While we were at ISNA, we found that people were willing to answer questions (quite unlike Dearborn). However, there answers were horribly flawed in content and methodology. Here, David reviews an answer to a tough question, and why the answers fail.
Professor Wood saide (abboutte some possible attempts to say tahte Muhamamd did not show the psychological imprintes off a paedophilicus and poor baby Aisha not showed the psychological aspects off a vivtim off paedophilia): «I woulde not be bery impressed with that»... precisely wahte I woulde habe saide... I'm writting a compreensive essay showing thate, according to muslim sources and the recognized psichological atributes off a paedophilicus and a paedophilicus victim, was indeed teh case...
since the thread in witch Yahua Snow asked us all to read his articles about Muhammad not consuming marriage withe a pre-pubescent girl has gone to a prvious page off this blogg and this subject eruts ounce again in this thread, I, asking permition to the administrators off this blogg to do so, will continue mie debuke off his pseudo-arguments here...
Hey, i have a question. what did you think of Rick Warren being at the convention and speaking? link: http://www.isna.net/articles/News/Rick-Warren-calls-on-Muslims-and-Christians-to-work-together.aspx
i just curious about your honest opinion. thanks! and stay blessed!
I'll have to listen to what he said a little more carefully before I answer. We were at his presentation, but we were sitting with two Muslims and discussing some things. But we recorded what he said. We'll post it at some point.
David said in the video words to the affect that a honest muslim response to aisha's age would be something along the lines of "Mohamed did not show the same behavior as pedaphiles, and Aisha did not show signs of being a victim of pedaphila."
I seem to recall that Aisha lost all her hair at a very young age. Now I'm not a Doctor I dont even play one on TV, but why would a child loose all her hair. Is there a medical condition or a psychological condition that would cause a child to loose all their hair and then be able to grow it back again.
Dr Qureshhi care to give us a medical opinion?
mhmmm big differnce here ehh??
ARAB festval= not to freindly
MUSLIM festival= need I say anymore?
well in regards to your question (even though I do not believe in bukhari and muslim) it seems as if Aisha getting ill and her hair falling out was BEFORE she even went to go and live with the Prophet Muhammadc(pbuh).
Here is the Hadith number incase you want to go and check it out
(Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234). Now from this hadith it seems to me as if she got ill even before the marriage, and she healed before she went to actully go live with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Maybe depression from the engagement? I doubt it, but again who am I to speak for someone else.
Giid report looking forward to hearing more - only wish I could have been there
Nice work. These videos are very informative and extremely enlightening. You make it easy to understand the difficult issues. I pray others will consider your methodology and realize the importance of history....
You said in your interview on Iron Sharpens Iron that you were amazed at the lack knowlege by muslims engaged in Dawah in regards to their own sorces.
I was once directed to a Dawah website, and the instructions given on how to perform Dawah was never to answer questions about islam. Instead the readers were directed to attack the other persons relegion and tear it down.
I'm wondering if those people you spoke to who seemed ingnorant of there own sources were infact ignorant, or just faining ignorance?
When being question about anyting controversial, or incriminating. It is always wisest to either say nothing or deny everything.
Hello Fat Man:
It's probably as you said.Often Muslims and a few like Karen Armstrong say the terrorists take Koranic verses out of context.
They mean violent verses are limited in time and place to the 10 year war between Mohammed and the Meccans.Like the parts in the OT of war against the Canaanites in Palestine(but not in the world,the Phoenicians were Cannanites also),their elimination.
The terrorists have studied the life of Mohammed and the Koran all their lives.Don't they know that?Yes.But for them those verses are local(first revealed in a certain time and place) but also universal(applicable in all time under similar circumstances).
Those circumstances have come.Islam and Muslims are under agression:academic and physical.I could be wrong but I think all Muslim teachers teach the same:the Koranic verses,including the violent verses(unless abrogated) are local/universal.They can apply to today.
Osama in his website said Psalm 34:21 as a prophecy is false("he keeps all his bones,none are broken").John 19:33-36 quotes it,says it "fulfilled scripture",when the Romans didn't break Jesus legs.
John also says nails were used on Jesus.Mr.Abdullah says when you pierce someone with nails you break bones.True.But Psalm 34 is not a Messianic prophecy.
John used Midrash.He saw a parallelism only,and only,between the not smashing of the legs and verse 21.He was not referring to the nailing of Jesus,though he knew it broke some bone.Again the word is Midrash,a Jewish technique,but Isaiah 53 is really a Messianic prophecy,no Midrash there.
brother minoria saide: «Abdullah says when you pierce someone with nails you break bones.True»... not always: the romans placedd the nails inn the feet and the hands inn between bonnes so thate the handes coulde supporte the height off the body... no? butt romans used to break, latter, the bonne soff the legs in order to spead death... in Jesus' case they did nott do thate because He, due to the painn inflicted to Him previous, died whate was testiffied bie the spear across His side... no?
I am writing regarding your theory or should i say comment on aisha having not reached puberty, and mohammed ( saw ) having intercourse with her at the age of nine, i do not believe this to be true, The Bible / Torah has so may errors that one could not even begin to count, if you were to ask any leading scholar in either religion about these errors, they will state the first thing what comes to mind, that is exactly what the muslims are doing without really thinking or analysing the subject, i believe the famous hadiths to be correct but i also know for a fact that the books have been altered, also it was stated in the quran that it will be the only book unchanged, having said that, people only bring up subjects like the one in mention when they have a doubt, and they make it their task to project there view onto others, i seroiusly think you should keep your opinion to your self as this not only upsets others but also makes people angry, no one can prove the verses in the hadith to be authentic or false, so best u just leave the subject, if you have any doubts about islam please do more research as this is the only way to true guidance.
also it was stated in the quran that it will be the only book unchanged
If it is stated so in the Quran, the Quran is wrong because there are other books that are unchanged. For example, Shakespeare's books are unchanged.
You can read about the contradictions in the Quran here
not always: the romans placedd the nails inn the feet and the hands inn between bonnes so thate the handes coulde supporte the height off the body... no?
Good answer, Fernando. Osama is very good at twisting the biblical and quranic verses.
You have a point there.And I am very glad Nabeel and David made it to London.I was very afraid they would't get enough money.
Wow again!Now it's 124,000 hits in youtube.And to think we guys were there when it all happened,from the begining.I don't think any of us thought it would become so known.
Mary Jo,David and Nabeel did not get rich,but they got famous,and in society today that's even better.
The case of Nabeel and the Sunni and Shia reaction to the Ahmadiyas is similar to that of Abdul Salam(slave of peace in Arabic).He was Ahmadiya too,from Pakistan.Simply the most brilliant scientist to come from the Muslim area in the 20th century.
The Ahmadiyas must be very proud of him.A very religious man also.The first Muslim or "Muslim" to win the Nobel Prize in Science.I know an Egyptian later got one also.I think that's it.
The Nobel Prizes began in 1900,and dozens of Jews have got it in science and only 2 Muslims.Though Muslims have billions of dollars in oil to invest in scientific research.When Abdul Salam died it was written on his tomb "First Muslim Nobel Prize".Somebody came and erased "Muslim" and now it's "First Nobel Prize."
One thing I disagree with Abdul Salam is his claim Muslims invented the scientific method(around 900 AD).He said that without the Muslims the West would never have become developed,have a Renaissance,etc.I used to think they really invented the scientific method.
They didn't.In 674 the Muslims tried to capture Constantinople,capital of the Byzantine Empire.They were stopped by a horrible new weapon called "Greek fire".It was a liquid that no amount of water could quench.We have never discovered how it was made,we have some idea.
In 717 an army of 80,000 and a navy of 1,800 tried to take the city again.They were stopped by Greek fire.That battle certainly saved Europe from becoming Muslim.Constantinople was a city of 1 million,if it had fallen,nothing would have stopped Europe from going the way of Persia.
It's obvious the Crusades were a final reaction by Western Europe against agression first begun by Muslims(which the Muslims themselves called "jihad").But Muslims in their books never tell that part.
Anyway,the only way Greek fire could have been invented was using the scientific method.We have some knowledge of its ingredients(its method of manufacture was lost since the Greeks kept it a secret 100%).
But Western scientists have made attempts to REDISCOVER how it was made.How?Using the scientific method of course.They have failed.Maybe one day they'll suceed.How?Using the scientific method.It's impossible to create Greek fire by mere chance.Its inventor used the scientific method(was most probably its inventor)to get it.
Proof that using the scientific method one got Greek fire is that in 1759 a French artisan called Dupre rediscovered it,experimenting for something else.Or something very similar.The invention was shown to the French king.But he was so shocked by the horrible power and force of the weapon that in the name of humanity he bribed Dupre never to tell the secret of its manufacture by giving him a very good pension.On condition he never divulge the secret.So it was lost again.
Q: "Why Islam?"
A: "So your lives and property will be protected."
They will hire me for the booth next year due my incredible clarity in brevity, and irrefutable dawah ;)
dsfsdfsd saide: «having said that, people only bring up subjects like the one in mention when they have a doubt»... not kite... I bringue those subjecte always thate I see a muslim denieying historical evidences inn order to prsent a more psychological acceptable image off islam; i.e.: withoute so manie barbaric examples off the liff off Muhammad.
dsfsdfsd saide: «i seroiusly think you should keep your opinion to your self as this not only upsets others but also makes people angry»; iff someone gets angie juste because someone presentes him the truthe, then I hoppe he'll habe the oportunitie to get more, and more, hungie, because onlie the truth will make him a better person: not lies, and more lies thate were created to give a psychological defense in order to meke them confortable with this or thate ideilogical and/or religious conviction...
dsfsdfsd saide: «no one can prove the verses in the hadith to be authentic or false»... iff muslims arounde the worlde would follow your advice I woulde bee the firste to forget aboutte the hadiths; butt since they follow them in order to presentte the image off the ideal muslim believer (Muhammad) and the ideal man (Muhammad) it's mie duty to make refference too them as well in order to avoide more people becaomme ilusioned aboute Muhammad and islam...
dsfsdfsd saide: «The Bible / Torah has so may errors that one could not even begin to count»... well I woulkde justte ask you to give me a definition off "error": historical, scientific or sotoriological? butt I'll skipp thate firste aspect: could eyou presentte an example off whate you beliebe to bee an "error"? Then I'll bribge back those previous atep I skipped...
dsfsdfsd saide: «it was stated in the quran that it will be the only book unchanged»... well... since:
a) evidences show thate's nott the case in conection withe the qur'an;
b) other books habe also been (better) preserved,
I woulde say thate the person who madde thate claimme was either ignorante ore a lyier tying in order to gibe muslims more off those psychological defenses in order them to beliebe in their (false) religion...
IT WAS SAID IT WOULD BE THE ONLY RELIGOUS SCRIPTURE UNCHANGED AND WILL BE PRESERVED TO THE END OF TIME, ( IT WAS NOT REFERING TO THE BOOKS OF SHAKESPEARE OR OTHER BOOKS IN GENERAL. YOU MUST BE IDOL MINDED OR SOMETHING TO EVEN STATE THAT!!
another thing are you illiterate or something, who's going to believe a guy who can't even spell right !
another thing are you illiterate or something, who's going to believe a guy who can't even spell right !
Your Mohammed was supposedly illiterate but you believe him all right... LOL. Sorry, brother Fernando is a learned guy as could be made out from his posts.
IT WAS SAID IT WOULD BE THE ONLY RELIGOUS SCRIPTURE UNCHANGED AND WILL BE PRESERVED TO THE END OF TIME
You can read about the Quran presevation myth here.
I can confirm 100% our friend Fernando is not in the least bit illiterate.We exchanged once in Spanish and his Spanish is letter-perfect,even though it's not his native language.No grammatical mistakes,no orthographic mistakes,perfect use of expression.Tagalog is as different from Spanish as Hindi is from Russian.
What is not good is what Shabir Ally does.He says the Paracletos in John is a man.Mohammed HAS to be in the Torah and John.If he is not in John,then for them Islam is false.I've already shown why John 1:29-25 can't be Mohammed no matter what.
Jesus spoke Aramaic.Paracletos(comforter,advocate,helper) in Aramaic is Menahemana.It appears in Mel Gibson's film.Muslims say it proves Jesus said Mohammed.They sound similar.But Mohammed means "the praised one".It doesn't mean advocate.
Let's concede Jesus said "Mohammed".It's another "Mohammed".Why?
Look up the word "spirit" in a Bible Concordance and nowhere in the OT is "spirit" used to mean a human.It's always a spirit.Unless a word or more shows otherwise.That the Aramaic spirit is a metaphor for human.
Again Jesus spoke Aramaic.Spirit in Aramaic means spirit.So we have:
John 14:16:Mohammed,spirit of truth.
John 14:26:Mohammed,holy spirit.
John 15:26:Mohammed,spirit of truth.
John 16:13:Mohammed,spirit of truth.
Nowhere is there the word "human","man","prophet"added.The Aramaic leaves no doubt it's a Menahemana/"Mohammed",but not Mohammed the man,but another Mohammed,a spirit called Mohammed.No Aramaic expert would say otherwise.Shabir Ally knows it.
Then we have John 16:7-10 where there is only the word Menahemana.Shabir ally said it's a man.For argument I'll grant it.But even as a man it can't be Mohammed.Jesus puts a "condition".But more on that later.
1) iff you meant religious books, you shoulde habe saide so: nothinue in your sentence «it was stated in the quran that it will be the only book unchanged», implies thate...
2) there are other religious books tahte are better preseverved than the qur'an (and thate's why some muslims tryied in the past to destroy them) like some books from Sikh religion which are in the Harmandir Sahib...
3) no serious person, withoutte prejudices woulde sy the qur'an has been, or will bee, good preserved... thates a problem you muslims have and other religions do not, since its the qur'an thate states that it will be preserved...
4) aboute my spealing which makes you thinke I'm illiterate: thankes to make me notice of that connection: I was not aware of thate facte: now I'll be more atentious nott to follow the footsteps off Muhammad.
haha looks like youve got a sense of humor, by the way the quran is and has always be well preserved, as it has the best guradians on this planet (the hearts of the muslims) , this has been the case since the time of mohammed (saw) and is still today been stored in such a way, and regarding your comment on muslims trying to destroy books of other faiths was because them books are by simple terms "stupid" (eg. idol worshippers, satanic religions).
dsfsdfsd saide a lott off falsities and typical mithological claimes thate history as already denied, butt know he sais the qur'an as been preaserved in the hearts off muslims... really? whose muslims? those 90% off muslims thate can recite the qur'an butt cannot undesratnd a single worde off whate they are saying because thay do not understand classical arabic tahte, according to muslims, losses its deep message in translations? Poor soal...
muslims trying to destroy books of other faiths was because them books are by simple terms "stupid" (eg. idol worshippers, satanic religions).
But Islam is the worst satanic religion...
dsfsdfsd said: "haha looks like youve got a sense of humor, by the way the quran is and has always be well preserved, as it has the best guradians on this planet (the hearts of the muslims)"
So, do you then believe that the Muslims who have memorized the Quran are given some sort of divine protection from error in recitation? Because, in order to believe that fallible humans can infallibly memorize anything, you would some sort of belief of divine empowerment or protection.
Not to mention the fact that, what are nearly all the Muslims memorizing today? They are memorizing the 1924 Egyptian printing of the Quran. And what about all the Hadith evidence that the Qurra disagreed over what should be recited? Or that part of the Quran was lost forever when a goat ate it? Or that some of the Qurra who were the only memorizers of verses died in battle?
Your claim about preservation through memorization is nothing more than a bed-time story Muslims tell to make themselves feel better when confronted with the evidence of it's corruption.
I am not sure why you are picking on Fernando's spelling...Your screen name looks like a little kid was hitting the keyboard at random. If you wanted a meaningless name that doesn't spell anything (or at least doesn't clearly signify anything intelligible to anyone), you could have at least chosen something meaningless from the Qur'an like AlifLamMim.
Your comments are becoming increasingly offensive. Try to keep a few things in mind.
(1) Since no sex was involved in Mary's pregnancy, how can you accuse God of rape (which is a sexual act)?
(2) Where did you get the idea that Mary was 12? As far as scripture is concerned, she could have been 18. Let me guess, you're going to appeal to some apocryphal works that no historian on the planet treats as reliable? Is this how I deal with Islam? Weren't my claims based on your most reliable sources?
(3) Assuming Mary was as young as you claim (with no evidence), there is a massive difference between 9 and 12. A 12-year-old can be finishing puberty. It's very rare for a 9-year-old to have even started puberty. So if you think that sex with a 12-year-old implies rape, all the more you should apply this reasoning to Muhammad.
(4) I didn't say anything about rape or pedophilia in the video. I stuck to the facts and tried to correct some false claims by Muslims. At no point did I insult Allah or Muhammad. You're the one insulting our beliefs and our God.
(5) Muslims are told to follow the example set by Muhammad. Young girls around the world are suffering because Muslims (following the example set by Muhammad) are having sex with young girls. Now is the same true of Christianity? Are we told to follow the example God set with Mary? This would be impossible, since, again, no sex was involved, and since we don't even have an age for Mary!
So, Ehteshaam, are your claims reasonable? Not at all. I pointed out some facts, and now you're lashing out at Christianity because you don't like the facts about Islam.
I know, I am beginning to scare myself. Its just some statements said about Prophet Muhammad (p) really make me mad-- therefore I just try to return the fire.
As I recall you saying in your debate with Nadir Ahmed-- Prophet Muhamamd(p) marriage with Aisha bothers you.
How come you get to say stuff like this, and Muslims don't? I don't get it. Anyways it was wrong about the above statement, and I deleted it out of respect for you.
I don't know what to do anymore. I think its time I quit reading/commenting on this blog. Its not getting me anywhere. All its doing is getting me into fights with Osama Abdullah, and its getting worse.
So long David Wood. Accept my apology and we can move on. Maybe in the future we can debate again.
Too bad Ehteshaam decided to leave.I can understand his part about not commenting.But not reading?
Well,I guess he should leave the website for a month and then he can read again to see if there is anything interesting.And I tell you,this is the best blog in the world.
concerning nabeels futile attempt to discredit the quran are you not indirectly making the point that the quran is almost entirly authentic and pristeen and that what we have today is what god reveald to muhammad 1,000 and some years ago. you remind me of a drowning man in the middle of the atlantic ocean grabing at one strand of floating sea weed in a desparate and futile attempt not to droun you have nothing just like the drouning man only an attempt of desparate futility
both rendering the same unavoidable result it is rather sad.as suto acomplished distractologist you seek to change the focus from that joke you call the bible to the quran that is perhaps your only sain statagy but that can on ly delay your demize.I will vary soon begin a detaild attact on the bible from pre christian time to the present,iwill use confirmed socialogicle models to show and highlight the affect of a dominent culture as it relates to a less dominent culture and how that effected the jews who were dominated by the babylonians egyptians greeks and romans and how that inturn gave birth to the untaught inovation of christianity problems of authership inconsistancys and contradiction only highlight and strengthen my socialogicle distruction of your book and religion that makes a mockery of god and his prophet jesus but god in his infinite mercy sent muhammad with the quran to protect his truth the quran says behold truth has now arrived and falsehood has perrished for falsehood by it vary nature is bound to perrish notice david and nabeel how allah put it and falsehood has perrished meaning in the bag ,done deal I am sadiq abdul malik the one you choose to ignore remember what admiral yamamoto said to emperer hirohito i fear that all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve
Post a Comment