Revelation, and has enabled the Gospel to be spread to the farthest corners of the earth. You are deceived, Alizar. You are following Al-Makr, the greatest of deceivers.

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow and Alizar... Good to see you around here... it's berie importante to us all to have fresh muslime bloggers thate are indeed willing to hebe a truthfull echange off wordes... let's starte?

Yahya Snow saide: «I do believe that the Quran contatins clear scientific and historical miracles»...

a) eben iff the qur'an had scientific and historical information thatte was nott common knowledge at the point Muhammd dictated itt ou Uthman made the authoritized compilation of it, the truth is thate manie other antient bookes (eben the Bible... and eben when we Christians do nott consider this importante to the affirmation off it's authenticity) habe analogous elements: would you saie, then thate all those bookes are god inspired and full off mirracles?

Fernando said...

Alizer saide: «As someone who converted to Islam based on the scientific merits of the Quran»... so: iff you habbe founde those (and eben moore) same aspects in the Bible, in the Uppanishaws, in the Egiptian Book off the Deaths (and manie others thate habe "scientific" miracles...), woulde you habbe folowed other religions? Iff those supposed scientific miracles off the qur'an werre demonstred to nott ben such thing, woulde you, like the Osama Abdalah, leabe islam?

then Alizar saide: «this debate between Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik on 'The Quran and the Bible in the light of science'»... yep.. we saw itt arounde here... and eben a small demonstration made an atheíst thate shows the utter ignorance and habiliti to make a liey seam a truth off Zakir Naik... whie is he not willing to debatte top-class Christian debaters?

Aboute John 15:26 and 16:12-15... yes... Jesus his speaking off the Holie Spirit... no thoubt aboute thate... He has clarified manie aspectes off Jesus' wordes thate were totalie incapable off being understood bie his disciples before He was killed and Ressurrected... the precise possibilitie off recognizing that Jesus ressurrected is onlie possible bie the action off the Holie Spirite; more it was Him thate allowed the disciples to read the Old Testamente anf finde the cleare prophecies thate allowed them too recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah... "New" in the Bible is more an expression off modalitie (in another waie) than off context... butt I know you know this fore sure, eben iff you do nott wante to admite itt...

then Alizar saide: «And I'll propose another suggestion - does the Quran not testify of Jesus, and glorify him and his mother?»... nott admiting the truth essence off Jesus; nottt recogniozing as whate He is and wahte He saide is nott glorifieng... Isa in the qur'an is not the historical or biblical Jesus; its and rethorical invention made bie Muhammad to attack wahte he thought it was Christianitie... so: its islam thate from it's nsatrt distorted and made false assumptiones aboute Judaísm and Christianitie... thates a probleme you'll habe to deal with thate before saiyng anuthing aboute whate Judaísm and Christianity say aboutt islam in order to express our deepest hearthackes due too the lacke off truthness islam saies about us...

Whate aboute Quran,112:1 and Mark 12:29? Those verses do not say the same... and you know thate for sure! Unity is not Oneness... The Christian God is One, trully one, nott habbing need off nothinge else to bee One God, butt he's not a solitarie beeing thate iff did nott habe the created world did not habe the possibilitie for being Love: Christian God is an Unitie off Love and Life: nott tree godes, rather onlie one God (one whate, one nature) thate has 3 centers off conscience and action (three whom, three upostasis... nott three persons like you and me...)... so: we Christian do say thate God in One, butt do nott say that this One is Oneness... We say thate there's onlie One God, butt thate this God is from eternity Father, His Word and His Spirit...

Aboutte your quotting Quran, 3:64... is this an attempt to warn uss thate iff we do nott wante to be muslimes you're authorized to make jihad againste us since you've alreadie invited us to enter islam? We also habe to follow the worde off Jesus thate invited us to invite others to become Christians, butt iff they do nott want it, we are told to love them eben more...

p.s.: See Mt. 24:11 (one off the crearest predictions the Bible has about Muhammade)

Fernando said...

Brother nma saide: «the Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit brought many new things that Christ never mentioned»... absolutelie true... butt all these new thinges, as I saide, are onlie a developpment off the message off Jesus, and thete becausewhate Jesus thought and teached under perfect presence off the Holie Spirit in Him are nott different things from whate thate same and onlie Holie Spirite inspired Paul... yes, Paul, after the first Christians gott in thouch oralie with the message off Jesus, explained those teachings in a more theological aspect... Jesus was more earth-to-earth since the first wave off a new perspective off a teaching must also be verie directt and easie to graspe... the other waves (thate followed thate first one eben during Jesus liffe as He approched freelie his dead..) wer more deaptha, butt nevertheless, still berie concret... after Jesus death and resurrection was testimonied, the theological interpretation off Jesus wordes (thate woulde be expressed in written textes years latter) began... Paul, as well as Jude, Peter and James expressed those firste waves in eben more deapth... nma... you're absolutelie correct: "new" butt nott "diferent"...

God blees you and youre always pertinent postes... may them shead some light to our muslim friends...

Fernando said...

Bie the waie Alizar... youre finall greetings "Salaam (tranquilitie) brothers and sisters" is itt valid to muslimes alone or non muslimes also? I suppose you know Sahih Bukhari Book 25, Number 5389... and also nthe opinion off Shaykh Mahmood Ghaith... Does nott muslimes habe a higher humman status than non-muslimes? How muche justice is there in onlie giving to one whte one gibes too you? Ain't this a infra-humane actitude? Juste wondering... thankes...

may the peace off Jesus our God be upon you as itt is uppon anie Christian...

faktb said...

Alizer,

Please read the Quran according to it's clearest and simplest reading and do not twist the Quran to mean something else.

Unfortunately Naik twists the Quran.

Once you start going down that path, then you can make the Quran say and mean just about anything.

We must be fair to the text and allow it to speak for itself.

faktb said...

Alizer (and all other Muslims),

Here is a question for you that Osama does not answer.

What do you make of TODAY's marriages in Saudi and Yemen between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl?

I know that YOU WOULD NOT do it, but my question rather is:

DO YOU FIND IT ACCEPTABLE?

Anthony Rogers said...

Alizar asked: At the very core of it all, what does Muhammad (AS) preach that is different from Jesus (AS)?

Quran,112:1
Say Allah is uniquely one.

Bible:
Mark 12:29
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.
The difference between these two statements is as the difference between night and day.

To see why, I would encourage you to check out the following links:

http://answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/shema.htmlhttp://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_paul_on_one_god.htm

Osama Abdallah said...

Nabeel,

Please visit my latest additions at:

www.answering-christianity.com/sex_determination.htm

All of your points are refuted regarding Noble Verses 86:5-7

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

faktb said...

OSAMA, Please, please, please answer this question. I promise I will stop asking you if you do.

What do you make of TODAY's marriages in Saudi and Yemen between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl?

I know that YOU WOULD NOT do it, but my question rather is:

DO YOU FIND IT ACCEPTABLE?

A simple yes or no will do. Or whatever answer you choose. Thank you Osama.

Osama Abdallah said...

Dear Faktb,

The Noble Quran is crystal clear about it. Girls who have not become "fatayat" (young ladies) and ready to be "wed" (4:25) and have not "reached the age of marriage" (4:6) to enable them to take on life are not permitted to get married.
Other Noble Verses that clearly prohibit for infants and babies and little boys and girls to get married are: 22:5, 40:67, 6:152, 17:34, 46:15, 4:6, 4:25, 24:59, 12:22, 28:14.

I ALSO COVERED THE PROPHET'S MARRIAGE WITH 9-YEAR OLD AISHA.
I have explained all of the Noble Verses and points in great details at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm
As to asking me, you are always welcomed to ask me anything Faktb as long as I wouldn't be considered as spamming by the admins here. You'll always find me under your service to help you understand Islam if I am allowed, insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing).

Thanks,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Yahya Snow said...

fernando,

interesting question...

my criteria for discerning whether a book is Divine is not solely based on scientific miracles..

sure the Quran has scientific miracles within it but this is not the only criteria i used when I came to the conclusion that it is from Allah (God)

I do appreciate your willingness in discussion and learning...I personally do intend to produce a website for my articles and views but if you do want to further your research concerning Islam I would urge you to go to faithful Islamic sources rahter than hater-sites and Islamophobes masquerading as learned people...try your local mosque.

InshaAllah (God willing) you will become a muslim too.


peace

Yahya Snow said...

faktb..

how about taking a chill pill and giving osama abdallah a break

does it matter what my brother osama thinks about it...

if you are a Chrsitian then ask what Jesus (pbuh) thought about it...young marriage was going on during the time fo Jesus...yet Jesus (pbuh) did not speak out against it....

so forget what abadallah thinks about it and start pondering about what Jesus (pbuh) thought about it...I am sure you are aware...Jesus (pbuh) is a man who Christians believe to be god....so the 'god' of Christianity allowed early marriage!!!

forget osama abdallah...he is not the man Christians are worshipping...Christians are worshipping a man called Jesus (pbuh) and he saw NO problem with a 50 year old marrying a 10 year old...

I have wrote an article on early marriage on my blog...please read it

ps...sorry if my tone seemed harsh but people in glass houses should not throw stones:)

peace

btw osama...i resepect you dearly...your website helped preserve my imaan...jazakAllah

Osama Abdallah said...

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Yahya,

Jazaka Allah Khayr (may Allah Almighty Bless you) for your warm words. I will always strive my utmost hardest to defend Islam and to be Allah Almighty's servant and then be also the servant of the Believers as Noble Verse 5:54 Commands, insha'Allah.
As to your answer dear brother, honestly I find it very impressive indeed! Indeed really, DID JESUS CHRIST ever oppose to any marriage or give any age limit to any marriage??? The answer is clearly NO. Excellent answer dear brother Yahya! Indeed, who cares about my or anyone's oppinion. What I find most annoying is that Christians tend to turn their PERSONAL OPINIONS and personal desires into Divine Laws or some standard that must be followed! Ex: The age limit has to be 12. Says who?? Jesus Christ? Jesus never gave any limit or opinion about the age for marriage.

According to the Noble Quran, as I mentioned in the link above, the girls and boys have to be grown enough and mature enough both PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY in order for them to be allowed to marry. This is what the Quran says and not me.

May Allah Almighty greatly bless you dear akhi. Ameen.

Your brother in Islam always insha'Allah,

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Yahya Snow said: "Jesus (pbuh) is a man who Christians believe to be god....so the 'god' of Christianity allowed early marriage!!!

forget osama abdallah...he is not the man Christians are worshipping...Christians are worshipping a man called Jesus (pbuh) and he saw NO problem with a 50 year old marrying a 10 year old"
Scroll up Yahya. I [and others] already explained that the Bible condemns Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Your parallel and conclusion on this issue has no connection to reality.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

Since you have very clearly quoted numerous verses from the Quran, and thus appealed to it as your source for rules about marriage [as I would expect any good Muslim to do], please comment on the following that you may have overlooked before:

65:4 - Hilali-Khan trans. - "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allâh and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him."

"Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible." (Maududi vol.5 p.620)

Considering all of the above information, Osama, I have one simple question for you and wonder if you will answer: Do you believe it is your right as a Muslim to marry a prepubescent girl?

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher,

Here is what Noble Verses 65:1,4 say in English and Arabic:

(The Name of the Surah (Chapter) is "THE DIVORCE")
[065:001] Oh prophet, (and Oh you believers)! If you (must) divorce your women, divorce them for a (prescribed) period. Count the period (correctly). Fear Allah, your Lord, and do not _ unless they have committed a flagrantly immoral act _ expel your divorced women out of their homes. The women too should not leave their homes. These are the confines of Allah. Anyone overstepping the limits of Allah actually commits an outrage upon himself. You do not know! (During that period), Allah may well bring about something (to cause reconciliation between the husband and wife).

[065:004] Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear God, He will make their path easy.

‏65:1 سورة الطلاق
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ٛــــ ياايها النبي اذا طلقتم النساء فطلقوهن لعدتهن واحصوا العدة واتقوا الله ربكم لاتخرجوهن من بيوتهن ولايخرجن الا ان ياتين بفاحشة مبينة وتلك حدود الله ومن يتعد حدود الله فقد ظلم نفسه لاتدري لعل الله يحدث بعد ذلك امرا

‏65:4 واللائي يئسن من المحيض من نسائكم ان ارتبتم فعدتهن ثلاثة اشهر واللائي لم يحضن واولات الاحمال اجلهن ان يضعن حملهن ومن يتق الله يجعل له من امره يسرا

The Noble Verses are clearly speaking about divorce of women, and there are THREE CATEGORIES OF THOSE WOMEN:

1- Women who are very old.

2- Women who have not had their monthly period AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE ***************.

3- Women who are pregnant AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE.

For point #2, it doesn't necessarily have to mean that the woman was a young girl. To me, it is clearly talking about the wife not having her period yet when the divorce happened.

Women on average have 10 days of manustration each month. Point #2 is speaking about that 20 OTHER DAYS.

As to my opinion, I am not sure if the girl having her first period is the line that determines when she can get married or not. The ample Holy Verses that I quoted at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm are clear about

1- INFANTS
2- BABIES
3- AND CHILDREN

not being allowed to get married.
The Holy Quran spells it out, and I challenge anyone to disprove it (Muslim or none).

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "For point #2, it doesn't necessarily have to mean that the woman was a young girl. To me, it is clearly talking about the wife not having her period yet when the divorce happened."Maududi said: ""Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible." (Maududi vol.5 p.620)

Al-Jalalayn said: "And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. "Ibn Abbas said: "(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months."Al Wahidi said: "Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”Ibn Kathir said: "Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;(and for those who have no courses...)"Let's see.... Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, Al-Wahidi, Ibn Kathir, all agree that this Ayah is talking about the waiting period for girls taken as wives that do not yet menstruate.

Osama, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say confidently that you are not correct :-D

nma said...

Fernando said...

God blees you and youre always pertinent postes... may them shead some light to our muslim friends...



Thank you and God bless you, brother Fernando.

The Holy Spirit spoke through Apostle Paul, like: "The Holy Spirit spoke well through Isaiah, the prophet, to our fathers" (Acts 28:23-29).

Our Muslim brothers show their ignorance and complete lack of reasoning when they conveniently twist some Bible verses to suit their convenience while rejecting most others. A good question to Muslims is, how can it be that only the twisted verses are true and all others false? If the Bible is corrupted, how do you know the verses that you twist are not corrupted?

nma said...

Yahya Snow said...
if you are a Chrsitian then ask what Jesus (pbuh) thought about it...young marriage was going on during the time fo Jesus...yet Jesus (pbuh) did not speak out against it....

so forget what abadallah thinks about it and start pondering about what Jesus (pbuh) thought about it...I am sure you are aware...Jesus (pbuh) is a man who Christians believe to be god....so the 'god' of Christianity allowed early marriage!!!




Jesus spoke generally out against all sins but did not speak out against many specific sins. For example, He did not speak out against the practice of crucifixion or a king (like Herod) ordering mass murders. So it does not mean that if Jesus did not speak out specifically against something bad, it is not bad. Also, Jesus was more against hypocrites (an example of a hypocrite is the one that allowed only four wives to his followers but took 11 wives for himself) than against sinners because many sinners repent but hypocrites are unrepentant since they do not realise what they are doing is wrong and they delude themselves by believing God allowed their actions.

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher,

Like I said, I am not sure if the girl having her first period makes her legitimate for marriage or not. It is not clearly defined in Islam. Some girls do get their first periods later than others. So the period is not the issue. It is rather the physical and mental capabilities of the girl that Allah Almighty clearly talked about in the Holy Quran. I've provided TONS OF NOBLE VERSES and points that prove this in the link I gave above.

So even if the girl gets her first period, she still may not be qualified for marriage.

As to the tafaseer (interpretations) that you provided, they remain limited to their authors. They are not part of the Noble Quran. They are only interpretations and personal opinions. I, on the other hand, rely on the Noble Verses that I provided in my article at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sex_determination.htm


Another important point that I did also address in my article is that MY NOBLE VERSES MIGHT'VE SEEM TO HAVE ABROGATED THE HADITHS AND SUNNAH that you have just mentioned, Sepher. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married our Mother in Islam, Aisha, during the EARLY DAYS OF ISLAM. The Noble Verses that I gave came much much later.

So even if the interpretations that you gave are valid, they're still abrogated.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

I am sorry, I gave the wrong link. The correct one is:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm


Thanks,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

faktb said...

Thank you Osama for your answer.

You find acceptable the marriage between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl (who has begun puberty).

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow... I do nott habe to experience ounce again islam, since I was a muslim for more than 15 years... perhaps one day it'll be you tahte will habe the courage to investigate thouroughlie islam and Christianitie and realize wich one is more dignifiying to God and to his beloved humanity...

Godd blees you yahya Snow...

Fernando said...

The Osama... mie friend Osama: how can a girle as young as was ladie Aiesha be «both PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY in order for them to be allowed to marry»... I hoppe, dearlie, thate one daie you'll neber to habe a daughter who'll habe, in the "hands" off a man, the experience thate Muhammad gabe to ladie Aiesha... bie the wai: all your interpretation is utterlie false... better trie next time...

bie the waie: your site reciebed good rebiews bie Yahya Snow... it's like, with all the respecte, someone saind: "I become a cinema lover since I saw amayzing Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"... this sayes all aboutt the movie and the new cinema lover...

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow said: «Jesus (pbuh) is a man who Christians believe to be god»... no dear Yahya, Jesus is God thate we Christians beliebe bacame a man without leaving his divinity... we do nott adore or worship an human person; rather a divine person...

theen Yahya Snow said: «young marriage was going on during the time fo Jesus»... Yahya... this as been explained before inn this thread... butt remember also whate Jesus saide: «Matthew 18:6 But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones who have faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone round his neck»!!!... As Ahmed Deedat ounce saide: «If these Jesus' wordes were true we would habe to find Muhammad in the ocean...»... obviouslie he laughed (and with him is audience in Johanesbourg), butt whate does it's wordes expressed?

Fernando said...

Sepher Shalom quoted Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, Al-Wahidi, Ibn Kathir... wahte were you thinking??? All off those pseudo-muslimes were wrong; the Osama is the corner-stone off islam!! He's the Supra-sumo off islam... respect!!!

Yahya Snow said...

Osama abdallah

Walaikumsalam warahmatullahi wabaraktuh...

Thanks for your kind comments.
May Allah reward you...

Ameen.

And to all the aggressors and critics of Osama Abdallah, he is trying to help you towards the Truth. At least he is answering your questions..you ask many questions of Islam but you never question your own Christianity..why is that

How about questioning the trinity...go on, I dare you :)

peace

may Allah guide you all

Osama Abdallah said...

"The Osama... mie friend Osama: how can a girle as young as was ladie Aiesha be «both PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY in order for them to be allowed to marry»... I hoppe, dearlie, thate one daie you'll neber to habe a daughter who'll habe, in the "hands" off a man, the experience thate Muhammad gabe to ladie Aiesha... bie the wai: all your interpretation is utterlie false... better trie next time..."

My Response:

Our Mother in Islam, Aisha, peace be upon her, narrated 1000s of Narrations (Hadiths) on the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him. She probably was older and more mature than her age.
It's quite probable.

Anyway, today, men, both fathers and husbands, have to be careful about when a girl is suitable for marriage if they wish to please Allah Almighty.

Have a good day,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"Sepher Shalom quoted Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, Al-Wahidi, Ibn Kathir... wahte were you thinking??? All off those pseudo-muslimes were wrong; the Osama is the corner-stone off islam!! He's the Supra-sumo off islam... respect!!!"

My response:

The timing of the narrations, Fernando, the timing is what matters.

When Jesus called the Gentiles THE DOGS OF THE JEWS, and then reversed it (Matthew 15:22-28),

does that now make YOU, a Gentile, today A DOG FOR ANY JEW?
No, because it was replaced, even if you are a Gentile.

I am not better than anyone. I use the Holy Quran and the Hadiths to prove my points, and I've provided many many Noble Verses that prove that

1- INFANTS
2- BABIES
3- LITTLE CHILDREN
4- And even not mature enough or grown up enough teenagers

are no permitted to marry:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm


Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "I use the Holy Quran and the Hadiths to prove my points, and I've provided many many Noble Verses that prove that

1- INFANTS
2- BABIES
3- LITTLE CHILDREN
4- And even not mature enough or grown up enough teenagers

are no permitted to marry:"


So your contention is, that Al Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, Al Wahidi, and Ibn Kathir all AGREE that Islam allows you to marry a girl and divorce her before onset of first menstruation, but they are all wrong and you are right?

Secondly, I would be interested in knowing what evidence you have that Aisha was "mature" enough for marriage at the age of 7 or even 9 when the marriage was consummated, considering the Sahih Hadith materials that show she was playing on a swing when she was given to Muhammad for sex, and that she played with dolls along with her childhood playmates after she married Muhammad.

Unknown said...

Greetings my Christian brother and sisters,

I must say that it is very difficult to keep up with all the questions and points - I'm currently in the middle of finishing my Masters, and I'm afraid I do not have the time to put in the effort that you all have shown - so I apologize.

To the first brother that responded to me - first of all, its Maam - Not Sir.

Second of all, I have not been 'dupped' - I have an H. B.Sc. so I'd like to think that my decision was educated; I'm not a 'simple minded' Muslim.

And while on that note, I would like to point something out with respect to the 'science' in the Quran. The Quran is not a science textbook - so you shouldn't expect it to read like one. The fact that the versus do not contradict what we consider today to be scientific fact, is what makes it miraculous, and that it has always been in agreement with science even before certain phenomenon became discovered.

I'll illustrate by quoting you the verse that convinced me.

It comes from Sura Al Alaq (The Clot)

(13) "Hast thou considered whether he may [not] be giving the lie to the truth and turning his back [upon it]? 7

(14) Does he, then, not know that God sees [all]?

(15) Nay, if he desist not, We shall most surely drag him down upon his forehead 8 –

(16) the lying, rebellious/sinful forehead! –"

For those of you who don't already know why this verse is special - please try to explain to why would anyone say that they would grab you be the forehead? If Muhammad (AS) wrote the Quran - why didn't he use a more conventional body part to 'grab' someone by. It seems rather odd. Why not use the neck, hands, arm, feet, even the waist might be more possible. But no, it insists on 'the forehead'.


Now, if you knew anything about neropsychology (which is what I was studying at the time I read this), you would know that that the area that lies just behind your forehead is your frontal cortex AND you would have known that it is the frontal cortex that is responsible for your decision making. (Its also the same area that gets affected when you are intoxicated - which is why you end up doing foolish and sometimes 'sinful' things).

This was only discovered within the past century.

So if you contemplate, you can reach an understanding all on your own - you don't need someone to guide you or give you an interpretation. People look for the guidance of scholars because they themselves may not have the time or the resources to come to understand it for themselves.

BTW - I am the FURTHEST thing from a scholar, and I don't pretend to be one, so if I have made any mistakes, forgive me. This is my humble attempt at getting you to see things from my perspective.

Unknown said...

I do find something rather ironic about the 'vagueness' accusation. You say that the versus which we use to prove that the Quran agrees with science are vague and can really be interpreted however we want - correct?

Let me remind you that the scientific miracles are just a bonus feature about the Quran, that's not why most people believe - it just happens to reinforce their faith.

However, you, my Christian bretheren, are trying to convince us not only about the trinity, but also that Jesus (AS) came to atone for the sins of mankind. And yet there is no place in the Bible where Jesus (AS) says plainly 'I am God" or "Worship me" or "I am one of three - the father the son and the holy spirit" or "I will sacrifice myself for your sins" - Wouldn't you think that something so CRUCIAL to our salvation should be stated plainly? If Jesus (AS) said 'The Lord, thy God, IS one God', why would he be so vague about all these other equally important matters? I don't think that you are exactly in a position to accuse the Quran about being vague about scientific versus (a bonus feature) when the foundation of your faith rests on interpretations of the text.

And the trinity is not something that even an average chritian can understand - so don't call us 'simple' because then you would be calling 70% (And that's a modest esimate) of Chrisitans, simple as well.

I believe it was Albert Einstein who said 'Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler than that.' Just because something is complicated doesn't make true.

The Quran tells us:

“O people of the Scripture, do not go to extremes in your religion, and do not say about God except the truth. The Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, is only a messenger from God and a word from Him (“Be” and it is), which He sent to Mary, and a soul from Him.[3] So, believe in God and His messengers, and do not say, “Three.” Stop, it is better for you. Indeed, God is one; exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And God is sufficient as a Determiner of all affairs. Never would the Messiah look down upon being a worshipper of God, nor would the angels who are close (to God).[4] And whoever looks down upon the worship of God and is arrogant, then He will gather them to Himself all together.” (Quran 4:171-172)


And the verse I quoted about coming to common terms - where on earth did you get the idea that if we disagree then that give us the right to do jihad against you?

Oh, and the bit about our Prophet (AS) being of low more character - that was a most ignorant statement and I suggest you go read what non-muslim historians have to say about the Prophet (AS) - not what Joe-blow on some obscure website thinks.

AND for the one who keeps asking about 50 yr old me marrying 10yr old girls.

If the girl is of age (i.e. hit puberty) and is ok with the marriage (because the girl actually has to give consent otherwise the marriage is invalid), then who are we to tell them no? What business is it of ours who people want to marry?

And if you are implying that the girl is being forced - then no, its not ok, for the same reason I gave above. Her rights are being transgressed upon.

Again, I apologize for not being able to address everyone, but I'll remind you that I also have a 2 year old who drives me nuts and doesn't let me get any work done (on top of my studies) :P

My intention is not to offend anyone, but rather to come to common terms, as I have said. IF I have said anything that is wrong, then that is from me, but if you've gotten any good from this, then it is from Allah.

And to use the greeting of Jesus (AS) Shalom Alaikum. :)

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher,

Show us where in entire Bible is marriage limited for any age.

As to the scholars that you quoted, there are many others who agree with the points that I posted. Plus, the Noble Verses that I quoted are crystal clear. What you're trying to do is bring few quotes here and there and make it sound like that this is what all Muslims agree on.

Instead of wasting everyone's time on this circling around the Noble Verses that I used, how about discussing them and try to refute them? You know you can't, and that is why you're going around in circles.

Again and again I repeat this point:

Prophet Muhammad's, peace be upon him, marriage with our Mother Aisha happened during the EARLY DAYS of Islam. The Noble Verses that I used came much much later. The scholars that you quoted are obviously in contradiction with the Noble Verses that I quoted, and there are many scholars who agree that little children are now allowed to be given in marriage in Islam.

Similar to what brother Yahya said, how about showing even half of criticism that you show against Islam towards the Bible and Christianity? We can start with the following link:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm where non-virgin girls and all boys and men were all commanded to be killed. Plus take all of the virgins girls for sexual pleasure.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

nma said...

Alizar said...

Second of all, I have not been 'dupped' - I have an H. B.Sc. so I'd like to think that my decision was educated; I'm not a 'simple minded' Muslim.



Even some scientists with Phd are duped by the 'Scientific miracles' in the Quran.

The fact that the versus do not contradict what we consider today to be scientific fact, is what makes it miraculous, and that it has always been in agreement with science even before certain phenomenon became discovered.

If you read the articles that expose scientific miracles in the Quran at non-islamic websites, you will find that your above claim is not true. In fact, there are some articles at this website itself. Here are some others:
www.answering-islam.org
www.faithfreedom.org

that the area that lies just behind your forehead is your frontal cortex AND you would have known that it is the frontal cortex that is responsible for your decision making. (Its also the same area that gets affected when you are intoxicated - which is why you end up doing foolish and sometimes 'sinful' things).

This was only discovered within the past century.



A link that refutes your claim is given below:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/It-is-truth/chap09.htm

faktb said...

Alizer,

Greetings to you.

Could you think a bit about what you find acceptable, i.e., a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl (who started puberty)?

Do you really find this acceptable?

Think about your daughter (if your 2 year old is a female).

Now imagine how you would feel if a 50 year old man were to marry her when she reaches the age of 10.

Please don't intellectualise and ignore this issue. These acts are REAL and are OCCURRING IN TODAY'S TIME.

Thanks for listening and thank you for your contributions. I wish you well with your studies and family.

faktb said...

Just in case you may not have gotten it Alizar,

Muhammad was 45 years older than Aisha.

45 YEARS!!

A 10 year difference is understandable, and maybe even a 20 year difference, but 45?!!!

This is why you ought to question whether Muhammad should truly be your example:

Quran 33:21: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example...

Please consider the many young girls in Saudi and Yemen who are currently living this sad reality. Please be a voice for those who have no voice. I'm sure you would do it for your and your friend's children. Let's also do it for those in the Middle East.

Bless you brother.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Similar to what brother Yahya said, how about showing even half of criticism that you show against Islam towards the Bible and Christianity? We can start with the following link:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm where non-virgin girls and all boys and men were all commanded to be killed. Plus take all of the virgins girls for sexual pleasure."


First of all, I have spent a great deal of time being "critical" of the Bible. I was an agnostic/borderline atheist for a number of years. Secondly, as a Nazarene Jew I am critical of a number of issues with mainstream Christianity and some of the inconsistencies therein.

Thirdly, it your sexually obsessed mind that has created the interpretation of the verses you mention. There is nothing in that passage that suggests the girls are for sexual pleasure. One not need to look any further than this blog [where you called Christians c*m suckers, and lickers] in order to ascertain that you have perverse leanings in your thinking. Fourthly, as usual you liberally season your post with off-topic attacks in order to divert the subject of discussion, which I am not interested in entertaining.

Now as to your question about Biblical marriage, the parable given in Ezekiel 16 makes it very clear that full physical maturity is the appropriate age for marriage. Not only that, the parable can only be functional because it presupposes that the audience was easily familiar with proper customs of marriage age. The same is illustrated in Song of Songs ch. 8 [as Hogan already mentioned]. And again, Biblical marriage condemns the practice of giving a girl in marriage and then waiting for her to mature, like Muhammad did with Aisha. Rather, the marriage is to take place when the wife is physically mature. Consummation and the legal aspect of taking in marriage occur together. Marriage is where a man and woman leave their parents and become echad in the great mystery of physical union. This is not properly expressed by the duality of a "contract" and then consummation some years later. And as I mentioned previously, in Biblical Hebraic culture giving a young virgin to a much older man is considered a shameful act, so Muhammad and Aisha's parents are seen as shameful on that account. On top of that, the Brit Chadasha ("New Testament") commands us to abide by the secular laws where we live. Hence, the proper Halachic ruling for me is that I can marry a woman who is 18. What you fail to understand, Osama, is that when Yeshua and His Talmidim gave us Halacha, it was given into a world that was run by a foreign secular government. Not only that, but Yeshua [and the testimony of the Tanach prophets] reveals in no uncertain terms that the reign of the Gentiles will persist until Mashiyach return to earth and establishes His Kingdom. Much of what you see as "Christians having no law or guidance" is because the Messiah was directing us in a manner by which we could be salt spread amongst all the governments of the earth, to proclaim the Gospel without becoming some sort of political revolutionary force seeking to overthrow secular governments [Gee, does anyone here know an example of a religion that is designed to overthrow and supplant existing governments?].

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2

The main issue is, however, that you are either accidentally or intentionally mischaracterizing my position. I am not attempting to prove the Biblical standard is superior to the Islamic [although I believe it is]. Rather, I am simply demonstrating that a Biblical view of marriage not only condemns the marriage of Muhammad to Aisha, but it condemns the whole Sunnah practice of Muslim men copying his behavior in this matter today. I assert this position because it seems quite clear that you have this idea in your head that there is no limitation on age based on the Bible.

As has also been shown by your own Islamic scholars, the Islamic Sunnah tradition allows for marriage before puberty. I have sufficiently demonstrated that a number of the greatest and most respected early Islamic exegetes disagree with your position and support mine. You have stated your Tafseer of the Ayah I posted, I provided Tafseers of; Al Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, and Ibn Kathir whom all disagree with you and agree with me.

When it comes to Islam I trust their scholarship over and above that of Osama Abdallah any day.

nma said...

Alizar said...
Wouldn't you think that something so CRUCIAL to our salvation should be stated plainly? If Jesus (AS) said 'The Lord, thy God, IS one God', why would he be so vague about all these other equally important matters? I don't think that you are exactly in a position to accuse the Quran about being vague about scientific versus (a bonus feature) when the foundation of your faith rests on interpretations of the text.


Jesus was not vague as you try to make Him to be. Though he did not make statements the way YOU think He should have made, anyone with common sense can make out his meaning. Also, your argument is like the question: “ Why does Allah hide all the time and send messengers to convey the message, instead coming into middle of us to guide us personally?”. That would have made everyone Muslim by this time and solved all the problems of the world.
But we are talking about science here. Christians do not make false claims that the Bible contains scientific miracles, but Muslims make such false claims. As faktb noted earlier in this thread, Quran is written in such a disjointed and ambiguous manner that one can twist the words to make it mean something entirely different. That is the case with scientific miracles in the Quran. Also, many of these so called science , right or wrong, in the Quran was the ‘knowledge’ of ancient Greeks.

Also, the Quranic verse you quoted expresses Mohammed’s mistaken belief that Christians believed in 3 Gods and that is not true. And that is just one mistake in the Quran.

Oh, and the bit about our Prophet (AS) being of low more character - that was a most ignorant statement and I suggest you go read what non-muslim historians have to say about the Prophet (AS) - not what Joe-blow on some obscure website thinks.

Isn’t looting, murdering, raping slave girls,pedophelia and keeping concubines immoral behavior? Non-muslim Historians have their opinions and why are those opinions so special? Truth is more important that someone's credentials.

If the girl is of age (i.e. hit puberty) and is ok with the marriage (because the girl actually has to give consent otherwise the marriage is invalid), then who are we to tell them no? What business is it of ours who people want to marry?.

Even if a nine year old girl hit puberty, she is still innocent, incapable of making reasonable decisions and ignorant of the vulgar intentions of the lustful 50 year olds. It is kind of cheating an innocent person.

About the scientific miracles in the Quran:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/search/label/Scientific Errors

Osama Abdallah said...

(Part I due to limit on characters)

"Thirdly, it your sexually obsessed mind that has created the interpretation of the verses you mention."

MY RESPONSE:

Quoting your Bible's commands about killing all of the boys and all of the non-virgin girls and killing all of the men, and keeping the virgin girls for sexual pleasure does not make me sexually obsessed. Let's keep the worthless cheap shots out and stick to facts:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm




"Now as to your question about Biblical marriage, the parable given in Ezekiel 16 makes it very clear that full physical maturity is the appropriate age for marriage. Not only that, the parable can only be functional because it presupposes that the audience was easily familiar with proper customs of marriage age. The same is illustrated in Song of Songs ch. 8 [as Hogan already mentioned].

MY RESPONSE:

Ezekiel 16 is talking about Israel becoming a PROSTITUTE to idolatry!

Song of Songs 8:1,2,8
1 If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me.
2 I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house— she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.
8 We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown. What shall we do for our sister for the day she is spoken for?

For verses 1 and 2, I have exposed their propagation of INCESTUOUS FANTASIES and pornography at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/incestuous_fantasies.htm

As to verse 8, not only it doesn't say anything and it further exposes your desperation, but it is also not a Law.

Another important point to note is that both Ezekiel and Song of Songs CAME 1000S OF YEARS AFTER THE MOSAIC LAW. So what law are you talking about??




"And as I mentioned previously, in Biblical Hebraic culture giving a young virgin to a much older man is considered a shameful act, so Muhammad and Aisha's parents are seen as shameful on that account."

MY RESPONSE:

That couldn't be any more absurd and false. In the Mosaic Law and throughout the Bible, A FATHER CAN EVEN SELL HIS DAUGHTER AS A SLAVE GIRL to any man, even men as old as her grandfather:

Exodus 21:7-11
7. "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
8. "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9. "If he designates her for his son [Note: "his son" means that the master is either her father's age or even much older!], he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10. "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11. "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

So you have shown nothing nor proven anything other than being desperate and faulty:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/aisha.htm

Osama Abdallah said...

"On top of that, the Brit Chadasha ("New Testament") commands us to abide by the secular laws where we live. Hence, the proper Halachic ruling for me is that I can marry a woman who is 18."

MY RESPONSE:

Not only does Christianity bow down to man's wickedness and evilness, which is what we see everyday from moral decedance in the Christian sociesties, but Paul too did the very same thing:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/biblical_christians_and_open_sexuality.htm



"The main issue is, however, that you are either accidentally or intentionally mischaracterizing my position. I am not attempting to prove the Biblical standard is superior to the Islamic [although I believe it is]."

MY RESPONSE:

Is selling your daughter as a slave girl, and raping virgin girls and killing all of the non-virgin girls, boys and men morally higher to you?



"As has also been shown by your own Islamic scholars, the Islamic Sunnah tradition allows for marriage before puberty. I have sufficiently demonstrated that a number of the greatest and most respected early Islamic exegetes disagree with your position and support mine. You have stated your Tafseer of the Ayah I posted, I provided Tafseers of; Al Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, and Ibn Kathir whom all disagree with you and agree with me.

When it comes to Islam I trust their scholarship over and above that of Osama Abdallah any day."

MY RESPONSE:

A scholar could comment all he wants on a Hadith. But if he doesn't take into account the development of newer Laws that came to replace it, then his explanation is partial.

I'll repeat it for the 10th time:

Prophet Muhammad's, peace be upon him, marriage with our mother Aisha, happened during the early days of Islam. The Noble Verses that I provided were Revealed much much later. The Noble Verses clearly state:

1- INFANTS
2- BABIES
3- CHILDREN
4- And even incapable teenagers who are not fully grown up based on what the current life requires

ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MARRY.

The fact that you continue to avoid addressing the Noble Verses that I provided shows clearly that you have lost this debate:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm


Also Sepher, I am adding all of our exchanges to the article that I just linked.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Yahya Snow said...

fernando, you said:

..mie friend Osama: how can a girle as young as was ladie Aiesha be «both PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY in order for them to be allowed to marry»

I say

...mie friend Fernando how can a girl as young as lady Mary (may Allah bless her more)be both PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY in order for her to be allowed to give birth??????

Think about it, put your hypocrisy aside for a moment and have a rethink...please.

Unknown said...

Oh goodness…. Why do I get myself into these sorts of conversations at the most inconvenient times? *laughs*

May Allah (swt) help me.

To brother nma,

I’m sorry but the websites that you have supplied me with are HORRIBLY biased and I am afraid that I don’t give them much merit. Plus their explanations are too weak for my taste. The article you gave me in response to the verse about the forehead only proved that, as we agree, the control center lies in the frontal lobe and that ‘feelings’ are expressed in the chest – that doesn’t refute anything.

Also, the verse about ‘3’ – three refers to the trinity – we know that you don’t believe in three God – but you try to divide him into 3 while still claiming that he is one. I’m sorry but I don’t believe that I have to leave my sense of reason at the door in order to believe. Whichever way you want to look at it:

1+1+1 does not equal 1

Nor does 1/3 equal one

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. And the fact that Jesus (AS) himself never talked about this, solidifies my conviction.

“My father is greater than I”

“My father is greater than all”

“I with the finger of God cast out devils”

Sorry for the lack of references, but I’m just stating things off the top of my head. I agree with those verses. I have no problem accepting them because they are clear.


“Truth is more important than someone’s credentials”

Brother, I’m going to have to disagree with you there. I don’t know what school of thought you come from, but I am not a post modernist in that I believe that there are many truths and that reality is subjective – there is no such thing as write or wrong. I believe that there is some level of objectivity in this world, and that if you are going to open your moth, you better be prepared to back up your claims with evidence.

I’m not sure how it works in Christianity, but in Islam, you are held accountable for every word that comes out of your mouth – so when you make statements as outrageous as the one you have made, unless you have proof – and you don’t always need credentials to give solid, testable proof - the All-Mighty will hold you accountable for that which you have said.

So either take it back, or give me historical evidence. And I said ‘non-Muslim historians’ because their opinion will be less susceptible to bias.

Unknown said...

“Even if a nine year old girl hit puberty, she is still innocent, incapable of making reasonable decisions and ignorant of the vulgar intentions of the lustful 50 year olds. It is kind of cheating an innocent person.”

Brother, I don’t even what to begin describing the state of America’s girls these days – it is appalling to say the least.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/story?id=7693121&page=1

And this is a Non-Muslim source.

Clearly our society has evolved since the times of the Prophet (AS). Children had to bear more responsibilities in that time, and like Osama mentioned, life expectancy was shorter.

In the case of Aisha, (RA) we believe that it was Allah who commanded the Prophet (AS) to marry her. This was obviously for good reason since, as a young child, she was able to retain much of the Prophet’s traditions. Muslims owe a lot to Aisha (RA).

And to those who the Prophet (AS) of pedofilia, I have a few questions.

If pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, why were the rest of his wives either older or divorcees and widows? With all the power he had, couldn’t he have gotten more young brides like Aisha(RA)?

Plus, since when does a victim of pedophilia refer to their abuser with such love and tenderness and go on to becoming one of the greatest scholars of Islam – the ideology that her ‘abuser’ ‘founded’?

This brings me to brother faktb.

Brother, let me just point out that just because a country claims to be following sharia, that doesn’t necessary entail that they are doing a good job of it. I consider myself a pretty devout and conservative Muslim, I’ve even started to wear the hijab if that’s any indication – but even I have strong feeling about the situation in these countries. In fact it gives me such sadness…

The issues going on there are not issues regarding Islam, they are issues regarding patriarchy.
The problem is that, unlike the west, it happens to manifest itself under the name of Islam.

Father’s selling off their daughters is an ignorant practice. You also have to consider the demographics of where these incidences are occurring. Generally you find that it occurs among the uneducated and low income.

Now, that is not to say that I think that the legal age of marriage should be later and not determined by puberty, however, I do acknowledge that times have changed and so have our psychologies. I would be weirded out if a 50 year old man came and asked me for my 10 year old daughter (I have a son, btw). But this is because of the context in while I was raised and the norms that I am accustomed to. Had I been raised in an impoverished environment, I’m pretty sure that my reaction would be different – I might even welcome it if I knew that this man would give my daughter a better life. HOWEVER, let me make it clear again, that my daughter would have to be ok with it.

What we see going on in these countries is girls being sold into marriage. The dowry, which is meant for the girl according to Islam, is being paid to the father, instead. This is un-Islamic on so many levels. God willing when I move to the Middle East this summer, this is one of the things I want to get into. So pray for me that I succeed in the war against ignorance.

I hope I have satisfied your questions, and I apologize if I have said anything out of line.

Thank you brother faktb for your kind wishes, I pray the same for you and your loved ones and may Allah continue to guide us all closer to the truth. If I have made any mistakes, that is from me, and what ever good you take, that is from Allah.

Salaam!



Ok, I need to stop slacking and get back to my studies! (Soo tired of studying -_-;)

Osama Abdallah said...

Dear brother Alizar,

As'salamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatu Allah Wa Barakatuh to you, and to brother Yahya, and to your honorable families and to all Muslims and also non-Muslims reading.

Your link, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/story?id=7693121&page=1, is a great one! (Oral sex and Prostitution are "no biggie" to the teens in the USA today!).

This is indeed the result of Christianity's ambiguities, vagueness and corruption, which causes the vast majority of its followers to not obey it or take it seriously!

Your time was not spend in vain dear brother.

May Allah Almighty bless you akhi. Ameen.

Your brother in Islam,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

faktb said...

Alizar,

Re: the Trinity. Although any analogy is insufficent, the closest analogy is the Soul.

Soul = Heart + Mind + Will

They are altogether the same (1) yet altogether different (3).

Re: Aisha. To be totally honest, the average Joe would find it repulsive that Allah would command a 53 year old man to marry a 9 year old girl/woman. If you can for a moment put yourself in a non-Muslim's shoes, then I think you will agree.

I hope you stick around on this blog. We have some top-notch conversations here. Although some of the comments may be rude and insulting, the people here are generally respectful and passionate to discuss these very important, hot-topic issues. =) God bless, I hope you get all your studies done, and I will be sure to pray for you!

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

I suggest you reread my post. I specifically stated it is a parable. The wording of the parable is only functional if the people it was being delivered to had the understanding of physical maturity being the appropriate age for marriage. It's really quite funny to see you ignore major relevant point of my argumentation, and instead of dealing with them, instead choose to insert completely off-topic links to your website.

As for all your other nonsense, it displays a complete lack of understanding of the historical context of Hebrew slavery and the verses in question. Hebrew slavery was an economic arrangement for settling of debts, and provided a method for those without economic means to survive. Their was no capitalism at the times of those writings. It was a form of indentured-service. Not to mention the fact, that you clearly don't know what the word "redeemed" refers to in the verse you quoted, nor do you understand the 7 year and 49 year cycles that governed these economic matters. But the real question at this point is, what does slavery have to do with anything we are discussing? Nothing of course. It seems your major ability in life is to divert conversations to allow you to air your misinformed rantings against the Bible. After all, look at the topic of this thread > "The Miraculous Qur'an: Scientific Miracles". You abandoned your failed attempt to defend your claims about "scientific miracles" long ago. Then, when the topic went to issues of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, you even abandoned that. Now, your arguments are ending where they also end with you > your fixation with sex. It's especially funny to see how much of your focus is on sex. You seem to have some obsession with sexual topics, that frankly, I doubt is healthy. You've even gone so far from the initial topic that you are now posting links about American teen-agers and oral sex. This is absurdity at it's highest pinnacle, that only reveals how utterly bankrupt your apologetic is.

Any response as to why your Tafseer of the Quran is more trustworthy and authoritative than the collective agreement of; Al Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, Ibn Kathir? Do you supply any reason why anyone should distrust the complete agreement of those scholars held in the highest esteem by Muslims? No, of course not. Your response is apparently to post an article about oral sex. You are a strange man.

As for your articles, as entertaining as I'm sure it would be to read them, I am not about to visit your website after all the reports of virus and malware that it has been reported to contain by numerous people on this blog, and elsewhere.

Now, back to the topic of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha in light of Islam and the Bible, there is a major fundamental lack of understanding that you are speaking from in your assertions with the Bible [even outside of those I already addressed]. I will come back and post when I have sufficient time to address it.

In the mean time, I'm sure you will continue to shamelessly promote your website by using logical fallacies and diverting discussions just enough to post links =)

Yahya Snow said...

Osama Abdallah

Walaikumsalamwarahmatullahi wabarakatuh ya sheikh

May Allah give more to you and your loved ones...ameen

Also Alizar...may allah make your studies easier. Ameen

Thanks for the link

I just hope the Christians on this page will start reading and learning from the muslim viewpoint.

Many convert after doing their research inot Islam but research must be done sincerely and in an unbiased way. O Christians please think about this. May Allah guide you. Ameen

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher,

I have provided ample and thorough refutation to all of your points in great details at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm


If you wish to respond to me, then please read the article for it has far more points and proofs in it than my quick posts on this board.

As to my site having viruses, that fabrication is exposed at: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/answering-christianity.com?version=2&core_ver=1.0&pip=true&premium=false&client_ver=2.9.242&client_type=IEPlugin&suite=true&aff_id=105&locale=en-us&os_ver=5.1.3.0

Read what McAfee says about my site for yourself. My site is clean and safe.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

faktb said...

Osama,

I hear you loud and clear. Thank you for the updates.

How old do you think Aisha really was?

Even IF she was 18, Muhammad was still 53 years old when they married. That's STILL 35 YEARS!

But it is overwhelmingly obvious that Aisha was 9 years old. As you know this is SAHEEH, SAHEEH, SAHEEH. I and any reasonable Muslim accept the words of Bukhari, Muslim, and others, and so should you.

faktb said...

Yahya said "Many convert after doing their research inot Islam"

Yahya, Have you not heard of the enormous number of Muslims who leave Islam after they read the primary sources? For example:

"Then Muhammad ordered for nails which were heated, and were branded with those nails, their eyes, and they were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Al-Madina). And when they asked for water, no water was given them till they died." Bukhari #3018

If you are Muslim, you must approve of Guantanamo Bay.

The reason Islam is growing is mostly due to birthrate. Muslims generally have more children than the average couple.

Osama Abdallah said...

Faktb,

Bukhari is not the Holy Quran. Like the Bible, it contains falsehood in it. It also contains ample and ample Truth in it. But there are absurdities in Bukhari that clearly prove that the volume does contains falsehood in it. For example, the narration about the she-monkey who committed adultery and the monkies were stonning her and the guy who narrated it said that he helped them in stoning her. THIS IS NOT A HADITH! It is a narration by someone; a story by him, AND HE MUST'VE BEEN DRUNK WHEN HE SAID IT! Yet, we find it in Bukhari.

Similarly, the narrations about Aisha being 6 and then 9 are NARRATIONS AND NOT HADITHS (SAYINGS OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD). Therefore, there is always a possibility of them being false. And even if they were Hadiths, the possibility is still there.

Anyway, at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm, I have addressed both possibilities and still proved BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that marriage:

1- INFANTS
2- BABIES
3- CHILDREN
4- Even teenagers who are not fully grown up yet and aren't ready to take on life

ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MARRY.
I've provided ample Noble Verses that prove this, and these Noble Verses came much much later.

SO FAR NO ONE DARED TO ADDRESS THE NOBLE VERSES THAT I GAVE! Why is that??

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Unknown said...

For the record, let me just say that I am a sister – not a brother - however, the following (lengthy) response is a collaboration between my husband and I in response to Faktb. (I guess I just wont be getting any work done :P)

Part 1

As far as the Trinity is concerned, many analogies have been given, none of which actually do work, which is why there is always a need to say "a close analogy is..." or "it is similar to...”

What needs to be explained is how the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy spirit is also God, but that they are not three gods, but together they form One God.?

The analogy that you gave, SOUL = HEART + MIND + WILL.
If I were to apply the logic of the trinity, then the Heart is also the Soul, the Mind is also the Soul, and the Will is also Soul. But that is not true, because the heart is the heart, and the mind is the mind, but they are separate and each do different things. Even linguistically, the words don’t make sense, let alone logically.

A logical analogy would be that different organs make up the human body and each of these organs has its own function. Each organ is not the human. This makes sense.

But telling me that that each organ is a human and together they form a human, in addition they are one human not multiple humans, is asking me to reject everything that I’ve been taught to accept as common sense.

Moving on, lets examine the expression of the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed, “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm)

You are essentially telling me that there are 3 persons, all unique, separate, with different natures that individually are God. However, you tell me to defy the rules of math and common sense, and say that those three who are God, are not three gods but one…? So the Father is God, but not a god, and the Son is God, but not a god, and the Holy Spirit is God, but not a god, however, if you combine them all together, they are God. Not only are you telling me that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 (the three are individual God and together are also God), you are actually telling me that 0 + 0+ 0 = 1 (the three are not individual gods, but together are God)!!!!
Think about that for a minute, does it make sense? If you accept that they are God, then you must enumerate them (so you have three Gods). If you accept that they are not gods, then you must not enumerate them, and as such, they cannot have anything to do with the True God. There is a third option that each is 1/3 of God and as such we have blasphemed against all the teaching of both the old testament and the new testament because we are saying that God is made up of separate distinct entities (i.e. polytheism). Regretfully, that is the only way that you would be able to explain the logic behind the Trinity. Thus, we can show that the Trinitarian creed is a paradox within a paradox; it makes no sense no matter what assumptions you make.


Christian theologians tried to get around the blatant contradiction by speaking of persons and of the “nature” of God; that he has different natures, and different wills (or all have one will, depending on which part of the explanation you are reading…) embodied in each of these persons. You can see, quite clearly, that any talk of different natures or will further divides up God into more components. God is not made up of components that “function individually as God, but are not different gods, even though they are distinct in nature and person, but together make up God!” Try using that analogy for anything else and you will definitely not make any sense.

Unknown said...

Part 2

In order to get around that, one might argue that God is unique, as such that argument does, in fact, work for him because there is nothing like him. That is true, God is unique, and if I accept that then you can no longer use any analogy to explain his nature.

In addition, since the Creed says that all the components of God are inseparable and function together under one will, they try to explain why Jesus was a subordinate to God during his life (as mentioned all over the new testament) by saying that he was not divine at that moment, but was divine at all other times (when he was not on earth). Again, further complicating matters in an attempt to explain the illogical. If Jesus was not divine when he was alive, then who was the third part of the Trinity? I thought they just said he was inseparable? But he did separate and was no longer divine? Was God incomplete? Did the other two parts work overtime? If they could do that, then there would be non need for the third part in the first place? How can God divide himself, remove divinity from one part of his self and continue on with maintaining the universe?

We cannot explain this unique nature of God neither through logic, nor through analogy.

The Trinity is not to be understood, it is to be believed, or accepted, on faith. Even the most learned priests have difficulties explaining it in logical terms. In fact, it seems that part of the appeal of the Trinity is that fact that it is so great, that we cannot understand it, and must thus accept it for what it is, a divine mystery. You either believe it or you don't. Inventing names and terms, such as “nature” and “substance” of God does not necessarily mean that you have explained it. Christian scholars are good at this, they give nice fancy Latin names to concepts that they do not understand, and that makes it seem that they have it all figured out, but in reality, its just like calling a difficulty I am facing the “Conundrumus Illogicus”, and then telling people oh I figured out my problem, it’s a “Conundrumus Illogicus”. One nice word is “Homoousios”, which means one substance, used in reference to the substance of God. The term is nice and fancy, but still doesn’t explain how three things of the same substance, with different natures, can take one part of them out, change its substance, and making it un-divine then send it to earth to die. But wait! They invented a term for that too, “Perichoresis”, to explain how things co-exist in God… which is an illogical thing in the first place…

But let us examine it logically.
The central message of the Old Testament and New Testament (excluding the Pauline books) is the belief in the oneness of God, and that all worship should be directed to only him. That message is explicit and undeniable.

Unknown said...

Part 3

Based on the Holy Scriptures, save for a few vague statements, there is no mention of the Trinity explicitly or implicitly. In fact, the central statement used as the justification for the Trinity has been shown to be an interpolation added to the test by one of the translators of the Bible, and as such has been removed (or put in footnotes) in the latest versions of the Bible (even the Vulgate, the Latin version manuscript, used by the Roman Catholic Church has it removed). The verse is “there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost”. Thus it is safe to say that there is no mention of the Trinity in the Bible, nor is there any indirect indication of it. This is a significant point because the Trinity, one of the most central beliefs to Christianity, is not actually mentioned in their holy texts. God did not say it, nor did Jesus ever mention it himself. He never said “I am God” or “Worship me”.

Neither did he use the phrase “son(s) of God” exclusively for himself; many other people and nations are called sons of God both in the New and Old Testament. Translators of the Bible took the liberty of translating the word “son” from it original text to become “Son” with a capital letter, when referring to Jesus. It is a subtle yet important change, because it implies that the Sonship of Jesus is different than all the other nations/people who were said to be sons of God in the Bible. However, in the original text, Aramaic and Greek, there is no concept of Capital and Small letters. The same word is used throughout the bible for both Jesus and all the other nations said to be sons of God.

The Trinity is needed for the divinity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is needed for Redemption. Redemption is needed because of the Original Sin. None of these make sense if either one of these constructs fails. Jesus was not Divine. He was not God, Son of God, or part of God. He was just a man, and he never said any more than that.

Please let me know if there is some explanation of the Trinity that I have overlooked. See, Christian scholars themselves say that you need to believe the Trinity not understand it. How can God, who created everything with reason and logic, and expects everything to function in such a way, himself ask us to abandon logic and ignore reason to accept something that doesn’t make any sense what so ever no matter how you read it, ie, the Athanasian Creed (the Trinity)??

The answer is really simple, he said it over and over again, in the Old Testament, in the New testament, in the Quran, even Jesus said it in his own words, “God is One”. Why is such a simple and explicit statement so difficult for Christians to accept, but a mysterious and illogical statement such as the Trinity taken as truth?

Let me tell you now the best of arguments against the Trinity, it is simple and very profound. God says in the Quran,

"If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, The Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!" (Quran 21:22)

“No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free)from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!" (Quran 23:91)

Unknown said...

Part 4

What this verse says is that if there were multiple Gods, whether in the form of a Son, or a Spirit, or anything with him, then the world would be ruined. You see, When you say God the Father, you think of the old man creator, when you think of a the Son, you think of Jesus, when you think of the Holy Spirit, you think of something different from both of theses (whether it be a spirit, or a ghost, or a creation of light). What people recognize as God what is referred to as the Father, as opposed to Jesus. The old God of the Old Testament was the Father. Now, Allah tells us, that if there was truly Jesus and the Holy Spirit, sharing in dominion with God over his creation, then those other Gods would have sought to distinguish themselves from the other and cause chaos between each other. Being a God means being the Creator, Owner, Sustainer, Protectors and Lord of what your creation. If each God had its own creation, then they would have sought to separate themselves. If God needs to be in a team to rule over his creation, then he is not GOD, because he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of God. How can you worship a God that can’t take care of his own creation?

The Quran makes it simple, it says
“…Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! it is better for you. For Allâh is (the only) One Ilâh (God), Glory be to Him, Far Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allâh is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.” (Quran 4:171)

The godliness of God does not allow him to have such a thing as a son. He is beyond the need for a Son, or the need for Assistance, or the need to divide himself into different components. You see, Christians are very adamant about maintaining that they are monotheistic, and that the trinity is not multiple gods, because that would be blasphemy by their own standards. The whole reason behind monotheism is One God. The Christian definition of God really does not need the Holy Spirit in him. It does, however, need the Son because the divine son is needed to redeem the sins of the world. If Original Sin was not part of Christian belief, then there would be no objection to removing Jesus from Divinity. As far as the Bible is concerned, it is the Father whom we are ordered to praise and worship. It is not the Son nor the Spirit, but the Father. Even Jesus calls out to the Father.


I ask my fellow Christian brothers and sister to please reflect on what I have said as objectively as possible. Enlighten me if you have anything reasonable to say in defense of the Trinity - I will not accept, “Oh, it is because the Holy Spirit has not inspired you”, because it is an illogical statement and cannot be proven either way.

Whatever mistakes you find, those are from me, and whatever good you get out of this, that is from Allah.

nma said...

I’m sorry but the websites that you have supplied me with are HORRIBLY biased and I am afraid that I don’t give them much merit. Plus their explanations are too weak for my taste.

I’am sorry but the websites I have supplied you have intelligent articles and all Islamic websites are full of BS and lame excuses. Maybe you don’t know but you are HORRIBLY biased. You won’t accept any reasonable explanation anyway because you are brainwashed by a book that controls every aspect of peoples’ life, including their brain functions.
The article you gave me in response to the verse about the forehead only proved that, as we agree, the control center lies in the frontal lobe and that ‘feelings’ are expressed in the chest – that doesn’t refute anything.

It clearly refutes your claim. It shows that the Quranic verse in question is not intended to be a scientific statement. It s quotes from elsewhere in the Quran clearly shows that Allah thinks that “our thoughts, lies, and sins are in our breasts, not in your forelock”. Muslims’ attempt to twist the totally ambiguous Quranic verses to fit science is pathetic and ridiculous.
Another ridiculous attempt to be scientific is the Quranic bing bang. According to scientists, it took billions of years for the earth and heavens to be in their current shapes after the bing bang. But it took Allah only six days to create the earth and the heavens in their current shapes. So what happened to the rest of the billions of years? Muslim apologists might say there is no mention of the length of a day in the Quran. No such specifics makes statements in the Quran vague at best, which is very unscientific.
1+1+1 does not equal 1
Nor does 1/3 equal one
I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. And the fact that Jesus (AS) himself never talked about this, solidifies my conviction.


We are talking about God here, so it is not 1+1+1, which is a misunderstanding. It is 1 = 1 = 1.
You are dead wrong about ”Jesus himself never talked about this”. “You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work.” (John 10:14). Also, “"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)
I don’t know what school of thought you come from, but I am not a post modernist in that I believe that there are many truths and that reality is subjective – there is no such thing as write or wrong.

Here you contradict your belief in the Quran. Also, that they are non-muslims does not mean that their opinions are valid and non-biased. It is a usual Islamic ploy to bring in scholars, scientists etc. support their arguments. But what they conveniently overlook is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of scholars, scientist etc. who will disagree with them.

nma said...

Alizar said...
1+1+1 does not equal 1
Nor does 1/3 equal one
I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. And the fact that Jesus (AS) himself never talked about this, solidifies my conviction.


We are talking about God here, so it is not 1+1+1, which is a misunderstanding. It is 1 = 1 = 1.
You are dead wrong about ”Jesus himself never talked about this”. “You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work.” (John 10:14). Also, “"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)
I don’t know what school of thought you come from, but I am not a post modernist in that I believe that there are many truths and that reality is subjective – there is no such thing as write or wrong.

Here you contradict your belief in the Quran. Also, that they are non-muslims does not mean that their opinions are valid and non-biased. It is a usual Islamic ploy to bring in scholars, scientists etc. support their arguments. But what they conveniently overlook is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of scholars, scientist etc. who will disagree with them.
so when you make statements as outrageous as the one you have made, unless you have proof – and you don’t always need credentials to give solid, testable proof

Hadiths are the best proofs of Mohammed’s conduct.

Brother, I don’t even what to begin describing the state of America’s girls these days – it is appalling to say the least.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/story?id=7693121&page=1


Here you are conveniently and deliberately diverting attention from Mohammed’s conduct. Who said everything about America is good? It is funny that you earn some silly cheers from Yahya and Osama for this.
In the case of Aisha, (RA) we believe that it was Allah who commanded the Prophet (AS) to marry her. This was obviously for good reason since, as a young child, she was able to retain much of the Prophet’s traditions. Muslims owe a lot to Aisha (RA).

That is what Mohammed said, because it was convenient. Also, what you think good reason is just absurd.
If pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, why were the rest of his wives either older or divorcees and widows? With all the power he had, couldn’t he have gotten more young brides like Aisha(RA)?

Who said he was a compulsive pedophile who wanted only children for sex? He enjoyed variety, including the slave girl Maryam. Answer to your second question: maybe he lost interest in children or maybe he was tired of those women or lost his libido or any number of reasons.
Plus, since when does a victim of pedophilia refer to their abuser with such love and tenderness

One answer is, most often victims of rape, kidnapping etc become psychologically attached to their victimizer. Another one is, maybe she was too innocent to realize she was victimized.

Unknown said...

Brother Faktb,

"Re: Aisha. To be totally honest, the average Joe would find it repulsive that Allah would command a 53 year old man to marry a 9 year old girl/woman. If you can for a moment put yourself in a non-Muslim's shoes, then I think you will agree."

I don't have to imagine because I have been in those shoes :)

I know how strange the idea of a 50 year old man with a 9 year old girl is. But when you read the biography of the Prophet (AS) and see the man he was and how he treated people, you can’t help but fall in love with his character [which is why Aisha (RA) was so jealous of his other wives]).

Now I see that you have quoted something from Bukhari (#3018) which seems to contradict what I have just said. However, I’m going to have to call you out on that – you haven’t provided the context of the Hadith, which is misleading and dishonest, brother. Here is the full version:


Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 1.234
Narrated byAbu Qilaba

Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle ."

That is the punishment for those who spread corruption in the land. That’s in the Quran (5:33) – and if you ask for my opinion, of course they deserved it!

Imagine you take people into your home during their time of need and you give them of your provisions and nurse them to back to health. Then when they’re better they kill you and take your stock!

That is a unique punishment for those who cause corruption (Note: This would also be the same punishment for terrorists). Is it harsh? Of course it is! But is it just? Well, after seeing escalation of violent and senseless crimes in the world today, I think if this punishment were implemented you would see a DRASTIC change in the number of offenses. So yes, I do think it is just.

Salaam Brother

Unknown said...

nma

"Here you are conveniently and deliberately diverting attention from Mohammed’s conduct."

I apologize, I should have clarified the intention behind posting this link. It was to show you that young girls are not as 'innocent' or as simple minded as you think the are. I know four year old girls that can take care of their baby siblings. I used to take care of my two younger brothers (one was a baby in diapers) when I was 8 (FYI: My family was going through difficult times so my mother had to go and help my father at work).

The point is, you don't give children enough credit.

nma said...

To Sister Alizar ,

Your posts are so long and blah blah blah which all we've heard before.
1) You are talking in human terms which is not applicable to God. Trinity is not 1+1+1 as you believe. Trinity is 1=1=1. If you don’t understand that, it is your problem.

2) Jesus said: “You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work.” (John 10:14). Also, “"I and the Father are one." ( John 10:30)

3) You said:None of these make sense if either one of these constructs fails. Jesus was not Divine. He was not God, Son of God, or part of God. He was just a man, and he never said any more than that”.


Wrong. Read no. 2 above. And many times Jesus referred to Himself as Son of God.

4) You said:”Let me tell you now the best of arguments against the Trinity, it is simple and very profound. God says in the Quran,
"If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! But glory to Allah, The Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!" (Quran 21:22)
“No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free)from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!" (Quran 23:91)


It is silly to quote the Quran as an argument against the Biblical ideas. Again You assume that Christians belive that there are 3 Gods, not just one. That is not true. Also, if I use Allah’s logic, there can be more than one Allah, because Allah can create any number of Allahs because Allah can do anything.

5) You said: ” The godliness of God does not allow him to have such a thing as a son. He is beyond the need for a Son, or the need for Assistance, or the need to divide himself into different components.”


If you ever read the Bible, you will notice that initially God personally talked to people like Abraham etc. but after the mankind started to deviate from God, God gradually detached Himself from the mankind. But God sent prophets to redeem mankind but still mankind further deviated from God. Finally God sent His son to redeem mankind.

If I use your logic, Allah is beyond the need for revealing the Quran in 23 years and Allah could have given to Mohammed the Quran in the book form one-shot.
6) You said: ”The Christian definition of God really does not need the Holy Spirit in him.”


OT mentions the Spirit of the God in Genesis, so it is not entirely the Christian definition of God.

7) It is outright silly to quote the Quran to disprove something in the Bible. Also, Mohammed and thus Quran did not know who Jesus was, but Jesus’s desciples did. Remember, the Quran was concocted six or seven hundred years after the Bible and its ideas about Jesus were stolen from the false Gospel of Thomas.

Unknown said...

nma,

"Hadiths are the best proofs of Mohammed’s conduct."

Agreed. But you still haven't shown me proof. Give me an actual example of his poor character - Vague statements are not enough.

And if you are going to quote Hadith, then quote it in context. But I'll warn you, Hadith can be considered bias, so it's up to you.


And as for Aisha (RA), I honestly don't understand why people give so much weight to this issue. The Prophet (AS) was called many things during his lifetime: a liar, a poet, insane, possessed by jinn, taught by Jews and Christians - ALL DURING HIS LIFETIME. However he was NEVER called a pedophile! Why is it so difficult to understand that those were normal cultural practices during his time? My grandmother got married at the age of 13 (mind you she was in love with my grandfather since the age of 10), and that was only 55 years ago - let alone 1400!

What is the problem? The only reason we even know Aisha's age is because she was the narrator of the Hadith. And from the Hadith, I don't think she had a problem with it, so why are we imposing our own 21st century, euro centric, cultural - not religious - standards on a girl who lived so long ago? How do you know she was traumatized? Did you talk to her? No. All you have to go by is HER words.

Please brother, let's be reasonable here.

nma said...

Alizar said...

I apologize, I should have clarified the intention behind posting this link. It was to show you that young girls are not as 'innocent' or as simple minded as you think the are.


OK, it is the current permissive society that destroys innocence of those young girls.

nma said...

Alizar said...

Agreed. But you still haven't shown me proof. Give me an actual example of his poor character -


Okay sister, it is too late for me today. Will get back to you tommorrow.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: ”The Noble Quran is crystal clear about it. Girls who have not become "fatayat" (young ladies) and ready to be "wed" (4:25) and have not "reached the age of marriage" (4:6) to enable them to take on life are not permitted to get married. Other Noble Verses that clearly prohibit for infants and babies and little boys and girls to get married are: 22:5, 40:67, 6:152, 17:34, 46:15, 4:6, 4:25, 24:59, 12:22, 28:14.”


Osama said: ” SO FAR NO ONE DARED TO ADDRESS THE NOBLE VERSES THAT I GAVE! Why is that??”


Never fear. The time is at hand. Well Osama, since the topic we are disputing is the proper age of marriage for females in Islam, let’s unpack these verses that you claim are some sort of undeniable proof and see what they say. I hope David nor Nabeel nor any of the other blog readers are off-put by the number of posts this will require.


4:6 “Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage; if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their property to them; but consume it not wastefully, nor in haste against their growing up. If the guardian is well-off, Let him claim no remuneration, but if he is poor, let him have for himself what is just and reasonable. When ye release their property to them, take witnesses in their presence: But all-sufficient is Allah in taking account.”


As you can plainly see this verse is about orphans. It mentions the “age of marriage” but it does not describe when this is, or give any criteria for determining how to know this age has been reached. Here is the really funny thing. This verse is about MALES not females, and how the male orphans are to be given wealth. Al Wahidi tells exactly why this verse was revealed in his Tafseer:


“(Prove orphans…) [4:6]. This was revealed about Thabit ibn Rifa‘ah and his uncle. Rifa‘ah died when his son Thabit was very young. The uncle of Thabit went to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and said: “The son of my brother is an orphan under my care, what is lawful for me from his wealth? And when should I give him back his wealth?” And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse.” - Tafseer of Al Wahidi


There is nothing at all about females nor the rules about when they can be given in marriage in this verse. Both the plain reading of the verse and Tafseer prove this.

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2

4:25 “If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”


This verse gives Muslim permission to take wives from amongst their slaves, or the slaves of other Muslims [but it seems to restrict them to “believing” slaves]. Not one single Tafseer I could find says anything about this verse describing age or any physical trait that determines when a female becomes legal for marriage. Here is what Ibn Abbas had to say:


“(And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess) who are in the hands of the believers. (Allah knoweth best (concerning) your faith) He knows best that your hearts are firm in faith. (Ye (proceed) one from another) You are all the children of Adam; it is also said that this means: some of you follow the religion of others; and it is also said that this means: you are strengthened by one another; (so wed them) marry the maids (by permission of their folk) their owners, (and give unto them) the maids (their portions) their dowry (in kindness) on top of the price given to the prostitute for providing sex,….” [Ibn Abbas]


Once again, this verse has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.


22:5 “O mankind! if ye are in doubt concerning the Resurrection, then lo! We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of flesh shapely and shapeless, that We may make (it) clean for you. And We cause what We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed time, and afterward We bring you forth as infants, then (give you growth) that ye attain your full strength. And among you there is he who dieth (young), and among you there is he who is brought back to the most abject time of life, so that, after knowledge, he knoweth naught. And thou (Muhammad) seest the earth barren, but when We send down water thereon, it doth thrill and swell and put forth every lovely kind (of growth).”


This verse is about the formation of a human, growth into adulthood, and death. I don’t even think anyone needs to see a Tafseer to know that this verse has nothing to do with marriage age for females in Islam. Nevertheless, here is what Al Jalalayn had to say:


“O mankind, in other words, [O] people of Mecca, if you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then lo! [consider that] We have created you, that is, [We have created] your origin — Adam — from dust then, We created his progeny, from a drop, a sperm-drop, then from a clot, congealed blood, then from a [little] lump of flesh (mudgha), a piece of flesh, the size of what one would [be able to] chew (mā yumdagh), ….then We bring you forth, from the bellies of your mothers, as infants, and then, We extend your life, that you may come of age (ashuddakum), that is to say, [your] prime and strength, which is [that age] between thirty and forty years. And there are some of you who are taken away, by death…”

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 3

40:67 “He it is Who created you from dust, then from a drop (of seed) then from a clot, then bringeth you forth as a child, then (ordaineth) that ye attain full strength and afterward that ye become old men though some among you die before and that ye reach an appointed term, that haply ye may understand.”


This verse is basically a restating of 22:5. It’s about formation of a human, growth into adulthood, and death. The Tafseer is also pretty much a repetition. Here it is:


“He it is Who created you from dust, by having created your father Adam from it, then from a drop [of sperm], then from a blood-clot, congealed blood, then He brings you forth as infants, then, He sustains you, that you may come of age, [until you have attained] your full strength — [this being] from the age of thirty to forty — then that you may become aged (read shuyūkhan or shiyūkhan)— though there are some of you who die earlier….” [Al Jalalayn]


6:152 “And approach not the wealth of the orphan save with that which is better; till he reach maturity. Give full measure and full weight, in justice. We task not any soul beyond its scope. And if ye give your word, do justice thereunto, even though it be (against) a kinsman; and fulfil the covenant of Allah. This He commandeth you that haply ye may remember.”


This verse is a near repetition of 4:6, and is about orphans and monetary endowments. It has nothing to do with the age in which a female can be given in marriage. On top of that, this verse is about male orphans.


Tafseer Ibn Abbas – “(And approach not the wealth of the orphan save with that which is better) through protecting it and making it grow; (till HE reach maturity) legal age and shows righteousness in HIS character…..”


Tafseer Al Jalalayn – “And that you do not approach the property of the orphan save with that, approach, which is fairer, namely, the one wherein lie HIS best interests, until HE is of age…”

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 4

46:15 “And We have commended unto man kindness toward parents. His mother beareth him with reluctance, and bringeth him forth with reluctance, and the bearing of him and the weaning of him is thirty months, till, when he attaineth full strength and reacheth forty years, he saith: My Lord! Arouse me that I may give thanks for the favor wherewith Thou hast favored me and my parents, and that I may do right acceptable unto Thee. And be gracious unto me In the matter of my seed. Lo! I have turned unto Thee repentant, and lo! I am of those who surrender (unto Thee).”


This verse is about a MALE growing to be 40 years of age and reaching “full strength”. It has nothing to do with women or marriage age. This is nonsense Osama.


Tafseer Al Jalalayn – “His mother carries him in travail, and gives birth to him in travail, that is to say, with suffering; and his gestation and his weaning, from suckling, take thirty months, six months being the minimum period for gestation, the remainder being the maximum period of suckling; it is also said that, regardless of whether she bore him for six or nine months, she should suckle him for the remainder. So that (hattā is a [particle of] purpose for an implied sentence, that is to say, wa-‘āsha hattā, ‘and he lived on so that …’) when he is mature, namely, at his prime in terms of his strength, intellect and reasoning, the minimum [age] for which is thirty or thirty three years, and reaches forty years, that is, exactly [forty years], which is the maximum for [attaining] maturity”


Tafseer Ibn Abbas – “(And We have commended unto man) We have commanded 'Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abi Bakr in the Qur'an (kindness towards parents) Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Quhafah and his wife. (His mother beareth him) in her womb (with reluctance) with hardship, (and bringeth him forth with reluctance) and delivers him in hardship, (and the bearing of him) in the womb of his mother (and the weaning of him is thirty months, till, when he attaineth full strength) between the age of 18 to the age of 30 (and reacheth forty years, he saith) Abu Bakr says:…”
While it seem Al Jalalayn and Ibn Abbas have a different way of explaining the years that “full strength” means, they are in complete agreement that it is about a MAN. Another verse bites the dust Osama.

(cont)

faktb said...

Alizer,

About the Trinity: In one sense, the mind is the same as the soul. In another sense, the mind is different than the soul.

About Aisha, you said, "when you read the biography of the Prophet (AS) and see the man he was and how he treated people, you can’t help but fall in love with his character"

Please read how he treated and taught to treat Jews, Christians (as second class citizens) and especially pagans (even worse). Hitler surely performed kind acts to those he loved, but judge him by ALL his words and actions.

You said, "My grandmother got married at the age of 13"

I bet your grandfather was not 58 years old!! Imagine if he was 58 years old while your grandmother was 13 years old. Repulsive thought, isn't it? Now think about Muhammad and poor Aisha. And all the little girls being married off to old grandfathers today in Saudi and Yemen. Please be a voice for them.

Regarding torture, you said, "of course they deserved it!"

So then you approve of the torture of guilty criminals. Please think about what you are advocating here. There are and always have been available more humane options.

Salaam!

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 5

24:59 “And when the children among you come to puberty then let them ask leave even as those before them used to ask it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations for you. Allah is knower, Wise.”


Nothing about marriage here either. This is getting old Osama. At this point I will let Ibn Abbas and Al Jalalayn refute you yet again:


Tafseer Ibn Abbas – “Allah then mentioned only older children and slaves, saying: (And when the children among you come to puberty) whether they are your own children or your slaves (then let them ask leave) at all times (even as those before them) of their brothers who were mentioned before (used to ask it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations) His commands and prohibitions as He explained this (for you. Allah is knower) He knows what is good for you, (Wise) He decreed that older people must ask permission at all times.”


Tafseer Al Jalalayn – “And when the children among you, O free men, reach puberty, let them seek permission, at all times, just as those, [now] older free men, sought permission before them. So God clarifies His signs for you, and God is Knower, Wise.”


12:22 “And when he reached his prime We gave him wisdom and knowledge. Thus We reward the good.”


Another verse about a MAN. This one says he gets wisdom and knowledge in his “prime”. No marriage here. How about some Tafseer:


Tafseer Al Jalalayn – “Send HIM forth with us tomorrow, to the desert, to frolic and play (read [first person plural] narta‘ wa-nal‘ab, ‘that we might frolic and play’, or [third person plural] yarta‘ wa-yal‘ab, ‘that he might frolic and play’), in other words, so that we might be spirited and roam freely. Surely we shall take good care of HIM’.”


Interesting discussion of Arabic grammar, but nothing about women or marriage here either.


28:14 “And when HE reached his full strength and was ripe, We gave HIM wisdom and knowledge. Thus do We reward the good.”


It’s a restating of 12:22, and once again no mention of marriage, and certain nothing about the age of which females can be married.


Tafseer Al Jalalayn – “And when HE came of age, namely, at 30 or 33, and [then] was [fully] mature, that is, when HE reached the age of 40, We gave him judgement, wisdom, and knowledge, comprehension of religious matters before he was sent as a prophet. And so, just as We rewarded HIM, do We reward those are virtuous, to their own souls.”


Once again this is all about a MAN. Osama, I wish I could resurrect Ibn Abbas, Al Jalalayn, Al Wahidi, etc, and just let them refute you. It would cut out the middle-man.


So once again, we are left with either the Tafseer of Osama Abdallah, or the Tafseer of the greatest scholars in the history of Islam that all refute Osama. It seems that you have just as much trouble making sense out of your Quran as you do the Bible, Osama. Maybe this is some sort of condition? Or maybe you know you are being dishonest? One thing that is very clear is that Osama has a hard time telling when his god is talking about men or women.

faktb said...

Alizer,

What do you make of Muhammad's killing of those who insulted him?

For example, he had a poetess named Asma killed because she wrote some poetry which insulted him. This is found in Abu Dawud, Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Sa'd:

"Another poet, ‘Asma bint Marwan wrote against this assassination. Muhammad then looked for a volunteer to kill her: ‘Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?’ A Muslim named ‘Umayr bin ‘Adiy al-Khatmi took the job, and killed her along with her unborn child that very night. But after the deed was done ‘Umayr began to worry that perhaps he had committed a grave sin. Muhammad reassured him: ‘You have helped God and His apostle, O ‘Umayr!’"

faktb said...

Muhammad also ordered offensive jihad. If pagans did not convert to Islam or pay the jizya, then they were to be killed.

Source: Sahih Muslim (019:4294)

"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. … If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [tax on unbelievers]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

faktb said...

And Islam teaches that Christians and Jews are to be humbled (or brought low). Essentially they are to be second-class citizens. For example:

9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher,

This is where you have proven yourself to be a total joke when it comes to Arabic. The Noble Verses were not talking about males only. May be the examples or the reason why the Noble Verses were revealed were because of scenarios that involved males, but that does not limit it to males.

You also have unethically and intentionally ignored ALL OF THE KEY WORDS that I quoted from the Holy Verses.


Trust me, this is no response from me. My real one will be posted in the article tomorrow, insha'Allah, where I will further demolish and expose your desperation and utter ignorance:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm


Just for the sake of record, I just find it completely hilarious that you again apply all of the criticism against Islam, but yet, ignore the Bible which I've exposed you badly on in the link that I just gave.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Trust me, this is no response from me. My real one will be posted in the article tomorrow,"

Well buddy, you are going to have to post what you want me to see here, because my computer will never go to answering-christianity.com [not until a source I trust tells me it's clean anyway]. I don't trust you when you say your site is safe. If someone has the nerve to lie about their own holy book, then they can certainly lie about their website. I will wait for a source I trust to tell me it's clean.

I do find it hilarious that you are once again battling against all your greatest scholars. If you notice, I provided very little commentary. It's your scholar's Tafseer that says all those verses are about men, not me =)

Anthony Rogers said...

Pt. 1

Alizar,

Here are my thoughts on some of what you wrote. Your words are in bold letters.

For the record, let me just say that I am a sister – not a brother - however, the following (lengthy) response is a collaboration between my husband and I in response to Faktb. (I guess I just wont be getting any work done :P)

You might want to bring in more than your husband for this.

Part 1

As far as the Trinity is concerned, many analogies have been given, none of which actually do work, which is why there is always a need to say "a close analogy is..." or "it is similar to...”


To say that something is “similar to” something else is to say that it is analogous to it.

But your confused understanding of what an analogy is is neither here nor there, for the Bible does not give any analogies for the Trinity, though it does teach the doctrine.

[While we are on the topic: can you give us an analogy of the existence, nature, and attributes of Allah? What in creation is like Allah?]

What needs to be explained is how the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy spirit is also God, but that they are not three gods, but together they form One God.?

What do you mean by saying that we need to explain “how” the three persons of the Trinity are one God? If all you are asking is for an explanation of what we mean when we say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct and yet essentially one, then the answer is simple: they are numerically distinct from each other, but they are numerically identical to the Godhead. This is “how” the persons can be three, and how they can be one. Three in person; one in essence. There is nothing even remotely logically fallacious in this; if you think there is, then we need to take a few steps back and talk about logic.

[And while we are on this topic, could you please explain for me how Allah can be one, the most perfect unity, while yet you believe he has many attributes? Are the attributes of Allah separate from Allah, or are they Allah himself? Either answer lands you in a quagmire not unlike what you think applies to the doctrine of the Trinity.]

Anthony Rogers said...

Pt. 2

Moving on, lets examine the expression of the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed, “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

You are essentially telling me that there are 3 persons, all unique, separate, with different natures that individually are God. However, you tell me to defy the rules of math and common sense, and say that those three who are God, are not three gods but one…? So the Father is God, but not a god, and the Son is God, but not a god, and the Holy Spirit is God, but not a god, however, if you combine them all together, they are God. Not only are you telling me that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 (the three are individual God and together are also God), you are actually telling me that 0 + 0+ 0 = 1 (the three are not individual gods, but together are God)!!!!

Think about that for a minute, does it make sense? If you accept that they are God, then you must enumerate them (so you have three Gods). If you accept that they are not gods, then you must not enumerate them, and as such, they cannot have anything to do with the True God. There is a third option that each is 1/3 of God and as such we have blasphemed against all the teaching of both the old testament and the new testament because we are saying that God is made up of separate distinct entities (i.e. polytheism). Regretfully, that is the only way that you would be able to explain the logic behind the Trinity. Thus, we can show that the Trinitarian creed is a paradox within a paradox; it makes no sense no matter what assumptions you make.


All you have done here is repeat your error. What Christians enumerate is the persons of the Godhead, which are three: One person plus another person plus another person equals three persons. Follow? What Christians do not enumerate is the divine nature, which is one: the essence of the Father is the essence of the Son is the essence of the Holy Spirit. Are you still following? Three persons, one essence.

Christian theologians tried to get around the blatant contradiction by speaking of persons and of the “nature” of God; that he has different natures, and different wills (or all have one will, depending on which part of the explanation you are reading…) embodied in each of these persons. You can see, quite clearly, that any talk of different natures or will further divides up God into more components. God is not made up of components that “function individually as God, but are not different gods, even though they are distinct in nature and person, but together make up God!” Try using that analogy for anything else and you will definitely not make any sense.

Try using that description of the Trinity and you won’t make any sense to a Christian. The persons of the Trinity are not distinct in “nature and in person”, they are distinct only as to their personal subsistence. Furthermore, the persons of the Trinity are not “components” of God, as if each person was not numerically identical to the divine nature but only to part of it, and neither are they different “gods”, as if God were a species and each person simply partook of the same kind of being as the others.

Since much of the rest of what you say is a repeat to which I would give the same or similar answers, allow me to move on to your Biblical “case” against the Trinity. This is the real rub of the issue. If the Bible teaches it, then it is true, for the Bible is demonstrably the word of God, unlike the Qur’an, which is easily falsified.

Anthony Rogers said...

Pt. 3

But let us examine it logically.
The central message of the Old Testament and New Testament (excluding the Pauline books) is the belief in the oneness of God, and that all worship should be directed to only him. That message is explicit and undeniable.


You are reading the Bible through Quranic lenses here. The oneness of God is certainly a central theme, but it is not the one and only theme which can be said to be central to the Bible’s message. Redemption through the promised Messiah is another central theme, and it is likely for the reason just suggested that missed that.

As for suggesting that the oneness of God was not taught by Paul or at least was not central to Paul’s teaching, you are again reading things into the Bible. Of course, since this is more of a modern Muslim bias, I won’t blame this one on the Qur’an. The early Muslim sources don’t blame Paul for everything they don’t like. In any event, Paul clearly taught the oneness of God:

“Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God…is one.” (Romans 29-20)

“…there is no God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4)

“…yet for us there is but one God….” (1 Corinthians 8:6)

“….God is one.” (Galatians 3:20)

“For there is one God,….” (1 Timothy 2:5)

With that said, the fact that the Bible teaches the oneness of God doesn’t mean that the Bible teaches unitarianism. Monotheism and unitarianism are not coextensive terms. Unitarianism is a subset of monotheism. So is Trinitarianism.

While the Bible says that God is one, it does not teach that God is a non-relational, undifferentiated monad; rather, according to the Bible, within the unity of the divine being, there exists a fullness, a richness, or, if you will, a plurality. For the same God who is said to be one also uses plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives when revealing Himself to us. He calls Himself “Us” and “Our”. He tells Moses that His persons (or “presences”; lit. “faces”) will go with him. He says He is our “creators” and “makers” and “judges” and the “Holy ones”.
In addition, the Old Testament which speaks of God - obviously a divine person – also speaks of two other persons, variously denominated as His Messenger, Word, Wisdom, or Son, on the one hand, and His breath or Spirit on the other. Both of these other persons are called by divine names, bear divine attributes, and perform divine functions, and all in the context of the same book which says over and over again that “God is one.”

The same goes for the New Testament.

Anthony Rogers said...

Pt. 4

Based on the Holy Scriptures, save for a few vague statements, there is no mention of the Trinity explicitly or implicitly.

I’ve just demonstrated otherwise from the Old Testament.

As for the explicit/implicit business, it all depends on what you mean. Consider:

The doctrine of the Trinity, distilled down to its fundamental essence, affirms the following three propositions:

1) There is only one God
2) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each God
3) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each personally distinct

I don’t think you doubt points one and two; indeed, you have already granted number one, and since I am reasonably certain that you grant point number three, I will focus on point number two: the deity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible teaches that the Father is God, both implicitly and explicitly. Again, as with the above, I don’t think you would deny this. That leaves us with the Son and the Spirit.

Does the Bible explicitly and implicitly teach the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit? It is amazing that you could confidently deny something that is so easily demonstrated. Since I have already pointed you to some of what the Old Testament reveals on this, I will limit myself to just a little of what the New Testament says. Also, in the interest of space and time, I will limit myself to Jesus. Please let me know how vague the following passages are:

The Son

In addition to all the passages that call Jesus the Son of God, a divine title as used by Jesus and as understood by his hearers (e.g. John 5:17-18, 10:30), and in addition to all those passages that ascribe divine attributes and works to Jesus, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, creation, providence, redemption, et cetera, there are passages like the following, in no special order:

“I [Jesus] am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory of the one and only who came from the Father full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1, 14)

“Before Abraham was, I Am” (John 8:58)

“Thomas answered and said to Him [i.e. Jesus], My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

“For in Him [i.e. Jesus] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form.” (Colossians 2:9)

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ;…" (Titus 2:13)

“To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 1:!)

I could go on with proofs for the deity of Christ, but that should be enough for now. If you want more, then just ask and I will happily oblige.

In fact, it is getting late and I really should have been busy on something else. I have an anonymous Muslim friend who is waiting for part 3 of my response to him…so I will break it off here for now. Perhaps I will comment on the rest of what you have written at another time. I hope this brief outline of what could easily be a much larger case proves helpful to you.

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher Shalom,

Please provide the URL of your quotes. I want to verify them first before I respond to them to make sure no lies had been invented before I assume that they are true to begin with.

It is my style to provide references to everything I say. It is also the scholarly and honest way. I forgot to ask you this yesterday.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Unknown said...

Greetings my brothers and sisters!

I want to thank brother Faktb and brother Sempre Paratus for their sincere efforts in engaging in thoughtful dialogue with me. Although I will not be able to respond to your comments at the moment (since these discussion take up a lot of my time that should be spent studying :P), God willing I will try to get back to you both as soon as I have some free time.

Take care of yourselves in the mean time!

Salaam!

Ali

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher,

Please visit the link http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm to see how I have schooled you on the basics of masculine and feminine forms. May I suggest you go and learn some basics about linguistics first before you embarr-ass yourself again?

You are indeed a laughing stock! The readers are loving this exchange between us. I thank you!

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

the Osama saide: «The readers are loving this exchange between us»... yes I ham, butt nott in the sense you imagine the Osama... you juste can't stop making foonie and vacuum statements... loool... we're all expecting the next sequel of youre amizinglie foonie wordes... loool... and this when, more and more, we're seeingue you juste can't avoide making yourself look foonie...

nma said...

Alizar said...

nma,

"Hadiths are the best proofs of Mohammed’s conduct."

Agreed. But you still haven't shown me proof. Give me an actual example of his poor character - Vague statements are not enough.

And if you are going to quote Hadith, then quote it in context. But I'll warn you, Hadith can be considered bias, so it's up to you.


Here are a few examples of Mohammed's exemplary conduct (even if they are in the context of war and even though Allah conveniently condones such behavior, his conduct is still despicable for anyone with some moral sense):

Tabari VIII:38
“The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”

Quran mentions this incident briefly in two ayas:
33.26-27
Many ye slew, and many ye made prisoners.
And Allah gave you their lands, their houses, and their goods and women, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Prophet then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims

And from : “Sirat e Rasulullah” by Ishaq, page 464
After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty… He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.

Bukhari:V1B11N626
“The Prophet said, “burn all those who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.’”

The History of Tabari, vol 8, page 29-30
From his share of captive women, prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts.

Tabari VIII:39
“Then the Messenger of Allah sent Sa’d bin Zayd with some of the Qurayza captives to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms.”

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
While he was with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We got female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 130
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to get a women with a temporary contract

nma said...

Alizar said...

What is the problem? The only reason we even know Aisha's age is because she was the narrator of the Hadith. And from the Hadith, I don't think she had a problem with it, so why are we imposing our own 21st century, euro centric, cultural - not religious - standards on a girl who lived so long ago? How do you know she was traumatized? Did you talk to her? No. All you have to go by is HER words.

Please brother, let's be reasonable here.



Pedophelia is having sex with children or having sexual interest in children, whether the victim is traumatized or not. A mentally mature man will not prey upon a child's psychological imaturity.

nma said...

Yahya Snow said...
sure the Quran has scientific miracles within it but this is not the only criteria i used when I came to the conclusion that it is from Allah (God)


Yeah Right! Quite often Mulsims keep adding lies and deception to their arsenal to show that the Quran is from God. Nowadays it is scientific miracles. Maybe they don't need to teach science in the the universities or no need of any science text books. The Quran will do the job. The worst thing is, they believe in their own lies and deception!

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

I am thoroughly entertained by all the effort you have put into me. No wonder you get spanked by David and Nabeel when they debate you. You can barely hold your own against some random guy on a blog =)

I think it's hilarious to watch you try to strut around the blog, brag, and throw insults. If anyone should be embarrassed it is you. I let your own scholars and their Tafseer expose your abuse of the text of Quran.

It's funny to see you fall back on the "you don't know Arabic" argument. When a Muslim has run out of excuses this is always the last resort. It was your own exegetes that expose the verses that were about men. Please inform the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan that their ministry of religious affairs doesn't know Arabic, and doesn't know how to translate properly.

So lets see, I've demonstrated that you openly lied about your own Quran, as none of those verses in any way refer to Islamic rules regarding the proper way to determine when a woman is eligible for marriage, and I did this not by my own understanding but by allowing the Tafseer of Ibn Abbas, Al Jalalayn, and Al Wahidi explain what the verses mean. As we have seen several of the verses were about inheritance laws for orphans. The extensive evidence from your own scholars that refutes you is overwhelming. These aren't cases where one scholar says one thing, and another disagrees. No, they are in agreement.

I've demonstrated that Al Wahidi and Ibn Kathir both tell us that 65:4 permits Muslims to both marry and have sex with girls that have not yet reached puberty. Again, this is a case of two of the greatest exegetes of all time agreeing with one another, and disagreeing with Osama. By the way you can add Ibn Abbas and Al Jalalayn who refute Osama's Tafseer of 65:4, regarding marriage age:

"(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months." [Ibn Abbas]

"And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months —" [Al Jalalayn]

I guess Osama thinks his is more qualified to tell us what the Quran means than they are.

What has Osama given as a response so far? He has to claim some of the greatest Quranic exegetes of all time don't know how to interpret the Quran. He gives a giant parade of non-sequitors, his strange sexual thoughts forced into the text of the Bible where they do not exist, insults calling Christians "cum suckers and licker", and a link about teenagers in the U.S. and oral sex. And best of all, this all started as a thread discussing "scientific miracles" in the Quran, where in typical form, Osama uses non-sequitors and red herrings to allow him to obsess about sexual issues and post as many links to his website as possible.

Keep banging the victory drum Osama. If you keep repeating how good your arguments are maybe someone will even believe it. Your duplicity and dishonesty is clearly seen.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

You are contradicting Ibn Abbas' understanding of the Quran. Why would you claim that your prophet's prayer to Allah was not received?

Here is what Ibn Taymiyya had to say when quoting a Hadith:

"Another great scholar is 'Abdullâh ibn 'Abbâs radiallâhu 'anhumâ, the nephew of the Prophet sallallâhu 'alayhi wa sallam and the commentator of the Qur'ân. He attained that stature in virtue of the Prophet's prayer: "O Allâh! Give him knowledge of Islâm and teach him the meaning of the Qur'ân." " [Ahmad, Musnad, Vol. 1: 266, 314, 328, 335].

Did Muhammad's prayer fail? According to Osama it seems so.

faktb said...

Here you go brother Osama

http://www.tafsir.com/

http://www.altafsir.com/

You are right Sepher. Thank you for your contribution. The tafsirs are very clear about Islam allowing marriage to young girls.

Alizar, Yahya, and other Muslims, I hope you have read from Sepher what your most esteemed authorities say about young girls.

Fernando said...

Alizar saide: «What is the problem? The only reason we even know Aisha's age is because she was the narrator of the Hadith. And from the Hadith, I don't think she had a problem with it»... is this gui serious? Could she habe saide anythingue otherwise? woulde she have survived? have you ever read something to the "stockolm sindrome"? The more dispictable and unhumnam behaviour some child molester (Muhammad) has on a child (poor ladie Aiesha) thate does nott habe the chance to gett awaiy from it's predator (Muhammad), the moore will she be unavaiable to recognize the ordeal shea has experienced... so, Alizar, youre own ordes turne againste you: the facte that poor ladie Aiesha did nott say anything againste the horrible sexual abuse she experience at the hands (and other anatomic partes) of Muhammad, expresses nott the facte she was nott traumatized, butt the facte she was deeplie traumatized... poor ladie Aiesha...

Osama Abdallah said...

Sepher,

You have proven yourself to be a total joke when it comes to understanding basics of any language. I also did not contradict any of the scholars. I have thoroughly exposed you in public at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm


As to David and Nabeel spanking me in debates, only in your wildest dreams did they prove anything on Islam. I personally won many converts to Islam, one of them even from the Netherland and is an author on my site as well. David and Nabeel don't seem to have won any, and Nabeel's testimony about him being an Ex-Muslim is an extremely doubtful.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Anthony Rogers said...

Osama said: "I have thoroughly exposed you [Sepher] in public..."

Osama, it is indecent to "expose" people in public. Keep the pornography to yourself.

[Just a little of your own medicine for you.]

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

You are a joke. I'm surprised none of your close friends have taken you aside and clued you in on this fact. Here is a little more about your absurdities:

“Until such time that the Holy Prophet graced the mortal world with his presence, seeking the explanation of any verse was not much of a problem. When the Companions faced any difficulty, they would turn to him and get a satisfying answer. But, later on after him, it became necessary that the tafseer of Qu'ran be preserved as a permanent branch of knowledge so that, along with the words of the noble Qur'an, its correct meaning as well strands were protected and conserved for the Muslim Ummah, and heretics and deviationists could find no room for distortion of its meanings. So, with the grace and tawfeeq of Allah Almighty, this Ummah accomplished this wonderful mission with such efficiency that today we can say without any doubt or fear of rejection that not only are the words of this last Book of Allah protected but also stands protected that correct tafseer and explanation which has reached us through the Holy Prophet and his Companions who were ever-prepared to sacrifice their lives for him.” http://quranicstudies.com/articles/tafsir-exegesis/introduction-science-tafsir.html

According to your coreligionists you are a "heretic" and "deviationist".

Sepher Shalom said...

“It is regrettable that a dangerous epidemic has overtaken Muslims lately whereby many people have started taking the sole reading ability of Arabic sufficient for the tafseer (interpretation) of the Qur'an. As a result, anyone who gets to read ordinary Arabic starts passing out opinions in the domain of Qur'anic exegesis. Rather, it has been noticed on occasions that people having just passable familiarity with the Arabic language, and who have yet to master their Arabic to perfection, take it upon themselves to engage in explaining the Qur'an following their whims, even going to the limit of finding faults with classical commentators.” http://quranicstudies.com/articles/tafsir-exegesis/introduction-science-tafsir.html

Sepher Shalom said...

“'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).” http://usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html


Notice that Imam Bukhari agree with all the Tafseer I quoted that 65:4 is proof that Muslims can marry prepubescent girls. Add Bukhari to the list of greatest scholars that say Osama is wrong.


Fatwa on child brides:
“Getting married at an early age is something that is confirmed by the book of Allah, the Sunnah of his Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), the consensus of the scholars and the actions of the companions, and the Muslims who came after them. Moreover, the interest of Shariah proves it. So the claim that this was abrogated is not correct.”


“The evidence from the Qur'an is:
1. The saying of Allah: "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]". (At-Talaq 65:4). So, Allah set rulings of marriage, divorce and waiting period for the women who have not yet had menses, i.e. the young girls. The Iddah (waiting period) does not take place except after marriage.”


“Al Baghawi said, like in Fath Al-Bari,: "There is a consensus of the scholars that it is permissible for the fathers to marry their young daughters EVEN IF THEY ARE STILL IN THE CRADLE, but it is not permissible for the husbands to consummate the marriage with them, unless they become physically fit for sexual intercourse by mature males."


“1. Ali Ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, married his daughter, Um Kulthum to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and she mothered a child before the death of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam). Omar got married to her while she was young before reaching the age of puberty.”


“Delaying the marriage of girls in many Muslim countries is something new and contradictory to what Muslims used to do over many centuries. This is because of westernization and the application of man-made laws…..By delaying marriage, there is also a reduction in the number of Muslims in the Ummah, and this is contrary to the order of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), as he ordered us to have many children so that the Muslim nation will be greater in number than the previous nations. Allah knows best.”
Read full text at http://islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=88089&Option=FatwaId

You are cooked Osama. You have no foundation from within your religion to make the claims you are making. There is no minimum age for taking a wife in Islam, and you are abusing your own Quran. I have no shortage of evidence to back my claims, and refute your false claims about the age of marriage for females in Islam.

Sepher Shalom said...

It seems quite clear that Osama doesn't even understand, nor is he able to accurately represent what my objections are. It's even more clear that he has to throw out an enormous body of his own authoritative Islamic scholars and contradict them to make his false claims. You have abused your own Quran like an unwanted step-child. It makes me think that I, as an unbeliever, might actually have more respect for your Quran than you do.

The people that refute Osama and his position:

Ibn Abbas, Al Jalalayn, Maududi, Al Wahidi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taymiyya, Imam Bukhari, Al Baghawi.

He has also condemned the marriage of Um Kulthum to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. So much for the "rightly guided Caliphs".

You are lying and you know it Osama.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,


I mentioned to you before that there is a major issue related to the Biblical standard of determining marriage that you have completely overlooked. I mentioned a couple passages that allegorical demonstrated that there was already a well known cultural standard at the time of some of the writing of the Bible that marriage and sex should take place when full physical maturity was reached. This cultural standard came about from the fact that it was a culture that was soaked in observing Torah. Since I have thoroughly refuted your abuse of the Quran and mis-citation, and exposed that your highest scholars contradict your erroneous claims, let’s now look at why and how Torah gives a proper standard for marriage and sex.


One of the foundations of Torah is “Do no harm”. This principle is primary to understanding within the Torah, and has been expounded on in Sepher Nezikin [“The book of Damages”]. Although I do not accept the Mishnah as authoritative or binding it does shed light on what mainstream Judaism has believed for generations, and what is clearly delineated within is that the most basic principle of community is to do no physical harm to others. It draws on the written Torah within the Tanach as its source, which I do hold has both binding and inspired. In it we find:


“You shall not steal” (Vayikra 19:13), from the Mitzvot lo sa’aseh. This is an injunction from causing unjust monetary loss, and by extension is an injunction not to cause harm against others.


“You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind” (Vayikra 19:14), from the Mitzvot lo sa’aseh. If it is forbidden to place even a potentially harmful object in front of another, then it follows conclusively that it is forbidden to do direct harm to another.


“You shall love your fellow as yourself” (Vayikra 19:18), from the positive Mitzvot. This enjoins treating your fellow man/woman as if they were your own body, and prohibits the act of inflicting harm.


The Mitzvot of preventing someone from incurring a loss (Devarim 22:3) is not only applicable to property but to anything of value. Reproductive capabilities certainly have value, not only in the emotional sense, but also in the monetary sense as offspring provide beyond emotional fulfillment [which is priceless and of highest value] also monetary value in that they care for the financial needs of elderly parents. This is a two-fold loss. The loss of emotional fulfillment being primary, and monetary support being secondary.

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2

There are more verses that place responsibility upon the believer not to harm others, but this is enough to demonstrate that it is taught as such. Indeed, the two basic tenets of Torah have always been understood to be a) love G-d, b) do no harm to others.


Mashiyach Yeshua succinctly summed this up in Matthew 22:37-39 when He said, “’You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39The second is like it: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.” This is reiterated in Matthew 7:12. The injunction to do no harm is again driven home in Galatians 5:14. In fact, “Do no harm” is so clearly stated by Master Yeshua that He even tells us that if someone insults us by slapping our cheek we are not supposed to strike them back! Also, in Corinthians we see:


1 Corinthians 6:19-20 “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 “Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.”


Obviously, if the body [including the body of young females] is likened to the Beit HaMikdash [The Temple of YHWH], then it must not be harmed or lessened from it’s intended purpose.


Now, here is how Torah and the rest of Scripture forbids the Islamic rule of marriage being allowed before puberty, and sexual activity at first onset of menstruation, or even before according to a number of Islam’s greatest scholars. When you apply the resoundingly clear Torah Mitzvot of “Do no harm” to issues of sexual activity and marriage, it is clear that Islamic law is in error. Early marriage does harm to a girl in several ways. It can place psychological and emotional stresses upon her before she is ready to properly deal with them. It can prevent development of individual identity [as marriage requires great sacrifice of individualism to be successful]. It can short circuit proper development of peer-to-peer relationships that are necessary for healthy psychological and emotional well being.


Early sexual activity does harm to a girl in several ways. It can cause trauma to the sex organs. Even if a girl has had her first menstruation she is not fully physically developed. This trauma can in some cases even cause damage that prevents her from being able to reproduce in the future. It can expose the girl to emotional issues that she is mentally too immature to properly assimilate. It can expose her to the extremely dangerous reality of a pregnancy. This is problematic because it is several years after first menstruation in which mortality rates for both mother and baby decline during the birthing process. There is significantly increased risk of low birth weight, and many other complication for a mother that becomes pregnant within the first years after menstruation.


So, when you ask where in the Bible is an age for marriage and sexual activity found, it is found in one of the highest commands of Torah and Judaism: “Do no harm”. We must, as believers, put all other considerations aside and prevent harm from befalling our daughters and sisters, and all females. We must use the medical knowledge our Creator has blessed us with in these days as a guide to help us fulfill the Torah to our best abilities. We are violating Torah if we don’t allow the medical knowledge we have been granted to help us understand when a “girl” becomes a “woman” and is ready for the psychological and physical requirements that come with marriage, and married sexuality, so that we can “be fruitful and multiply” in a healthy and G-d honoring manner.

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 3



All of this places the proper time for marriage and sexual activity, although exact age may differ by individual, into late adolescence at earliest, when all the secondary sex characteristics have fully formed, and the young woman’s body has changed to allow for minimum risk of psychological and physical harm to both herself and potential offspring. As I stated previously, a proper understanding of the Bible condemns Muhammad’s marriage and copulation with Aisha.

Fernando said...

Is itt true or nott thate the Osama was ounce from an islamic-sect called the "djumandjy"?

I'm starting to thinke thate his problems may derive from his formation in this sect verie connected to the former Ahmed Deedat...

is true islamism is verie doubtfull: the onlie thingue I find in his wordes to bee in accordance to islam is an amayzing creeativitie to cover-up lies, faalse-argumentes and shear ignorance...

how manie bucks have the islam communitie in Holand paied to thate marrocan men with caucasian features in order to make him look like he was a convert? Almoste the same ammount it was payied to thate women that supposidelie adher to islam after watching Wood debating... did you know thate, at the period, she was a muslim for more than 3 years after she engaged to a muslim boy?

It's foonie this muslims are using the same false techics from some cults thate paie healthy people too fakke health problems in order to fakke miracle heallings... when we know a cult, we know them all...

the Osama... I read thouroudlie you're supposed arguments in your site and gabe them to read too an atheíste and former muslim who did not know who you were... do you know whate he saide? «this guy shoulde be in a mental health clinique iff he believes someone is going to believe in him»... yep... and he didn't watch youre last debates, because iff he had done so, his outbust off laugher woulde habe been eben greatter...

the Osama... please: staie outt off the dark path: itt will onlie take you intto fear; and fear onlie will take you into pain; and pain onlie will take you into hatte; and hatte onlie will take you into the impossibilitie off convertion...

May Jesus, our God, blees you, the Osama and your sweet wife tahte muste be a sainte to support you...

Osama Abdallah said...

"The people that refute Osama and his position:
Ibn Abbas, Al Jalalayn, Maududi, Al Wahidi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taymiyya, Imam Bukhari, Al Baghawi.
He has also condemned the marriage of Um Kulthum to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. So much for the "rightly guided Caliphs".
You are lying and you know it Osama."

My response:

Sepher, you are a liar and you know it. Neither did I reject the scholars, nor did I contradict them. You had been schooled, exposed and refuted badly at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm


It's not the scholars whom I contradict. It is you who is the fool who doesn't know the difference between THE MASCULINE AND FEMININE FORMS. i've listed our detailed conversation in the article with thorough refutation to your absurdities, deep ignorance, AND DELIBERATE LIES.

When you become more serious and grow up, then I might consider taking this further with you. But as it stands, all of your points that you presented above had been thoroughly exposed bad. Also, your Bible never gave any age limitation to anything. Your explanations above ONLY FURTHER PROVE YOUR DEEP DESPERATION AND HYPOCRISY. I've exposed you on your Bible very thoroughly as well at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/minimum_age_for_marriage.htm

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

I feel perfectly fine about all this =). If have thoroughly refuted and disproven your lies about both the Bible and the Quran. You clearly have no ability to respond, and you your only talents is promoting your website. Any intelligent person can read this thread and see how you have been unable to answer the challenge of an anonymous, untrained blogger ;).

Keep banging the victory drum Osama. Maybe you can even convince yourself.

nma said...

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. This is poor math. But that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing. Who are we to question it?

Math aside, another problem here is, according to verse 41:10, Allah placed mountains on the earth. Did someone say, “Mountains are formed by volcanism, erosion, and disturbances or uplift in the earth's crust.”? Does any of these ways of forming the mountains suggest s that mountains are ‘placed’ on the earth?

Also, the verses 67:3-5 and Quran- 41:12 state that Allah adorned the lowest heaven with lamps (stars). The verses 71: 15-16 states that Allah created the seven heavens one above the other, and made the moon a light in their midst. What this means is that the moon is above the stars and the Quran is truly miraculous.

Abu Musa said...

Fernando,

What is your proof in regards to your statement that Aisha suffers from Stockholme Syndrome?

All evidence points that she had a healthy realtionship, and there is alot of evidence to support that.

Your problem lies with applying your perceptions of "normal" to other cultures and societies.

Aisha was satisfied with her marraige. All her rights were preserved. The Prophet (PBUH) consumated his marraige with her after she reached puberty. So there is no issue there.

The Prophet (PBUH) 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.

The concerns you have regarding marrying young girls, however, is not unfounded. It is true that they would be more valnerable than older women. However, 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. All of which are things that have been demonstrated in th marraige of the Prophet (PBUH) to Aishia, and all his other wives.

In addition, tha family of the bride are heavily involved in her matters, to ensure that her rights are perserved well. 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. Instances of girls being forced into marraige occur all over the world regardless of age or religion, that, however, did not happen in this case.

So I ask you again, what is your evidence that Aisha was abused, forced, or harmed in any way? If you cannot produce any tangible proof, then please cease your accusation against the Prophet's (PBUH) character

Thank you

nma said...

Abu Musa said...

The Prophet (PBUH) 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.



That is not true. His ordering of the murders of 3 poets for just criticizing him is just one example of his immoral character. You need to consider these facts before you make your statements otherwise it amounts to a bunch of lies or sheer ignorance. Here are some other examples:

Tabari VIII:38
“The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”

Quran mentions this incident briefly in two ayas:
33.26-27
Many ye slew, and many ye made prisoners.
And Allah gave you their lands, their houses, and their goods and women, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Bukhari , Volume 5, Book 59, Number 362:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
Prophet then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims

And from : “Sirat e Rasulullah” by Ishaq, page 464
After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty… He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.

Bukhari:V1B11N626
“The Prophet said, “burn all those who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.’”

The History of Tabari, vol 8, page 29-30
From his share of captive women, prophet gave his son-in-law, Ali a slave girl, Raytah bt Hilal to enjoy her at his will. He also presented Uthman b. Affan, his son-in-law, another slave girl Zainab b. Hayan, and bestowed another girl (name unknown) to his father in-law Omar Ibn Khattab. Omar gave that girl to his son Abdullah. Most of Prophet’s other elite companions received slave girls as gifts.

Tabari VIII:39
“Then the Messenger of Allah sent Sa’d bin Zayd with some of the Qurayza captives to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms.”

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
While he was with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We got female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 130
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to get a women with a temporary contract.

Abu Musa said...

(PART 1)

NMA,

Regarding the issue of the creation of the heavens and the earth as described by the Quran, it is an issue that continues to be raised even though it is based on a misreading of the Quran.

As you said, Allah states in different places in the Quran that the heavens and the earth and all that is between them was created in six days, and on the seventh day he rose to the Throne.

The verse brought up to demonstrate a mathematical inaccuracy is in Chapter 41 (Chapter Fussilat) verses 9-12.

Go back and actually read the translation of those verses for yourself, and stop quoting anti-Islam websites who have old debunked arguments.

Chapter 41 (translation from Darussalam by Khan and Al-Hilali)
Verse 9 says: Say (I Muhammad): “Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days? And you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the Alamin (mankind, jinn and all that exists)…
Verse 10 says: …He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four ‘days’ were equal in length of time) for all those who ask (about its creation).
Verse 11 says: Then He rose over (Istawa) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: “Come both of you willingly or unwillingly”. They both said: “We come willingly”.
Verse 12 says: Then He completed and finished from their creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned ……. Until the end of the verse.

The argument goes that if you add the number of days listed in the verses you get eight. Thus, you find a mathematical error.

This line of reasoning is faulty because it ignores the grammar of the language and the qualifiers of time, i.e. the distinct use of the words THEN and AND. The word THEN indicates that it was done after the fact. The word AND means at the same time.

I will try and clarify this issue relying first on the English translation, and then I will clarify it in the original Arabic for those interested.

IN ENGLISH
Verse 9 says he created the earth in two days. Verse 10 (which is a continuation of the sentence in verse 9) goes in to describe what was done, and expands, saying that all of the things mentioned in it took four days, thus the creation of the earth, and the placing of mountains, and blessing it, and measuring the sustenance of its dwellers all took four days. You can deduce that from the usage of the word “AND” throughout the verse. Thus, you cannot add the two days from the last verse, as they are already included through repetition.
You will notice that verses 11 and 12 start with the word THEN, indicating that it was after the four days that the heavens were created. Thus it is four plus two which equals six days. For the creation to have taken 8 days, verse 10 should have started with a THEN (which it doesn’t).

Regretfully, this misreading of the text could only be done by those who read the translation in another language. It is a weakness on the part of the translation, and I can see why the translators would overlook the specifics. The issue of six of eight days never arose before in the history of Islam, as such it was a non-issue that did not require any extra explanation or care. However, now with the increased efforts to disprove the Quran, more attention should be taken.

Abu Musa said...

(PART 2)

In Arabic
The word “Wa” means “and”, and the word “Thumma” means then.

Now, re-read the verses. Verse 9 starts talking about the earth being created in two days. Immediately after verse 9 ends, verse 10 starts with the word “Wa”, ie. AND. As such the time period of two days is included in the four days mentioned in verse 10. Note that in the English translation, the word “Wa” (and) is not translated into English. But also note that the sentence in verse 10 is a continuation from the sentence in verse 9, thus, grammatically, an AND is not required in English to convey the same meaning.

So the proper reading would be, (9) We created the earth in two days, (10) AND we made in it mountains, we blessed it, etc, all of which took four days (indicating that the creation and the mountains, etc, took four days). (11) starts with the word “Thumma”, which means THEN. It says, after the creation of the earth and everything on it and measurement of the sustenance of its inhabitants in four days, THEN Allah ascended and commanded the heavens (who were smoke at the time) and the earth. (12) starts with the word “Faqathahunna” which means THEN we completed and finished (the seven heavens). The “Fa-“ prefix is added to a verb in Arabic to indicate the same meaning as THEN. “-Qatha-” means “completed, finished, decreed, or judged”. “-Hunna” is a suffix added to the end of the word to indicate the feminine plural form of the verb. As such, this word has the same meaning if it were written with “Thumma” instead of “Fa-” (ie, “Faqathahunna” is interchangeable with “Thumma Qathahunna”, they both mean “Then they were completed, finished, etc”). So in the time line of events, everything took 6 days, not 8.

Thus, if consideration is given to the grammar and time quantifiers used in the verse, it is easy to see that the reading of the verse does not support the proposed interpretation of 8 days instead of 6 days for creation.

Now, one argument that I have seen thrown around is discrediting those who rely on Arabic to explain the Quran. Obviously this is a baseless tactic, since the Quran is revealed in Arabic, and an English translation could never encompass the whole meaning of the Quran. That does not mean that a person seeking to explain the Quran in Arabic is disputing the interpretation (Tafseer) of established scholars such as Tabari, Ibn Katheer and so on. The Tafseers really do a good job on conveying a lot of the meaning, but because of the natural incompatibility of languages it is normal for the translation to open up avenues of misinterpretation by others not familiar with the original text. It just means that one may have something to add or explain in regards to the English translation of the Quran or the Tafseer of those scholars. In any case, I did not use any interpretation when explaining this issue, as I have relied only on the Arabic grammar (my mother language which I have studied through out my primary and secondary education). One could also rely on Tafseer, but I would rather not get into that because I believe that I have sufficiently explained this issue.

Either way, I have sought to clarify the misreading in both English and then in Arabic, so if you reject the Arabic grammar, then any translation of the Quran in English is still sufficient for our purposes. I hope this satisfies your inquiry into the supposed mathematical error in the Quran. Please let me know if my words were confusing and I will attempt to clarify.

Peace.

Sepher Shalom said...

Abu Musa,

I appreciate your tone, and thoughtful reply :-). I have not investigated this topic, but when I do I will consider the issues you mentioned.

nma said...

Abu Musa,

Thank you for your reply. Not sure what you say is true or not since I don't know Arabic. So interpretation of the verses by a non-Muslim would be helpful.

One question is, why did Allah revealed the Quran in Arabic, knowing most non Arab Muslims wouldn't understand Arabic? Is it because Mohammed knew only Arabic?

You did not counter the statements in the same post about mountains and the moon . Also, I would like to know your interpretation of the arithmetic in the Quranic verses 4:11-12 and 4:176 on inheritance.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

Here is more proof from one of your greatest scholars that you using an unacceptable method of giving the meaning of the Quran -

From the introduction of al-Qurtubi's Tafseer:

"The prohibition against tafsir applies to two instances. The first is when the interpreter has opinion about something on the basis of his nature and passion and, therefore, interprets the Qur'an according to his opinion and passion in an effort to justify his position. If it had not been for that opinion and passion, that meaning about the Qur'an would not have occurred to him. This can sometimes be conscious, as in the case of someone who uses some ayats of the Qur'an to prove the validity OF AN INNOVATION, when he knows that that is not what is meant by the ayat, but HIS AIM IS TO CONFUSE HIS OPPONIENT. Sometimes it is done in ignorance which may happen when an ayat can be applied in various ways and his understanding inclines to the meaning which coincides with his position. He prefers that interpretation because of his opinion and passion and so he interprets it according to his own opinion. If it had not been for HIS OPINION, he would NOT HAVE PREFERRED THAT MEANING."


"The second instance is when an interpreter hastens to explain the Qur'an according to the literal meaning of the Arabic without the help of transmission about what the unusual words of the Qur'an mean and what has been passed down about the ambiguous and interchangeable words, conciseness, elision, concealment and reversal of order it contains. Someone who does not have a firm grasp of the literal tafsir and then sets out to derive meanings by simple understanding of Arabic OFTEN ERRS and joins the company of those who interpret the Qur'an according to THEIR OWN OPINIONS. Transmission is necessary FIRST OF ALL IN THE PRIMARY TAFSIR so that one avoids error, and then after that one employs understanding and deduction to expand on it. The unusual words which are only understood via transmission are numerous, and one cannot hope to reach the inward before having a firm grasp of the outward." [Reference]

You are using a flawed methodology and are leading people into error, according to al-Qurtubi, Osama. I have validated my argument by appealing to the greatest scholars in the history of Islam. Osama validates his argument by appealing to....Osama.

nma said...

Abu Musa said...
IN ENGLISH
Verse 9 says he created the earth in two days. Verse 10 (which is a continuation of the sentence in verse 9) goes in to describe what was done, and expands, saying that all of the things mentioned in it took four days, thus the creation of the earth, and the placing of mountains, and blessing it, and measuring the sustenance of its dwellers all took four days.



Supposing your argument about the grammer is true, still there is a problem. In verse 9 it is said that the earth was created in 2 days. Strictly Grammatically and otherwise that was the end of earth's creation. Assuming the 4 days in verse 10 overlaps the two days of the earth's creation, the two out four days in verse 10 don't count, because these two days were used for the earth's modification (not creation) because creation was already done in two days (verse 9). So it took two days for the creation of the earth and two days for the creation of the heavens, which makes only 4 days for the whole process. But other verses states that it took six days to create the earth and the heavens. Now we are two days short.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 217   Newer› Newest»