Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The FOT Foundation

Hello everyone, it's Nabeel.

I've posted a few things on YouTube now, and I've received pretty regular responses from a gentleman who styles himself "The FOT Foundation". What I like about him is that he is thorough in his responses and tends not to egregiously transgress basic logic. I intend to do a full response to his embryology defense in the near future.

Anyhow, he had posted comments on the most recent YouTube videos which began to upset me. Long story short, he seems to think that asking people to answer questions on camera is hostile. To me, it seems to be a good way to keep people honest. He alleges that Christians would react the same way as the Muslims did, if not worse - if they were to do so, I would be equally suspicious of them.

But I digress. The real reason I'm posting this blog is because I read his blog here. Essentially it's a criticism of our online ministry. When I got to the paraphrase of this weekend's YouTube videos, I could not contain my enthusiasm! This guy is hilarious! He is a master of prose, subtle sarcasm, and persuasion. I haven't enjoyed anyone's writing style nearly as much in many months!

Perhaps I'm finding this hilarious because it's 4:53 AM and the past two days have been the most hectic days of my life (not an exaggeration; more to come in the future.) Regardless, this deserves a referral post. Thanks for that, FOT, it was great. Keep up the good writing. You'll get my response soon.

Everyone, keep your eyes open for the exciting conclusion of the Dearborn series. In Christ,
-Nabeel

104 comments:

Faithful Servant said...

Nabeel, well done in your debate yesterday. It was a conjecture party...I told ya so :) Looking forward to seeing the final video and will be in prayer for your future debates. In return, please pray for future ministry for us here in Dearborn as we remain to reach the Muslims!

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Fot asks the question what would happen if muslims turned up in a Christian festival to engage in similar evangelistic activity.

Well here where I live I know of a number of churches, where muslims turned up within the service to engage the often unprepared leaders for a spontanous public debate.

We know that Nadir did so when he publically confronted James White.

And this is nothing, I know of a church, that I guess was under a construction or where the members were meeting in the open where muslims piled dirt and stones at the church members while their service was taken place. These church members simply decided to pray for the persecutors.

Lets not get the idea that Wood and Nabeel did something that muslims would never do.

Sepher Shalom said...

From FOT's blog post:

"Dr Qureshi followed by his camera wielding crew now make their way to an Islam Information Stand, in a live demonstration of "I iz right". A short young man turns towards the voice of Dr Qureshi, who towers over him and who is waving said pamphlet in his face (like a subpoena or a warrant) demanding an answer to his "question".

[This young man reminds me momentarily of Prophet David (pbuh) faced with Goliath (Dr Qureshi's Masters in Christian Apologetics certainly adds to my perception)]

I dont really know what goes through the young man's mind, it may have been arrest and detention without charge, extra-ordinary rendition, Gitmo (surely thats closed?) or another of a plethora of Gulag's in which Muslims are held and tortured but his response is virtually automatic. "Turn off the camera" "


Is this guy serious? So, Nabeel was apparently intimidating this 'frightened Muslim'?...and the gentleman was imagining being tortured in a Gulag, and this is why he didn't want to be filmed?

No one can deny that FOT has a fertile and very active imagination.

Alex said...

All I see in this is that Wood and Nabeel are so distressed by the way people are led into the wrong path. I salute them for taking pains to help People find the truth that is found only in Christ Jesus.


I have at times stumbled upon Hindus (most of my friends in India) who are very resistive to Christian Evangelists. I have spoken to some of them who sense that Christians are on the look to overturn them and their belief. But when they get to know the truth and the reason why we take the pains to speak is nothing but love for them, their perception changes. They are so appreciative for the change that has been bought into their lives. This is what truly matters. They have to be led to the truth.


I believe that Christians should take the effort to speak to many Muslims who have been misdirected by their own religious leaders. Most of the Muslims are blind-folded by what they are taught. Gives me joy to see people who help them uncover their eyes so that they can see for themselves. I am so glad and bless both Wood and Nabeel for the heavy burden they have taken on. I have learnt a lot from them. I bring them under the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ that surrounds them like a mighty wall that satan cannot penetrate.

minoria said...

I read fot's blog.He is not convincing.If an atheist were to do the same Fot would still say "hate mongering".The question is,Fot,if I,a Hindu,atheist,Buddhist,Christian, can criticize Mohammed and the Koran without being threatened.That is freedom of speech.I would ask fot if he accepts the idea of being against "Islamophobia".If he says yes,then he is for violation of human rights.As simple of that.

Islam is a set of religious doctrines.You can criticize it.Fot would critique atheists who argue there is no God.The he does "atheismophobia".90% of Sweden is atheistic.If they thought like most Muslims,("Islamophobia",to criticize the Koran and Mohammed is a crime)then fot would be imprisoned or even killed for "atheismophobia".He would even be accused of "incitement to hatred against atheists".

That is what fot accuses Nabeel and David.I know the reason why fot has such a way of thinking.It is because of his religion,in Islam salvation is based on works,not faith in Jesus.Unless he becomes a martyr,there is no guarantee of salvation.

So if an atheist convinces fot's family there is no God and Islam is false and they die as atheists then they go to hell,the Koran says so.To avoid that fot would be willing to prevent atheists from freely speaking.If he says no,then in his blog he should publicly declare that the Muslim talk against "Islamophobia" is wrong.

If he doesn't either he is pretending to be for human rights or he is afraid of his own Muslim people.But isn't Islam supposed to be for human rights? As for me I am for human rights.

Fernando said...

Videos, videos, videos, videos... the people all around the worlde is waitting, withe big anxietie, for the videos from the debates... videos, videos, videos, videos, videos... and may God bless you all who're giving the face and the hearte to Jesus' glory!!!

The Fat Man said...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
Fot asks the question what would happen if muslims turned up in a Christian festival to engage in similar evangelistic activity.

I agree with your assesments on how muslims infact do show up at CHRISTIAN ADVERTISED EVENTS, Even Christian worhsip services. Pastor Raza Safa to name another.
However the issue is not whether a muslim would be allowed to do that at a christian function or event. The real issues is the event was not advertised as a ISLAMIC EVENT. But instead as a Arab Festival. Held on public streets in the USA. There are Arab Christians, so denying christians from handing out information or speaking at this event is disinfrachising the Arab Christian segment of our population. This violates at least three amendments in the US constitution. Not only that but there own rules prohibit political information from being handed out not relegious material.

Yahya Snow said...

I have read the blog by FOT and I have been following his blog for a while now.

His writing style, as you said, is something to behold.

However, something that concerns me is the flippant manner in which Nabeel dismisses FOT's points and undermine's him by describing him as 'hilarious'

Nabeel, it is quite clear that FOT has made an argument against you and your 'ministry', the least FOT deserves is a respectable response rather than being dismissed as being 'hilarious'

Nabeel, I know you are planning to respond to him later on but I just hope it is not in a condescending manner.

The Fat Man said...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
Fot asks the question what would happen if muslims turned up in a Christian festival to engage in similar evangelistic activity.

I agree with your assesments on how muslims infact do show up at CHRISTIAN ADVERTISED EVENTS, Even Christian worhsip services. Pastor Raza Safa to name another.
However the issue is not whether a muslim would be allowed to do that at a christian function or event. The real issues is the event was not advertised as a ISLAMIC EVENT. But instead as a Arab Festival. Held on public streets in the USA. There are Arab Christians, so denying christians from handing out information or speaking at this event is disinfrachising the Arab Christian segment of our population. This violates at least three amendments in the US constitution. Not only that but there own rules prohibit political information from being handed out not relegious material.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Fernando said:

Videos, videos, videos, videos... the people all around the worlde is waitting, withe big anxietie, for the videos from the debates... videos, videos, videos, videos, videos... and may God bless you all who're giving the face and the hearte to Jesus' glory!!!

Fernando, you spoiled brat! :-) Everyone takes months getting debates up. We put a few up within days, and look what happens! So demanding :-)

J/K. We actually didn't record these debates, but Arabic Christian Perspective did and we're going to ask for the videos to be sent to us ASAP. When we get them, we'll put them up.

God bless you, brother! In Christ,
-Nabeel

Osama Abdallah said...

"J/K. We actually didn't record these debates, but Arabic Christian Perspective did and we're going to ask for the videos to be sent to us ASAP. When we get them, we'll put them up.

God bless you, brother! In Christ,
-Nabeel"

Good One Nabeel. I think you got badly schooled yesterday on the Bible and amply refuted. And yes, you did record :-). I was there sir.

Anyway, I will upload the videos on my site, insha'Allah. No worries.

Your friend,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

David Wood said...

Osama,

Before you accuse Nabeel of lying again, you should actually read what he said. He said that WE (i.e. David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi) didn't record the debates. Instead, Arabic Christian Perspective recorded the debates (that was the cameraman you saw, and that's the footage we'll be getting from ACP).

As for Nabeel getting schooled, I'm not sure which debate you were attending. But I'll see you on stage in less than three hours!

Jay said...

Arabic Christian Perspective!!!!! did the recording? OMG, it will take weeks to be uploaded, cause Sam Shamoun did a debate in April and they still don't have it available. Looks like we wont ever see these debates for weeks.

Matthew said...

It's been a while since I last commented here, looks like things stayed the same.

I like FOT's writing style and he even might have a point about "Didn't we already see this?" He's right, we have already seen this. Numerous times in fact. But that doesn't change anything.

minoria said...

I have read answering-christianity by Osama Abdullah and he uses the word liar alot of times.It is very unprofessional.For those who have never been there reading him for the first time and later on strikes one as the work of a man who lacks manners.Osama,this is construtive criticism on my part,rewrite your arguments by taking out the insults.Imitate the style of jewsforjudaism.They disgree with Christians but have a sober,unemotional style.At least they try.You consider Jesus to be a prophet.He would tell you,in brotherly fashion:"Do to others as you would have them to do to you.Don't accuse people of being this or that right and left."Again,this is constructive criticism on my part.

fot said...

Dear Dr Qureshi,

Thank you for reading my blog, I am glad that you like my writing style and that it amused you.

If my comments on your recent youtube videos stating that I was disappointed in your approach have upset you then I apologize. My intention was not to upset but to simply give my perspective on your approach.

However, the basic point of my youtube comments and my blog entry is evidenced by the comments your fellow Christian users have posted that display the fear-Islam & hate-Muslims mentality your videos seemed (in this case) to pander to.

fot
May God guide us all always closer to His Truth. Ameen.

Confident Christianity said...

I have to agree with Jay......I looked at ACP's web site and noticed the most recent update is September 2008!

Can we get the videos and have Acts 17 or Confident Christianity upload to their respective web sites? I'll pay for the shipping :)

Pretty Please?! People are excited NOW. Our microwave generation will lose this excitement very soon.

Roger Sharp
Confident Christianity

The Fat Man said...

Nabeel said
Fernando, you spoiled brat! :-) Everyone takes months getting debates up. We put a few up within days, and look what happens! So demanding :-)

Oh no, say it aint so. I cant get my debate fix for weeks, even months. :)

minoria said...

Just read Mr Fot's statement.If I were a Hindu and am threatened by Muslims in the US to give out literature saying "Errors in the Koran",which is my human right of freedom of speech and I write an article about it,then I am bad,according to you.

I would be bad if I invented the incident.But to state what happened is not "pandering to fear Islam,hate-Muslim" ideas.If what the Muslims did was wrong then why condemn the aggrieved?It would be great if you were to state in your blog that you disagree with what practically all Muslim organizations do:say it is wrong to criticize Mohammed and the Koran(they use the euphemism "Islamophobia").That is what they say about Robert Spencer.

He wrote a book called The Truth about Mohammed(his website is jihadwatch.com).He simply tells his life according to 100% Muslim sources accepted by Muslims as reliable(Bukhari,Ibn Ishaq,etc).For that he is condemned by Muslims.Where is the logic in that?The Muslim organizations want to make "Islamophobia" a crime in the West.You should state in your blog that you are 100% for freedom of speech,which is part of the Golden Rule.The Golden Rule which was given by Jesus to his followers.And since you think he was a real prophet I don't think you would be against that rule.

Sepher Shalom said...

FOT said: "However, the basic point of my youtube comments and my blog entry is evidenced by the comments your fellow Christian users have posted that display the fear-Islam & hate-Muslims mentality your videos seemed (in this case) to pander to."

I do not "fear" Islam. I reject Islam as a false religion, that brings with it ideologies that are a threat to my freedom, and my ability to freely practice and express my spiritual beliefs.

Secondly, I do not "hate Muslims". I hate Sharia. I hate all actions that transgress my Civil Rights, regardless of who commits them.

FOT, the political aspects of Islam have no place in my country. Anyone that insists on even the smallest aspect of Sharia being implemented here...well...the nicest way I can think to say it is, perhaps they can move to another country ;)

Your self-inflicted fantasy of Muslim victimization is not a compelling narrative, nor is it convincing, nor is it amusing, nor is it anything other than delusional. The fact that you make references to Gulags as a reason why a Muslim doesn't care to answer a simple question is symptomatic of either; a) a propagandist, b) someone who has no grasp of reality.

Annoyed Pinoy said...

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but are there links to mp3 versions of the debates that David Wood has done with various Muslim apologists? I ask because it's so much easier for me to listen to the debates on my Ipod or other mp3 player as I go about my business throughout the day, rather than having to sit in front of my computer for the entire length of the debate.

IslamSINS said...

David Wood: Before you accuse Nabeel of lying again, you should actually read what he said.

When I Google any topic for which answering-christianity is among the returned sites, even Google posts the caveat, "This site may be harmful to your computer". And, if it isn't, it is most certainly insulting to anyone with a functioning brain. Once I saw what "freethoughtmecca" did to prove how absolutely slovenly Osama's investigative integrity is, it doesn't surprise at all that he failed to accurately read Nabeel's statement on who recorded the debates. Osama is a scourge to islam, just as Nadir is. That must be why they're such close/loving compadres.

And Fot? I haven't seen any video of his other than a partial exposure by a Christian lady refuting his filthy defense of Muhammad's sexual activity with little Aisha. He was using the moldy and vile lie about how little girls in warm climates develop quicker. I did a Google search on menarche, and that belief couldn't be more wrong. Since there is a phenomenon known as "precocious menarche", I guess by Fot's standard (or complete lack thereof), these five and six year olds who suffer this condition, are legitimate sex toys? Gag me!

So, we have two Muslims, proven to be without integrity, still struggling to make Islam defensable?

Fot, if a Muslim came to a Christian festival, I'd love the chance to answer questions. But, that is what we're taught to do: but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence. 1 Peter 3:15 We will never be shamed for putting our hope in Christ; said the Psalmist, David.

Christ never said or did anything that puts His followers to shame. He didn't have to repent of sin, He didn't slaughter His enemies, He never used the concept of taqiyya or hudna, and He brings complete freedom to Christians. We're "free indeed", with no need to concoct wild, rambling, dishonest explanations of our Lord. He's Lord of Muslims, also, and no Christian wants to see them confess that when it is too late for their eternal souls.

Fernando said...

My prayers to all our muslims friends who are reading this blog in Iran: may all the spiritual helpe you need in changing the barbaric regime out there be granted to you. God bless you all!!!

DigitalDisciple said...

Annoyed Pinoy - if you use Firefox there is an add-in called DownloadHelper. You can use it to download the videos and convert them to iPod format. They're still videos but you can take them with you and just listen (unless you only have a shuffle). If you can only do mp3's I know there are programs you can buy to convert but there might be a free one or two if you just look around.

Bryant said...

Ohh Guys please don't let Arabic Christian Perspective record anything. Do we even have the last set of London debates that you were in? If I'm not mistaken, they recorded those didn't they? I was really looking forward to watching these debates too.

David Wood said...

For those not pleased with ACP's debate turnaround time, no worries. True, debates that go through ACP usually end up in a vortex. (I think the only debate I ever received from ACP was my debate with Jalal Abualrub!) However, Nabeel and I know the man who recorded this weekend's debates. He lives in DC, not California. We'll be in DC next week, so we shouldn't have much trouble getting the footage. Apart from that, I already got the footage of Mary Jo's debate with Ehteshaam, which should be up sometime today.

David Wood said...

When I watched FOT's responses to Nabeel's videos, I was much impressed (not with his answers, but with his attempt to be thorough in his response).

Now I'm the opposite of impressed. Let's follow the chain of events here.

(1) Nabeel and I were in Michigan for a debate series.
(2) Since we were in town, we visited the Arab Festival on Friday.
(3) Muslims gave us some pamphlets and CDs attacking Christianity and defending Islam.
(4) We took the materials back to the hotel and examined them.
(5) We found that the information presented was horribly inaccurate.
(6) We returned to the Arab Festival on Sunday to discuss the pamphlets.
(7) Since these pamphlets had been distributed to thousands of people, we decided to record the exchange so that other people would be able to see how Muslims defend their materials.
(8) Nabeel entered the tent, with Mary Jo recording, to ask a question of a group that had a massive sign, which read, "Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers."
(9) The Muslims said they didn't want to be recorded.
(10) Complying with their wishes, Nabeel turned around to leave.
(11) One of the Muslims invited him back, knowing that he was being recorded.
(12) Nabeel received no good answer.
(13) FOT condemns Nabeel and me for being unscholarly bigots who ruin people's fun by asking a question at a booth dedicated to answering questions.
(14) Despite the horrendous reasoning of FOT's response, Nabeel and I thought that it was brilliantly written.
(15) Nabeel links to the article and (genuinely) praises the writing.
(16) Yahya Snow condemns Nabeel for his response.

I have a quick question. Is there anything we can do that won't draw immediate condemnation from Muslims? If we ask a question of Muslims at a booth, we are condemned. If we praise a Muslim for an article (while disagreeing completely with his points), we are condemned. This weekend, we were physically assaulted by Muslims for asking a question, and we are condemned.

It seems the only thing we can do without drawing condemnation is sit around and do nothing. But that's the one thing we refuse to do. Oh well. Condemn away.

Yahya Snow said...

@IslamSins

I have a hefty article refuting the paedophile claim on my blog...please view it if you want a more thorough understanding...God willingyou will realise that the paedophile claimis false

Thanks

Yahya Snow said...

David Wood,

Yes, I do slap Nabeel on the wrist as I do feel his response was somewhat condescending and I feel his response undermines the serious points FOT raised in his blog.

FOT is far too subtle to accuse Nabeel and yourself of bigotry, I feel it is important to advise you that the approach you have adopted could quite easily be interpreted as being based on bigotry and pandering to the islamophobes.

There are many imporatant theologically motivated questions that Muslims have posed to Christian missionaries that STILL remain unanswered or answewrd unsatisfatorily.

I would suggest Christian missionaries such as yourself need to move away from mud-slinging and try rethingking your answers to the questions.

Muslims are never going to believe in the trintiy....Christians do not understand it and have no way of explaining this foreign, paganistic and neo-Christian belief.

Btw gentlemen...if you cannot beat the Muslims in scholarly debate then join the Muslims (ie become Muslims) rather than 'player-hate'

:)

peace

May God guide all the Christians on this site so they will stop worshipping the creation (Jesus,pbuh, and the 'Holy Spirit') and begin to worship the Creator (God-Almighty)

Yahya Snow said...

Fernando

MOST Iranians support the so-called 'barbaric regime'

So please stop the politicizing

btw, if you are concerned about 'barbaric regimes' then cast your attention to Israel, UK and USA.

BUT please do not pray for the people of Israel, US or UK (myself included) if you are Christian as you will only be praying to the creation.

Worship should only be directed to Allah (God-Almighty) and not to a Prophet (Jesus, peace be on all prophets) neither to Angels.

Sepher Shalom said...

Yahya Snow said: "FOT is far too subtle to accuse Nabeel and yourself of bigotry, I feel it is important to advise you that the approach you have adopted could quite easily be interpreted as being based on bigotry and pandering to the islamophobes."

This is little more than the typical Islamic obfuscation. There is no "bigotry" involved here. Islam is the religion of perpetual victimhood, so naturally, you accuse everyone that disagrees with Islam and publicly declares why they disagree as a "bigot". It is nothing more than a cheap smoke-screen to try to shield the cult of Muhammad from criticism.

Yahya said: "Muslims are never going to believe in the trintiy...."

You appear to be a one-trick-pony, Yahya. Like many Muslims, your default dialogue setting is "attack the Trinity". It's not relevant to anything anyone brought up, but low and behold, you dedicate nearly two whole posts to ranting against the Trinity [and being logically fallacious while doing it]. Muslims need to learn to sing a new tune.

Yahya said: "I would suggest Christian missionaries such as yourself need to move away from mud-slinging..."

Lol! Take your own advice Yahya. You can't admonish people to avoid "mud-slinging" and then engage in it yourself. Now, if I say, 'I suggest you and all the rest of the dawagandists stop mud-slinging', this is every bit as legitimate as your statement. However, I won't say that. It accomplishes nothing. It's just childish fingerpointing, and actually name calling. So, let's not use pointless emotionally charged name calling, Yahya.

The only defense of their religion most Muslims can muster, is an attack on the other persons faith [usually by using straw-men], name calling, and whining about how everyone that disagrees with them is a "bigot".

Yahya said: "if you cannot beat the Muslims in scholarly debate then join the Muslims (ie become Muslims) rather than 'player-hate' "

You are a player of games. That is quite clear. I suggest you grow up intellectually, and realize that pointing out the flaws of Islam and the lies of Muslims does not make one a "bigot". Stop playing these silly games and no one will "player hate" you.

Bartimaeus said...

Osama

Hey dude what debate did you attend you were so bad in both debates that you embarrassed yourself. In fact you embarrassed your prophet when you called in an ignorant illiterate Bedouin and trashed the haddiths as being unreliable. If I had said what you had said about Mohammed, I would have a fatwa on me.

By the way dude next time you debate if there is a next time dont uses Wikepedia and your oun GARBAGE website as your primary source

The Fat Man said...

Yahya Snow said...
Fernando
MOST Iranians support the so-called 'barbaric regime'

You really don’t know a lot about Iran or the Persian people. Or for that matter people in general. The majority of Iran’s citizens are under the age of 30, a vast section of this population is highly educated with bachelors and or graduate degrees. This is the age when most young men and woman in other countries are setting out on their own getting married, starting families and pursuing their chosen careers. However a lack of sustainable employment, a livable wage, and affordable housing makes these goals for most UN attainable.

Iran sits on the third largest oil reserves in the world. While other oil producing nations were making money hand over fist during the oil boom that peaked at 147 dollars a barrel a year ago. Iran actually got poorer. Unemployment and inflation skyrocketed into the double digits. Iran has to import the majority of its useable fuel, Gasoline, Diesel etc… from Iraq and even England. Why? Because instead of building Oil refineries, the regime in Iran spends Billions to fund Hezbollah and Hamas. Instead of becoming energy independent with a resource it has an abundance of; the regime instead chooses to pursue Nuclear Weapons.

The Regime in Iran tortures and kills its own citizens, suppresses freedom of the press, and freedom of expression. The Regime in Iran kills in cold blood. Remember NEDA, the young woman shot down in cold blood. The excuse by the regime is that “she may have resembled the sister of a terrorist.” Are you going to tell me that the Iranians support this? Are you telling me that the Iranian people support the beating of their own people “like animals”, the beating of woman with clubs in the street?
Twitter posts are now reporting that this Regime that you say the majority of Iran supports is importing Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon to beat, and Kill those Iranians that do not support poverty, oppression, and Murder.

I assume you live in the west, and like most Muslims living in the west you have a fantasy that the Islam is always greener on the other side. What is happening in Iran is not about Islam, it’s not about Israel or the US. It’s about a educated people, who want to live their lives in peace, and prosperity, that want to join the rest of the world, not threaten it.

minoria said...

Hello Yahya Snow:

I read your article on Mohammed,Aisha and how old she was when she consummated her marriage with him.This is my view.I don't think it is 100% proved it happened,but it is highly probable.I could be wrong.No problem with that.Some Muslims think she was 17 or 18 when she slept with him.There is a possibility.Bukhari and Muslim wrote 200 years later.The much despised "Orientalists" don't give much value to the hadiths.But it is unlikely the story is false.Again,I could be 100% wrong.Some Muslims say the Shias invented the story.

You quoted Ezekiel 16:4-14.It gives no age for marriage and it is a metaphor.Don't get me wrong.I agree that many Jews and others married their daughters before menstruation.But it was not really the custom for her to actually have sex till she was like 13,14,15.

They waited.That is the difference with the Aisha case.In Europe the nobility sometimes married their daughters at 6,7,8 years of age.True.But it was not consummted till she was like 14 or more.Also Aisha was actually 8,not 9.Because when you use the Western calender her age was 8,not the Muslim lunar calender.Even if the Aisha was 8 story is false,as Ali Sina,the ex-Muslim from Iran of faithfreedom.org said,sex with a girl before menstruation is permited in sura 65:4.

If a Muslim says that was then,in 7th century Arabia,but 65:4 is a local thing in place and time,then I find that ok and cool,all the better. Put yourself in our non-Muslim shoes.The fact that Mohammed allowed it in sura 65:4 makes him a bit less universal as an example than Confucius,Socrates,Buddha,Zoroaster and even Jesus.

As for the Trinity,Ahmed Deedat said it was illogical because 1+1+1=3,not 1.True.But God can act according to other math rules that are just as logical and valid.

We have:1X1X1=1,and infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity.And don't forget physicist Tipler and his triune universe.

minoria said...

Regarding how old Mary was when she had Jesus the truth is we don't know.Muslims think 100% she was 12 or 13.Not probable.Why?

The gospel says Joseph was a "tekton".It doesn't mean carpenter but "day laborer".It was used for those who were free but had no land.Joseph was not a farmer in that sense.His status was above a slave but below a farmer.Nazareth was a village of some 120 people.1 hr away was Sephoris,the capital of Galilee(20,000 people).Joseph had to do odd jobs to survive,in Nazareth or Sephoris,just like Jesus till he was 30 and began a new career.

Then girls and boys were married at 13 and 18.But,but,according to Jewish custom(and I think Muslim too)though married she had to live obligatorily 1 year with her parents,no sex involved.

But,again but,if a Jewish man wanted to get married he had to bring a dowry.Cash.Otherwise the parents would not consent.It could take years for a tekton to accumulate the dowry for marrige.A tekton scarely made enough to survive.Just like in India and Africa today for most.Hard to accummulate a dowry in such a case.

Muslims in the Middle East know about it.Many young men have graduated from university there,but can't get married.There are no jobs.And if there are it's a misery.But they won't get a father's consent to marry his daughter if they don't have a dowry.It is a reality there.

Beyond that we don't know anything else for sure.

nma said...

Yahya Snow said..

btw, if you are concerned about 'barbaric regimes' then cast your attention to Israel, UK and USA.



If you consider UK as 'barbaric regime',why don't you go live in a Muslim Country?

BUT please do not pray for the people of Israel, US or UK (myself included) if you are Christian as you will only be praying to the creation.

But Allah is only a creation of Mohammed...

Worship should only be directed to Allah (God-Almighty) and not to a Prophet (Jesus, peace be on all prophets) neither to Angels.

That is how Mohammed brain-washed you. In reality, there is no God called Allah as depicted in the Quran.

nma said...

Yahya Snow said...

Muslims are never going to believe in the trintiy....Christians do not understand it and have no way of explaining this foreign, paganistic and neo-Christian belief.

Muslims are not going to believe in anything other than the Satanic book called Quran anyway. But when some Muslims realize their mistakes, they become apostates and start believe in Jesus.

How do you know Christians do not understand Trinity? And how can someone explain explain Theory of Relativity to a 3rd grade student?

You said:Btw gentlemen...if you cannot beat the Muslims in scholarly debate then join the Muslims (ie become Muslims) rather than 'player-hate'

Has any Muslim ever won any debate?

It is Islam that is full of hate, violence and BS.

nma said...

minoria said...

As for the Trinity,Ahmed Deedat said it was illogical because 1+1+1=3,not 1.True.But God can act according to other math rules that are just as logical and valid.

We have:1X1X1=1,and infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity.


Right. 1=1=1 is also true.

nma said...

minoria said...

We have:1X1X1=1,and infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity.


How about this math?

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 only four, not six. That is two days short. Verse 41:10 does not count because it deals with the enhancement after creation. Wonderful math in a book that has no errors!

Fernando said...

About Yahya Snow trying to deny the HISTORICAL FACT that Muhammad had indeed sexual intercourse withe a childe (acting, as so, as a paedophile), he says (I'll make some commets theses days):

a) Aisha had to be «post-pubescent because the pagans did not attack/acuses Muhammad for habing sex with a pre-pubescent girl»...

this argument stands onlie iff:

1) thate behaviour (habing sex withe a pre-pubescent girl) was nott commun at thate time (and commun muslim apologistes alwways say it was);

2) thate those pagans, iff thate (1) was nott the case, had the opportinity to know the age off poor ladie Aisha and that's nott certain, although possible;

3) thate those pagans coulde knew thate Muhhamad had made sex with Aisha, and thates, very possible, nott the case;

4) thate when Muhamad had sex with Aisha those pagans were still in a position to attack Muhammad, and according to a simple chronological view off the factes, thats nott viable;

5) thate those possible accusations coulde habe survived recorded in historical documentes, and thats nott the case;

so... juste a criple start... we will see a lott off more false steps from John White in the next time...

bie the way (in another notte on another statement from John White): there're more persons leaving Christianity to become atheistes than to become muslims, and we do nott see Christians very worried to say true things about atheism; iff we say much more about islam is because this false-religion, from its start attcks and offnes Christianity, so we Christians have the need to defend our message from the falsities off islam...

Fernando said...

brother minoria: great point there in responding to Yahya Snow... I was really impressed... my answer will follow in the nexte times...

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow sayd: «MOST Iranians support the so-called 'barbaric regime; So please stop the politicizing»... I'm not politizing anything: I'm just stating a fact: the present iranian regime is a barbaric one... and how do you know thate most iranians support the present regime iff the other ones do not habe the chance to express freelie and democraticaly theire desagreement? humm....

then John Snow saide that «Israel, UK and USA are 'barbaric regimes'»... whie is thate so? Do they have democratical structures thate grante the possibility to be freely changed? And eben iff they were like whate you say, whie don't you go to live in anie muslim countrie? Do they, despite being "barbaric regimes", grant you more possibilities to have the life you want than the muslims countries?

then Yahya White saide: «BUT please do not pray for the people of Israel, US or UK (myself included) if you are Christian as you will only be praying to the creation»... I pray to anyone I want, eben for you since you're so appart from the truthe thate youre wordes are offensive to anyone who loves the truth... As a Christian I'm not praying to creation, rather to God since the person off Jesus is a divine one...

then Yahya Snow saide: «Worship should only be directed to Allah (God-Almighty) and not to a Prophet (Jesus, peace be on all prophets) neither to Angels»...

1) no Christian warships angels;

2) calling Jesus onlie a prophet is very offensive to all Christians, since you are diminuishing his true identity; the Isa from the qur'an did neber exist: he's a rethorical and fictional personage inveted to: a) make muhammad pretend he was sympathetical to Christians who, in his false supposutions, manipulatted the true aboute Jesus; b) and, despite thate, attack Christianity in order to make an identity statement about the specificity off islam...

so: I do pray to God, the Father, the Son and the Holye Spirit so God can give all the spiritual help to anyone I want...

Fernando said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernando said...

Yahya Snow saide in his blogg: «Aisha saw this union as an honour and looked back at the marriage and her great life with Prophet Mohammed with great fondness and joy, this obviously shows that she was in full agreement with the marriage»...

ounce again I'll state here whate I saide numerous times in the paste:

a) can anyone thate was obliged to marry by her family (this is an indisputed fact; her family arranged the marriege with Muhammad ) to an important man, that coulde eben kill her iff he reciebed some sorte off psedo-revelation to justify his desires, coulde say anything otherwise? Psychological thate can be easily explained as I have done before;

b) being so, the fact ladie Aisha supposidely expressed some sorte off agreement with her marriage (in some sources thate, according to the same Yahya Smow, may nott be corrected since he says thate the age they present to poor baby Aisha having sex with Muhammad for the first time are disputted) does not say she indeed agreed: neither with the marriege in itself; neither with habing sex with a male almost 50 years older than her...

c) more: being those sources, written more than 200 years after the deaf off Muhammad, so preocupied to embelishe his liffe, if Aiesha eber complained aboute the treatement she recieved, it woulde be bery difficult to admit they woulde eber testify itt; thate's why we may say, on the other hand, thate anything that in them were embarrasing to muslims att the time they were written muste be historicaly true.

Fernando said...

About Yahya Snow reffering to Ezekiel 16:4-14 in his boggus attempt to demonstrate thate Muhamamd did not habe sex with a child (and he did) one juste has to say thate:

a) this text is a poetical and methaphorical construction that explaines the nature off the relationship off YHWH with his beloved people;

b) no where, no where in the texte it's axpressed anything about the legal age off consent, less the age that someone could habe sex with a woman;

c) ebery rabbinic source agrees thate it was fundamental to know iff a girl alreeady had its first perioud before she coulde habe sex: there're were eben some casustic to see iff the blode thate was spoiled into the shits in the nuptial bed (thate had to bee chequed) was from the rupture off the himen, or, eventualy, from a first perioud and in the latter case there were penalitys to her and her family due to the breaking off the legall aspects thate regulated the first sexual intercourse off a woman;

d) we Christians do nott habe in Ezekiel our role model as mahometans habe in Mudammad, neither de we habe to follow all the cultural and provisional laws that are expressed in the OT (eben iff this text could be interpretted as one off them)

so, making a parafrasis off Yahya Snow's own wordes, «the wordes "utter and incredible ignorance" springs to minde when muslikmes attack Christianity in their vaccus attempt to deny that Muhammad was not a paedophile, as iff something thate nott exist neither in the Bible nor in our lifes could serve as an excuse to some in-human behaviour Muhammad had»

more to came!!!

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

Thanks for the offer.I will send you an email soon.I know that I don't know everthing.Many times I have been wrong.And when I have I have had to gulp down my pride and say my argument was bad.The reason I give extra info is not because I know it all.It's because I know info I know may not be known by others.

Really,till a few days ago I didn't know that in the Koran what is translated as "the scriptures that came before you" is really "what is between your/its hands".That gives the impression the Koran endorses the Bible as it existed in Mohammed's day.How many non-Muslims know that?Practically 0%.

The same,how many Muslims or even Christians know that infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity in math?Where we can have infinity=God the Father,infinite in power,goodness,wisdom,etc, and also infinity=God the Son,infinite in wisdom,power,etc.What I do is take notes,review them many times for fun,and alot of info has simply became automatic.What before seemed complicated becomes easy.

Fernando said...

Hummm... according to Yahya Snowm Trinity=paganism... hummm... I wounder iff anytime some pagan believed in ONE God thate subsisted in THREE different upostasis... hummm...

IslamSINS said...

Yahya, I am not familiar with your blog, but I've read dozens of Muslim refutations of Muhammad's pedophilic nature. If you choose to remain in Islam's world of darkness/delusion, that is your choice. I choose not to be that stupid. Islam can try redefining sin anyway it chooses. Muttah and Misyar are prostitution, no matter how Islam tries to disguise the filthy practice. 65.4 gives instructions on how to divorce prepubescent girls, so it's addressing pedophilia, no matter your feeble defense. You're not fooling YHWH, only the delusional slaves of "allah". And Islam's peculiar "dictionary" condemns Muslims to an eternity shut away from YHWH's presence. That would be hell.

Islam is a cult of perpetual rage, victim-hood, whining, projection, heresy, shirk, and deception. Nothing from a Muslim, defending Muhammad's Islam, can be trusted. Nothing.

minoria said...

I just want to add a bit more about Mary and Joseph.Richard Carrier,atheist of infidels.org wrote an article that said Luke and Matthew could not be reconciled regarding the year of Jesus' birth.Several times the Bible was supposed to be wrong historically,but later new evidence showed it was right.

He wrote that Joseph would have married Mary and if he didn't have the required dowry then he could still marry if he promised to get it in the future.In the meantime Mary would obligatorily live with her parents,not Joseph,for 1 year.But if at the end of the year Joseph still hadn't enough money it could take YEARS till the marriage was consumated.He knows more about Jewish customs than I,so I take his word for it.

So we don't know 100% when Mary had Jesus.She still wasn't living with Joseph.How long had passed since the marriage is impossible to tell,1,3,4 years.On top of that Carrier notes something new.Luke 1:31 tells us the conception was not immediate.

Everybody always thinks Mary became pregnant right away.The text says:"you WILL CONCEIVE(not you have conceived)and give birth to a son".How long later the conception took place,we just don't know either:days,weeks,months,a year.All this just shows that the idea Mary had Jesus at age 13 is not 100% sure.Nobody really knows.Personally I think God would place such a responsability on an older girl,one 17 or 18.

Krishnaraj said...

These people have lost all the debates. That is why they are not posting the clips.

Royal Son said...

Krishnaraj: will you still be saying that when all the debates are posted? :)

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Yahya snow wrote:

Worship should only be directed to Allah (God-Almighty) and not to a Prophet (Jesus, peace be on all prophets) neither to Angels.

Elijah replies:

Funny, that coming from a person who five times a day prostrates himself in prayer and worship toward a black metorite that once was venerated as a god (if I am correct) and an object which muslims still encircle in veneration and kiss.

I would not say that the worship in islam entirely excludes creation.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Osama

Hey dude what debate did you attend you were so bad in both debates that you embarrassed yourself. In fact you embarrassed your prophet when you called in an ignorant illiterate Bedouin and trashed the haddiths as being unreliable. If I had said what you had said about Mohammed, I would have a fatwa on me.

By the way dude next time you debate if there is a next time dont uses Wikepedia and your oun GARBAGE website as your primary source"

Bartimaeous,

It's funny how you are very nice in person and very rude and a liar behind the keyboard. When did I call the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, an ignorant and illiterate bedioun?
I said, the Prophet wasn't a scientist.

Also David Wood, I checked the NUN point and the whale in Yusuf Ali's commentary is ABOUT THE WHALE THE SWALLOWED JOHNAH: 68:1, 21:87. I will add the commentary to the video rebuttal to show how David Wood deliberately and knowingly misquotes Islamic sources, insha'Allah.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

Krishnaraj said: «These people have lost all the debates. That is why they are not posting the clips»... aboutt whate people are you talking? aboutte those who have saide here in this blogg thate they had the debates thate happened in London butt they woulde onlie share them privately to muslims? or perhaps you're already suffering from the conspiracy theory sonce from itts begginings that's whate islam is... hummm

Fernando said...

Let’s continue with the denounce of Yahya Snow’s incapacity to formulate congruent argumentes to defende the hiposthesis tahte Muhamamd did not commit a paedophilique act. He saide in is bloog: «We must also state that the parents of Lady Aisha were in full agreement of the marriage (…), obviously no parent would send their daughter for consummation in a pre-pubescent stage in her life»… well… this argumente is so naïf thate I do nott know where to starte…

a) Yahya mixtures “marriage” whithe “consumation”…

b) butt then: Aisha parents where, previous to her marriage, already bery eager to make her marriage to the famouse Jubayr ibn Mut’im, butt, according to al-Tabari, he refused to accept a LONG betrothal, implying baby Aisha was bery young indeed; so: Aisha parents where nott worried to gibe her in marriage when she was berie young;

c) the consummation off the marriage, after the marriage was celebrated was onlie a matter to the husband: the woman’s family did not habe anie option in itt after they gabe her to her husbande, and as we habe seen tahte baby Aisha’s parents felt OK to gibe her in marriage att a berie, berie young age…

d) finally: even nowadays, muslimes arounde the worlde, following the horrendous example off Muhammad, do habe sex with pre-pubescent girls since the qur’an allows them to do so in Ayha 65:4…

Then John Snow says: «The period of 3 years between the engagement and consummation was clearly for Lady Aisha to reach maturity, both physically and mentally»… Yahya is trying to starte his mathes to finde when was consummated baby Aisha’s marriage, nott from the own muslime sources, butt from one pre-supposition he wantes his readers to beliebe… butt according to muslim own historical sources baby Aisha was nott, by any means, fully reached maturity in a physically or mentally aspect since eben iff, in those times and in warmer countries, he habe reached puberty… she was, still according to muslim sources, still playing with her dolls and acting as a child,e and still had to growe up until she was a grown woman: whe all know thate a woman that reaches puberty onlie has the biological capacity to generate eggs, nott to have children in a save (physically and mentalie) conditions: to her and to her future babys… butt eben nowadays is totally uncomun to find girls in Arabia to reach pubertu before the 12 years. More: puberty is nott a climate or alimentary aspect; it’s a genetical one (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/11.13/01-puberty.html) and mathematically and statistiquely it’s virtually impossible to habe reached puberty before 11/12 years olde… more: yahya Snow is clearly mixting arguments when quoting from Colin Turner, as he recognizes, from the medical sources he quotes, att leats 5 stages in reaching puberty:

1) att an averagge age off 11 1/2 years, is breaste development;
2) next, in about six monthes, public haire develops;
3) progressive increase inn development of pubic haier and the external genitalia; fromm 12 to 13 years;
4) then the first period or menarche occurs 12 1/2 to 14 years;
5) finally (AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT TO THE HABILLITIE TO HABE CHILDREN) reaching the uterus size needed to habe a good health babie about two years after menarche…

So: puberty is nott an authomatical and static process: it’s a dynamique one (and making it’s first step -- breast grow -- the “ok” signal to conceive a baby an absurdity) thate in average only allows women to habe children att the age off 13 years; and habing it in save conditions to her and her children at 15…

will continue...

nma said...

Fot,
You wrote in your blog:For example, Muslims dont believe that God made all of Mankind bear the guilt of the sin of just two people, that is unjust and Muslims dont believe that God is unable to forgive sin and requires payment, even if that meant paying Himself by becoming a man and committing suicide (or killing another innocent), that a weakness and another injustice.


It’s interesting to watch Muslims applying ‘logic’ to Christianity while unaware of that similar logic can be applied to Islam as well. For example, I can ask questions similar to yours: “Why does all-knowing all-powerful Allah allow sin to happen? It is a weakness and injustice.” Or “Why did Allah took 6 days to create the universe when he could have done it instantaneously?” Or "Why did it take 23 years for God to reveal the whole Quran?" "Or why didn't God give Mohmmed the whole the Quran in a book instead of relying on human memory?" And so on.

Fernando said...

Brother nma saide: «And so on»... so on indeed... indeed...

Yahya Snow said...

To NMA,

Hi sir,

I saw you appealed to the erroneous Christian-missionary propaganda material about the Quran in the form of a false allegation of contradiction against the Quran. I have already dealt with this allegation of contradiction (whether the Quran teaches 6 or 8 days for creation)

Please, if you are genuine then go and read the article on my blog and allow yourself to be humble enough to be corrected.

If you are not genuine then I ask Allah to guide you.

Search for the Truth and you shall be set free.

peace and many thanks

Yahya Snow said...

minoria

The quran (65:4) does not allow sex with girls before menstruation. Clearly this 'Ali Sina' man has got it wrong. You could have spared yourself the confusion if you read the English translation; i will make it easy for you and post a translation for you so you can realise that Ali sina is wrong

Quran 65:4-
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 Allah, He will make their path easy.

So, brother minoria, please realise that nowhere in Islam are Muslims allowed to have sex before puberty! I find it sad that anybody will believe (never mind peddle) such vile allegations against any group of people. It is a form of dehumanization, so it is obviously from anti-muslim bigots.

Brother minoria, I know you were not peddling it but you did bring it up so I directed my response to you, please do not mix with such people.
Thanx for reading, peace
May Allah bless you.

Yahya Snow said...

To all those who commented on my article about the false allegations of paedophilia against the final Prophet of God,

I thank you for reading it but please do not insult me.

Also, it is unscholarly to take little snippets out of it and use them incorrectly in a fashion that misrepresents. This leads me to thinking the article was not read in its entirety and nor was any reading subsumed with and open-mind free from prejudice

Please do put your prejudices aside when researching Islam.

Thanks and peace

May Allah (The Most Loving) bring us closer together, ameen

nma said...

Hi Yahya,

you said:I saw you appealed to the erroneous Christian-missionary propaganda material about the Quran in the form of a false allegation of contradiction against the Quran. I have already dealt with this allegation of contradiction (whether the Quran teaches 6 or 8 days for creation)


No, it is not Christian-missionary propaganda. It looks like you haven't read what I wrote. I wrote the Quran teaches it took 2 days to create the earth and 2 days to create the heavens. It adds up to only 4 days, not 6 days and you cannot add 2 days it took for enhancement in Surah 41:10.

You haven't included a link to your blog. Most probably you blog deals with adding up to 6 days,not for days.

I wish you deal with this here because I am reluctant to go to a Islamic website for fear of getting viruses or spyware.

Fernando said...

yahya Snow saide: «please do not insult me»...

1) coulde you pointe wher in these comments of your article did you where offended? Iff I'm one off them I'll take them out; thankkes;
2) do you reallize thate your religion and your own article are offfensive nott onlie to Christians butt to all off those who seak the truth?

yahya Snow also saide: «Also, it is unscholarly to take little snippets out of it and use them incorrectly in a fashion that misrepresents»

1) itt woulde be greatte thate you follow, in your own article, this concern: your use off pseudo-schollary comments (all off them in WIKIPEDIA) from psedo-schoolars are a perfect example off whate you say here thate is worrying you;
2) I, personally, do nott intend to make a compleate comment on your article from the stare: I'm juste, for the moment, commenting the lack off truthness in some peculiar arguments in it;
3) I'm still commenting it; not finished yet;
4) at the end I'l make thate complete comment;

John Snow also saide: «This leads me to thinking the article was not read in its entirety and nor was any reading subsumed with and open-mind free from prejudice»...

1) whate you think, unleess you explain whie, is onlie a problem to you;
2) I read itt in its enterery, and iff you wante a first assecement, I think it's bery bad as I'm trying to explaine step bie step;
3) the one thate is nott oppen minded as been you as I Habe been showing in pointing out all the willing incosistincies in your arguments;
4) then: it's you thate from the stare off your own article is showwing prejudice as I have also showned in my articles since you started withe a thery and then choose (erroneous) preconceptions to prove them;

Finally John Snow saide: Please do put your prejudices aside when researching islam»...

1) please: putt aside your positive bias when researching islam: I know it's your religion, butt ignore thate and trie to see the truth;
2) butt perhaps thates nott posible from you, since you're following a religion thatefrom it's start is a bunch off prejudices against everyone...

So Yahay Snow: don't worry... I'm still comenting your article...

May God blees you and help you to see that your faith is impeding you to see the truthe...

Fernando said...

yahya Snow... about your creattive re-reding of surah 65:4:

1) Asad says: «Now as for such of your women as are beyond, the age of monthly courses, as well as for such as do not have any courses (*), their waiting-period - if you have any doubt - shall be three months»... then he explains (*) saying: «I.e., for ANY physiological reason whatever»... hummm: lack off age to habe the poeriod is a phisological reason... hummm

so Yhaya... do nott defende whate is indefensable juste because you wantte to make qur'an's message more easy to accept psychological: it does nott say thate this ayah referes to post-puberty girls; iff it wanted to say so itt woulde be mech more clear...

so: trying to ignore the truth and accusing those who, without any bias, seek to finde it and express itt is a true unhuman actitude and a testimony thate you are trying to limite the civil rights off other persons thate is so typical off anti-non-muslim bigotry tahte we can finde eberywhere in the qur'an and in muslims...

Yahya Snow: juste try to be neutral and true in your study off the qur'an. May the true God, the Holy Trinity, help you in this goal. You habe my blessings.

Yahya Snow said...

Hey nma

Thanks for the response, you have totally misread it.

There is no viruses on my blog, it is a blogspot blog, just like this blog...so you have no excuse not to read the information I have that shows that there is no error or contradiction in the Quran :)

my blog:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

I have also put the article of whether Quran teaches 6 or 8 days for Creation here (virus free:)):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16900102/Does-the-Quran-teach-Creation-in-6-or-8-days-By-Yahya-Snow

I hope you do read this and realise that the information you have is incorrect.

Peace, God-willing you will be a Muslim soon. ameen.

Yahya Snow said...

Fernando,

I am reluctant to respond to you as you seem insincere. Anybody who thinks Islam allows paedophilia is either insincere or very very misinformed.

Please stop interpreting things erroneously in order to demonize Islam. Truth stands out from falsehood. When you put the trinity (Christian belief) next to Islamic monotheism (Islamic belief)you realise the illogicaland fallacious nature of the trinity and thus realise that Islamic montheism is the Truth.

PS...I really do not have time to come back and forth, if you (fernando) want genuine discussion then please email me. If you want a mud-slinging contest then go to somebody else.

Peace. May Allah guide us all and help us get along. ameen

Semper Paratus said...

Yahya said: When you put the trinity (Christian belief) next to Islamic monotheism (Islamic belief)you realise the illogical and fallacious nature of the trinity and thus realise that Islamic montheism is the Truth.

The Trinity is taught in the Bible...the Word of the prophets.

Tawhid is (allegedly) taught in the Qur'an...an innovation of non-prophets.

Your (imagined) eternally lonely, non-relational, undifferentiated monad doesn't hold a candle to the Triune God.

Fernando said...

Yahya snow says: «Anybody who thinks islam allows paedophilia is either insincere or very very misinformed»...

1) I'm nott saying, directly, that islam endorces paedophilia (which is a pathological assessement... butt eben tahte is possible...), rather wantting to express thate Muhammad had sex with a baby childe (and this is a paedophilicus action) and since he's presented as the intemporal model to muslims, islam endorces sex with baby childs;

2) "insincere" and "very very misinformed" is precisely the wordes I firste think when I read the qur'an speaking aboute judaism and Christianity...

3) "insincere" and "very very misinformed" are also whte I thinke aboutt the sad tries you, and some other muslimes, do in trying to deny thate Muhammad had nott sex with a tender childe...

Yahya snow then saide: «Please stop interpreting things erroneously in order to demonize islam»...

1) show me where I interpreted anythin wrong and I'll rectify itt imediatly iff I find youre arguments more compelling than mines... tahte's a promise...

2) ounce again: I find foonie to see thate you speak aboute someone (me) who's basing there acessement on factual elementes and logical crytic off youre argumente...

3) aboute demonizing: I woulde say thate's the midlename of islam which demonized everything and everyone which ans who is not islam... so: satere by rectifying your own faithe and only then you'll be hable to see thate others do not do whate islam and muslims do daily...

Yahya snow then saide: «Truth stands out from falsehood»...

yes. I agree. Thates why I habe to beliebe thate since theologiquely, antropologicaly, historiquely and logiquely Christianity is true, islam muste be, as it's, a false religion thate is intoxicating the mind off muslimes... thates precisely why you, John Snow, beinga intoxicated as you are with islam twisted mindset, say whate you say about the Holy Trinity and rather prefer the false-religion invented bie Muhamamd and/or Uthman...

then Yahya snow then saide: «I really do not have time to come back and forth, if you (fernando) want genuine discussion then please email me. If you want a mud-slinging contest then go to somebody else.»... speaking publiquely is not, de per se, and against you imply in your wordes, mud-throuwing... it woulde be such a thing iff I woulde be saying falsitys aboute islam or your article, and I (as it's clear to eberyone to see) am not... so: I'll contunue to poste my critics to your article here untill the blogg administrators say otherwise and, off course, you're free to read my intention the way you want... I'm open to public debate and have no fear to be pointed oute where I'm wrong, butt so far you habe declines to do so, juste going by the path off sayin to me: "since you do nott agree withe me YOU( not my argumentes) are false and trying to attcak islam and muslims"... sorry: thate psychological try to silence others wont worke with me...

May the Holy Trinity reveal to you the love to the truth and the truth of the love of Christianity... God Bless you Yahya Snow!

Fernando said...

Dear professor Wood and Doctor Nabeel: I'm onlie responding too Yahys Snow's article in this thread because he referred to itt in the first place inviting people to read itt...

iff you wante me to stop doing so righte now, I'll do it as you wishe without anie exitation... Iff I can continue to do so in mie sapre time, you do not need to answer me...

thankes for your attention, ang«d may God Bless you for your worke!

minoria said...

Hello Yahya Snow:

I decided to give sura 65 a second look.Anyone can make an honest mistake.It's a short chapter.The question is:does the most direct interpretation support having sex with a wife who hasn't yet had a menstruation?

65:1 begins talking about divorce and says a "time period" has to pass for it to become effective.It says to count the 3 months with precision.I think you agree with that interpretation.Very direct and clear.But how long?It doesn't say.

65:2 mentions "time period" or "interim" again.But how long?It doesn't say.

65:4 says it's also in the case of wives who are in menopause,if you are in doubt,and it's 3 months.

Here we finally have the time period,3 months,before the divorce becomes effective.Why 3 months?At first I thought it was 3 months "to give the spouses time to reconcile and not divorce".Maybe you adhere to that view.

But notice 65:4 is "conditional".It's not for all wives who are in menopause.It's for those of whose menopause you have doubts.Again,why wait 3 months?

65:4 explains it later with the phrase "those who are pregnant." And 65:6 says "if they are pregnant",then pay for them till they give birth.The 3 months are to see if she was pregnant or not when the time period began.If after it she's pregnant,it's the husband's child and he has to take care of it.

But if you are 100% sure she is in menopause(like a 55 year old wife)then the 3 month waiting period before divorce becomes effective is needless.No 3 month period fo her.That's why"if you have doubts" appears in 65:4.

So the most direct and logical interpretation is that the 3 months is not for reconciliation but just to see if she is pregnant.

I believe you would take the view that the 3 months for a prepubescent wife mean "time to reconcile the husband and her parents,of the minor,to avoid a divorce".

The problem with the idea is that to make it apply that way to a prepubescent wife then 65:4 should have been"for those wives who have had their menopause,and also those of whose menopause you have doubts,it's 3 months".Then the logical reading is that it means "time period to reconcile".

Au contraire,taking all into consideration 65:4 applying a waiting period of 3 months for pre-menstruation wives means wives of who you also doub if they are really prepubescent.If you have doubts,wait 3 months,to see if she's pregnant.

Again,if you have doubts about the menopause of your wife,wait 3 months.If not,it doesn't apply.The same for the prepubscent wife.By logic it means the husband can have sex with a prepubscent wife.Otherwise if it's 100% forbidden then such a waiting period would be needless.

Why wait 3 months to divorce a prepubescent wife,even if you have doubts she's not really prepubescent,if it's 100% forbidden to have sex with her?The only logic for waiting is if you had had sex with her.You have doubts she's really prepubescent(even though her parents assure you she is)so you wait 3 months to see if she's pregnant.

Mary Jo,maybe this analysis can be used by you in your debate in London.If necessary.You have a good debating voice,and you can even get into politics.

Locrian said...

Yaya, you said: "I am reluctant to respond to you as you seem insincere. Anybody who thinks Islam allows paedophilia is either insincere or very very misinformed."
'
Reply: I don't know how else we're to take 65.4. You attempted a defense that circumvented all of Islam's Tafsirs on the subject. You preferred to quote one of the more cryptic and whitewashed translations of the text, that being Yusif Ali, so let's look at this:

"and for those who have no courses (it is the same)"

What does this mean? It's not very clear. So if I were a good Muslim, my only recourse in finding out the meaning of this line would be Tafsir or Hadith. So let's both look!

Ibn Kathir (with my interjection in parenthesizes): "...There is a third type of divorce, which is neither a Sunnah (OK, so type one was Muhammads response Abdullah bin `Umar divorcing his "of age" wife" during her menstruation) to nor an innovation ( Type two was a newly introduced divorce: "As for the innovated divorce, it occurs when one divorces his wife when she is having her menses, or after the menses ends, has sexual intercourse with her and then divorces her, even though he does not know if she became pregnant or not.") where one divorces a young wife who has not begun to have menses, the wife who is beyond the age of having menses, and divorcing one's wife before the marriage was consummated (So if this was neither a response from Muhammad, nor something newly introduced, I can only take it that this was an old Arab custom continued in the time, and after Muhammad). Allah said,

Well, it's still isn't very clear yet, even after reading the Tafsir, though one gets the idea it was a form of divorce, and Muhammad never did it personally, nor did he ever speak against it.

Best thing to do is look at other Tafsir.

Al-Wahidi: ".....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”."

Eww! Well that was a bit clearer. Apparently other Muslims had the same question about exactly who and what was covered. Muhammad, if you believe the chain of transmission, himself lays it out.

OK, that can't be what was meant. I still refuse to believe Islam would not condemn the marriage and divorce of any girl too young to have the menses. So as a pseudo good Muslim I want to look at more Tafsir.

Ibn ‘Abbâs: "“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."

Oh come on now! The prophet[sic] Muhammad did not just say "because of young age, their waiting period is three months." GrrRRRrr...

OK, one more. al-Jalalayn:"....and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months — "

Locrian said...

OK, if I was a sincere Muslim, and not kafir, how else would I take this verse? See, I can't listen to new scholars if I'm a good Muslim. The Qur'an gives me implicet instructions that the first 3 generations are the only scholars worth listening too.

3.7- He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. (since you like Yusif Ali)

But even this verse isn't really clear. So who are those grounded firmly in knowledge? Well we look to the hadith for this.

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 819:

Narrated Zahdam bin Mudrab:

I heard Imran bin Husain saying, "The Prophet said, 'The best people are those living in my generation, then those coming after them, and then those coming after (the second generation)." Imran said "I do not know whether the Prophet mentioned two or three generations after your present generation. The Prophet added, 'There will be some people after you, who will be dishonest and will not be trustworthy and will give witness (evidences) without being asked to give witness, and will vow but will not fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them."

So in a nutshell, your exegesis of the verse means nothing. No Muslim in his right mind would give give your blog and explanations any credibility. And going by the Quranic verse, as well as the Tafsir explanation, one can only deduce that to divorce a child and worry about her being pregnant, would mean one would have had to marry her and have sexual relations with said child. No amount of linguistic gymnastics, or misrepresentation of Islamic text can change the fact that by today's standard (and this proves Islam isn't a religion for all men at all times), Islam has no problem with pedophilia, as is defined in psychology, law enforcement, and the medical vernacular.

If this posted twice, I apologize.

Fernando said...

brother minoria asked: «Why wait 3 months to divorce a prepubescent wife,even if you have doubts she's not really prepubescent,if it's 100% forbidden to have sex with her?»... bingo: I have thate pointe in my written arguments, butt coulde habe not written in aclear way.

Fernando said...

Locrian saide: "GrrRRRrr..."... did you not meant GrrrRRRrr? I think thate Yahya Snow woulde not anderstant your argumentes withoute this correction... either tahte, or he'll juste say you are being offensive and blind to his truth... I hope thate, withe my rectification, he'll understand your pointes!!! God blees you brother Locrian.

nma said...

Hi Yahya,

Again, it seems you have not read what I wrote. I said the Quranic verses add up to only 4 days, not 6 nor 8.

nma said...

Hi Yahya,

The earth is created in 2 days. So creation of earth is over. We should not consider modification (Surah 4:10) of the earth as part of creation. It took 2 days for heavens.
So it is 2+2 =4, not 6.

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow then saide: «Both physical and mental maturation must be reached if a marriage is to be consummated, this is Islamic law which is based upon the teachings of Muhammad and the quran»...

I must say thate I feel strange too see Yahya so eager too express his scholarshipp in manie other aspects, nott providing any documentary bvidence for this statement... no direct quotation off any scholar or jurisprudential book... Besides: evidence from 65:4 (as I stated and minoria eben better) denies this assement from Yahya Snow...

then Yahya, from thate wrongfull presuposition saies: «this shows that Aisha would have been physically mature as well as mentally mature for consummation, i.e. she would have attained puberty»... iff this afirmation is based in thate wrong statement, it has absolutely no value; more: we habe a clear circulatory (not circular) argumentation:

1) acording to Yahya (and I do agre withe him) the life off Muhammad (also withe poor lady Aisha) testified in the qur'an and in the hadiths makes the normative parameter off life to muslimes;

2) but then whate Yahya thinkes muste habe happenes aboute Muhammad (and poor lady Aisha) is imposed when reading muslim sources;

More strange is his assessement that by quoting Awn Al Mabood -- Awn al-Ma'bud -- (taking this argument ipsis verbis from http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:4KL_1jWAyw0J:www.muhaddith.org/islam_answers/earlymarriage-part2.doc+%22nine+years,+then+she+is+a+woman%22&cd=2&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a) putting wordes in Aisha's mouth that a girl off nine as reached puberty, she must habe reached maturity at nine...

1) thate affirmation off lady Aisha is so historiquely improbable to bee truth, thate no schoolar would quote Awn Al Mabood on thate, eben when Al Munzhiri, with some restrictions and doubts, says it's a good hadith;

2) no where is itt stated thate, eben iff it was a true hadith, lady Aisha was speaking by experience eben when some iluminated muslim says so (was Muhamamd speakin for experience when he saide man can be posesed by jins?);

so: critiquely examining the facts (lack off transversal testimonies; late creation off the hadith; no solid schoolar agreement off it's use), it's more probable thate this is a fabricated hadith too make muslims beliebe thate Aisha was a women when she had sex for the first time with Muhammad, and being so, implying indeed tahte she was 9 when Muhammad had sex with her (a fact testifiued in other and more solid sorces)...

more: we all know thate she was still playing with dools after the age she had sex withe Muhammad (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311; Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151): so:

1) a "women" who plays withe dols is:

a) a mentaly and affectly inmature person (and, being so, psychologicaly incapable to be a mother)
b) or a fake "women" and, being so, a pre-pubescent girl)...

2) more: the dols she was playing with were forbiden for post-pubescent girls (Saheeh Sunan Abu Daawood -- the the third most respected collection of hadiths -- 3/932, no. 4123/4932)...

so: ounce again: Yahya Snow's arguments habe litle consistency...

more to come...

Yahya Snow said...

Locrian and nma...

Thanks for the replies guys, sorry for getting back to you guys late, as I say, I do not have the time or will to continually coming back and forth.

Those issues you brought up are dealt with on my blog.

The Quranic verse 65:4 does not allow sex with girls. I have wrote about it on my blog. Click on my name and direct yourself to my blog if you are interested rather than believing missionary propaganda.

and nma...the 4, 6, or 8days for creation thing is clarified on my blog. I hope this clears things up for you so you can move onto examining the trinity objectively. May Allah guide you.

fernando...I am still reluctant to engage you....if you have changed your attitude then email me...search for the truth and God-willing you will be free.

Thanks

Peace...may Allah bless you all. ameen

Locrian said...

I've read your blog and I've explained your exegesis means nothing. Going to the original sources, not you, clarifies it all.

I reject Satan/Allah.

nma said...

Hello Yahya,

I have read your article in scribd.com but like I said development of the earth cannot be considered as part of creation. The earth is still being developed so does that mean the earth is still being created? It took 2 days for creation and that is that. The rest is your interpretation. Again, 2+2 = 4, not 6.

Fernando said...

yahya Snow saide: «fernando...I am still reluctant to engage you....if you have changed your attitude then email me...search for the truth and God-willing you will be free»...

feel free to bee reluctante whenever and whyever you wante: I wont criticize you: yor're fre too do watever you wante withoute being afraide... I'm juste presenting some evidences off the lack off sincerery and solidification off youre argumentes... nothing more...

No, as I saide, I'll do this publiquely, nott behinde a burka, and you may think whatever you wante aboute my attitude: youre texte was PUBLIQUELY; your chalange in THIS blogg to others to read them was PUBLIQUELY, so, my answer to your arguments, step by step, will also be PUBLIQUELY...

Aboute the truth... as I habe been testifying until now all youre arguments are false and untruthefull, so, it's nott me tahte habe a problemme withe the truth: may the true and only God, the Holy Trinity help to heal your hearte and allow you to see the path off love and true truth. I bless you withe my heart.

Fernando said...

Then Yahya Snow saide: «Karen Armstrong also confirms that Lady Aisha had reached puberty at the time of consummation in her ‘Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet’ (7), this ’reaching of puberty’ are confirmed by great scholars such as Dawudi, Abu Hanifa etc (8»...

Who's Karen Armstrong? The same personn thate compared Muhammad withe Gandhi? And lady Aisha withe the Virgen mary? Is she recognized as a schollar or a pseudo-neutral ans honest defender off islam? Is she the same person who recieved critics, bie true historian scholars (like Lisa Cody; Patrick Gautrat, Suliman Bashear, etc...), to her book aboute Muhamamd as: "revisionist", "inaccurate", "incoherent", and "ill-informed"? His she the same person thate says thate surah 2:217 is the prove thate ALL warfare is forbiden, ignorying thate it referas onlie to fighting during the pseudo-sacred month off muslimes? So: the use off her has no meaning...

I'm glade, though, to see the quotation off Imam Nawawi: «Allah’s Messenger engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a GIRL of nine years old»... strange thoug thate yoy say thate she was much older (17 or 18 years old)... incosistency here, inconsistency there... no value whatesoever in your reasoning...

more: Abu Hanifa DOES NOTT (againste whate you try to implye) testify thate poor baby Aisha had reached puberty; and Dawudi created the story off thate pseudo-fact almostes 400 years after the liffe off Aisha withoute any previouse testimonies on thate...

So: itts nott "Christians missionaries" who are trying to decieve...; and do nott think thate they are ignorante off the factes: they juste see whate you muslimes do nott whante to see...

more to come (juste waite to when I reache Yahya Snow's quoting the Bible... dude...)

Fernando said...

Soory... I missed one popinte:

lets quote againe Imam Nawawi: «Allah’s Messenger engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a GIRL of nine years old»...

GIRL... not WOMAN... as says the muslime text"For Whom Fasting Is Mandatory" (http://www.halaal.org.za/ramadaan/FOR%20WHOM%20FASTING%20IS%20MANDATORY.htm) says: «Whenever a girl experiences it, she becomes a woman even if she is 12 years old»...

minoria said...

Hello Yahya:

I will reread your argument again when I have time.And if you are right all the better for this world.And I hope the Muslim scholars who don't agree with you get convinced.The important thing is that you be in favor of free speech and expression.That is,against restrictions and punishments of those who hold contrary ideas(like us,for example).Not just in the West but in the Muslim world.Otherwise it's saying Islam is intrinsically against the Golden Rule,human rights.

Sepher Shalom said...

Yahya,

Your claim that marrying prepubescent girls is forbidden in Islam simply does not have support in the Islamic sources. Some of this may be a repetition of what Locrian posted, but here is some of the evidence from Islam's greatest scholars that refutes you:

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)

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn: "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]. "

“'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


(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2-

"Tafsir Ibn Abbas: "(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waitingperiod, (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."

Tafsir Al Wahidi: "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”

Tafsir Ibn Kathir: "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...)"

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 3-

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

Yahya, It is clear that Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi, Al-Wahidi, Ibn Kathir, and Imam Bukhari all say you are wrong. According to them Muslim men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. It is no surprise that Fatwas have recently been issued that support the marriage to prepubescent girls as being halal in Islam. Notice the sources quoted in the fatwa.

minoria said...

Hello Yahya Snow:

I reread you arguments about sura 65:4 and Mohammed.You say that Islamic law and tradition is against a husband having sex with a prepubescent girl.You accept the Aisha story but say Aisha had her menstruation at age 9(really 8).

So Mohammed waited till her puberty and that shows the correct interpretation of 65:4 is that it's forbidden to have sex with a prepubescent wife but ok to divorce her.

The problem is that there have been too many falsifications regarding Mohammed.You know the story that Bukhari rejected 300,000 sayings of Mohammed and accepted like 5,000 (more or less).He had to reject a mountain of fraud.

It is very hard to believe a girl of 8 had a menstruation.Don't you think it's possible the story she had it was invented to prevent sex with a prepubescent wife?

Invented to prevent a bad practice?Bukhari has stories of Mohammed doing miracles.The despised Western scholars of Islam ("the Orientalists"),despised by Muslims,not us,reject the miracle stories.Yet Bukhari has them.

Yet they tend to accept the Aisha story.A contradiction?No,it's based on methodology.Several times in the Koran Mohammed can't do miracles.Why believe stories about him doing miracles accepted 200 years later?It's probable they were invented out of thin air to make Mohammed look greater.

"But Paul never mentions Jesus doing miracles".True,but his letters were written in general to talk about certain issues that had appeared in the churches.True he could have mentioned Jesus doing miracles and didn't but he never said several times like in the Koran"Jesus was asked to do a miracle but he said he was just a messenger,he was only there to give a message."

Yahya Snow said...

minoria...

Thanks for reading and the mild-mannered response

But i have uploaded a more comprehensive article to debunk that anti-islamic allegation that suggests Muslims are allowed to have sex with prepubescent girls. This is a false allegation and only demonizes Muslims and shows the accusers to be deceivers.

Please, anybody who believes Muslims are allowed to have sex with immature girls then view the following link (virus free):

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/07/does-quran-allow-sex-with-immature.html

Btw, do you know how to link my blog to this blog so it can even the discussion up alittle. i have noticed that this site links to a few Muslims sites (but not answering-christianity)...is it possible to link mine up too as I believe I have something to add in a calm way.

Thanks,but I do urge people to search for the truth and avoid believing anti-Islamic material...how about researching things fully.

peace:)

Yahya Snow said...

hey nma,

Sorry for the delay, I do work and study so i am always on a tight schedule.

I found your view of the '4 days' for creation as an interesting break from the normal (already refuted) Chrsitian claim of 8 days.

However, 4 days dos not add up as the 4 days for the mountains (finishing touches) are still part of the creation.

I will illustrate this to you with 2 examples...

If I say I built a house in 6 days and I tell you it took me 2 days to complete the framework (walls and foundation) and the last 4 days I was putting the completing touches on it such as roof, doors and windows...you would not say it took me 2 days...so ask yourself why are you using a different satandard for judging the Quran?

But I do aknowledge your argument and will incorporate it into my original refutation of the 8 days claim by evangelical missionaries.

Peace.

Yahya Snow said...

minoria...btq

I agree people could and did make hadith up...Islamic scholars have found fabricated hadith and they have been exposed. It is similar to the forgeries the Christians put into the Bible like the famous (infamous) forgery in John.

I look at things objectively.

peace

nma said...

Yahya Snow,

You said:If I say I built a house in 6 days and I tell you it took me 2 days to complete the framework (walls and foundation) and the last 4 days I was putting the completing touches on it such as roof, doors and windows...you would not say it took me 2 days...so ask yourself why are you using a different satandard for judging the Quran?

If you are particular about the sematics and synax, when you say the earth was created in 2 days, it means the job is completed in two days. When you say you built a house in two days, it means you built it fully including all finishing touches, not just the framework and the foundation. If it still needs finishing works, you might as well say you built the house except for the finishing touches.

On the other hand, if you are not particular about about syntax and semantics, then it took 8 days to create the heavens and earth, because there is no mention in the Quran of simultaneous creation of the earth and the heavens,i.e., if you argue about the meaning of Arabic words.

nma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nma said...

Hi Yahya,

You said:Thanks,but I do urge people to search for the truth and avoid believing anti-Islamic material..

Maybe you don't know it, but the Quran is full of anti-Jewish and anti-Christian materials. Whenever Muslims talk about Christianity, it is mostly ant-Christian materials.

You said:It is similar to the forgeries the Christians put into the Bible like the famous (infamous) forgery in John.

What is the forgery in John?

Maybe you are not aware of it, many the Quran stories and materials are forgery of the Biblical stories and materials. Otherwise, where else do you think Mohammed got the material for reciting (or writing) the Quran from?

Fernando said...

Oh... Yahya Snow wrotte ANOTHER article about Muhammad and his child bride... hummm... more worke to do sonce he invited us all to go to his blogg... keep tuned... this one is eben worse than the other... almoste as bad as his claimme aboutte the "famous (infamous) forgery in John"... he is, obviouslie, incapable off saying anythingue thate bible ignorantes dawa specialistes, off Jesus with the adulturer... somethingue like is appeal to others "to avoid believing anti-islamic material"... so: we are condemned to followw whate he thinkes is not anti-islamic matterial: I woulde guess whate he thinks thate agrees and defendes islamc doctrines and positions... butt woulde he follow this attitude when dealing withe Christianity? Well, for a starte, he woulde hebe to putt aside all muslim core sources... stay tuned!!!

bie the way: I'm going to publishe, after being rectiffyied in the english bie a cople off students off mine, the retfute to Yahya Snow's matterial (eben without referring his name) in a book called: "The incredible lies of a complexed muslim"...stay tuned!!!

Fernando said...

Then Yahya Snow repeating himselffe saide: «We must also state that the parents of Lady Aisha were in full agreement of the marriage to take place and most crucially in this regard they were in full agreement for consummation to take place at the time it did, obviously no parent would send their daughter for consummation in a pre-pubescent stage in her life»...

yes... he's repeating himselfe againe (see my commente from June 27, 2009 3:46 AM)... a clear example off a lack off arguments and mental logical habilities...

well: he muste undestand thate Aisha's parents were eager to gibe her to an engagement in marriage (since they watted to go to Abysssinia and did nott wantte to teke poor baby Aisha with them due to the difficultie off the travel), butt no where, in the actt of accepting ones daughter marriahe, is implied tahte the consumattion woulde imediately folow the marriage.

it does nott!!! so: the parents coulde eben eagger to gibe her into marriage and did nott necesserely expect (eben when they,a fter thate, coulde do nothing to prevente it...) thate her future husband woulde make sex withe the childe after the marriage...

so: Yahya is juste trowing sand into the eyes off the readers in order to create an avaanche off incoherent arguments thate will blocade the possibility to reache for the truth...

An perfectte example off this attempt to, with false arguments, try to creatte a smoke sreen, is whate foloows:

«We must also remember that the marriage was not the idea of Muhammad (...) Also, the consummation of the marriage was suggested to Mohammad by Lady Aisha’s father, this is further proof that she had reached puberty»...

1) the fact the marriage was nott the idea off Muhhamad does nott prove he did nott consumated (had sex) marriage with a pre-pubescent girl;

2) No where is saide tahte Lady Aisha's father asked Muhammad to consumate marriage (have sex)... do you imagine suche thingue: "Please, Oh profet, do have sex with mie daughter"... disgustingue!!!

2.a) babt Aisha father asked Muhammad to marry her (when she was 6), NOT to habe sex with her (consumate marriage), neither at 6 years, nor att 9 years...

2.b) as I saide before: the decision to consumate marriage (have sex) was only the husband's concern...

so: nothing from Yahya's pseudo-argumets proves, so far, thate Muhammad did not had sex withe a pre-pubescent baby...

Yahya Snow is always playing arounde with the wordes (mixting "celebrating marriage" withe "consumatting marriage"), amputating quotations and so one...

we will see more...

stay tuned...

Yahya Snow said...

nma...

very interesting that you brought up the word simultaneously...

YES...summa can mean simultaneousy too..

Also, you cannot allege a claim of corruption when you put into the verses your own interpretations...just because you did not understand it it does not give you the right to allege contradiction! That is unfair.

I am speaking of the forgery of John 5:7. Of course this has been recognised as a forgery. I am surprised you did not know which forgery I was referencing...are there any more clear forgeries that have been identified that you know of in John?

Also, the Quran is from God so it is not a surprise that God mentions sotries of previous propheths in the Quran...that does not amount to a forgery!

Going back to contradiction...can you answer any of mr brother Shabir Ally's (101)contradictions in the Bible?

ie:
In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)

(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)

http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm

Interesting discussion...btw, all Shabir's contradictions (101) have no interpolation of his own...they are clear contradictions unlike the "contradictions" Christians allege against the Quran.

I guess the Bible has real contradictions...


interesting discussion though...

Semper Paratus said...

Yahya,

The passage you are referring to is 1st John 5:7, not the Gospel of John.

You might consider it the flip-side of the coin of Rashad Kahlifah's missing passages at the end of Surah 9. Even as Arabic copies have the last two verses of Surah 9, for which reason Khalifah should have included them, so no ancient Greek manuscript contains the Comma Johanneum and for that reason should not have been included by Erasmus. There is no real apologetic point to be made from the presence or absence of verses in later translations that can't be justified from the manuscript evidence.

Also, Shabir's 101 contradictions were adressed long ago:

101 Cleared Up "Contradictions" in the Bible

minoria said...

I think the "forgery" referred to is the Woman caught in Adultery story in John.I have made a comment on that before.Not to show off but because similar issues are present:like "Is the NT anti-Semitic?",etc.

Again,it's not in the earliests copies of John.Later it's in different parts of John and even in Luke.Scholars believe it's an authentic oral story or highly likely.Because of that Christians decided to put it in.

Also John has 2 conclusions:in John 20:30-31 and John 21:24-25.John 21 was written by somebody else.No problem,as long as the info is true.The Bible has 40 different authors,what is important is not how the true info got in,but IF it's true.

And it's great someone wrote John 21 because in John 21:24-25,when you analyse it,says the "beloved disciple" wrote the 20 preceding chapters.Analyse it.

The beloved disciple appears in the last supper,at the crucifixion,was with Peter when they saw the emty tomb(first 20 chapters).He was an eyewitness.He also is in chapter 21,eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus.

minoria said...

At first I thought the reference was to John,that John 5:7 was a mistake.But it's 1 John 5:7-8.

If somebody adds false verses to a Koran copied 700 years later and then we have a few copies with them,only a very few,amid 23,000 copies in different languages before 1500 without them then would the Muslim say:"This PROVES the Koran is false!"No.

1 John 5:7-8 comes from a sermon of the 700's,it was added to a Latin copy of 1 John.It was translated into Greek in 1520.How many copies of 1 John with the forgery do we have?Only 8,4 from the 16th and 17th centuries.

Plus the other 4 have it as a MARGINAL note,not part of the text.Also answering-islam.org has answered apparent Bible contradictions in "101 Cleared-up Bible contradictions",in response to a list made by Shabir Ally.

Finally it would be great if Muslim scholars would objectively,impartially analyze the old Korans from the Sanaa Mosque,Yemen.Using strict methodology.Instead of just saying it has been 100% preserved,subject the idea to the test,sincerely analyze the earliests texts.

German scholars have and have concluded the first Koran was different from today's.

In the Jerusalem Mosque on Mt.Zion there are inscriptions,supposedly from the Koran,written on the walls.There are from around 690 AD.Yet they are not 100% exactly like the similar ones in the Koran of today.I say it's because the Koran has changed over time.

nma said...

Yahya,

I will answer your claims later because of lack of time, execpt the following:
Also, the Quran is from God so it is not a surprise that God mentions sotries of previous propheths in the Quran...that does not amount to a forgery!

Among others, this is the biggest delusion that Islam spreads and Muslims believe in. The Quran is NOT from God. There is not a shred of credible evidence to support the claim that the Quran is from God. The Quran is written or recited by Mohammed with the help from the Devil.

Fernando said...

Man... I thought thate Yahya Snow knew better aboutte wahte he was talking (butt from his talking in his articles I shoulde habe known better...)... so we habbe a forgery in John 5:7? Poor soule... he mixes John with 1John and do nott realize thate neither the adulterer perichope (as brother minoria ounce wrotte her) is a problem since it's from a absolutelie solide oral tradition and 1John 5:7 was neber a prroff off anithingue... Poor soul...

Sepher Shalom said...

Fernando said: "Poor soule... he mixes John with 1John..."

Yes, I agree. Most unfortunate. I also think it is very telling that Yahya did not even engage a single bit of the wealth of documented Muslims sources I briefly presented him, as well as a recent fatwa which conclusively shows Muslims are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. Instead, he moved to an attack on the textual transmission of the Bible.

This seems to be "Page 1, Move #1" in the Muslims strategy playbook: Do a matador "Ole!" to the evidence, and return an attack against the Bible, no matter how off topic it is.

Fernando said...

Do a matador "Ole!"... looool... butt you're right: they think they are all magicians...

nma said...

Hi Yahya,

You said:I am speaking of the forgery of John 5:7. Of course this has been recognised as a forgery. I am surprised you did not know which forgery I was referencing...

John 5:7 is not a forgery. As for 1 John 5:7, I don't know whether it was translated from a Greek original which was lost in a fire, flood or in some other way. So no one can positively conclude it is a forgery. It is suspect at best.

Also, as Semper Paratus said, Shabir's 101 contradictions were adressed long ago and he has provided a link as well earlier in this thread.

As for the contradictions in the Quran, one example from many others on the internet is here: Contradictions in the Qur'an