Friday, June 5, 2009

"The Truth about Muhammad" Available Online!

Robert Spencer's book "The Truth about Muhammad" is now available online, free of charge. Be sure to pass on this link!

74 comments:

Bartimaeus said...

Fantasic and Praise teh Lord

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Wood said...

Ehteshaam,

Are you being serious, or are you joking? Did you even read the article Richard is supposedly responding to? I'm guessing you haven't, since you seem to prefer the "I only listen to the non-Christian side" approach. If you were to bother to do a little research on Richard, you would find he has no respect from anyone except the Internet Infidels and a handful of Muslims.

Did you listen to Richard's debate with William Lane Craig? Even atheists agree that Richard's claims crumbled.

Note well: Muslims should pick their atheist heroes carefully. Like Shadid Lewis, you seem to choose your heroes based on how rabidly they attack Christianity, rather than on how objective their research is.

Locrian said...

Ehteshaam Gulam, I've seen you debate live. I wouldn't talk crap. Since you used the term "owned", I'll use gamer speak back so you can understand:

Ür2Éz, David owns jo0......

For the gamer impaired: You Are too easy, David made much better arguments then you.

IslamSINS said...

Ehteshaam, I guess I was wwwaaaayyyyyyy too optimistic in my early assessment that you might actually be a Muslim who shows signs of potential integrity.

#1 - What, in a barrel of apples, does your off-topic comment have to do with Robert Spencer's book being offered on the web?

#2 - do you think your atheist reference, Carrier, would hold Islam in any esteem?

#3 - Why do you resort to trying to use your own enemies (atheists) as viable opinions?

Don't be an intellectual slug like most of your Islamic siblings. You shouldn't even be reading through this site. I heard your debate with David - I was there - so you need to spend the next 50 years trying to formulate an "apology" that doesn't sound like it comes from an asylum. You have no time to read forums/sites and opine; now go to your room, young man, and don't come out until you've practiced your debating skills, and you're alllllll grown up.

And, for your "Allah's" sake, stop sounding like such a bottom feeder; there are enough of those Islamic apologists already.

Ho-Logos said...

David Wood owns Ehteshaam Gulam:

*Posts link of Wood-Gulam debate*

Seriously, posting irrelevant links, Ehteshaam?

Ibn said...

Wood:Did you listen to Richard's debate with William Lane Craig? Even atheists agree that Richard's claims crumbled.

Yeah, but he did a pretty good job against Mike Licona.

Rafa-el_1 said...

Etheshaam you still have the nerve to talk about ‘owning’ somebody? When you were clearly ‘owned’ in you debate with Wood.

Btw : I talked to some Muslims and they aren’t very happy with your performance

Stop seeking attention and stop running from debating the Qur’an.

I already challenged you on this subject Qur’an versus the Holy Bible: which is more probable to be the Word of God?

Time to step up or shut up ethesaam.

Ibn said...

Wood:Are you being serious, or are you joking?

Jokes aside, Carrier did make an accurate statement about you being deceitful. Most of what you say about Islam, as do your groupies, are lies.

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Jokes aside, Carrier did make an accurate statement about you being deceitful. Most of what you say about Islam, as do your groupies, are lies."

Here's a simple challenge, since you've just attacked my character. Share one of my lies with the group here. Better yet, give a list of five or six clear examples. Since I've said hundreds of things about Islam, and since most of my claims are lies (according to you), it should be no problem for you to give us a list.

Ibn said: "Yeah, but he did a pretty good job against Mike Licona."

Here I just don't know what you mean. Carrier pulled the "a miraculous explanation is always less probable than a naturalistic explanation, no matter how absurd the naturalistic explanation is" card, and this was the basis for his entire case. Note: If you grant this claim, then we must reject any conceivable argument for Islam. If you don't grant this claim, Carrier's case crumbles.

I find it interesting that so many Muslims suddenly become committed atheists when they investigate Christianity.

Ibn said...

Wood:Here's a simple challenge, since you've just attacked my character. Share one of my lies with the group here. Better yet, give a list of five or six clear examples. Since I've said hundreds of things about Islam, and since most of my claims are lies (according to you), it should be no problem for you to give us a list.

I don't have the time to go through all of them, so three of your most recent lies should suffice. First, remember that time when you altered a message you posted on the homepage after I had made a comment on it? When I confronted you about it, at first, you denied changing anything. Later on, however, you admitted to alteration but justified your lie with some bizarre excuse that it was meant to demonstrate an alleged inconsistency in the behavior of Muhammad(saw). Although not directly about Islam, the fact you lied is evidence of your deceptive character.

Second, you claimed that it is permissible for Muslims to resort to lying in order to defend their faith during inter-faith debates. That was a repugnant lie which, unlike the first one, you couldn't even justify!

Third, your claim that rape is permissible in Islam. This lie is even more repugnant than the preceding one.

Wood:Here I just don't know what you mean. Carrier pulled the "a miraculous explanation is always less probable than a naturalistic explanation, no matter how absurd the naturalistic explanation is" card, and this was the basis for his entire case. Note: If you grant this claim, then we must reject any conceivable argument for Islam. If you don't grant this claim, Carrier's case crumbles.

Carrier used that argument much later in the debate. From the start, he had been defending the two body hypothesis, arguing that the very early Christians didn't believe in a bodily resurrection but in a spiritual one, which I don't feel Licona was able to successfully counter.

Where did Carrier specifically in the debate claim that a miraculous explanation is less probable than a natural one no matter how absurd the claim is?

BTW do you realize the fallacies embodied in your note? Specifically, you committed the genetic and ad hominem circumstantial fallacies. Must I explain to you how you made them?

Ibn said...

Wood:I find it interesting that so many Muslims suddenly become committed atheists when they investigate Christianity.

See how unreasonable Christianity is?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

I find it interesting that so many Muslims suddenly become committed atheists when they investigate Christianity.

I agree with you partially on this extent, the reason I say partially David is because I recall you accusing me of applying an atheistic standard to my approach towards Christianity, where I felt it was uncalled for, namely I felt the objection being twisted as "an atheistic one" was unfounded.

Never the less, as a Philosopher what did you think of Shabir Ally's latest defense of this tactic, namely that:

A) The Missionary wants me to stop believing in Muhammad.
B) Without belief in Muhammad and Islam, I would be agnostic at best.

Therefore: I analyse their claims from the perspective of an agnostic.

I believe he cited Edward DeBono's book "The Six Thinking Hats" in his defense of this tactic.

Note, I am not advocating Shabir's defense or reasoning here, merely curious as to what you think of such a defense?

Ibn said...

Yahya:A) The Missionary wants me to stop believing in Muhammad.
B) Without belief in Muhammad and Islam, I would be agnostic at best.
Therefore: I analyse their claims from the perspective of an agnostic.

That's a pretty good argument. If I were to use it, I'd modify B to say "Without belief in Muhammad and Islam, I would be a deist at best". As deist, I accept would accept only reasonable doctrines. Since Christian doctrines are by large unreasonable, I would have to reject Christianity.

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "First, remember that time when you altered a message you posted on the homepage after I had made a comment on it? When I confronted you about it, at first, you denied changing anything. Later on, however, you admitted to alteration but justified your lie with some bizarre excuse that it was meant to demonstrate an alleged inconsistency in the behavior of Muhammad(saw). Although not directly about Islam, the fact you lied is evidence of your deceptive character."

Did you even read what I said about that? Nabeel and I were sitting down, wondering how we can get you to understand that, if the Qur'an has gone through multiple changes, it's not the same book and hasn't been perfectly preserved. So, to illustrate this, I wrote a message, then changed it. You said: "Hey, you changed your message! How deceptive!" I responded, as a Muslim would when defending the Qur'an, "No, it's the same message." Then you flipped out and accused me of lying.

All of this proved, conclusively, that you understand that, if a text changes, it's not the same text. I then explained all of this to everyone (when, if I were really trying to deceive anyone, I would have said nothing). So the intent was never to deceive anyone, but to prove a point. How is this lying? And this is your best example?

Ibn said: "Second, you claimed that it is permissible for Muslims to resort to lying in order to defend their faith during inter-faith debates. That was a repugnant lie which, unlike the first one, you couldn't even justify!"

I showed that, in Islam, lying is permissible for a good cause, especially during war. I also showed that, according to Islam, verbal attacks are a kind of war. You don't understand basic logic, so you couldn't even understand the basic argument. I also showed that people like Ibn Kathir agree with me, not with you. So if I'm lying, Ibn Kathir must be a liar as well, right? HEADLINE: "Ibn declares that Islam's greatest commentator is a liar."

Ibn said: "Third, your claim that rape is permissible in Islam. This lie is even more repugnant than the preceding one."

I proved, from Sahih Sittah, that female captives and slave girls have no right to refuse Azl. Well, if they have no right to refuse to have sex with their masters, how is it not permissible to rape them, Ibn?

So these are my three clear lies? You might want to be a bit more careful when you attack someone's character based on your own misunderstandings and lack of knowledge.

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Carrier used that argument much later in the debate. From the start, he had been defending the two body hypothesis, arguing that the very early Christians didn't believe in a bodily resurrection but in a spiritual one, which I don't feel Licona was able to successfully counter."

He used it in his opening statement, Ibn. And this appeal to naturalism even underlies his use of the two-body hypothesis. Historically, we have no evidence that early Christians believed in two separate bodies, and very few Jews held to such a view. Moreover, Christian texts refute such an absurd claim. But Richard's underlying reasoning is as follows: "Any naturalistic explanation of the evidence is better than a supernaturalistic explanation. Hence, the two-body hypothesis must be better, regardless of how much evidence there is against it." (Note: To anyone who has even a basic understanding of Greek, Carrier's attempts to translate 1 Corinthians 15 was ridiculous. His translation wasn't even coherent.)

Ibn said: "Where did Carrier specifically in the debate claim that a miraculous explanation is less probable than a natural one no matter how absurd the claim is?"

If you had a background in philosophy, you would know that Hume was underlying Richard's argument, and that several of his probability points presuppose this.

Ibn said: "BTW do you realize the fallacies embodied in your note? Specifically, you committed the genetic and ad hominem circumstantial fallacies. Must I explain to you how you made them?"

Ibn, if you have any respect at all for logic (which you obviously don't), please stop looking up fallacy terms on Wikipedia and using them prior to understanding them. I've never seen you appeal to a fallacy accurately. The last fallacy I remember you appealing to, you said that I was committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy because I said that if I have to side with someone on an issue of Islamic interpretation, I'm going to side with Ibn Kathir rather than you. According to you, my reasoning was: "No true Muslim believes that Muslims aren't allowed to lie; Ibn believes that Muslims aren't allowed to lie; therefore, Ibn is no true Muslim!" Any five year old would know that wasn't my claim at all. My claim was this: "We have a disagreement on an issue; Ibn, who obviously knows next to nothing, says one thing; Ibn Kathir, Islam's greatest commentator of all time, says something completely different; since Ibn Kathir knows far more about Islam than Ibn or I do, it's reasonable to go with Ibn Kathir's interpretation."

If you'd like a comparison to see how such reasoning works, here goes: "Ibn, who has no background at all in the medical field, says that the lump in John's throat is probably nothing; Dr. Jones, the world's leading oncologist, says that it's cancer; in the absence of some compelling reason to agree with Ibn, I'm going to trust the world's leading oncologist." Is this a fallacy, Ibn?

Again, please learn how to use these terms before you toss them around in an attempt to make yourself seem knowledgeable. I'm sure you may be able to impress a few ignorant people, but those of us who know better are repulsed by such tactics.

Ariel said...

Awesome! I've been interested in studying the historical Muhammad, and this will be beneficial.

David Wood said...

Yahya said: "I agree with you partially on this extent, the reason I say partially David is because I recall you accusing me of applying an atheistic standard to my approach towards Christianity, where I felt it was uncalled for, namely I felt the objection being twisted as "an atheistic one" was unfounded."

You'll have to clarify what you're referring to.

Yahya said: "Never the less, as a Philosopher what did you think of Shabir Ally's latest defense of this tactic, namely that:

A) The Missionary wants me to stop believing in Muhammad.
B) Without belief in Muhammad and Islam, I would be agnostic at best.

Therefore: I analyse their claims from the perspective of an agnostic."


This seems to presuppose that there's no reason to believe in God apart from the proclamation of Muhammad. I don't see how a Muslim can make this claim. It would mean that everyone who hasn't heard a clear case for Islam is innocent when they reject the existence of God. Can a Muslim or a Christian make such a claim?

Now I understand the reasoning somewhat. The main reason I believe in God is that Jesus rose from the dead. But I could never say that Jesus' resurrection is the only reason to believe in God. It would never occur to me to become an atheist when I turn to investigate Islam, and to say:

(1) Well, if you're asking me to believe in Muhammad, you're asking me to reject Jesus' resurrection;
(2) But I believe in God because of Jesus' resurrection;
(3) Therefore, I must investigate Islam as an agnostic or an atheist.

This is patent nonsense. Moreover, Shabir knows it's nonsense. Otherwise, why would he have condemned it when he debated Morey? Why did he demand consistency then, only to turn around and defend his own inconsistency when Christianity is under scrutiny?

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "That's a pretty good argument. If I were to use it, I'd modify B to say "Without belief in Muhammad and Islam, I would be a deist at best"."

Wow! I didn't think I'd ever see a Muslim say that, apart from Muhammad's revelation, it's unreasonable to be a full Theist! This means that, according to Ibn, anyone who hasn't been sufficiently exposed to Islam is guiltless when they reject Theism. Amazing!

nma said...

Yahya Hayder Seymour said..

Second, you claimed that it is permissible for Muslims to resort to lying in order to defend their faith during inter-faith debates. That was a repugnant lie which, unlike the first one, you couldn't even justify!



Whatever the concepts are, taqqiya in practice is plain lies, distortions and deception. Muslims use taqqiya very frequently to advance their purposes.

Third, your claim that rape is permissible in Islam. This lie is even more repugnant than the preceding one.


Rape is having sex with an unwilling woman. Having sex with a slave girl is rape. Even if she consents, it does not mean she is willing because she is not in a position to say "no". The same goes for having sex with an unwilling wife.

Surahs 33:52, 23:5-6, 70:29-30, 4:24 allows sex with slave girls.

Also:

Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 4 Hadith No. 460 & Sahih Muslim Vol. 2 Hadith No. 3368

Allah’s Apostle (Pbuh) said, ” If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relations) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.”

Sahih Muslim Vol. 2 Hadith No. 3367

The Messenger of Allah (swt) said: By him in whose hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her untill he (her husband) is pleased with her. ()

Al Tirmidhi Hadith No. 1160 & Ibn Ma’jah Hadith No. 4165

Allah’s Messenger (Pbuh) said, ” When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven.”

So you are the big liar but you are expected to lie anyway.

Ibn said...

Wood:So the INTENT was never to deceive anyone, but to prove a point. How is this lying?

A lie is a lie, whether the intent is pure or impure.

Wood:I proved, from Sahih Sittah, that female captives and slave girls have no right to refuse Azl. Well, if they have no right to refuse to have sex with their masters, how is it not permissible to rape them, Ibn?

Where does the hadith say they don't have the right to refuse azl? See, you are lying even now, attributing to the hadith something it doesn't say.

Wood:I showed that, in Islam, lying is permissible for a good cause, especially during war. I also showed that, according to Islam, verbal attacks are a kind of war. You don't understand basic logic, so you couldn't even understand the basic argument. I also showed that people like Ibn Kathir agree with me, not with you. So if I'm lying, Ibn Kathir must be a liar as well, right? HEADLINE: "Ibn declares that Islam's greatest commentator is a liar."

In Islam, lying is permissible in only three cases, one of which involves war. Do you know what the other two are? Moreover, where have you demonstrated that verbal attacks constitute war against Islam? Where did Ibn Kathir say criticizing Islam constitutes sufficient reason for war?

Wood:My claim was this: "We have a disagreement on an issue; Ibn, who obviously knows next to nothing, says one thing; Ibn Kathir, Islam's greatest commentator of all time, says something completely different; since Ibn Kathir knows far more about Islam than Ibn or I do, it's reasonable to go with Ibn Kathir's interpretation."

Lol! That's an ad hominem. "Ibn's claims are not worth consideration since he's a nobody". Reminds me of the following ad hominem leveled against Noah(as) by his tribe:

"We see that you are just a human being like us. We see that only those people have followed you who are quite obviously the lowliest among us. And we see the you are in no way superior to us. In fact, we suspect that you are liars." (11:27)

Haecceitas said...

"This seems to presuppose that there's no reason to believe in God apart from the proclamation of Muhammad. I don't see how a Muslim can make this claim."

Shabir has had some debates with atheists, and I think that typically those have been on the existence of God rather than Islam vs. Atheism. So I'd be surprised if Shabir didn't use any of the more general philosophical arguments for the existence of God. So (assuming that I'm correct on this) this would probably imply that Shabir wasn't being quite honest -- either when he made that defense of his inconsistency, or else when he used the more generic arguments for Theism.

Fernando said...

Strange thate some muslims around here do not wante to reffute whate this book says... starange, isn't itt? This would bee one chance to explaine whie they call Robert Spencer a islamophobe and racist... they prefer to reopen older hunds tahte will do no good to theire alreadie pale Ibnage... oops, I meant image...

Negeen said...

yAY! I'm excited to read it!

Nakdimon said...

The Joke is actually on Carrier. He argues about things that he doesn’t even know. His argument against the empty tomb is hilarious. The way he argues against it actually presupposes a supernatural event, which is exactly what he tries to deny. He argues that the empty tomb story is a hoax because of the fact that there was no bodily resurrection, since Paul speaks of “an exchange”, meaning that the earthly body is not raised but replaced by a “spiritual body”. But wait a second. If the earthly body isn’t raised, then it must still be in the tomb. So where did the earthly body go when it was “exchanged” for a spiritual one? And this requires a supernatural exchange. This means that the tomb must have still contain the earthly body of Yeshua. Carrier attests to that which he tries to argue: supernatural events. Unless, of course, Carrier wants to argue that the body was taken away by the disciples. But alas, this is also something that Carrier argues against.

For this Carrier argues that the story of Matthew saying that the Jewish opponents made up this story as a counter argument against the resurrection, is fabricated by Matthew. This is also untenable, since if Matthew would just make such an argument up, why would he add the words “to this very day”? The phrase “to this very day” in Matthew 28:15 indicates that this story was still circulating when Matthew wrote the Gospel. It would be self refuting of Matthew if he would make a story up and then claim that it was still in use in his day, when no one in his day knew about that argument. It would be more plausible of Matthew to say that this used to be the argument against the resurrection, but was no more in use. It only makes sense that Matthew added the phrase “to this very day” if that argument was indeed used from the time of the resurrection until the days Matthew wrote his Gospel.

So, yeah, the joke is indeed on Carrier. And there are a lot more inconsistencies in Carrier’s objections. Not to mention the absurd parallels he finds in the names of the characters in the NT and events or countries in the Tenach.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Yahya:A) The Missionary wants me to stop believing in Muhammad.
B) Without belief in Muhammad and Islam, I would be agnostic at best.
Therefore: I analyse their claims from the perspective of an agnostic.



This just doesn’t follow at all. We want you to be honest and unbiased, presupposing that GOD exists, NOT presupposing that Muhammad was a prophet. One is perfectly capable to be a (mono)theist without believing in Muhammad. It is very strange and telling that if you don’t believe in Muhammad, you automatically are an agnostic. I always thought that Muslims deified Muhammad.

Ibn said...

nma:Yahya Hayder Seymour said

Fool, it was I who made those remarks, not brother Yahya.

nma:Whatever the concepts are, taqqiya in practice is plain lies, distortions and deception. Muslims use taqqiya very frequently to advance their purposes.

This is a red herring. David and I were not discussing what Taqiyyah is, but about its permissibility in inter-faith debates. Clearly you are not following the discussion.

nma:Rape is having sex with an unwilling woman. Having sex with a slave girl is rape. EVEN IF SHE CONSENTS, IT DOES NOT MEAN SHE IS WILLING because she is not in a position to say "no".

That's question begging. You have already presupposed that no slave girl would be willing to have sex with her master. As for the hadith you quoted, I don't see where husbands are permitted to forcibly have sex with their wives.

nma:So you are the big liar but you are expected to lie anyway.

Yahya's a liar?

Fernando said...

"The Truth about Muhammad"... I'm sure all our muslim friendes will have the chance too saie where are, in this book, mistakes... they'll juste have to saie: page X, line Y and then sayi, withe, factes and nott suppositions, whie...

Nakdimon said...

"Ibn: A lie is a lie, whether the intent is pure or impure."

And this clown wants to justify taqiyah. So when it comes to David a lie is a lie, but when it comes to Islam then taqiyah is allowed.

This is why I will never become a Muslim. I have to lie and continually use double standards to keep the lie of Islam going.

A lie is to say things that are not true or conceil the truth to deceive others. David's intentions were not to deceive others, but to communicate truth.

Nakdimon said...

"Ibn: Where does the hadith say they don't have the right to refuse azl? See, you are lying even now, attributing to the hadith something it doesn't say."


Spoken like a true lying trooper for Islam. Where does the Hadith say that they DO have the right to refuse? I always common sense lacked in Islam, but this guy must be at the pinackle of Muslim stupidity. Given the fact that his prophet declared with glee that:


The Messenger of Allah (swt) said: By him in whose hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her untill he (her husband) is pleased with her. (Sahih Muslim Vol. 2 Hadith No. 3367)

indicates that if the WIFE doesn't have the right to refuse the husband sexual pleasure, according to even Allah, then who is the slave girl to do so? This is called L.O.G.I.C., people! Muslims now want us to believe that slave girls have more rights towards their masters than wives have towards their husbands.

Nakdimon

Ibn said...

Nakdimoron:A lie is to say things that are not true or conceil the truth to deceive others. David's intentions were not to deceive others, but to communicate truth.

Wood concealed the truth to communicate the truth? Moron, you don't know what you are saying.

Nakdimoron:This is why I will never become a Muslim. I have to lie and continually use double standards to keep the lie of Islam going.

Yeah, you prefer lying and using double standards as a Messianic Jew than as a Muslim.

Nakdimoron:Spoken like a true lying trooper for Islam. Where does the Hadith say that they DO have the right to refuse?

It doesn't, and that's because it is not a treatise dealing with the rights and duties of slave women. Duh!

Nakdimoron:Given the fact that his prophet declared with glee that...indicates that if the WIFE doesn't have the right to refuse the husband sexual pleasure, according to even Allah, then who is the slave girl to do so? This is called L.O.G.I.C., people! Muslims now want us to believe that slave girls have more rights towards their masters than wives have towards their husbands.

Moron, not only are you incapable of making a logical case, you also don't know the distinction between rights and duties. I suggest you educate yourself on the latter before reading my argument. Otherwise, you won't understand anything.

If the wife doesn't have the right to deny her husband sexually, the husband is not violating any obligations if he rapes his wife. But if he rapes his wife, the husband will violate many obligations that Islam has tied him to. Therefore, the wife does have the right to deny her husband sexually. Hence, rape is not permissible in Islam.

Fernando said...

TO THE AUTHORITIES IN THE UK: ATTENTION!!! ATTENTION!!! ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTE ATTATCKS HUMAN RIGHTS ON ANSWERINGMUSLIMS:

«IF THE WIFE DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY HER HUSBAND SEXUALLY, THE HUSBAND IS NOT VIOLATING ANY OBLIGATIONS IF HE RAPES HIS WIFE»...

no other comment needed...

Mie friende Ibn, this I coulde nott let pass...

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "A lie is a lie, whether the intent is pure or impure."

I love how Muslims are so desperate to condemn others, they don't mind condemning Islam in the process. Several months ago, Muslims here were declaring that, despite the fact that the Qur'an has been changed numerous times, it's still been perfectly preserved. So I used their claim against them. I posted a message and changed it, then said (based on their criterion) that it was the same message. Ibn is still calling me a liar. So according to Ibn, it's a complete lie to say that, if a text has changed at all, it's been perfectly preserved. So Ibn here declares that he and all Muslims who claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved are liars! (This sounds like a good headline for a future post.)

But he's condemned Muhammad as well. Notice that Ibn declares that any false statement, even if the intention is not to deceive but to teach, is an outright lie. Here he condemns practical jokes, sarcasm, etc. But now let's follow this through to the only logical conclusion. According to Ibn, Islam only allows lying in three situations. Thus, if Muhammad allowed lying in any other manner, Muhammad was a sinner. Go ahead and agree with me on this one, Ibn, and I will show you how, in condemning me, you have condemned your prophet!

Ibn said: "Where does the hadith say they don't have the right to refuse azl? See, you are lying even now, attributing to the hadith something it doesn't say."

Oh how quickly they forget! Notice that Ibn here calls me a liar, due to his own ignorance of the Hadith!

Jami at-Tirmidhi 1137—Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: “We practiced Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” . . . Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for Azl, while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.”

So the permission of a slave woman is irrelevant. Does this sound like they have a right to refuse azl?

Ibn said: "Moreover, where have you demonstrated that verbal attacks constitute war against Islam? Where did Ibn Kathir say criticizing Islam constitutes sufficient reason for war?"

Ibn, please go through our former discussion, as I don't want to have to repeat myself.

Ibn said: "Lol! That's an ad hominem. "Ibn's claims are not worth consideration since he's a nobody"."

No, I'm saying that when Islamic doctrine is the topic, your opinion doesn't carry nearly as much weight as Ibn Kathir's. You obviously think otherwise (as do many Muslim teenagers), but again, would you say that your opinion counts as much as the world's leading oncologist if the topic is cancer? Do you not recognize that some people are experts in certain fields, and that you're not an expert in any field, and that you shouldn't be treating your own flawed opinions as the infallible Word of God?

Ibn said...

Fernando:TO THE AUTHORITIES IN THE UK: ATTENTION!!! ATTENTION!!! ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTE ATTATCKS HUMAN RIGHTS ON ANSWERINGMUSLIMS:

Lol! Why are you warning the British authorities when I don't live in the UK to begin with? Also, it is clear that you have taken my statement completely out of context. But from you, that is to be expected considering how illiterate and retarded you are.

Wood, I'll get to your post tomorrow, Insha'Allah.

nma said...

Ibn Said…
Fool, it was I who made those remarks, not brother Yahya.

It was a mistake. I copied and pasted the wrong name.


This is a red herring. David and I were not discussing what Taqiyyah is, but about its permissibility in inter-faith debates. Clearly you are not following the discussion.

Mr. David Wood aptly answered your accusations. Besides, if verbal attacks are not war, why Muslims kill people when Islam is verbally attacked? For example, when Pope verbally though truthfully attacked Islam by saying Islam was evil, about a hundred people were killed by Muslims.

That's question begging. You have already presupposed that no slave girl would be willing to have sex with her master. As for the hadith you quoted, I don't see where husbands are permitted to forcibly have sex with their wives.

It does not matter if some slave girls are willing, though it is doubtful. The question is whether the Quran allows rape. The Surahs do not disallow any Muslim from having sex with unwilling slave girls. They don’t say you can have sex with slave girls only if they are willing. If the Quran is the perfect word of God, it would not allow sex with slave girls in the first place. Even if we suppose that it allows sex with slave girls for argument sake, it would have said clearly that you can have sex with slave girls only if they were willing . Also, do you think a slave girl recently captured is too eager to have sex with her master and her master will wait until she is willing?

As for the hadiths, even if a wife is unwilling she is still supposed to have sex with her husband. Now if the husband has sex with this unwilling wife, though he does not physically force her, he is indirectly forcing her with the support from the Hadiths, which is rape.

Ibn said...

nma:if verbal attacks are not war, why Muslims kill people when Islam is verbally attacked?

That's a fallacy of interrogation.

As for rape, most of your assertions (rather than arguments, showing how unintellectual you are) have already been countered in my response to Nakdimoron. The only claim worth responding to here is the following:

nma: Also, do you think a slave girl recently captured is too eager to have sex with her master and her master will wait until she is willing?

It isn't implausible to say yes. Consider the following:

Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement,[/b] in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat[/b]. (John McClintock, James Strong, "Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)

The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes

They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.

The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.


The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts" the women. (Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women" [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)

At the end of the day though, the question is meaningless since it cannot be reasonably demonstrated that rape is permissible in Islam.

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: "Wood, I'll get to your post tomorrow, Insha'Allah."

LOL! Your black rock can't help you kid. Stay off the drugs.

Too bad that, when Abraham supposedly smashed all the idols (let's forget for a moment that this fable was plagiarized from the Talmud) in the pagan shrine that you call "Allah's house on earth", he didn't get rid of that stone. Oh wait... maybe that black stone was the remainder of one of the 360 idols that were smashed. Oh... wasnt one of those idols names... ALLAH?

good luck with your rock friend-idol.

Nakdimon

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

Hei, Ibn... thakes for calling me "illiterate" and "retarded"... another fine example off whate islam is. Butt perhaps juste you're being foonie as alwaies...

About living in the UK: we'll see aboute thate soon... I was trying to see how serious was the beggining off your illogic argumentte... and it seeams to me thate I managed thate goal...

Ibn: can you tell us, withe real hard evidences, all the rightes the muslim women has in connection to her sexual liffe? Can you show us where, and when, an how, a muslim woman can denie her husband's sexual urges? Even in your psedo-sillogism you admitte:

a) muslim women do not have the righte the right to denie her husbande sexuallie (you did nott sai EVEN IF... so I habe quoted you in the precise context off your wordes...);

b) sometimes muslim men can inccour in rapping his wifes;

c) islam ties muslim men to manie obbligatiosn;

then:

about a): iff I was quoting you out off the context (as you saide) you, as I have saide, will be hable to prove thate muslim woman can denie her husband his sexual advances;

about b): in whatte conditions a muslim man is considered to be rapping his women? (I imaginne this will be even easier to unswer);

about c): can you make a listte the obligations that muslim men has in connection withe his sexual habits in connection withe his wifes?

the problem, mie friend Ibn, is thate the rappe is nott juste an onesided problem: a women woulde be a true victim off rape even iff men did nott habe obligations towards them... butt since islam denies women the same rights has it grantes men, itts no surprise you can't grasp this human realitie...

another problem: I can bett you won'te be hable to provide solid evidences for points b) and c)... so your pseudo-silogisme will crumble like a card-castle, and ounce again it's going to be proved the inconsistency, the rethorical demagogie, the mental inhability and the hatte to the truthe thate islam inspires in it's members...

ounce again: whie do you nott spend your time rebbutting Robert Spencer's work tahte gives the name to this present thread?

and whie can't you justte explain whie the qur'an allows men to rape women?

Nakdimon said...

Ibn Shaytan: Wood concealed the truth to communicate the truth? Moron, you don't know what you are saying.

No you idiot! Wood imitated your line of reasoning. It was a role play. But I understand you don’t get that into that one half of a brain cell in that big head of yours.

Ibn Shaytan: Yeah, you prefer lying and using double standards as a Messianic Jew than as a Muslim.

Hmm.. this must be Islamic logic. Care to explain in real intellectual grown up language? Or am I asking the impossible from you?

Ibn Shaytan: It doesn't, and that's because it is not a treatise dealing with the rights and duties of slave women. Duh!

So your question to David was nonsensical to begin with then. Therefore we have to use simple (yes I did say “simple”) logic. Ah you following thwough? Or is mistow Nakdimon going to fast fow you.

Ibn Shaytan: Moron, not only are you incapable of making a logical case, you also don't know the distinction between rights and duties. I suggest you educate yourself on the latter before reading my argument. Otherwise, you won't understand anything.
If the wife doesn't have the right to deny her husband sexually, the husband is not violating any obligations if he rapes his wife.


LOL! This is Islamic logic. Either you are saying that a woman has the right to refuse her husband sexually, but to her own peril, since that will result to her being cursed by the angels and Allah’s disdain. Or you are saying that she has no right to refuse her husband sexually and therefore has to speed to his needs when he calls her to have sex with him, whether she likes it or not. Both are equally repulsive, so I don’t know how this helps your idol and your false prophet in any way shape or form. Either way she is obligated to have sex with him when he want some and is in no position to refuse him.

Ibn Shaytan: But if he rapes his wife, the husband will violate many obligations that Islam has tied him to. Therefore, the wife does have the right to deny her husband sexually. Hence, rape is not permissible in Islam.

Like which obligations? Her hands are tied so he can use her as he wants. No bed rights for women either! And look at your down right stupid switch from him supposedly violating obligations to her and her having a right to deny him. How does that work? That’s like saying “the police can’t arrest you for violent behaviour if you haven’t been violent, therefore you have the right to refuse to pay your speeding ticket”. What utter nonsense! This is what you produce when you are just an ignoramus that has completely lost track of human logic.

Fernando said...

Soorie... two posts thate were a repetittion... I'll erase one...

nma said...

If the wife doesn't have the right to deny her husband sexually, the husband is not violating any obligations if he rapes his wife. But if he rapes his wife, the husband will violate many obligations that Islam has tied him to. Therefore, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her untill he (her husband) is pleased with her.. Hence, rape is not permissible in Islam.


Hey, how can a wife deny her husband sexually and cause him to sleep in anger if the angels will curse her till morning and the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until her husband is pleased with her? So according to the Hadiths, the wife does not have the right to deny her husband sexually. And the Hadiths or the Quran does not disallow a husband to have sex with an unwilling wife who does not have the right to deny her husband sexually. Hence, rape is permissible in Islam.

If the wife doesn't have the right to deny her husband sexually, the husband is not violating any obligations if he rapes his wife.


What is that nonsense? Sounds like a typical Quranic verse!

Fernando said...

Ibn quoted two well documented studies, butt he did not saide thate this ornements were nott to habe sexual intercourse, rather to be spared from death... anie women woulde prefear to stay alive than be killed; butt NO women, given the choice, woulde prefer to be raped than preserve her free sexual willing...

thate's nott the case with islam, thate allows men to habe sexual intercoureses with slave women captured in war or bought in anie slave market like today in Mauritania or Sudan...

another twiste in Ibn's arguments is nott referring thate the Deutoronomy's quote speakes thate iff a man wantes to habe a woman, he must marry her... nott a single doubt aboutt thate... Ibn coulde not, or did not wante to say thate whate those authors were talking was nott practiced bie israelites, rather bie those other peoples described in the Bible...

Ibn: do nott forget a), b) and c)...

nma said...

Ibn said...
That's a fallacy of interrogation.


Using such words does not make you an intellectual or your arguments logcal. My point is, Muslims generally consider any criticism or verbal attack of their holy book or prophet as an attack and retaliate by killing the critic. Remember, Mohammed himself ordered the killing of three poets for criticizing him. What else is it but kind of war? So my logic is not flawed as yours, even though you use words such as 'fallacy of interrogation' to make it sound that your arguments are logical.

Please answer this question:Where in the Quran it is said that you can have sex only with a willing slave girl? When you say can have sex with a slave girl, it means any slave girl, willing or unwilling. And having sex with an unwilling woman is rape. So the Quran promotes rape.

You wrote about girls dressing up for their future captors. Maybe that is true, but still it does not mean that all girls did that or some of those who did were willing to dress up like that. There is no point generalizing here.

As for rape, most of your assertions (rather than arguments, showing how unintellectual you are) have already been countered in my response to Nakdimoron.


No, you haven't given any reasonable answer, though you pretend you have. If you were a king and if you point to a group of people and order your soldiers to kill them, it means to kill them all, not selectively kill some of them. So when the Quran tells you to have sex with slave girls, it includes willing and unwilling girls. Again, having sex with unwilling women is rape, which is promoted by the Quran.

Ibn said...

Nakdimoron:Too bad that, when Abraham supposedly smashed all the idols (let's forget for a moment that this fable was plagiarized from the Talmud) in the pagan shrine that you call "Allah's house on earth", he didn't get rid of that stone. Oh wait... maybe that black stone was the remainder of one of the 360 idols that were smashed. Oh... wasnt one of those idols names... ALLAH?

No, but he did smash the idols of Yahweh(the son of El and Ashera) and a dead man in diapers hanging on a cross.

Nakdimoron:No you idiot! Wood imitated your line of reasoning. It was a role play. But I understand you don’t get that into that one half of a brain cell in that big head of yours.

Role play? Talk about special pleading!

Nakdimoron:Hmm.. this must be Islamic logic. Care to explain in real intellectual grown up language? Or am I asking the impossible from you?

You are asking the impossible for yourself, actually. Sadly, intellectual discussions are just not for you.

Nakdimoron:So your question to David was nonsensical to begin with then.

No, because my question had a reasonable purpose:to demonstrate that David's claim lacked a foundation.

Nakdimoron:LOL! This is Islamic logic. Either you are saying that a woman has the right to refuse her husband sexually, but to her own peril, since that will result to her being cursed by the angels and Allah’s disdain. Or you are saying that she has no right to refuse her husband sexually and therefore has to speed to his needs when he calls her to have sex with him, whether she likes it or not. Both are equally repulsive, so I don’t know how this helps your idol and your false prophet in any way shape or form. Either way she is obligated to have sex with him when he want some and is in no position to refuse him.

I was right. You really don't know the philosophical relationship between rights and duties. As a result, you didn't understand a single thing I said in my last post. And you want real intellectual grown up language?

Nakdimoron:Like which obligations?

Like the obligation to not treat one's wife cruelly (4:128). Since rape is tantamount to treating a wife cruelly, my argument stands. A man is violating his obligations if he rapes his wife; therefore, the wife has the right to be free from rape.

Nakdimoron:And look at your down right stupid switch from him supposedly violating obligations to her and her having a right to deny him. How does that work?

As I said, you don't know the philosophical relationship between rights and duties. Therefore, you are highly unlikely to understand my argument. Educate yourself on this issue first. Or better, take my argument to a political philosopher.

Nakdimoron:That’s like saying “the police can’t arrest you for violent behaviour if you haven’t been violent, therefore you have the right to refuse to pay your speeding ticket”.

That's a non sequitur.

Nakdimoron:What utter nonsense! This is what you produce when you are just an ignoramus that has completely lost track of human logic.

I agree. look at what you've produced by losing track of logic!

Ibn said...

nma:And the Hadiths or the Quran does not disallow a husband to have sex with an unwilling wife who does not have the right to deny her husband sexually. Hence, rape is permissible in Islam.

See my latest response to Nakdimoron.

nma:What is that nonsense? Sounds like a typical Quranic verse!

It seems that you also don't know the philosophical relationship between rights and duties.

nma:Using such words does not make you an intellectual or your arguments logcal.

No, but it does expose the fallacy in your argument.

nam:My point is, Muslims generally consider any criticism or verbal attack of their holy book or prophet as an attack and retaliate by killing the critic.

So? That doesn't necessarily mean the Quran or hadith endorses such action. Generally, most of those who engage in premarital sex in the West are Christians. Does that mean Christianity endorses fornication?

nma:Remember, Mohammed himself ordered the killing of three poets for criticizing him. What else is it but kind of war?

And he also spared the lives of many people who had once viciously persecuted him and insulted Islam as enshrined in the conquest of Mecca. There are other isolated incidents in which Muhammad was criticized in front of his face but the detractors were not harmed. Thus, just because Muhammad(saw) ordered the killing of some poets doesn't constitute a sufficient reason to justify the claim that verbal attacks against Islam are a kind of war.

nma:Please answer this question:Where in the Quran it is said that you can have sex only with a willing slave girl? When you say can have sex with a slave girl, it means any slave girl, willing or unwilling. And having sex with an unwilling woman is rape. So the Quran promotes rape.

see my response to Nakdimoron.

nma:You wrote about girls dressing up for their future captors. Maybe that is true, but still it does not mean that all girls did that or some of those who did were willing to dress up like that. There is no point generalizing here.

There is also no point presupposing that the women captives which the Muslims caught were unwilling to be on the good side of their captors.

Ibn said...

Wood:So according to Ibn, it's a complete lie to say that, if a text has changed at all, it's been perfectly preserved. So Ibn here declares that he and all Muslims who claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved are liars! (This sounds like a good headline for a future post.)But he's condemned Muhammad as well. Notice that Ibn declares that any false statement, even if the intention is not to deceive but to teach, is an outright lie. Here he condemns practical jokes, sarcasm, etc. But now let's follow this through to the only logical conclusion. According to Ibn, Islam only allows lying in three situations. Thus, if Muhammad allowed lying in any other manner, Muhammad was a sinner. Go ahead and agree with me on this one, Ibn, and I will show you how, in condemning me, you have condemned your prophet!

I rightly accused you of being a liar and what do you say in response? That if I have to call you a liar, I'd have to condemn Muhammad(saw). But since as a Muslim I cannot condmen him, I cannot call you a liar. This is nothing but an ad hominem circumstantial.

Good God Wood! How unintellectual can you get as a philosopher? Perhaps the demons of your past are still tormenting you.

As for rape, see my response to Nakdimoron.

Wood:No, I'm saying that when Islamic doctrine is the topic, your opinion doesn't carry nearly as much weight as Ibn Kathir's. You obviously think otherwise (as do many Muslim teenagers), but again, would you say that your opinion counts as much as the world's leading oncologist if the topic is cancer?

First, I'm not a teenager (in my 20s). Second, your question constitutes a fallacy of interrogation. Additionally, the topic is not cancer, so the question is also a red herring.

Just because Ibn Kathir is a celebrated commentator of the Quran doesn't necessarily mean all his claims are correct. But this is besides the point since no where does Ibn Kathir agree with your proposition that verbal attacks against Islam constitute sufficient reason for war. Thus, your claim is without a foundation to begin with.

For you to insist that whatever Ibn Kathir says is necessarily true is to jointly commit the genetic fallacy and appeal to authority.

Fernando said...

Hei Ibn... your wordes are, more and more, a mirror off whate islam is: «a dead man in diapers hanging oa cross»...

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

Ibn saide: «Generally, most of those who engage in premarital sex in the West are Christians»... no dear Ibn, they are nott... iff they were Christians they wolde not do such things... I know this was the unswer you were expecting, butt I gabe itt to you anihow to see your answer... or do you wante me to start using logical rephrans to ignore youre pseudo-arguments?

Fernando said...

Ibn quotting from qur'an 4:128 forgott to mention thate itt onlie sayes thate peace between husband and wiff is the best when she has the reason to beliebe he'll treat her bad withe a motive, butt nott the onlie option to men... and since nott fullfilling one's husband sexual urges is wrong and even punisheble according to the qur'an, Ibn, your argumentes crumbles...

Semper Paratus said...

FIbbing,

To (falsely) accuse David of being a liar, only to turn around and deny that the pagan Arabs had an idol that represented Allah (i.e. Hubal), as you did in your response to Nakdimon, is passing strange.

Did the Meccans Worship Yahweh God?

Let me guess: your response is going to be something like:

"That is a...

non-sequitur
red-herring
ad hominem
no true scottsmen
hasty generalization
fallacy of interrogation
affirming the consequent
excluded middle
petitio principii
et cetera"

nma said...

Ibn said...
nma:And the Hadiths or the Quran does not disallow a husband to have sex with an unwilling wife who does not have the right to deny her husband sexually. Hence, rape is permissible in Islam.

See my latest response to Nakdimoron.



No, you have not given a proper response that makes sense. Your response was “Like the obligation to not treat one's wife cruelly (4:128). Since rape is tantamount to treating a wife cruelly, my argument stands. A man is violating his obligations if he rapes his wife; therefore, the wife has the right to be free from rape.”. 4:128 does not make it an obligation for the husband to not treat one’s wife cruelly, it is just your false interpretation. So your response is meaningless.

It seems that you also don't know the philosophical relationship between rights and duties.


For your knowledge, the philosophical relationship between rights and duties is very subjective, so are the ideas of rights and duties. In fact, philosophy itself is very subjective.

Thus, just because Muhammad(saw) ordered the killing of some poets doesn't constitute a sufficient reason to justify the claim that verbal attacks against Islam are a kind of war.

It is sufficient reason to justify the claim that verbal attacks against Islam are a kind of war. We don’t know how many he and his followers murdered like that. And according to the Quran, Mohammed is supposed to be an example for every Muslim to follow! So following Mohammed’s example also means killing someone who verbally attacks Mohammed (and thus Islam).

nma:Please answer this question:Where in the Quran it is said that you can have sex only with a willing slave girl? When you say can have sex with a slave girl, it means any slave girl, willing or unwilling. And having sex with an unwilling woman is rape. So the Quran promotes rape.

see my response to Nakdimoron.



I don’t know how you answered this question! If you mean 4:128, it is about wives, not slave girls.

There is also no point presupposing that the women captives which the Muslims caught were unwilling to be on the good side of their captors.

Well, you are presupposing that every women captive was too willing. Even one unwilling slave disprove your assertion and it is reasonable to suppose there were many.

Again, If you were a king and if you point to a group of people and order your soldiers to kill them, it means to kill them all, not selectively kill some of them. So when the Quran tells you to have sex with slave girls, it includes willing and unwilling girls. Again, having sex with unwilling women is rape, which is allowed by the Quran.

Sepher Shalom said...

Ibn said: "There is also no point presupposing that the women captives which the Muslims caught were unwilling to be on the good side of their captors."

Since when is trying to stay on "the good side" of someone who owns you as property considered anything other than self-preservation? Is this really your standard of morality Ibn? If the women are trying to ingratiate into the graces of a man that owns them and could inflict all sorts of misery on them, this is suddenly some sort of indication of free-choice? Fascinating.

Royal Son said...

Ibn said: "Second, your question constitutes a fallacy of interrogation."



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA






Ok I'm done.

Ibn said...

I wonder how old nma is. Just look at his response to the issue of rape:

"No, you have not given a proper response that makes sense.....4:128 does not make it an obligation for the husband to not treat one’s wife cruelly, it is just your false interpretation. So your response is meaningless."

There are unsubstantiated assertions, not arguments. If you don't have any arguments, what do I have left to refute? Still, I'll engage you, even though its a complete waste of my time.

You said that 4:128 doesn't impose an obligation on husbands to not treat their wives cruelly. What are you, a moron? Sorry, that's the only reasonable response to your assertion.

nma:For your knowledge, the philosophical relationship between rights and duties is very subjective, so are the ideas of rights and duties. In fact, philosophy itself is very subjective.

That's it? That's all you could say in response to my arguments?

You've committed the fallacy of composition. "Rights and duties are philosophical topics. Philosophy is highly subjective. Therefore, the concepts of rights and duties are also subjective. Since your argument embodies philosophical subjects, they are more likely to subjective and,therefore, wrong."

nma:It is sufficient reason to justify the claim that verbal attacks against Islam are a kind of war. We don’t know how many he and his followers murdered like that. And according to the Quran, Mohammed is supposed to be an example for every Muslim to follow! So following Mohammed’s example also means killing someone who verbally attacks Mohammed (and thus Islam).

There you go again, making assertions rather than arguments. Did you even read my post? If verbal attacks against Islam constitute sufficient reason for war or executing the detractors, then all those people in Mecca would have been killed. Likewise the non-poets who insulted Muhammad(saw). They were not killed; therefore, mere criticism of Islam doesn't constitute sufficient reason for war.

nma:I don’t know how you answered this question! If you mean 4:128, it is about wives, not slave girls.

There's another verse in the Quran that says not to inherit women against their will. Using your logic, since the Quran doesn't specify the type of women, we are reasonable in including slave women into the category. Given this, since raping a woman is going against her will, and it is the duty of Muslim men to not inherit women against their will, Muslim men cannot rape their slave girls.

I sincerely regret ignoring Fernando to engage your claims. As you have demonstrated, you have no logical skills whatsoever to be a debater, no knowledge of philosophy, and hardly any knowledge of Islam. It was a complete waste of my time arguing with you. I'd rather have fun with Nakdimoron and his mentor, Wood.

Ibn said...

Semper:To (falsely) accuse David of being a liar, only to turn around and deny that the pagan Arabs had an idol that represented Allah (i.e. Hubal), as you did in your response to Nakdimon, is passing strange.

Hubal was not Allah, you idiot.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html

Fernando said...

Semper Paratus saide: «Let me guess: your response is going to be something like:

"That is a...

non-sequitur
red-herring
ad hominem
no true scottsmen
hasty generalization
fallacy of interrogation
affirming the consequent
excluded middle
petitio principii
et cetera»



let's nott forgett:

Poisoning the Well
Post Hoc
Questionable Cause
Relativist Fallacy
Slippery Slope
Special Pleading
Spotlight
Straw Man
Two Wrongs Make A Right
and so onne...

Semper Paratus said...

Fernando,

It looks like we both missed the "idiot" response.

Fibbing, just face it: you have misplaced your ontological predicates.

Fernando said...

Hei, Ibn... see http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam/hubalallah.html

Fernando said...

Hei Ibn, I'll writte here the conclusion off these excelent article refutting the text you presented previouslie:

«The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that Hubal, his position as a major deity perhaps affirmed by calling him “THE lord”, and who carried a legacy of lunar provenance, was the ba’l of the haram precinct in Mecca. Further, he was the deity raised to strict monotheistic status during the early development and solidification of the Islamic religion and known henceforth as Allah»

Fernando said...

Semper... nice shirte!! and who's the owner off the small little legs on topp off your shoulders? God blees!

ben malik said...

Since fibn Allah posted a lin k to Islamic Awareness (man, this guy is said) in response to Semper Paratus' link I thought I would post the replies -

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/rahman_av.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/rahman_deity.htm

Semper Paratus said...

Fernando,

Those little legs? Well, the story is really quite interesting:

It all started out when a fluid from my kidney (or thereabouts)(S. 86:5-7), a despicable substance (S. 77:20), gushed forth and prevailed upon some yellow substance (Sahih Muslim 3:0614), and rested for a while in a place firmly fixed. It then became a blood clot (S. 75:37-39; 40:67), eventually got bones, then skin, and so forth (S. 23:12),....and presto: out came some legs.

Ever since then those little legs have been following me around wherever I go.

Fernando said...

Semper... whate a good laughe your answer made me habe... God blees to you and your family (including the owner off those small little legs...)!!!

Sepher Shalom said...

Lol Semper =),

I thought maybe that was a picture of Islamic resurrection day, and it was Allah's shin in the pic? (S.68:42)

Royal Son said...

Sepher Shalom said "I thought maybe that was a picture of Islamic resurrection day, and it was Allah's shin in the pic? (S.68:42)"

Bro, I came across some interesting verses and hadiths including one about Allah's shin. Take a look and let me know what you think:

Surah 89:21-22 The Lord is going to come with His angels

Surah 2:210 Allah is going to come on the clouds

Sahih Bukhari Vol 8 Book 76 Number 577 - Allah will come on the day of resurrection in a form, a shape that the Muslims will recognise and they will follow Him.

Sahih Bukhari Vol 9, Book 93, Number 532s Allah will reveal His shin on the day of resurrection and the muslims will follow Him


Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657 - Jesus is going to descend to judge mankind

Surah 43:57-61 Jesus will be a sign of judgement.

Sepher Shalom said...

Royal Son said: "Bro, I came across some interesting verses and hadiths including one about Allah's shin. Take a look and let me know what you think"

Very interesting! Those references seem to state in no uncertain terms that Allah has, or will have a corporeal form.

Also, I have yet to hear a good explanation from a Muslim why Yeshua, whom they claim to be no more than a "Rasoul", gets to judge mankind.

Also, why do Muslims reject the intercession of Yeshua, but their sources claim Muhammad will participate in salvation and intercede for people by both sending them to heaven, and pulling them out of hell? -Bukhari Volume 8, Book 76, Number 570 & 571-[Source]

nma said...

Ibn,

First of all, you are not logical as you think you are. If you were, you wouldn’t be believing that the Quran is Allah’s words and Mohammed was his prophet. Second, jumping into conclusions and name calling are not mark of a logical person. Third, things you accuse me of are more applicable to you, like making assertions without substantiating them. For example, you made the assertion that 4:128 make it an obligation for the husband to not treat one’s wife cruelly, but you did not substantiate it. You based your subsequent assertions (not arguments) based on this assumption (or assertion). Another unsubstantiated assertion and presupposition you made was that all slave girls were willing to have sex with their captors. I can’t blame you for that because it is peoples nature to place themselves in high pedestals and feel that they are always right.

You said: You've committed the fallacy of composition. "Rights and duties are philosophical topics. Philosophy is highly subjective. Therefore, the concepts of rights and duties are also subjective. Since your argument embodies philosophical subjects, they are more likely to subjective and,therefore, wrong."


I was off topic on that one.

You said:” If the wife doesn't have the right to deny her husband sexually, the husband is not violating any obligations if he rapes his wife. But if he rapes his wife, the husband will violate many obligations that Islam has tied him to. Therefore, the wife does have the right to deny her husband sexually.”


You just asserted “the husband will violate many obligations”, but did not say what those obligations are and how rape will make the husband violate those obligations. Unless you fill in the details, your statements are your interpretations at best.

Again, Hadiths say that if a wife denies her husband sexually and cause him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning and the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until her husband is pleased. So according to the Hadiths, the wife does not have the right to deny her husband sexually. And the Hadiths or the Quran does not disallow a husband to have sex with an unwilling wife who does not have the right to deny her husband sexually. Hence, rape is permissible in Islam

You said:” There's another verse in the Quran that says not to inherit women against their will.”


What is that verse?

About verbal wars, later…

Sepher Shalom said...

nma,

It doesn't seem the Tafseerun agree with what Ibn is implying about 4:128. They explain that it is about a husbands sexual obligations, and that it is allowed for a woman to relieve a man of his financial support obligations as an alternative for divorce. Al-Wahidi explains why the verse was revealed:

"(If a woman feareth ill treatment…) [4:128]. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Harith informed us> 'Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja'far> Abu Yahya> Sahl> 'Abd al-Rahim ibn Sulayman> Hisham> 'Urwah> 'A'ishah who said concerning the words of Allah, exalted is He, (If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband…): “This was revealed regarding the case of a woman who does not bear children for her husband and, because of this, he wants to divorce her; or it could be about a women who has friends and children whom she does not like to be separated from and so she tells her husband who intends to divorce her: 'Do not divorce me; keep me with you and, in exchange, I forgo all the rights due to me'. And so this verse was revealed”. This was narrated by Bukhari> Muhammad ibn Muqatil> Ibn al-Mubarak, and also by Muslim from Abu Kurayb> Abu Usamah, and both Ibn al-Mubarak and Abu Usamah related it from Hisham. Abu Bakr al-Hiri informed us> Muhammad ibn Ya'qub>> al-Rabi'> al-Shafi'i> Ibn 'Uyaynah> al-Zuhri> Ibn al-Musayyab who related that the daughter of Muhammad ibn Maslamah was married to Rafi' ibn Khadij but he wanted to divorce her because of something he disliked in her, it was either arrogance or something else. She said to him: “Do not divorce me, and you are free to apportion for me whatever you like”. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse (If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband…)." [from www.altafsir.com]

Ibn Kathir supports this understanding of meaning and context:"Allah states, and thus legislates accordingly, that sometimes, the man inclines away from his wife, sometimes towards her and sometimes he parts with her. In the first case, when the wife fears that her husband is steering away from her or deserting her, she is allowed to forfeit all or part of her rights, such as provisions, clothing, dwelling, and so forth, and the husband is allowed to accept such concessions from her. Hence, there is no harm if she offers such concessions, and if her husband accepts them. This is why Allah said..." [Ref.]

Fernando already stated where Ibn is wrong on 4:128, nma did as well [to which Ibn called him a "moron"]. I wonder if Ibn thinks Al-Wahidi and Ibn Kathir were morons too?

nma said...

Hi Sepher,

Thanks for the quote and the link. They explain the issue.

Sepher Shalom said...

nma,

You're welcome brother.

Christtheway24 said...

The debates I believe will be great because Jesus will bring victory once again. Happy that Sam Shamoun is back!!!! muslim debaters are in trouble now cause with Sam the gloves are off

Fernando said...

hristtheway24: welcome to this blogg! hope you'll participate a lot more aound here. God bless!!!