Saturday, August 8, 2009

ISNA 2009: BRITTANY CONVERTS TO ISLAM

I've met several converts to Islam. I've never met one who had done anything remotely resembling a careful investigation of Islam before converting.

111 comments:

Sepher Shalom said...

The speaker said Brittany is married. I wonder if she knows, had she been married to a non-Muslims Islam requires her to divorce him. I wonder if she knows now that she "reverted" she is condemned to death if she changes her mind?

richard said...

Dudes! You guys are Off-tha-Chain! keep it up, man y'all are such a motivation for me. my best friend, my cuz'n, and me have been meeting with Muslims weekly and you have a ton of information that has helped a lot. i'm doing what i am doing because i to do not want people to fallow falsehood. God bless you guys and keep persevering and fighting the Good Fight!

el Lobo said...

Are u just stupid or just incensere. Every thing in islam that is in conflict with modern values are emphasized and everything positive in islam is ignored. You apply the opposite mo regarding christianity. People see thru your hate message. Spare us your lies that you are only spreading the truth. We muslims can acknowledge the positive aspects in christianity, That's why you are called the people of the book.
It's a fact that whatever you say to the effect that you belive in a religion of love, the christian civilisation has produced genocide in America, Slavery in Africa, total eradication of the inhabitants in the canary islands and tasmania, countless of wars, imperialism, wwI and II, the holocaust, the vietnam war and much more. Your evangilist of a president started two bloody wars.

Add everything the muslim civilisation has commited such as the armenian genocide, slavery, modern dictator etc it doesn't even come close to the death and destruction your civilisation has produced. Again you can claim that the Bible doesn't condone such actions. In all honesty you know as well as every one else that both the new testament and the old testament contains passages that can be used to legitimize these actions.
Honest christians are aware of this and they don't like throwing stones in a glass house.

You guys are just evil thru and thru. One day you will hopefully realize this and stop your war against islam.

Nabeel don't you realize that you are used as a onkel tom. They use you as they used Collin Powel to legitimize war against Iraq. When they are finished with you they will throw you in the garbage can where you belong.

Unknown said...

Muslims always ignores the main reason why one would convert to islam.

It is very clear here, that the main reason here, is marrying that muslim guy, and it is one of the most common reason why muslim (usually gur) convert to islam, under the name of love!!

Though islam allows muslim men to marry non muslim, they dont give the same right to muslim gurl to marry non muslim !! (always doublt standard!)

and under the name of love, deception works perfect !

Unknown said...

Zakaria said that we ignore good side of islam as we ignore bad side of christianity.

would u elaborate more on those two issues?
what do u think is really bad in christianity , and really good in islam ????

thanks

Sepher Shalom said...

Zakaria said: "Every thing in islam that is in conflict with modern values are emphasized and everything positive in islam is ignored."

You are going to have to explain what you mean here. Please define "modern values"? As far as I tell Islam is generally just against humanity and decency. I don't think such principles are "modern" in any way.

Zakaria said: "You apply the opposite mo regarding christianity. People see thru your hate message."

Please explain how David and Nabeel are applying different standards. I don't see it. I also don't see a single bit of "hate" in their message.

Zakaria said: "Spare us your lies that you are only spreading the truth. We muslims can acknowledge the positive aspects in christianity, That's why you are called the people of the book."

Yes, the Quran calls us "The people of the Book", and it says we are perverse, and that Muslims are supposed to subdue us into submission so we can feel ourselves humiliated...so don't act Islam gives any praise, honor or high status to us. The Quran invents lies about our beliefs and calls us names.

Zakaria said: "It's a fact that whatever you say to the effect that you belive in a religion of love, the christian civilisation has produced genocide...countless of wars, imperialism, wwI and II, the holocaust, the vietnam war and much more."

The United States is not a Christian entity. It is a secular country, so I don't have any clue how any of what you are saying is relevant. I also seem to recall Japan and Russia being involved in WWII. Neither of them were in any way "Christian". Furthermore, to blame the Bible for the Holocaust is absolute absurdity. The Bible is a book written entirely by Jews, about the G-d of Israel, and the Messiah of Israel. It is a text that explicitly grants Jews the position of being specially picked by the divine decree of YHWH to bring faith of the only true G-d to all of humanity. It is a text that repeatedly declares G-d will protect the Jews, and fight the enemies of the Jews. How you go from that to support for the Holocaust is beyond me. You attempt to blame Christianity and the Bible for things it does not teach to do, while you attempt to downplay Islam for things it does teach.

Also, if you want to talk about 'imperialism' I suggest you look at Islam. Islam is the most imperialistic system the world has ever known. Look at the history: Muhammad ordered his followers to drive all non-Muslims out of Arabia and seize control of it. They did. Later, they went on to violently conquer; Egypt, all of Maghrib Africa, Mesopotamia, the Levant, Persia, eastern Europe, Anatolia, southern Italy, Spain, most of western Asia, India...I'm sure I'm still missing some. Of course, they did all this conquest in name of Islam, with the full doctrinal support of the 'prophet' of Islam, and the religion of Islam, and (the most sinister aspect of all) Islam teaches that it is the destiny of the Muslims to conquer the whole world making it all dar-ul-Islam. How's that for imperialism? It seems the typical Muslim response to having to face the start reality about the reprobate nature of their religion, is trying to make everyone else's religion look bad. I guess if you are covered in mud, you can try to clean yourself up by making everyone else dirty.

Zakaria said: "Your evangilist of a president started two bloody wars."

George Bush has never been an 'evangelist', nor was he acting on behalf of any religion when he made his political decisions. He was acting in a secular capacity as leader of a secular country.

Zakaria said: "Add everything the muslim civilisation has commited such as the armenian genocide, slavery, modern dictator etc"

Well, at least you are willing to admit Islam is responsible for the Armenian genocide, and for the proliferation of slavery. I guess that's a step in the right direction.

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2

Zakaria said: "Nabeel don't you realize that you are used as a onkel tom. They use you as they used Collin Powel to legitimize war against Iraq. When they are finished with you they will throw you in the garbage can where you belong."

This is unacceptably offensive Zakaria! I have to wonder if you even know what an "Uncle Tom" is? Why is it that we are constantly told by Muslims that Islam has nothing to do with race or ethnicity - that it is about universal brotherhood - but as soon as someone who is from a predominantly Muslim ethnic group leaves Islam and speaks out, they are being an "Uncle Tom", a "sell out", or a "traitor to their people"? The response of Muslims speaks volumes!

Zakaria, you are displaying clear prejudice in this statement by implying that Nabeel is of a lower mental capacity that he would be manipulated and used by others [and I fail to see how Colin Powell has anything to do with any of this, but nevermind that]. For all you know, Nabeel is the one the runs the show at Acts17 Apologetics. Maybe David is Kaito to Nabeel's Green Hornet, Robin Hood to Nabeel's Batman? You don't know anything about how things operate in their ministry. I find it offensive that you would make that assumption about Nabeel. On top of all that, you just told Nabeel he belongs in a garbage can. By that, I think we can assume you are saying he is garbage.

You really owe Nabeel a serious apology, and you need to think things through more carefully before you type. Clearly, something in their presentation of this video struck truth with you, and you struck out in a completely emotional and irrational way. You can't respond to their content of arguments, you go on an emotional tirade. Not convincing.

David Wood said...

I have to agree with Zakaria that Muslims haven't killed as many people as other groups (though the leaders of the groups who killed were typically atheistic).

But there's a reason for this. Muslim countries have historically been technologically backwards (due to the Islamic tendency to keep a seventh-century framework for life and education), while European nations and non-Muslim Asian nations have prospered greatly in the sciences and developed sophisticated weaponry.

Zakaria, if Islam had European weapons, who would hold the record for the most murders in history?

minoria said...

I think Zakaria shouldn't have offended Nabeel.He acts as a better person than the generality of Muslims.Would they or even Zakaria say:"I don't agree with what you say about Islam but I defend your right to say it.I believe in free speech,and the other human rights with no ifs,buts,or maybes."

Nabeel would certainly give that right to the Muslims.Would Muslims do the same to us Christians,atheists,Hindus,Buddhists,Jews,etc?Very few.

So who is a better person?Why are those who say they are "the best of peoples"(according to the Koran)act less good that the polytheistic Christrians,Hindus,and conspiring Jews?It's because of the kind of Islam they have been taught.

minoria said...

But information is important.So I will give some.I already said why JAMES was martyred for the faith in Josephus.I gave the reasons why it was a real martyrdom.

PETER

CLEMENT's Letter to the Corinthians (95 AD)refers to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.He was the 3rd bishop of Rome.This is documentary evidence they died for the faith.I give this info so Christians can use it to show Peter was sincere.In the last part of the letter it says the disciples preached the RESURRECTION of Jesus.Peter and Paul were killed in 64 AD in Rome.Again it doesn't prove the resurrection,but is evidence Peter believed in it.

GOSPEL OF JOHN

It's even ealier,90 AD.John 21:18-19 says about the death of PETER for the faith:"He(Jesus)said this to show by what kind of DEATH he(Peter)would GLORIFY God."

PETER'S BONES?

To make a long story short,and sadly most Christian don't know this detail but they have discovered under St.Peter's Church in Rome(built over the site tradition says Peter was buried)a box with the bones of a 60-70 year old man.From the 1st century BC and a nearby inscription "inside is Peter".All the evidence coincides with Tradition,plus at least 1,000 coins thrown in during the time of the Roman Empire by pilgrims to Peter's tomb.

Here would be real archeological evidence,strong indeed,that the tradition Peter preached in Rome is true.

Again,I give info,as acurate to the best of my knowledge(I am not infallible)so others can see there is evidence.Good evidence.

Nora said...

Maybe Brittany converted so she'd have a shot at getting custody of her children if she and her husband ever divorce.

But I doubt she's thinking that far ahead.

Chennai Man said...

profeesor David, may be she embraced islam after reding all these versus from your holy bible.

mathew:
22:25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died and, having no descendants, left his wife to his brother.
22:26 The same happened with the second and the third, through all seven.
22:27 Finally the woman died.
22:28 Now at the resurrection, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had been married to her."

mark:
12:19 saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, 'If someone's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.'
12:20 Now there were seven brothers. The first married a woman and died, leaving no descendants.
12:21 So the second married her and died, leaving no descendants, and the third likewise.
12:22 And the seven left no descendants. Last of all the woman also died.
12:23 At the resurrection (when they arise) whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her."

mathew:5:32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1 timothy:
2:11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.
2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
2:14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

as a christian scholar you may correct me,if iam wrong.

thanks professor.

David Wood said...

Ashraf,

I knew it wouldn't be long before Muslims attacked the Bible (in the comments section of a post about a woman converting to Islam).

I really don't understand your point. The Sadducees presented Jesus with a fictional illustration to make an argument against life after death. Jesus refuted their argument. What does it have to do with how women are treated in Christianity? Did you even read the passages you quoted?

There are several interpretations of Paul's words. But let's go with the most extreme view--women aren't allowed to speak in church. How would this compare with Islam, where men may tie up their wives and beat them into submission, where female captives and slave girls are raped, where women are told that they're stupid, where rape victims are sentenced to death because they can't produce four male witnesses, where nine-year-old girls are married off to fifty-year-old men? Are you really suggesting that Christianity has a lower opinion of women than Islam?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David Wood

I'm very surprised you've never met any Muslims who converted to Islam out of careful and critical investigation, the vast majority of Da'ees I meet who come from a non-Muslim background have actually done so. I myself, whilst I might not have converted to Islam initially out of investigating as much as I should have, I returned to Islam after a brief stint of agnosticism after careful investigation.

I know Abdullah al-Andalusi became Muslim after scrutinising all religious ideologies available too.

Oh and remember people who live in glass houses, should never throw stones, it became Abundantly clear that your colleague and boy Nabeel Qureshi had not done his readings in Historical Jesus or elementary introductions to Christology when he debated Paul Williams. Seeing as that is one of the three core elements of Christianity according to your words sir, then it seems your own ministry fails to practice of that which they preach.

Fernando said...

Zakaria, ounce agine siade: «That's why you are called the people of the book»... really? whatte book? the Bible we habe today, or the original bible thate muslims say was corrupted to gibe place to the one we habbe today? More: iff you despise the real identity off Jesus, nomatter whate you say after His name, is an offense and the utter example off lack off respect to Christianity...

Zakaria: slavery in Africa begun with peoples thate were nott Christians: more western use off african slaves is centuries more recent than the muslim slavery in that continent, which,a s a matter off fact, continues nowadays in muslim countries as Sudan and Mauritania...

More: Chriatianity has nothing to do whith genocide in the americas (and why do you nott talk aboutt the genocide is happening nowadays agains Christians in muslims countries?!!!)... nothing!!! can you present an evidence thate happened in conformity with Christian sources?!! Nott everything made bie people who say they are christians are made by Christians... more: the true Christianity (Franciscod e Vitoria, Bartolomeu de las Casas, António Vieira and so on) ALWAYS attacked those actions as un-Christians...

Irradication off inhabitants in Canary Islands? Thates a myth!!! and iff someone used corsaris to capture and use people in the Mediterranean (and Canaries are in the Atlantic) were muslims... as recent as the 19 century!!!

Countless wars? were they started in consequence off Chrsitian values? No they were nott. were the million more frequentt wars commited by muslims consequence off muslim values? yes they were... muslim as a global ideology spread, and still does, by the "sword"...

The point, ounce again, mie friend Zakaria is: an action to be made in name off X must bee done by people who say theu foloow X and in coherence withe the teachings off X... none off the realities you presented were made by Christianity, since tose actions habe nothing to do with Jesusu's teachings...

on the other hand, the continuus massacres perpetuated by muslims (let's just makke reffrence to the 80.000.000 deads islam provocated in India) are made in coherence with the teachings off muhammad... so: the muslim "civilization" is the more criminal and intolerant creation tahte man eber produced until nowadays: suicide bombers, crimes agains humanity, female degradation,... etc... islam is like H1N1: a virus that spreads by force in those off weak heart...

you saide: «In all honesty you know as well as every one else that both the new testament and the old testament contains passages that can be used to legitimize these actions»... please Zakaria: presentt ONE evidence for thate... and remeber, we Christians, read the OT att the lighte off the NT: Jesus is the "glasses", the only "glasses", to read the entire Bible...

You are a perfect example, Zakaria, off muslim apology: twisting historical and religious truth and evidences in order to ceratte false psychological defences to those muslim follower who're, ebery day, realizzing more, and more, aboutte the truthe realityy off theire unhuman and ungodly religion... you mislms are skared to dead bie the internet since withe them muslims are learning, more and morew, aboutt whate theire imans neber spoke to them... habe feare, zakaria, habe manie frear... the thruth and the love will prevaille...

Fernando said...

ashraf... whate do you mean aboutt those passages? I really did nott undestood... can you, please, elaborate on them? I woulde nott wante to be mading comments on false ideas... thankes...

Unknown said...

well zachriah i have seen many muslim apologists but none as intellectually dishonest as you in the previous debate between you and shafgufa she had shown you all the sources in your religious books with point to mohammed being a pedophile countless incriminating evidences and you blindly try to deny it and purposely obfuscate the facts by fantasizing about pedophilia in other religous books if you had accepted that moral behavior of your prophet has lot to be answered for on those evidences and the ideology of islam rest with allah and not the moral character or behavior of muhammed you would have been appreciated hence all your posts are ad verbatim slanderous lies to cover for the evil in your religion being passed as the word of god show me modern christian politicians and intellectuals creating terror and violence on other of different religons by quoting from the bible well countless muslim terrorists have done that and you still have the odacity and gumption to still deny the the evil fruits of your religon

minoria said...

Hello:

Zakaria made a point that one should talk of the positive side of Islamic civilization.So in my case I certainly say that the architecture of the mosques in Iran and Afghanistan(not in the other places,like Pakistan,India,Turkey)is really astonishly beautiful.They are alot more beautiful than the Taj Mahal.I say it sincerely.As good as anything produced in the West.

TAJ MAHAL

Go to faithfreedom.org and there is a recent article by a HIndu scholar with proof and references that the Taj Mahal (based on real evidence)was not made by Shah Jahan.That the evidence shows a structure,made by Hindus,was already there.He just made changes to make it look Islamic.But something was already built by Hindus,and modified by Muslims.and we got the Taj Mahal

LITERATURE

Also HAFIZ,the 14th century poet from Iran,was one of the greatest poets of all time.And he was a believer.Omar Khayyam was not,he was an atheist,and his poems are not that good.

SCIENCE

Some very great scientists have been Muslim.But contrary to popular opinion,they didn't invent the scientific method first.They did it later independently.But a genius in the 7th century,a Christian Syrian(or maybe a Greek born there,after all there were still alot of Greeks in the area then)did it and used it to invent Greek Fire.

ABDUL SALAM

The Pakistani scientist was the greatest scientific genius to come out of the Muslim area(area from Morocco to Sudan to Iran to Indonesia) in more than 500 years.

No other scientist from the area in all that time can compare with him.He won the Nobel Prize in Physics.But he was of the Ahmadi group.Abdul Salam always publicly said he was a Muslim,and he was very religious.

There are religious people like Abdul Salam,and non-religious,like MAGDI ALLAM,for 56 years of his life a Muslim.

So,the Sunnis and Shiahs,by rejecting Abdul Salam,can't show almost no scientific contributions by Muslims in 500 years.

Unknown said...

As for Divorce:

Look at how holy was the look of our Lord towards a marriage, that he said they become ONE after marriage , through the work of God.
One in everything. So Divorce in this case is like separating your body a part to solve your problem, and that was never a good solution!! if u have a sever repetitiive migraine, u dont cut your head of to recieve a treatment. But u have to act like a man, take responsobility, and when u marry u shouldnt have the intention of getting divorce, as this simply mean u are child !!

Compare this to mrriage and divorce in isalm :
1: Polygamy for males, prohibited for females ... is this by anyway called equlity ?!
2: Marriage in Islam means Sex !! and so the word Nekah was just used in substitution of marriage in the whole quran !!
3: Men are allowed to have sex with those in the right hand , (in christianity this is called adultery or even prostitution!)
4: u mentioned divorce, great.. would u tell us what happens if a man divorced his wife three times according in Islam ?! he has to get has to get a man not only just marry her but this Mihalel should have a complete coitus with his wife !! what for ?! why the husband male not go do the same ?!
5:wives in islam are allowed to breast feed foreginer males 5 satisfactory times, if they (women icluding your wife) would like to meet them alone!! (what a romantic islamic theme)

The examples of Humilation of woman in islam are just to many ... so I advice u , when u mention a point, try to understand it well, and be consistent .. and not just through some verses and run away, thanks!

Radical Moderate said...

Sepher, I noticed the Iman saying she was married as well. I think thats why she converted to islam. Her husband is a muslim. I also found it funny that the imam made the point of telling all the muslim men in the audiance that she was married. Basicaly breaking out the garden house and spraying down the muslim men.

Radical Moderate said...

I have one thing to say to those that convert to Islam.

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory (Romans 9:22-23)

Yes ladies and gentlemen we have just wittnessed a object of Gods wrath that has been prepaird for destruction, accept their fate and lay down to her destiny.

Christ seperates the wheat from the chaft. Chirst gets the wheat, and mohamed gets the chaft, and in the end it is the muslims who get the shaft.

God is Glorified, the riches of his mercy have been made known to us.

Unknown said...

another pointu touched upon is heaven,

Jesus simply said, no sex in heaven, like angels .. as we dont need to reproduce in heaven!

but in islam u will have sex in heaven just for Fun!! so let me ask you about the islamic perspective:

Will muslim women get 72 virgin boys ?!
Why just virgins ?! is this means that virgins are more precious, so u are unintetnionallly degrading the rest of mulsim women here ?!
What do u call allah who runs this Great Sex house ?!
What if the bomber wants girls with more experience?
What if one virgin is no good in bed? Does she get replaced or is he stuck with 71?
If he's gay, does he get male virgins?
What if he's celibate? What does he get?
What if he hasn't reached puberty yet? Does he get 72 Xboxes till he comes of age?
If he's bisexual, does he get 36 of each?
If he blows himself up while building the bomb, does he still get credit?
What do you call a relationship with 72 women, a menage-a-soixante-deux?
Are they like 72 wives or 1 wife and 71 concubines?
What if he's ugly or smells bad and the virgins don't want anything to do with him?
Is there Viagra in paradise? Ya know, just in case?
Is there an age of consent?
When they're deflowered, do they get replaced by new virgins or are they "born again"?
Do they become his common-law wives eventually?
If he has a tryst with a 73rd virgin, do the others consider it cheating?
Do the virgins have a union? If so, can they strike if they're not satisfied?
Is there a temp agency that replaces virgins if they call in sick?
What if the bomber's into animals? Does he get accommodated?
Why 72? Is 71 too few? Is 73 too many?
If it was a female bomber, how do the male virgins prove their virginity?
What happens when paradise runs out of virgins?
Can a bomber make reservations on specific virgins before he blows himself up?
If there are no virgins available, is he put on a waiting list?
Would you call a female bomber a bombshell?
Would you call a child bomber a bombino?
Is it not 73 out of respect for Barry Bond's home run record?
If the bomber previously dated one of the virgins, does it get awkward?
Do they have a bomb squad in paradise just in case one of the charges didn't go off?
Did they start using female bombers because they ran out of virgins for the guys?
If she's a lesbian, do they "convert" the virgins, or will straight girls suffice her?
Does a hermaphrodite bomber get hermaphrodite virgins?

Unknown said...

If so, are there 72 available?
If they run out of virgins, do they get inflatable dolls till they find more?
If a bomber finds an infidel in paradise, can he blow him up and get 72 more virgins?
Could the Koran have had a typo and it actually provided just one 72 year old virgin?
Is Muslim hell being one of the 72 virgins?
Instead of 72 guys, would a female bomber settle for 1 man who does dishes and garbage?
Do the bombers go broke on Valentine's Day?
If he's monogamous, does he pick one of the 72 or does he get a supermodel?
What if he doesn't like either gender? Does he just klutz around in paradise?
Eternity is long, and eventually he'll grow bored of his 72 women. What happens then?
How does he pick the 72 to begin with? Lottery? Beauty pageant? Police lineup?
Is he allowed to covet his neighbor's virgins?
Do the virgins have agents and/or contracts?
If so, can a virgin request to be traded or put on waivers if she's unhappy?
What should he say if one of the virgins asks "Does this Burka make me look fat?"
If he gives the wrong answer, is he uh, screwed?
How is anyone expected to handle a catfight amongst 72 women?
Did the 9/11 hijackers who didn't know they were going to die get 72 virgins too?
Are scouts employed to find virgin talent?
Do the virgins ever retire, or do they remain virgins forever?
If they retire, what kind of pension plan do they get?
Wouldn't it be interesting if they're virgins because they're ugly?
So is it 72 Muslim girls or like 1 virgin from every culture?
Wouldn't it be sweet if Lorena Bobbit got hired as one of the virgins?
What does Gloria Steinem have to say about all this?
When he gets home, does he have to say "How was your day?" to all 72 virgins?
Do they have counseling for sexual addiction in paradise?
If the virgins start hogging the remote, is he in hell?
They must take up an entire theater when they go to the movies, huh?
Are there restaurants in paradise that can accommodate a reservation for 73?
If a virgin suffers from multiple personalities, is she considered two virgins?
Does he get all the virgins at once, or do they have an installment plan?
Is the bomber entitled to substitutes, exchanges, or refunds?
What if all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put the bomber together again?
Is "not tonight, dear, I have a headache" a valid excuse in paradise?
Do the virgins come with a warranty?
If so, does paradise replace defective parts and provide on-site service?
What do you call a lifetime warranty if you're dead?
Do Siamese twin bombers get 144 virgins?
Who gets to clean up all those nasty sheets?


I hope I will recieve an answer since I already replied your questions about christianity, thx

Yahya Snow said...

OumAmir said...
Maybe Brittany converted so she'd have a shot at getting custody of her children if she and her husband ever divorce.

But I doubt she's thinking that far ahead.


Erm OumAmir maybe the lady (Brittany) converted because she recognised the paganism within Christian dogma (ie the trinity) and don't you think it is possible that she realsed that Islam has a True Abrahamic concept of God which agrees with the first commandment.
Paganism/polytheism (trinity) always loses out when put against the Abrahamic (pure) monotheism.
I would suggest all Christians look into it.

OumAmir, you don't seem to have a positive attitude concerning marriage (evidenced by your intimation of Brittany divorcing at a later date). Is this negativity born out of the Christian marriages (or should I say divorce rates) in the West?

Those in glass houses should refrain from throwing stone.

Also (I assume you are a Christian, tell me if I am wrong) where is the 'love' you Chrsitians seem to exclusify for yourselve? Do you think it is very 'Christian' of you to speak negatively about Brittany's marriage? All this negativity yet you believe one of your gods is inside you (assuming you are a Christian)...food for thought. :)

Thanks for reading, may Allah guide us all. Ameen

Yahya Snow said...

OumAmir said...
Maybe Brittany converted so she'd have a shot at getting custody of her children if she and her husband ever divorce.

But I doubt she's thinking that far ahead.


Erm OumAmir maybe the lady (Brittany) converted because she recognised the paganism within Christian dogma (ie the trinity) and don't you think it is possible that she realsed that Islam has a True Abrahamic concept of God which agrees with the first commandment.
Paganism/polytheism (trinity) always loses out when put against the Abrahamic (pure) monotheism.
I would suggest all Christians look into it.

OumAmir, you don't seem to have a positive attitude concerning marriage (evidenced by your intimation of Brittany divorcing at a later date). Is this negativity born out of the Christian marriages (or should I say divorce rates) in the West?

Those in glass houses should refrain from throwing stone.

Also (I assume you are a Christian, tell me if I am wrong) where is the 'love' you Chrsitians seem to exclusify for yourselve? Do you think it is very 'Christian' of you to speak negatively about Brittany's marriage? All this negativity yet you believe one of your gods is inside you (assuming you are a Christian)...food for thought. :)

Thanks for reading, may Allah guide us all. Ameen

Yahya Snow said...

David Wood said...

where nine-year-old girls are married off to fifty-year-old men? Are you really suggesting that Christianity has a lower opinion of women than Islam?

David Wood, grow up, just grow up my friend. This is a typical unscholarly argument which is found all over the net being propagated by childish deviants/charlatans (many being christian missionaries)

You should know that puberty was the norm at that time as a standard minimum age of consummation for marriage. And yes older men in Semitic (even older than their 50's such as Joseph-Mary) married younger girls. I have an excerpt from my article on this issue for your enlightenment:

To further highlight that the Jewish and Christian ages of consent were puberty we can refer to the well-renowned scholar, Geza Vermes, he teaches us (concerning Jewish customs, which were the customs early Christians adopted too) that betrothing the girl prior to puberty and waiting for the ‘ right biological moment’ to consummate the marriage (ie full wife status) was standard practice. (23) This is exactly what Muhammad (pbuh) did, this is what was the norm in Jewish and early Christian cultures (including the culture of Jesus, Mary and Joseph).


So David Wood, free yourself from the hypocrisy which you are stooped in because Joseph (the step-father of your god, according to your beliefs?!?) took part in a similiar marriage as that of Mohammad (peace be on him).

So if we use a process of deduction we realise David Wood considers the marriage of Mary (he believes her to be the mother of god, which is an oxymoron as God has no mother) and Joseph to be dubious and shows Joseph in a poor light...do you want to venture further and start using the word 'paedophile'? Or do you want to acknowledge the truth of context and cultural norms and stop imposing current secular laws upon innocent people of the past (such as Muhammad and Joseph). Up to you but it is your credibility on the line if you refuse good reasoning.

It is sad that Christians resort to such shoddy and hypocritical argumentation especially while believin a god (holy spirit) is inside them. Hmmm.

David Wood...please read this article for further info:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Accustaion%20of%20Paedophilia%20against%20the%20Prophet%20Muhammed%20%28saw%29%20Refuted

May allah guide us all.

Unknown said...

Yahya said <<< You should know that puberty was the norm at that time as a standard minimum age of consummation for marriage. And yes older men in Semitic (even older than their 50's such as Joseph-Mary) married younger girls >>

1: No Sir This was never the norm, wrong , and I proved the opposite with refterences

2: If norms changes, then Dont ever claim that islam is valid for all ages, especially if u want to set muhammed as a perfect example of humanity

3: How old was Mary when she married Joseph ? what was the intention of this marriage ? any chrisitan reference for the age of joseph u r claiming here? did any christian claimed this is the perfect example for humanity , like do u think we are expecting pregancy without a human father to set this asour example ???

4: 9 years old (in lunar calender)was never the age puberty for a female (unless diseased)

5: Islam clearly allows pedophilia

(All this have been disccussed many several times, last time was on the Deabte bet nabeel and Bassam, .. go take a look there, so I dont want to repeat myself

thanks

Radical Moderate said...

I was going to respond to Zakaria, but then I kept reading Semper and Davids comments. Guys leave some for the rest of us :)

Unknown said...

Yahaya wanted to talk about paganism, great

is the trinity Paganism ?!

woud u explain this to us ?! how do u think trinity is paganism .. so we can take it from there, may be your own understanding is wrong and u r trying to stick it to christians.

But let See Paganism in Islam:
1: why The lunar moon is your logo ?!
2: Why do u practise pagan practises , like fasting ramadan ?
3: Did pagans worshiped Allah too or not ?! dp u even know what is paganism that was present in preislamic arabia ?!
4: Muhammed revealed Satanic verses
5: The Kabba is the house of God, with over 360 pagans were worshiped there !! and wonder what , Muslims pilgrim there !! also pagans pilgrimed there !!
6: Muhammed and muslims Kiss the black stones as pagans did !!

Unknown said...

7: Muslims put Muhammed in the highes rank next or evn above to allah, without declaring him as god.. but automatically this makes them pagans, like:
a: name muhamed is written everywhere in the islamic heave n !
b: Allah, angles, and mulsims pray on muhamed many times daily !!
c: muahemed will sit on Allah throne !
d: Al raheem (in Besm Allah) mean Muhamed !!
e: a muslim cant be a muslim , by just believing in Allah, he has to complete the full witness !! as his faith will not be complete !!
f: Anywhere in the quran, the obedience is to be Given to Allah, and his messenger, and even his messneger alone (mentioned in one verse) , so if this is really just a prophet, why should he ask obedience forhismelf beside Allah ?!
g: Knowledge: muhamed is is allways mentioned next to : Allah and his messnger knows Best !! so claimes to having same knowledge when he was illiterate !!
h: the quran gave speciall privilege to the prophet , as if he is not under the law as others!!
i: Muhamed broke the laws in his quran !! which he alreadt sets for muslims !!

U say Muslims are not pagan, so tell us more about your allah, what is the meaning od 'samad' ?! is he just solid God ?! or this is a living God, who can think and is all eternal ?!

Fernando said...

Yahua Snow --yes, teh samme thate was rebutted thouroughly in is attempt to deny muhammad did nott had sex with a 9 years old girl-- saide: «Erm OumAmir maybe the lady (Brittany) converted because she recognised the paganism within Christian dogma (ie the trinity)»... if someone thinks the Trinity (thate is a true expretion off monotheísm... only those who do not undestand the notion off "upostasis" cant grasp this...) is paganism, he is: either ignorant; or as lack off information; or he could nott grasp the complexity off God's true anture, as God's being shoulde be a numerical simplicity...

And aboutte politeísm: those without any teaths should nott point the possible lack off some off them:

1) let's kiss a black meteorite;

2) stone another one;

3) stand with our bottoms upside like did the pre-islamic pagans in Arabia (and one can bee with his head down without being with it's ass upside);

4) the hajj was a practice off paganns tahte was adopted "as is" into islam;

5) the association of God with a prophet in order to habe an religious identity nott is only shirk, butt an expression commun to antient persian pagans...

does she know all this? I doubt... since this Yahya Snow seams to ignore them...

And Yahya: love is nott paternalism or sentimentalism: love is an exigent realitty: announce and denounce... Brittany, as can clearly be seen, made a chanhe without profound reasons... as our muslim frien Abdul saide: "in Spain we were thought to seduce not so beautifull girls in order to meke them get in love to us so we coulde make them convert to islam and then accept that we marriaed other (more beautifull) women"... so Yahya Snow: since youre religion is such a disrespoectefull one towards God and human geings, I would wach my mouth and heart before starting pointing small dots in otheronnes...

Javier said...

Erm OumAmir maybe the lady (Brittany) converted because she recognised the paganism within Christian dogma (ie the trinity) and don't you think it is possible that she realsed that Islam has a True Abrahamic concept of God which agrees with the first commandment.

Wrong. Muslims like to point out that Islam is 'rational' and 'logical' and when it gains converts they celebrate it like there is no tomorrow. In fact, the statistic of Islam as the fastest growing religion is always on the lips of your pop-apologists. I'm not here to debate the motivations of ones conversion, but it seems as if Muslims will throw any convert out there as an argument for the truth of Islam. In this sense Islam is like modern squishy Evangelicalism.

Paganism/polytheism (trinity) always loses out when put against the Abrahamic (pure) monotheism.
I would suggest all Christians look into it.


And loosely constructed sentences, coupled with vain assertions always leave the reader unimpressed. Care to offer an argument against the existence of our Holy Trinity then do it, but until then you're just rambling.


Also (I assume you are a Christian, tell me if I am wrong) where is the 'love' you Chrsitians seem to exclusify for yourselve?

The love of Christians extends to other Christians in the same sense it extends to non-Christians when they are stuck in damnable error. You sir will die in your sins if you don't repent and we are seeking to correct you before its too late. This is love. I don't know what kind of Muslim hippy you are, but its a good thing. We need hippy Muslims - they're less dangerous.

All this negativity yet you believe one of your gods is inside you (assuming you are a Christian)...food for thought. :)

Just an FYI its the height of blasphemy to outright misrepresent our holy doctrines. Its one thing to argue against the Trinity, its another thing to argue against a straw man of the Trinity.

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow... ounce again trying too prove the impossible aboutte muhhamad nott habing sex withe a pre-pubescent girl? Ready for another debacle? Let's start...

1) the fact thate jewish minimum ages of consent were puberty does nott make tahte muhhamad folowed thate rulle;

2) more: thate was nott, by any means, the normal preocedure as Gaza Veremes also states;

3) where, ounce again, is saide that Mary and Joseph followed that rulle? please: one solid reference and I'll become muslim ounce again;

4) where do you get tahte Mary-Joseph age dofference was more than 50 years? Please: justt one quote from Christian sources and I'll became ounce again a muslim;

5) where is the factt thate Geza Vermes present the Christian age off concent to be puberty? Can you quote him directly? No you can't...

6) The fact Mary is the mother off God derives from the fact she's the mother off the incarnated second upostasis off God made human: she is nott the mother off the divine nature off God, butt she gabe birth to the God made 100% human without lefting being 100% God...


srow upp and learn to bee an honest person Yahya Snow...

youre refference to your full off lies article as been totally destroide by me in this same blog: and you know thate: and my book about thate point is near to printing poit... all your pseudo-arguments are tottaly denounced:

false claims; plagiarism; false logical conclusion; lack off scientific methodology; lack off intelectual honesty; starting an (severel) argument from the conclusion you tried to made; false translations; use off latter haditds (from the 14th and 15th century) in detriment off orthodox ones...

Yahya Snow: as some ex-muslims aide: all the words I eber listened from muslims were tottaly false: they do nott search the truth; they simply creatte false facts to perpetuate theire religion off lies...

Yahya Snow... please: do continue to writte these stouph: it's the best job you're doing to promote the revelation off the truth aboutt islam: lies, difamation, lack off honesty, lack off credebility, lack off knowledge; obcession about the imposition off lies...

Radical Moderate said...

I would like to address the islamic concept of heaven. I find it strange, that of all the things that someone could imagine heaven to be. The one thing that muslims seem to come up with is SEX, WINE, and FOOD.

Now dont get me wrong, I like wine, I like food, and yes I like sex. However as I have gotten older and more mature, I have noticed that I have more control over my bodlily desires then I used to have when I was a pubesent teenager.

It seems to me that muslims collectivly, have the imagination limited to the mind of male teenager going through puberty.

Now I dont know what heaven is going to be like. To be honest although I like sex, i serioulsy hope that there is no need, or desire in heaven for sex.I find it somewhat disturbing to think of Muslims men walking around heaven with perminet erections. To quote a television add "if you have a erection lasting longer then 4 hours seek medical attention"

All though I like wine (actualy I'm more of a beer and Scotch\Irish Whisky man)I would be very dispaointed if heaven is nothing more then my local pub.

How depressing it would be to find out that heaven is slightly better then an all you can eat Buffet.

Now myself I think I would like to be in the center of a star when it goes super nova or ride a surf board on the surface of a star, or ride an electon around the nuculeous of atom.

Time travel, traversing a black hole, floting in a nebula, these things to me are more interesting then things I have experianced on earth.

But if I was to let my imagiantion run wild, it would never compare to the reality of heaven. To be in the presence of the One true living GOD. To see his glory and radiance, is something that nothing can compare to.

faktb said...

Yayha,

It is sad that you studied the atrocious manner that Islam treats women and then stayed in the oppressive religion.

Do you really think that God would permit you to hit your wife?

el Lobo said...

Wood said:
I have to agree with Zakaria that Muslims haven't killed as many people as other groups (though the leaders of the groups who killed were typically atheistic).

But there's a reason for this. Muslim countries have historically been technologically backwards (due to the Islamic tendency to keep a seventh-century framework for life and education),

Just for argument's sake let's limit the historical timeframe to before the 20th century. If we compare the death and destruction up to that point comitted by the christian civilization (in many cases on the basis of christian teachings), it still by far surpasses the islamic civilization.

Spain and England two christian countries are the only two countries that have managed to eradicate an entire people (Canary islands and Tasmania). In addition we have all the thousands of atrocities comitted up to the 20th century like the colonisation of Australia, Americas, Africa, Asia etc. In south america alone about 30 milion indians died as a result of the Spanish colonisation. If you add the numbers you get terrifying figures of the death and destruction caused by christian countries.

If you claim that these examples don't represent christianity then please be kind and loving enough to apply the same criteria on the muslim world.

Freedom of speach can be misused to demonize an entire people. The result can be yet another genocide. The Nazis also used freedom of speach under the weimar republic to entice people to murder and slaughter jews. They were also only spreading the 'truth'.

Wood and your boy Nabeel are you ready to take responsibility if a nutjob who reads your 'truth' about islam decides to kill a muslim family or muslim kids in kindergarden.

with kind regards
Zakaria

LouisJ-B said...

Yahya Snow said:


"Erm OumAmir maybe the lady (Brittany) converted because she recognised the paganism within Christian dogma (ie the trinity) and don't you think it is possible that she realsed that Islam has a True Abrahamic concept of God which agrees with the first commandment.
Paganism/polytheism (trinity) always loses out when put against the Abrahamic (pure) monotheism.
I would suggest all Christians look into it."

When will Muslims understand that the appeal of Unitarianism is due to it' humanness?

You look within yourselves to understand Allah' "many mysteries" and that's probably the payoff isn't it?

God has revealed himself in the scriptures and the assertion that the " True Abrahamic concept of God" is that He is basically like us but with a couple of Omni' is blasphemous.;-)

Hossam said...

Hello everyone,

in order to prevent people such as brittany to convert to islam, one of 30,000 americans as described by Nabeel, David and Nabeel are attacking the islamic teachings on women treatment.

I am not willing to refute your claims about women rights in Islam and so on, these claims are refuted over and over again everywhere in the internet, however, I want to ask you a question: why don't you address the direct reasons that make those "30000 a year" convert to Islam, rather than attacking Islamic teachings about women? you have said explicitly that you are not concerned with converting people to christianity, rather, you are concerned with christians who convert to islam. therefore, I wonder why don't you address the reasons that make them leave christianity in the first place. I will give you some examples of what I'm talking about :

1-The gospels are written by anonymous authors, in another language that Jesus PBUH spoke, who were not even eyewitnesses of Jesus.

2-the earliest fragment of those gospels, which is at the size of a visa card, dates to the second century. whilst the majority of earliest manuscript, on which the N.T is based, dates to between the 3rd and 4th century.

3-Biblical scholars proved that many verses of todays N.T are fabricated by scribers. some of those verses are affecting the basic doctrines of christianity, such as (but not restricted to) the story of the woman guilty of adultery in the gospel of Mark, the resurection of Jesus in the gospel of Mark, and the only verse that explicitly describes the trinity 1st john 5:7.

4.The unexplainable, unlogical concept of trinity.

5.The concept that the creator became a man and had the characteristics of a man and a god at the same time, which by the way contradicts with many verses in the bible like when Jesus prayed and when Jesus said there is no good but the father in heaven (when a man came to him and called him good), and when Jesus denied that he knows the time of the hour.

I expect that David may respond, as usual, by saying: what does this post have to do with Brittany converting to islam. well, I think if you are concerned with people who convert to islam as you explicitly said you should address these issues which are the main problems in christianity, among other issues, that make people convert to christianity.

Sepher Shalom said...

Yahya Snow said: "it is possible that she realsed that Islam has a True Abrahamic concept of God which agrees with the first commandment."

No. That is not possible. The First Commandment tells us to worship YHWH, and have no other elohim. Allah is not YHWH. He is a false deity.

Yahya Snow said: "All this negativity yet you believe one of your gods is inside you (assuming you are a Christian)...food for thought. :)"

Where have you been Yahya?? Christians are monotheists that have only one G-d.

Yahya Snow said: "So David Wood, free yourself from the hypocrisy which you are stooped in because Joseph (the step-father of your god, according to your beliefs?!?) took part in a similiar marriage as that of Mohammad (peace be on him)."

There is no similarity here at all Yahya. Please show me where the Bible tells us what age Mary and Joseph are. It is not conclusively known. Furthermore, Muslims follow the Sunnah of Muhammad, which makes his behavior the perfect standard for all Muslims to copy for all time. There is no "sunnah of Joseph". Because of Muhammad's marriage and consummation with Aisha, we have Muslim men to this day marrying little girls as young as 9 years old even if it causes physical or emotional harm to them. Don't forget, no one can forbid what "Allah" has permitted.

Yahya Snow said: "Or do you want to acknowledge the truth of context and cultural norms and stop imposing current secular laws upon innocent people of the past (such as Muhammad and Joseph)."

This isn't about the past Yahya. This is about today. The age of Mary and Joseph has no impact on people's behavior today, where the age of Aisha is something that affects Islamic behavior today. Why is it so hard for you to grasp this idea?

Also, the last time you made claims about puberty and marriage in Islam, I provided a wealth of information proving that Muslim men can marry prepubescent girls. You ignored it. I will repost it here. Please respond this time.

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2

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

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

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

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn: "And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. "

“'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the 'Iddat for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).” [Link]

"Tafsir Ibn Abbas: "(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months."

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 3

Tafsir Al Wahidi: "Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: ‘Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”

Tafsir Ibn Kathir: "Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying;(and for those who have no courses...)"

Fatwa on child brides:
“Getting married at an early age is something that is confirmed by the book of Allah, the Sunnah of his Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), the consensus of the scholars and the actions of the companions, and the Muslims who came after them. Moreover, the interest of Shariah proves it. So the claim that this was abrogated is not correct.


“The evidence from the Qur'an is:
1. The saying of Allah: "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]". (At-Talaq 65:4). So, Allah set rulings of marriage, divorce and waiting period for the women who have not yet had menses, i.e. the young girls. The Iddah (waiting period) does not take place except after marriage.


“Al Baghawi said, like in Fath Al-Bari,: "There is a consensus of the scholars that it is permissible for the fathers to marry their young daughters EVEN IF THEY ARE STILL IN THE CRADLE, but it is not permissible for the husbands to consummate the marriage with them, unless they become physically fit for sexual intercourse by mature males.


“1. Ali Ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, married his daughter, Um Kulthum to Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and she mothered a child before the death of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam). Omar got married to her while she was young before reaching the age of puberty.”


“Delaying the marriage of girls in many Muslim countries is something new and contradictory to what Muslims used to do over many centuries. This is because of westernization and the application of man-made laws…..By delaying marriage, there is also a reduction in the number of Muslims in the Ummah, and this is contrary to the order of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), as he ordered us to have many children so that the Muslim nation will be greater in number than the previous nations. Allah knows best.” [Link}

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

I await your answer.

[Tafsir quoted from www.altafsir.org; www.tafsir.com]

el Lobo said...

Wood and Nabeel mentioned something about slavery in Islam. Let's see if there are any passages in the new testament that legitimizes slavery:

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian -- presumably Pheliemon.
He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee."

"He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."

Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it. See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian Scriptures.

Slavery has always been part of the christian culture. After the onslaught of secular norms, christians were forced to downplay this practice in order to prevent people from leaving christianity.

N.B The difference between me and the Spirit filled Wood and his boy Nabeel is that I don't have a site in which I propagate against christianity. I'm seeking out the snake nest and debate there instead of creating a mouthpiece for hate and islamophobia. Sorry you are not islamophobes. You are only telling the truth. Exactly as the Nazis thought they did.

With peace and love,
Zakaria

David Wood said...

Zakaria said: "Wood and Nabeel mentioned something about slavery in Islam."

Before I respond to what you've said, please clarify what we said about slavery that made you want to attack Christianity in reply.

David Wood said...

Question: Did Zakaria just compare us to Nazis in a comment in which he's trying to explain how he's not trying to spread hate?

David Wood said...

Hossam,

You say we should focus on the reasons people convert to Islam. You've missed my point entirely. When I meet a convert to Islam, and I ask him why he converted, I almost always get a horrendous answer. Think about Shadid Lewis's reason for leaving the church. His pastor started playing the saxophone! Or think about Paul Williams's reason for becoming a Muslim. Great poetry by Rumi!

When I talk to converts, I find they typically know absolutely nothing about Christianity, and they know even less about Islam. Yet you portray things as if Muslims are converting due to textual-critical issues! People who actually study these issues are rarely bothered. Moreover, if a person actually studies, he will find numerous changes in the Qur'an. So if a person is troubled by textual issues in the Bible, why on earth would he convert to Islam?

And that's exactly my point. People convert without good reasons. That's disturbing.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

I'm not sure what debate you were watching when you concluded that Nabeel hadn't studied the evidence for Christianity. Unfortunately for you, I was with Nabeel for more than four years as he examined the evidence. I was with him when he argued with historical Jesus scholars. I was with him as we wrote out our arguments, watched scholars debate, read books, etc. Do you think four years of studying Christianity before converting isn't enough? What would you say about your friend Paul's examination of Islam before he converted? Can you say with a straight face that you, or Abdullah, or Paul studied Islam as carefully as Nabeel studied Christianity before converting? Be honest now.

el Lobo said...

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


According to Islamic Law, if a
girl is sexually immature such that it would cause harm to her if she engaged in sexual
intercourse, then it is forbidden (haram) to have sex with her.

In other words, age does not matter; all that matters is that the girl has undergone the
pubertal changes that would allow her to endure sexual intercourse without bringing any
harm to herself.

Many christians argue that just because a girl has had her first period she is not fit for consumation. I agree. The opposite also applies namely just because a girl is not post-menarche doesn't mean she has not developed other pubertal chracteristics which makes her fit for consummation.

According to your norms a 16 year old girl who is not sexually mature might consumate marriage. In islam this is haram.

Unknown said...

Zakaria Said:

"If you claim that these examples don't represent christianity then please be kind and loving enough to apply the same criteria on the muslim world"

Well Look at the sources and correlate this to what u see

lets see what islam Provides:

hatred passages and Killing all over the place:

1: Quran
2: hadiths
3: Tafseers and commenteires
4: Sunna of muhammed
5: early msulim writings and actions
6: current muslim behaviour

only thing that goes against that is some recent scholars!!

Compare this to christianity
Any of jesus teaching even said hate not even Kill or fight ?!
Early christian writings and teaching ?!
Eearly christians behaviour ?
Current christian acts and teaching ?
NO

the only thing u claim against that is Behaviour of people who claims themselves as a christian !!

Can u ss the difference ?!

Unknown said...

Hosam: Again you are showing us incosistency, lets see why:

"1-The gospels are written by anonymous authors, in another language that Jesus PBUH spoke, who were not even eyewitnesses of Jesus."

Great let see what was the stages that each book passed with till we have an original print out:

As for the bible:
1. The Holy Spirit (God)
2. the apostles (direct witness of Jesus

If u dont know them, go teach urself, u dont have to be spoon fed to know who are the writers, do ur homework and then ask

yes that it!

The quran:
1. God Created the tablet
2: The angel revealed 7 Ahruf
3: Muhammed reciting the quran to people ( remeber he was illiterate, and so he never proof read what was written)
4: some people try to memorize, some try to write it down on Bone, leaves, stones , dirts and mud ..!!
5: Abu bakr (years later)tried to collect the quran through a team of:
a- collectors
b- witnesses
c- People who recited what they memorize, or what they have written to the collectors !
6: Uthman (years after abubakr): found different versions of the quran, so he set another team :
a- collectors
b- Witnesses
c- Again people it was colleected from
7- uthman burnt the rest of quran, which he didnt see as authentic , so others disagreed !


an now U have the quran, that u claim u have in hand !!

so who is the actual writer of the quran ?! cant see how many people are missing in this chain ?!!

So i really encourage u to reject the quran, because of the so many unkown writers who shared in writing verses in the quran, thanks

el Lobo said...

Wood said:
Question: Did Zakaria just compare us to Nazis in a comment in which he's trying to explain how he's not trying to spread hate?


This is a christian site with a predominantly christian audience. If I respond to your hate message, the risk that one of your christian audience would be so affected by my words in a sea of islamophobic content that he/she went out to kill christians is next to nothing.

But if you think there is a risk, then how much more of a risk is it to run a site and a radio show for the sole purpose of spreading the 'truth' about islam?

I don't have a site nor a radio show that reaches hundreds of thousands of people. I unlike you don't believe in turning the other cheek.

You boast about having 1 million hits on your youtube clip. I urge you to stop your nazi propaganda before some nutjob decides he's had it with muslims and takes an innocent life. Aren't muslims human beings too?
You guys are just carrying out the century old war against muslims by other means, propaganda.
Explain how love, peace and turning the other cheek applies to emphasizing what you percieve as negative in a religion?

Can't you keep christians from converting to islam solely on the merits of christianity?

Wood said:

Before I respond to what you've said, please clarify what we said about slavery that made you want to attack Christianity in reply.

Nice try!

Is slavery allowed in christianity or not?

With love, peace and not turning the other cheek,
Zakaria

Unknown said...

Hossam said:

"2-the earliest fragment of those gospels, which is at the size of a visa card, dates to the second century. whilst the majority of earliest manuscript, on which the N.T is based, dates to between the 3rd and 4th century."

Show us those astonishing quranic MSS that dates directly to muhammed ?! Dont u know that Uthman burnt 6 of the angels revelation ?!!

"4.The unexplainable, unlogical concept of trinity."

whats difficult here ???

"5.The concept that the creator became a man and had the characteristics of a man and a god at the same time, which by the way contradicts with many verses in the bible like when Jesus prayed and when Jesus said there is no good but the father in heaven (when a man came to him and called him good), and when Jesus denied that he knows the time of the hour. "

Why dont u see a problem in Allah becomin a burning tree ?!

beside that the unlogical thing in islam are countless, specially if u want to go from an astheistic prospective !!

Unknown said...

Again Zakaria continuing his deception, why ?

Make a guess what does this means : a YOUNG gurl + Prepubescent ??! does this by anyway called sexually mature ?

Also havent given us your sources

Again u never touched on any of the references mentioned, and asking us to beleve in you ( rember islam allow lying !!)

Lastly on what basis u consider a less than 9 years old gurl to be sexuallu MATURE ???!!

David Wood said...

Zakaria said: "I urge you to stop your nazi propaganda."

Criticizing Islam = Gassing Jews!

As for the slavery, you made a claim about us bringing up the issue. Now tell us what we said. Otherwise, you're just trying to bring up an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention away from Islam. So either show us what we said, or admit that you're trying to divert attention.

Sepher Shalom said...

Zakaria,

Matt. 18:25 is part of a parable...a parable about forgiveness. I really wish Muslims would stop ripping verses out of the parables of Yeshua and taking them literally.

About Onesimus and Philemon: There is some dispute over the historical context of that letter. However, several things are clear when you read it. Let's start at verses 8-10:

"8For this reason, although in the Messiah I have complete freedom to order you to do what is proper, 9 I prefer to make my appeal on the basis of love. I, Paul, as an old man and now a prisoner of the Messiah Jesus, 10 appeal to you on behalf of my child Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment."

Paul clearly says that he has to freedom to "do what is proper", that being to set Onesimus free. However, he is saying he prefers to make a request of Philemon that he be the one that frees him. The language of the letter leaves no doubt that Paul and Philemon know each other quite well. It is reasonable to assume that Paul is confident that his plea will be respected by Philemon. After all, Paul had the title of Apostle amongst the brethren. His opinion carried some serious weight. Also, notice the language Paul uses about Onesimus. He calls Onesimus his very own son! Next look what he tells Philemon to do in verse 16:

"16 no longer as a slave but better than a slave—as a dear brother, especially to me, but even more so to you, both as a person and as a believer."

He tells him to receive Onesimus as if receiving his very own brother and no longer consider him a slave. Now let's move on to verse 18-19:

"18 If he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge it to my account. 19, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. (I will not mention to you that you owe me your very life.)"

How's that for persuasion! "You owe me your very life"...and Paul offers to pay whatever Onesimus owes. The main reason for slavery in those days was to settle debts. In this verse Paul is actually offering to buy the freedom of Onesimus.

So then, this brings up the question, why didn't Paul just tell the believers not to respect the idea of slavery altogether? Because doing so would have immediately turned the entire Messianic movement from a peaceful group of nonviolent believers, into a counter-Roman revolutionary movement. Slavery was part of Roman law. Paul, and Yeshua are both clear that we are to respect secular governments that we happen to live under. We need to follow the laws of the land. Doing otherwise would have given our faith an orientation to the secular world that is like Islam. Namely, one of disrespect, where the goal is to circumvent and overthrow the law of the land and replace it with Sharia. I think current world events speak volumes as to why that is not a good idea. Simply look at all the armed insurgent groups in various places on this globe where Muslims are violently struggling to put Sharia in place as the law of the land.

As for your claim that Paul broke Torah and went against Deut. 23:15-16, no he did not. Paul was in prison at the time he wrote this letter. He was unable to fulfill the Torah directive of taking him in and letting him "live amongst you". What he did instead was, send the heartfelt plea of an Apostle to receive Onesimus as a brother no longer a slave, and offer to buy his freedom. I think that is sufficient, and it certainly fulfills Torah.

Sepher Shalom said...

David said: "As for the slavery, you made a claim about us bringing up the issue. Now tell us what we said. Otherwise, you're just trying to bring up an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention away from Islam. So either show us what we said, or admit that you're trying to divert attention."

So true!! Anything to take the heat and the attention off the problems of Islam. I answered him anyway, since Philemon provides a stark contrast with the behaviors of Muhammad and the early Muslims, and is an example of Biblical love in line with the directives of Messiah :)

I look forward to seeing Zakaria's response to your question of exactly what you said about slavery.

el Lobo said...

The definition of puberty in regards to consummation of marriage is set at sexual maturity not at the first period in islam. The iddah verse applies to girls that haven't got their first period but that nevertheless are sexually mature.

Puberty can not be reduced to menarche (menstruation).

There are many pubertal signs before menarche such as Breast development and development of Vagina, uterus, ovaries which develop during pubarche and thelarche. Menstruation start after these two stages of pubertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty#Puberty_onset.

Moreover, on the other hand, not every girl follows the typical pattern, and some girls ovulate before the first menstruation. Although unlikely, it is possible for a girl who has engaged in sexual intercourse shortly before her menarche to conceive and become pregnant, which would delay her menarche until after the birth. This goes against the widely held assumption that a woman cannot become pregnant until after menarche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche).

with kind regards
Zakaria

Radical Moderate said...

Response to Hossam Part 1
Hossam you made a few of the same accusations that another Muslim made on a previous post. This Muslim on more then one occasion threatened to leave this blog forever and vowed never to return, because we were mean to him. I wonder if you are him under a different name. Either way I will respond to one of your accusations.

Accusation number 3.

3-Biblical scholars proved that many verses of today’s N.T are fabricated by scribers. some of those verses are affecting the basic doctrines of Christianity, such as (but not restricted to) the story of the woman guilty of adultery in the gospel of Mark, the resurrection of Jesus in the gospel of Mark, and the only verse that explicitly describes the trinity 1st john 5:7.

I wonder what Biblical scholars you are referencing? Could it be Bart Ehrman?
First do you know what the basic doctrines of Christianity actually are? I will give you a hint. We Christians preach Christ Crucified. Can you find me a single biblical scholar who says Christ was not crucified as the Quran claims? Another basic doctrine of Christianity is that Christ not only died but rose from the dead on the third day. Can you find me one textual critic of the New Testament that says the verses in Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John documenting Christ rising from the dead are fabrications? Can you find me a textual variant that says Christ was not crucified did not die on the cross and did not rise from the dead on the third day?

Now you mentioned the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of Mark. Just a correction the woman caught in adultery is in the Gospel of John not Mark. But either way how does this affect the basic doctrine of Christianity. You do know that this story does not permit adultery. In the story Jesus says words to the affect of “Then go and sin no more”. Also you would have to forget all the verses where Jesus said words to the affect of “Forgive and you will be forgiven … do not judge or you will be judged … with same measure that you judge someone you will also be judged … take the plank out of your own eye before you see the dust in your brothers eye … and many other such verses.

Now to the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20. You claimed that the longer ending fabricates the resurrection of Christ. Let’s look at the verses that are not in dispute in Mark.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."(Mark 16:6-7)

Notice that Mark makes the claim that Christ has risen from the dead and that the Risen Christ will appear to the disciples.

Radical Moderate said...

Response to Hossam Part 2
And finally your claim that 1st john 5:7 describes the doctrine of the trinity. You do realize that the Doctrine Trinity is the answer to the questions that the bible raises. For instance how can the bible say that no one has seen God, yet people have seen God? How can God be sitting on his majestic thrown in Heaven and at the same time be hovering over the water before creation. How can God be in Heaven and at the same fill the tent of meeting and latter Temple itself? How can God be in heaven and at the same time be walking in the garden with Adam and Eve? How can God be in heaven and at the same time is speaking and eating with Abraham? How can Gods Spirit speak, teach, instruct, grieve, get angry, be rebelled against, testify to man and testify to God on the behalf of men? How Can Christ be the word of God, be the very nature of God, and humble himself to becoming weak in the form of a man? How can Christ, claim to be the Great I AM? How can Christ forgive sins? How can Christ say that he is the Bread of life from Heaven? Well that’s enough for now.

So let’s take a look at the disputed text.
The King James Translation says “ 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
The ESV critical Text and NASB says “7For there are three that testify:”

So we have both texts saying that there are Three that Testify. Who are these three that testify? Both ESV and NASB say that it is “8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” Or in the case of the KJV “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

So on both sides of the spectrum, the KJV from the TR Byzantine texts, and the ESV and NASB from the Alexandrian text agree that it is the Spirit, Water and the Blood that testify, and that these three agree.

So now the real question what is the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood testifying to?
We read in verse 6 that it is Jesus who came by water and blood, and that it is the Spirit who testifies because the spirit is the truth. Next we read in verse 9 that God’s testimony is greater then men and that the testimony of God is “10Whoever believes in the Son of God(P) has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God(Q) has made him a liar,(R) because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us(S) eternal life, and(T) this life is in his Son. 12(U) Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

So you can see from an examination of the text, that the textual variant in the KJV has no real impact on the meaning of the text.

Now what you really should be focusing on is what the text says about the Islamic doctrine in verses 9-12. As a Muslim you deny that Christ is the Son of God, and since it is God who testifies that Christ is his son you call God a liar. And since you deny the son you do not have eternal life.

el Lobo said...

Wood said:
As for the slavery, you made a claim about us bringing up the issue. Now tell us what we said. Otherwise, you're just trying to bring up an irrelevant topic in order to divert attention away from Islam. So either show us what we said, or admit that you're trying to divert attention.

In your Brittany clip you talked among other things about islam and slavery in an attempt to discourage people from converting to islam.
Since you refuse to answer my question I take it that slavery is allowed in christianity. Good now where getting somewhere.

Forget about Nazism for a second and answer the following question that you so far have avoided:

Are you and your boy Nabeel willing to take responsibility for your so called truth about islam in the event of some christian nutjob acting on your 'information' and goes out killing innocent muslims?

Wood said:
Criticizing Islam = Gassing Jews!

Now you're being dishonest again. I never said that. My point was draw an analogy to what preceded gassing jews, namely
people spreading the 'truth' about jews.

with kind regards,
zakaria

David Wood said...

Zakaria, If a nutjob kills a Muslim, no, we're not responsible. The nutjob is responsible. (If a nutjob reads about you comparing us to Nazis, are you responsible for him killing us?) And how many nutjobs to you think are going to go around killing Muslims because of our "Brittany Converts to Islam" video?

And while we're on the subject of responsibility for killing, how many Christians, Jews, and pagans have been killed thanks to Muhammad's words in the Qur'an? Surely if you're going to hold us accountable for deaths that will never happen (even though we condemn violence) all the more you should condemn Muhammad, whose explicit commands to kill pagans and to fight Jews and Christians have resulted in countless deaths. Be consistent for once.

As for the slavery issue, PLEASE GIVE ME A QUOTATION!!! You know you're bringing up the issue to deflect attention away from Islam. So I'm asking you again to give us a quotation in which we condemned Islam for slavery.

Zakaria said: "Now you're being dishonest again."

You accused us of spreading "nazi propaganda." And I'm dishonest for saying that you're comparing our actions to those of Nazis? Who's being dishonest?

Unknown said...

Zakaria said: {Can't you keep christians from converting to islam solely on the merits of christianity?}


I reallyy Dont understand if this man understand what he is writing !!! everytime he showed me that he doesnt !!

Why I am say thing again now ?! let me explain

Sir, would u explain to us why did muhammed recieved his revelation ?! every muslims says because of the corrupted christianity !! So u r the one who started attacking christianity, yet u are telling us why we deal with ?! because u directly did that 14 centuries ago , with complete ignorance !!

Aso Look at the quran, hadith and tafseer, scholars; how they deal with christian doctrines ?! and u are asking us to keep quite ?! really !

I advice you to delete these verses dealing with deity of christ, crucifiction..etc and then we might stop discussing the falsehood of islam.

And to be consistent, Why dont u preach for islam without refusing Jesus Deity, crucifiction and resurrection ?!


Zakaria Also Talked about Puberty:
First I am not going to old u using wikipedia as a refernce here, so u dont do the same if some one used it as a refernce against u , deal ?!

second Still u dont undertsant what u are quoting, menarche is one of the last changes that occur dring puberty, so not starting menarche means that the gurl is still immature sexually !! yes she started to have changes of puberty, but not reached full puberty!! so still immature, consequently Aisha was immature !! and that is because islam allows pedophilia , following the great Pedophilicus in Islamic History !!

el Lobo said...

Shafshaitan said:

yes she started to have changes of puberty, but not reached full puberty!!

Who said anything about full puberty. My point was that puberty consists of stages before the menstruation. Some girls who have gone through those stages before menarche are sexually mature to consumate marriage. The idda verse do not refer to any odd child. It refers to girls who have not necessarily reached full puberty but nevertheless are mature enough to physically be able to have sex. That was ok in those days.
Today when girls mature later and due to it being a stigmatized practice, the mental well-being of girls must be taken into account in order to avoid harm to them.
A fundamental principle in islamic law is to avoid harm. This principle is applied to this issue. So unless you can show that islamic law allows consumation of marriage regardless of whether it causes harm or not and regardless of the degree of sexual maturity you are bearing false witness against millions of people who lived hundreds of years ago.

I'm curious to know it what sense christianity is a religion of love when it allows slavery?

Millions of girls have sex in your society before reaching full puberty. Some do not reach full puberty until in their twenties. Aren't they allowed to marry?

First I am not going to old u using wikipedia as a refernce here, so u dont do the same if some one used it as a refernce against u , deal ?!

Well I'm not referring to a holy book here. Feel free to investigate the source.

el Lobo said...

Wood said:

As for the slavery issue, PLEASE GIVE ME A QUOTATION!!! You know you're bringing up the issue to deflect attention away from Islam. So I'm asking you again to give us a quotation in which we condemned Islam for slavery.

Who said you condemned islam for slavery?
I only want to know if slavery is allowed in christianity?
It's a simple yes or no question.

Wood said:
And while we're on the subject of responsibility for killing, how many Christians, Jews, and pagans have been killed thanks to Muhammad's words in the Qur'an? Surely if you're going to hold us accountable for deaths that will never happen (even though we condemn violence) all the more you should condemn Muhammad, whose explicit commands to kill pagans and to fight Jews and Christians have resulted in countless deaths. Be consistent for once.

You just admitted that the christian civilisation are responsible for more killing than the muslim society. You blame it on technological development. In Rwanda hutus managed to kill 1 million tutsies with machetes. I don't think technology is the only factor.
How many non-christians during western colonialism were killed thank's to the words of who ever wrote the OT and NT.

Basically what you are saying is: since islam encourages violence (according to my christian skewed perspective) I have the right to spread propaganda against muslims with the possible side effect that hatred towards muslims increases and leads to violence.

In order to justify your propaganda campaign you use propaganda. Do you think the nazis justified their propaganda against jews by saying that they are nice people. They among other things attacked their OT on the same basis as you attack islam.

nma said...

People convert to Islam after fallible and dubious investigation, analysis and study. And the same goes for converting to communism, Nazism etc. But as for Christianity, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:46)

minoria said...

Hello:

I didn't know Nabeel had actually studied Christianity for 4 years before converting.I studied it for 2 years,and continued to study.So he was more through than I.

I am willing to give $40 a month for the radio show.I hope you can make it weekly.

Regarding the convictions of Yahya Snow,Zakaria,Hossam and Paul Williams that Islam is true,I can only repeat that it isn't so due to the fact Mohammed isn't in the gospel of John.He's supposed to be there.He's not.Muslims who see him there are only imagining it.Even if Christianity is false it won't change the fact the Koran is dead wrong about Mohammed in the gospel.

So again,examine the counter-arguments for Mohammed in the gospel with impartiality.He's not there.

For Fernando:you are doing a great job of telling us about Bartolome de las Casas,Father Vieira and Francisco de Vitoria and their work against injustice and imperialism.I know about them,but how many Christians and Muslims know?

UNCLE TOM

It's a great novel.It was written by HARRIET BEECHER STOWE,a fervent Christian and abolitionist in 1851.It was one of the reasons for the Cvil War (1861-65)that ended slavery.

Abraham Lincoln,when he met her personally,told her that her book had caused the Civil War.He meant that because of it alot of people became anti-slavery.

WHY DID SHE WRITE THE BOOK?

In 1850 they passed the Fugitive Slave Law.Then in the US there where free states(slavery was outlawed)and slave states.The new law said that even if a slave reach a free state the master had the right to capture him there and take him back.So then slaves had to go all the way to Canada.

THE STORY

"Uncle Tom,or Life Among the Lowly"is about a slave called TOM.He is a fervent Christian who reads the Bible everyday.That is the most astonishing detail of the novel.Not that he read the Bible but that he could read at all.Hardly any of the 4 million US slaves was literate.Hhmmm,already the story is looking good.

TOM IS SOLD

He is well-treated by the SHELBY family in Kentucky.But due to financial difficulties his master decides to sell him and a 5-year old boy.13-year old GEORGE SHELBY,the son,swears to Tom that when he grows up he will find him and buy hm back and free him.

Unknown said...

Zakariais trying to convince everyone here, that as soo as a gurl STARTS TO HAVE CHANGES of puberty then she is ready to marry , regardless of menarche !!!

wow !! and even more, he asked me to investigate this for him !! why dont u do your homework onetime ?! just waiting for other to investigate issues for you ??

Ok, why dont you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty

"Diagnostic criteria
Studies indicate that breast development in girls and pubic hair in girls and boys are starting earlier than in previous generations.[4][5][6][7] As a result, "early puberty" in children, particularly girls, as young as 9 and 10 is no longer considered abnormal, although it may be upsetting to parents.[7]

No single age limit reliably separates normal from abnormal processes in children today, but the following age thresholds for evaluation will minimize the risk of missing a significant medical problem:

Pubic hair or genital enlargement in boys with onset before 9.5 years.
Breast development in boys before appearance of pubic hair and testicular enlargement.
Pubic hair before 8 or breast development in girls with onset before 7 years.
Menstruation in girls before 10 years. "

So I wonder if the islamic treatment is just marriage ?! is that what u mean ?!

Wont u ever respect your self, so that someone may respect you ?! (like u try to mutilate my name, and earlier u insulted Nabil, and try to call him Boy, while he is doctor) however thanks for showin us the islamic truth !!

About slavery:
I know that jesus didnt have slaves, even more he served everyone, on the contrary, muhamed has a slave to handle him his shoes, and allowed sex with female slaves, even those who were just captured !!

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

To continue:

ESCAPE

ELIZA,the 5 year-old boy's mother,decides to escape with him to avoid the sale.She crosses the frozen Ohio River.She is helped by her husband,who had escaped ahead of her.Their idea is to make it to Canada.

SLAVE-CATCHER

They are chassed by TOM LOCKER,slave-catcher.He is wounded by Eliza's husband,who shot him.She doesn't him to die,so they take him to a Quaker's home,to be taken care of.He recovers and becomes a changed man,opposing slavery.

MEANWHILE

TOM is taken down the Missisipi.There he gets to know a little girl called EVA.Her father AUGUSTINE ST. CLARE,believes in slavery but has nothing personal against blacks.His relative,a Northerner,OPHELIA,is against slavery but is racist against blacks.Now the story is becoming even more interesting.

TOPSY

To prove to Ophelia that blacks aren't inferior Augustine gives her his slave Topsy,a girl,to educate.That way she will see they are as intelligent as whites.Topsy is the typical black person of the time,due to society,illiterate and uneducated.

EVA IS SAVED

Eva falls into the river and is saved by Tom.Later she falls ill and dies,but before she has a vision of heaven.So impressed are people that Augustine becomes an abolitionist and promises to free Tom.Ophelia renounces racism and promises to educate Topsy.

minoria said...

BUT...

Augustine dies before he can free Tom.Tom is sold to LEGREE,a cruel man.He likes whipping his slaves.He forces a slave called EMMELINE to sleep with him.He forbids Tom to continue reading the Bible.

He tells Tom to whip the other slaves,which he refuses to do.Tom has a vision of Jesus and is greatly fortified spiritually.CASSEY,another slave,decides to escape with Emmeline,and is helped by Tom.

DEATH OF TOM

Legree tells Tom to tell him where Emmeline and Cassey have escaped.Tom refuses and 2 white men are ordered by Legree to whip Tom to death.Before he dies Tom forgives his executers.The 2 men are so impressed that they become Christian.George Shelby,when he becomes an adult,goes South to find Tom.But he finds out Tom is already death.He returns to Kentucky,frees all his slaves and becomes an abolitionist.

Radical Moderate said...

Zakaria said...
“The definition of puberty in regards to consummation of marriage is set at sexual maturity not at the first period in Islam. The iddah verse applies to girls that haven't got their first period but that nevertheless are sexually mature.”

I have to say even for a Muslim this post is disgusting. I have thought I had heard it all now a Muslim is arguing that the first period is not the sign of sexual maturity.

You mentioned other signs of sexual maturity "Breast Development". There are petite women, size 0 who do not develop breasts until pregnant.

You mentioned “There are many pubertal signs before menarche such as Breast development and development of Vagina, uterus, ovaries which develop during pubarche and thelarche. Menstruation start after these two stages.” You then post every Muslims favorite source WikiPedia.

I have no idea where you took your sex Ed, but "girls have Vagina's and boys have penises". We have these things at birth we don’t develop them at puberty. Obviously you do not have any daughters or never changed a younger sisters dippers.

So tell me how is a 7th century or any man to know when a girl has fully developed uterus, or ovaries? These things are not worn on the outside of a female’s body.

Now let me just say from a historical perspective I have no problem with Mohamed or any other 7th century Arab marrying and having sex with his pre pubescent child bride. This was a common practice in 7th century pagan Arabia. The problem that I have is that Mohamed is declared by Muslims to be the perfect example of a Man. So everything he did including his toilet habits is to be imitated and it is holy. So that set the standard for marriage for everyone at all times. And this standard is based on 7th Century pagan Arab social norms and customs.

Now let me tell you a few sings that a woman is developed into sexual maturity.
1. She does not play with dolls.
2. She has lost all her baby teeth and her adult teeth have grown in. Nine year olds still have some baby teeth, and some adult teeth have not yet grown in. I would hate to see the Islamic version of the tooth fairy.

Well I have spent enough time on this post. So before I go and vomit let me just say that if you want to hang outside a local elementary school waiting for the 3rd or 4th grade class to let out to find your first, second, third or fourth wife. Do that in an Islamic country. Don’t do that in the west. Especially in my neighborhood. If you do, you will pray the police get to you before the parents do...

minoria said...

As for slavery being allowed n Christianity,the answer is no.In Christianity the Law given to us by Jesus is the GOLDEN RULE,also called the ETHIC of RECIPROCITY.

It is the core of the ethical system.Taken to its logical conclusion it condemns not only slavery but:sexism,colonialism,imperialism,racism,violation of human rights.

CHRISTIANS WHO SAW CLEARLY

It was because the logic was so obvious that BARTOLOME DE LAS CASAS(his name means Bartholomew of the Houses)(1474-1566)fight his whole life against American Indian slavery in the Spanish Empire.He also clearly condems black slavery 3X in his book "History of the Indies".It's a history of the Spanish Empire from 1492 to the 1520's.His work resulted in the official outlawing of Indian slavery by the Spanish king in 1547.(called the Law of the Indies)

OTHERS

WILLIAM WILBERFORCE of England,who fought against the slave trade,was its leader,and was also a Christian.HARRIET BEECHER STOWE did her part in writing Uncle Tom's Cabin.The great leader of the abolitionist movement in the US was WILLIAM GARRISON,a Christian.He was:

1.For IMMEDIATE emancipation of slaves,not gradual.
2.For the complete CIVIL and POLITICAL equality of blacks.
3.For the right of women to vote.

OTHERS

Atheist DIDEROT,famous for his Encyclopedia,and the deist philosopher and brilliant writer VOLTAIRE,were against slavery.Their ideas resulted in the 1789 Declaration of Human Rights and the abolition of slavery in 1794 by France.

I ask,have any Muslim intellectuals in the past ever fought against slavery?Why not?

ANSWER:it's because the Koran doesn't emphasize the Golden Rule like the NT does,doesn't put it at CENTER STAGE:James 2:8/ Matt 7:12/Luc 6:31/Rom 13:8-10/Galat 5:14.

Paul defines love in 1 COR 13:1-8/13:13.He says the Law of God=Law of Christ in 1 COR 9:21 and has Law of Christ again in GALAT 6:1-2.He also says the Law(which is the Golden Rule for him)can be discovered by others by themselves(ROM 2:14-15)

nma said...

Mohammed knew that a 52 year old man's marrying a 6 year old was bad, wrong and disgusting. That is why he tried to justify it with a concocted excuse that Allah had given him permission to do so.

Unknown said...

So I wonder Now, if Britanny will marry her 5 - 6 years old daughter to a 52 years old man, to follow Sunna of Allahs' messenger ?!

Or if her husband married a 6 years old 2nd wife , also to follow Allah's messnger , was she informed about those things ?!

Or what will her husbnad be doing in islamic heaven ?!

etc

Sepher Shalom said...

Since minoria has aptly mentioned Wilberforce, and others who were against slavery, I found a very interesting piece written by Theodore D. Weld called, The Bible Against Slavery written in 1837. It's interesting reading.

On another note, I want to affirm precisely what minoria said. The teaching of Yeshua that we are to "do to others as we would have done to us", and many of the related verses, when taken to their logical conclusion, absolutely exclude the idea of a believer in Messiah owning slaves.

Fernando said...

Zakaria: ounce again you're running away off topic as a crying baby woulde do: all your claims are vain and unfonded... ounce again: «an action to be made in name off X must bee done by people who say theu foloow X and in coherence withe the teachings off X... none off the realities you presented were made by Christianity, since tose actions habe nothing to do with Jesusu's teachings»...

And Zakaria: no, Christianity DO NOT accept slavery...

About your biblical texts (and again you're simply plaing the stupid arguments here. since your lack off knowledge off the Bible is horrendous):

Matthew 18:25: thates a Parable! Do you know whate is a parable? How stupid can bee some attempt (not someone... you must bee bery cleaver in order no block intelectually all thate you know for true) to say the Bible accepts the slavery when one must pick up a parable to justify thate claim? How far can a muslim goo in order to make false claimes? Disgusting!

About Paul and Onesimus: Paul says clearly: do nott «accept him as a slave, but as a brother» (16)... ounce again: How stupid can bee some attempt (not someone... you must bee bery cleaver in order no block intelectually all thate you know for true) to say the Bible accepts the slavery when one must pick up text thate do not endorse slavery? How far can a muslim goo in order to make false claimes? Disgusting!

Aboutt denying Deuteronomy 23:15-16... after Jesus nothing in the OT is taken for granted iff Jesus plenified the OT message making it more clear... butt this text is only speaking in giving back a slave; Paul did not do thate: he gabe back a brother!!!

So Zakaria: we are all waitting arounde gere for the texts you claime were in contradiction in the Bible... the only snake arounde here woulde bee the one making false claims and trying to divertt the attentions to other topics...

Ounce again: can you prove thate the attrocities you listted were made in connection withe Biblical proceadures? For us is SOOOOO easy to make a list off atrocities made bie muslims in accordance to muslim sources!!!

1) the massive deportation off people from the Balcans by the Otoman Empire;

2) the massive killing off Jews in Fez in the year off 1465 thate, in onne single event, killed more people than the entire Inquisition in 800 years!!!

3) the killing off 5.000.000 autoctonous people arounde the eastearn shore off Africa;

4) the killing off 80.000.000 peolpe in India;

5) the killing off 3.000.000 peolpe in 700 yaers off ocupatiion off the Iberia Peninsula during "the golden age" off religious tolerance;

6) all the actuall human atrocities in the world are being comited by muslims following the muslims texts: Nigeria; Sudan; Pakistan; Afeganistan; Bangladesh; Somalia... only in the last 5 years 3.000.000 non muslims were killed by muslims in accordance to the actions prescribed in muslim sources...

Zakaria: whate a snake your action makke you seam... butt I do nott beliebe in thate: I guess you're only a disturbed person tahte has to make psychological blocades in order to keep himself a muslim... to sad to see how much you're suffering... my heart is withe you, my frien: may the Holy Trinity bless you and your family!!!

Anonymous said...

David Wood said: Yahya,

I'm not sure what debate you were watching when you concluded that Nabeel hadn't studied the evidence for Christianity. Unfortunately for you, I was with Nabeel for more than four years as he examined the evidence. I was with him when he argued with historical Jesus scholars.


Oh really? shame he was unable to cope with Paul's familiarity with MAINSTREAM Historical Jesus Scholarship, he seemed entirely unfamiliar with Jimmy Dunn's book Christology in the Making also. This was apparent at the dinner and at the debate between himself and Paul, ironically we all also overheard you telling Nabeel to focus on Islam at that dinner, for even you knew Nabeel had been truly outclassed with knowledge of Historical Jesus. Unless you consider repeating the same mantra of Bauckam and Hurtado to be real familiarity with Scholarship.

I was with him as we wrote out our arguments, watched scholars debate, read books, etc. Do you think four years of studying Christianity before converting isn't enough?

Ok, maybe you were, I could care less if you were with him or if Mike Licona or Dr. James White was with him to be honest, it still seems he hadn't done his reading.

As for the number of years studying both religions, truly I don't believe you or I can trivialise these things by reducing them to year counts, people can research religion on and off for four years and still do very little reading and if Bauckam and Hurtado are all you can cite then heck, that is too little and too basic research.

Which Scholars of Islam did Nabeel communicate with by the way?

What would you say about your friend Paul's examination of Islam before he converted?

He needs to read more and focus on these issues, if he raises them with Christianity. I am critical of many on that note.

Can you say with a straight face that you, or Abdullah, or Paul studied Islam as carefully as Nabeel studied Christianity before converting? Be honest now.

David, I find it very sad that one difficulty you find is reading an entire section of writing be it in books or on blog posts, I believe I conceded both here and on Premier, that I converted to Islam not knowing all that much but after a brief stint with agnosticism due to encountering loads of difficult things I hadn't known- I research and became Muslim again through intensive research. I believe I've read more than you and Nabeel put together on the subject of Islam.

As for Paul, well No, I doubt he had. However at least he read books on both sides, not just from Fundamentalist scholars.

As for Abdullah, lol Hell yeah he searched and investigated more than Nabeel.

minoria said...

A bit more on the NT and slavery.I have already given the verses for the ETHIC of RECIPOCITY,or Golden Rule,which Hillel,Akiba,the author of Tobit,Paul,James and Jesus got from LEV 19:18/19:34.
For those who believe the Torah is really from Moses then it contains the EARLIEST appearence of the Golden Rule(1400 BC).

Earlier than Confucius,the Mahabharata,Isocrates,Seneca,Buddha,etc.I also said it appears 2X in the Koran.It has not had a major influence,but in fairness it is there.After all there is still slavery in the Muslim world,since the 7th century,in Sudan and Mauritania today.They say also in Saudi Arabia,though I'm not sure.

NT

Paul was a Pharisee.He knew that in the Torah,in DEUT. 23:15-16,there is the astonishing law that,taking it literally,says that a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master.

That conforms to the Golden Rule.In 1 COR 7:20-21(in a letter considered authentic by all) he says to slaves that if they can become free,to do so.

NATURE OF SUBMITTING

In EPHESIANS 5:21-22 he says
"submit yourselves TO EACH OTHER in fear of CHRIST.Wives,submit to your husband,as to the LORD."

Notice we have Jesus in both verses,and the submitting is mutual,one believer submitting to one,and the other likewise.

Then in EPHES 6:5-9 it has about masters and slaves.EPHES 6:5-7 actually says that slaves are to serve the master "like CHRIST","like serving the LORD,not men".

STRONG WORDS

He even says for them to do it "as servants of Chrst,who willingly do the will of God."But in EPHES 6:9 he tells to the master:"you,MASTER,do the SAME regarding THEM(the slaves)."That goes with the Ethic of Reciprocity,and by logic would go against slavery.

REMEMBER:

Before in the letter of Ephesians,chapter 5,he had said that believers must Mutually Submit to Each Other:that would mean masters submitting to their slaves.

AGAINST SLAVETRADING

You find it in 1 TIM 1:10,where it talks against "kidnappers",which then included slave hunters.REVELATION 18:9-13 condemns the slave trade (verse 13).

SO?

So,condemning the slave trade also condemns slavery by logic.Why?Because a slave trader sells a human for a price.He HIMSELF,for a while,is a slaveowner,he has slaves.

Nakdimon said...

@ Fat Man on 1 John 5:7

In addition to all you said, this is a 16 century addition to the text. Muslims should make up their minds already: either they claim that the scribes of the TR in the 16th century needed to add that piece to the text to bolster the Trinity, or the trinity was forced on the Church by Constantine at the Council of Nicea 1300 years earlier. If the former then how come the doctrine of the Trinity was established centuries before? If the latter then there was no need for the TR scribes to insert that verse into the text since the Trinity was already known for centuries.

Make up ur mind already!

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Brother Nakdimon said: «Make up ur mind already!»... all islam is twistting and turning facts, evidences, history and so on... that's the only way a lie can subsist: keep on lyingue...

Nora said...

Yahya-

I don't have a low view of marriage; I have a low view of Muslim men marrying western women who have no idea what they are getting into.

Chennai Man said...

\\Are you really suggesting that Christianity has a lower opinion of women than Islam?//

Yes professor. I just highlighted few versus from your holy bible, but there are many more versus in your holy book humiliating women. That’s why huge amount of woman like Brittany coming to Islam. By the way, as long as you guys (Acts 17) resist Islam and spread false messages about Islam amongst Christians, surely will help Islam. Thanks professor for indirectly propagating Islam. You know throughout the history of Islam, Muslims always confronted someone like abu jahal, abu lahab etc…

\\When I talk to converts, I find they typically know absolutely nothing about Christianity,//

This is pure 100% jealousy & baseless allegation. For the sake of argument if it is true, why you worried about them, let them go professor.

Regards,

Unknown said...

Ashraf said:

[Yes professor. I just highlighted few versus from your holy bible, but there are many more versus in your holy book humiliating women.]

Cant u read that all what u highlighted have been answering, and we are waiting for your consistency in order to answer us what we asked u ?!

[ That’s why huge amount of woman like Brittany coming to Islam.]

Thats what we talking about, it is all about deception, go watch the video false advertisement at ISNA on youtube by Acts 17

[By the way, as long as you guys (Acts 17) resist Islam and spread false messages about Islam amongst Christians, surely will help Islam. Thanks professor for indirectly propagating Islam. You know throughout the history of Islam, Muslims always confronted someone like abu jahal, abu lahab etc… ]

You are welcome, we are just trying to help propagate for islam.
If u want to share, u can help in the costs of conducting the radio show and debates, so u can propagate for islam further through us!!

[This is pure 100% jealousy & baseless allegation. For the sake of argument if it is true, why you worried about them, let them go professor.]

Why let them go, if u think this really propagate for islam ?!

Regards,

Anthony Rogers said...

Ashraf said: "You know throughout the history of Islam, Muslims always confronted someone like abu jahal, abu lahab etc…"

Yes, we are all only to aware of things like this. We are also aware of how Islam deals with its Abu Lahab's and Abu Jahl's; it is seen in seed form in the videos of the Dearborn incident, and in countless other incidents around the world and on an ascending scale of horrendousness. That is why ministries like Acts 17 are so necessary. Thanks for the reminder and the encouragement to us all.

Of course David and Nabeel are not at all in the same class as the two you mentioned, and from our vantage point we may just as well point out that Judaism and Christianity have always had their false prophets to deal with, from the followers of Baal, Asherah, Chemosh, and Dagon on down to Allah.

minoria said...

Hello:

I haven't read DUNN's Christology in the Making.But I am familier with the material.I also know the ideas of GEZA VERMES and JAMES TABOR.So I would like to address the issue.I see Yahya agrees with Dunn.So if I say anything about the subject and of which Dunn adds something new,(that I haven't covered)then it would be good to be told by Yahya.

DUNN

By his title I assume he believes Jesus never said he was God.Nor the apostles.It was added later.Because if Dunn believes the apostles actually said Jesus was God (whether Jesus said it or not)then writing the book was a waste of time.

IDEAS

I don't agree but I will go with the idea that Mark is from 70-75 AD,Matt and Luc,80-85 AD.There Jesus is God,no doubt.

EARLIEST MATERIAL

It would be:

PAUL:

He says Jesus was God in ROMANS 9:5,his own words.(date:50's AD)

Q

230 verses common to Luke-Matthew.It has several "Son of Man" sayings(they are 50 sayings in all found in the 4 gospels).There we have no saying about him claiming Deity.(date:50 AD)

CARMEN CHRISTI

Around 45-50 AD.Hymn-creed found in PHILIP 2:6-11.Not by Paul,it says 3X Jesus was God.It says he was killed("the DEATH of the CROSS",verse 8).

1 COR 15 CREED

It's the earliest.The Jesus Seminar puts it at 2 years after Jesus' death.And from the JERUSALEM area,not 1,000 away in Rome.GERD LUDEMANN,atheist scholar,the most famous NT scholar in Germany,puts it at 3 years.It has the death,burial and resurrecion of Jesus.

minoria said...

To continue:

GEZA VERMES,he is a Jewish scholar from Hungary,who was for several years a Catholic priest.In his "Jesus,the Jew" he says that Jesus was a good,pious Jew.So he never said he was God.He was 100% Jewish.Deity was an addition.

IT MAKES SENSE

If he was a good,religious Jew like Hillel,Akiba,Ben Zakkai,the BESHT,Maimonides,Nachmanides,etc,then of course he never claimed Deity.Unless he really was God.So beginning with that central idea,Vermes rejects those sayings of Jesus that have Deity.Maybe Dunn uses the same method in his book,so then we have a Christology in the making.

JAMES TABOR

He rejects all the supernatural,no problem.In his THE JESUS DYNASTY Mary had an illegitimate child,there was no resurrection and Jesus' body is possibly in a village in Galilee(info got from the writing of a 16th century Jewish mystic).

So Jesus never claimed Deity,the true teachings were those of JAMES,in the church of Jerusalem.

JAMES BY JAMES?

As you all know,there is such a letter.The most skeptical scholars deny it was by James.That is secondary.For Vermes and Tabor,it reflects the ideas of the Jerusalem church.The letter has no mention of Deity for Jesus.

VERY IMPORTANT

In 70 AD,with the destruction of Jerusalem,ALL,literally ALL,the documents were destroyed.Whatever info they had about Jesus,Paul,the ideas of the Jerusalem church,utterly disappeared.

PAUL AND HIS IDEAS

He believed Jesus was God,and born of a woman(had a biological mother),under the Law(that he was Jewish)Galat 4:4(letter considered authentic).He never mentions the VIRGIN BIRTH,but it is implied.He wouldn't actually believe Yahweh had a BIOLOGICAL father.

minoria said...

To continue:

Luke has the ASCENSION of Jesus.Mark,Matt and John don't.Was it INVENTED by Luke in 85 AD?

PAUL AGAIN

In his letters he talks of the SECOND COMING.1 COR 15 shows he believed Jesus had died and resurrected.So it's obvious the Ascension is Implied,even though not stated.

Q AGAIN

It has nothing about:

1.The death and resurrection.
2.Nor about Jesus as God.
3.No virgin birth.
4.No ascension.
5.No second coming.

BUT...

Scholars,based on the other evidence,conclude that Q is INCOMPLETE about the beliefs of the early Christians.1 COR 15 shows Jesus was believed to have died and resurrected(yet it's not in Q).

Based on the criterion of embarassment,they conclude that Jesus actually spoke of a second coming(because it has the word"this generation").Or AT LEAST,the early church had that idea.Yet Q has no Second Coming.The closest is the Parable of the Talents.

FOR CHECKING:

You can see all of Q in:earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html

minoria said...

To continue:

Shabir Ally in a debate spoke about Q.He said that since it has nothing about the resurrection it would suggest the idea was not part of the belief of the early Christians.

JESUS SEMINAR

That argument would not convince anybody there.They would point to 1 COR 15.Again,for an audience that doesn't know,it would be considered scholarship,but it's not.

Q AND SCHOLARS

First of all,ANY scholar will tell you we don't have Q.It's gone,finito,kaput.

SO?

So they would also say we can't affirm 100% that the Q we have is 100% all there was.Maybe yes,maybe not.Maybe it's 90%,80% of the original.We don't know.

Shabir Ally in his debates says Q has nothing of the Deity of Jesus(Son of Man is Lord of Sabbath,for example)nor "Son of Man will be killed and rise on the 3rd day".So they would suggest "the early Christians did not believe in Jesus as God,nor in his death and resurrection,which would comform to the Muslim view."

ASSUMING...

Again,we don't know what percentage of Q we have.Assuming Q did have Son of Man sayings affirming Deity and predicting death and resurrection,WHY are they not included by Luke and Matt?

ANSWER:because they already appear in MARK,in fact Mark has Jesus predicting his death-resurrection at least 3X(and each time copied by Matt-Luke).It would have been a waste of space to repeat.

minoria said...

To continue:

Q AND SIGN OF JONAH

The Sign of Jonah saying is in Q(MATT 12:38-42/16:4/LUKE 11:29).

The Muslim idea is that it shows that Jesus didn't die.

IT WON'T WORK

No scholar would say the Sign of Jonah saying supports the early Christians believed Jesus survived,never died.Why?

CLEAR VERSES/LESS CLEAR

Because Q is from 50 AD.But 1 COR 15 is from 35-36 AD.It says he was killed.It's an Official Creed.Sign of Jonah is the less clear saying.By logic the early Christians thought of it as implying the death of Jesus.

ALSO

The Carmen Christi is from the same time as Q.Another creed.It says "death of the cross".

PAUL'S LOST LETTER

1 COR 5:9(letter considered authentic by all)says:"I had written to you in my letter not to have relations with debauchees."

So 1 COR is really 2 COR,and 2 COR is 3 COR.Paul had written a letter before 1 COR,which is lost.Maybe in it he said Peter and James believed Jesus was God,or the virgin birth,or the ascension,or the "tomb of Jesus".We will never know.

minoria said...

THE JERUSALEM CHURCH

ALL the info in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD.So what we know of the Jerusalem church and their ideas comes from outside.Did they also believe Jesus was God.Or as Tabor and Vermes say,that he was only a man?

PAUL AGAIN

Then Jews had different religious ideas.The Saducees denied the resurrection,heaven,this life was all,nothing else.They rejected the Oral Law,only accepted the Torah.

The Pharisees accepted the Oral Law and accepted more books in addition to the Torah.They also believed in the resurrection of the dead.

WHY SO MUCH HATRED BY PAUL?

As Nabeel pointed out,belief in the resurrection in itself,or in a Messiah,or the resurrection of a dead Messiah,would not be enough to explain such hatred by Paul.

Also the Christians accepted the same OT books as the Pharisees,not just the Torah,like the Saducees.Paul himself like 4X tells us he persecuted the church.The only thing to justify it would be they believed Jesus was God.

minoria said...

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

According to the Talmud,in 6 AD,the Jewish leaders lost the right to kill anybody.The Romans would do it.Except,as found in an inscription in Jerusalem,if a Gentile entered the Temple.JOHN 18:31 has the priests say to Pilate they are forbidden by the law to kill.They wanted Pilate to kill Jesus.They didn't have the authority.

SO?

The Romans had no great problem with a man elevated to god.Emperor CALIGULA(ruled 38-41 AD)declared himself a living god.Hercules,Romulus(founder of Rome),Achilles,were half-gods.Later Emperor DOMITIAN in the late 1st century declared himself "lord and god".

The Jews could no longer execute.If the church of Jerusalem actually said Jesus was God,the Romans wouldn't have cared.If they were asked by others to kill them for blasphemy they would have probably done so at first(Paul's admission of persecution would confirm this).

But later would have got tired of killing people over a triviality.They would have said:"What in the world is your bloody problem!The religious disputes between you Jews about a dead man proclaimed to have been God is of no bloody concern to us.If you kill any of them over that,you'll be punished.The whole affair is ridiculous."

minoria said...

To continue:

The Romans weren't going to be killing people for what for them was a ridiculous blasphemy dispute every week.

INFO ABOUT THE JUDEAN CHURCH FROM PAUL

In 1 THESS(written about 51 AD)2:14-16 he talks of the Judean church being persecuted.Even after he had stopped:"Because you brothers,you are imitated by the churches of God that are in Jesus Christ,in Judea.

Because you have also suffered from your own countrymen the same evils that they have suffered from the Jews.

Who have killed our Lord Jesus and the prophets,who have persecuted us(note:that would mean Paul,a Jew,was persecuted by other Jews,just like before he had persecuted other Jews),who do not please God and who are the enemies of all men.

Preventing us from speaking to the pagans so that they be saved.So that they did not cease to increase their sins,but wrath has reached them".

AGAIN WHY?

As I said before,there were different religious groups in Palestine:Saducees,Essenes,Pharisees,even Zealots.Yet if the Judean church only believed in a resurrected man,and that he was the Messiah,they would have been thought of as crazy but they wouldn't have been persecuted.Again,ALL the documents with info about their ideas disappeared,but the evidence of their persecution by Paul,indicates SOMETHING about their belief in Jesus was too much.

minoria said...

WHY WAS JAMES KILLED?

The evidence is from JOSEPHUS,who was living in Jerusalem at the time,and was about 25.In a part hardly disputed by any he says "James,brother of Jesus,the one called the Messiah" was killed on false charges in an illegal trial.

He says that the most wise disagreed with his execution.Obviously he had a good reputation.But why did SOME hate him so much?You know who it was?It was the new High Priest Ananus.Josephus tells the whole story in the JEWISH ANTIQUITIES.

It seems it was more to avoid trouble with the Romans than anything else that others condemned Ananus' action.He acted ILLEGALY,was "of a bold temper,and insolent" accordng to Josephus.The last thing they needed was a crisis.Josephus says in the passage that Ananus was of the Saduccees,who are the most rigid in punishing offenders.So what was it about James that provoked the wrath of Ananus?

OTHER GOSPELS AND CHRISTIANITIES IN PAUL'S TIME

That is the idea of a different Judean group.They didn't believe in the Deity of Jesus.Often the part of Paul's struggle with the Judaizers appears.It has to do realy with ideas in Judaism about the salvation of the Gentiles.The Judaizers were the most extreme group.

minoria said...

To finish:

In Judaism the salvation of the Gentiles is through their obeying the 7 NOAHIDE LAWS.It appears in the TALMUD (500 AD)but the idea is way before 500 AD.

In the BOOK OF JUBILEES 7:20-28 (2nd century BC)appears the first attempt to formulate what God would require for the salvation of the Gentiles.One thing is clear.The613 laws of the Torah are only for the JEWS,the Chosen People.For the others the thing is alot less strict.

ACTS 15 AND THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM

Peter there says salvation is by faith in Jesus(Acts 15:6-11)and that to impose the whole Torah on the Gentiles was not good.They decide on a series of minimum laws for the Gentile believers in Jesus.

Acts 15 is considered an important document regarding Jewish thought.It shows what the Jewish ideas regarding the laws of God for the Gentiles were in 1st century Palestine.

THE JUDAIZERS

It seems they were a group of people who literally wanted the non-Jewish believers to adopt all the 613 laws.Which was an extreme position,which was why Paul opposed them.

THE NOAHIDE LAWS:

They are named after NOAH.They are:don't have idols,murder,steal,blaspheme,have sexual promiscuity,nor eat the flesh taken from an animal that is steal alive.Plus establish a legal system that would enforce the 6 preceding laws in a just manner.

Fernando said...

ashraf... do you really want to makke us beliebe thate you trully beliebe thate the verses you quoted endorse an opinion off women inferior to man? or inferior to whate islam makes off women? I juste can't beliebe...

o: coulde you, please, presentte more biblical evidences off those realities? I woulde bee glade to explain all them to you...

please: do a greatte favor to us all in exposing the lack off knowledge thate muslims dawa and schollars putt in muslim minds in order to makke them confortable with theire barbaric religion...

minoria said...

EBIONITES

The idea of James Tabor is that their ideas represented the true ideas of the disciples.There is debate about when they appeared.But for argument let's say EBIONITES=Ideas of JAMES.

THEIR IDEAS

1.To continue observing the Torah.
2.Rejection of Paul.
3.No virgin birth(Jesus not God,only a man).
4.Jesus was killed.
5.He resurrected.
6.He was the Messiah.

SO?

If THAT is what the early Christians really believed then why would Paul bother to persecute them?Or the other religious leaders after him?

DID THE EBIONITES BELIEVE IN A SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION?

Why would they?We have:

1.The Greek word for body,SOMA,is never once used in an Greek writing to mean a "disembodied spirit".Never.
2.In no Jewish writing is there a belief in a "spiritual" resurrection.It's always physical.
3.1 COR 15 has Jesus "died,was buried and rose on 3rd day".

From 30 BC to 70 AD the Jews in Palestine always put bodies in caves,due to the belief in a physical resurrection.We have 1000 bone boxes from the time.

THERE WILL BE A FUNERAL

If you say that to a Muslim,he will automatically think:"body put in grave".

A HINDU would think:"body cremated".A Palestinian Jew would understand "buried" as "body put in cave".It dind't have to be said have to be said:"tomb".It was understood.

4.That's why very few scholars believe Paul meant a spiritual resurrection.Even Richard Carrier,of the 2 body theory,says it's only a theory.

WHAT IS A SPIRITUAL BODY?

It's a real body that no longer sins.It's still a body.A "spiritual book" is still a book,but about religion.A "spiritual person" is still a living human,but who is noble.

nma said...

Unlike old days when Islam was spread by sword, these days people convert to Islam after investigation, analysis and study that are fallible, dubious and spurious. And the same goes for converting to communism, Nazism, atheism etc. But as for true converts (not the ones like Shadid Lewis) to Christianity, God brings them to Jesus. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)
"He went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.'" (John 6:65)

W.I.S.A.I.T. said...

about the TRINITY:
in Genesis G-D formed Man in His Image... Man (humankind) Has 1. body 2. soul 3. mind
All have to agree and work together. to put it very simply for those who cannot grasp the concept of Holy Trinity you yourself are trinity! Only not Divine like our creator.

please study the scriptures and you will not find discrepancies but the truth will set you free!

minoria said...

Hello:

I have just watched the video about the ex-Muslim girl whose life is in danger.David and Nabeel,I don't live in Florida,but if the organization that is taking care of her needs donations for her keep,I would gladly give money.I would send it to you and you can send it to them.Just tell me.

I don't know what else to do.It's the first time I see this.I have heard about it but this is the first time it has become real to me.I am in shock.But again,if she needs money,like to escape from Florida,tell me.

In Canada there was a case like 2 months ago.Not having to do with change of religion.An Afghan father,mother and son killed 3 girls and a woman.

The man killed his own 3 daughters plus his ex-wife who was the sister of his present wife.It was an honor killing.The son and mother helped.

I would help that girl if she was of any religion or none.But I am glad she is saved by Jesus.Again,I feel bad,and angry at her horrible family.And I am willing to help
if I can.

David Wood said...

She seems to be with a good family. But if they say they need anything, I'll pass on their contact info to you.

minoria said...

But to continue with why I came here in the first place,though it seems superficial now,really,it's about the comments concerning the American Indians and if Christianity is responsible for crimes against them.A typical charge.

DESTRUCTION OF THE INDIAN POPULATION

From 1492 to 1570 only about 25,000 Spaniards went to America.We know because they kept careful records,giving names and occupations.From 1492 to 1824(year of the end of Spanish Empire) or 330 years,only 300,000 Spaniards went to settle there.

Yet 25,000 in 80 years conquered all of Mexico,Central America,the Caribbean and about half of South America.And destroyed the Aztec and Inca Empires,which had millions?

THE PLAGUE

It is now known that from 1490-1590 70-80 million American Indians died of smallpox,measles and poli,or 90% of the population.

Even before the Spaniards reached the Inca Empire some 200,000 had died of the plague.The plague helped Cortes conquer the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan,by killing tens of thousands of its inhabitants.

INEVITABLE

If it had been the Africans,or the Arabs,or the Hindus,or the Chinese who had reached America,the result would have been the same.The American Indians had no immunity,due to their isolation,to those diseases.

minoria said...

SIMILAR CASES

The same happened in Europe from 1348-1350.In only 2 years 25 million people died of the Bubonic plague.Mortality was almost 100%,and you died in a week.Europeans had no immunity to it.33% of the population died.

INFLUENZA

From 1918-1920,in 2 years 20 million people worldwide died of a very mortal influenza.

And in 30 years 30 million people have died of AIDS.

AZTECS

They had good qualities but their religion was crap.In that sense the Spanish conquest was a blessing.From 1420-1520,in 100 years,they killed 15,000 to 25,000 men yearly as human sacrifices.

The man would have his heart ripped out while still alive.So at least 1.5 million human sacrifices were made.It beat anything the Carthaginians and Canaanites had done.

THE REASON

In the Aztec religion if no human sacrifice was made then the sun would not rise anymore,literally.It would be the literal end of the world.

STRANGE STORY

The Aztecs had the belief that a long time ago a BEARDED WHITE MAN called Quetzalcoatl had come in a ship from the EAST(Europe?) and taught them many things.Later he left in a ship back east and promised one day he would return with his people to reclaim the land.

HERNAN CORTES landed in Mexico at a time when according to the Aztec religion Quetzalcoatl would return.He was helped in his mission by MALINCHE,a beautiful Indin woman who served as his interpreter.She had very quickly learned Spanish and told him about the legend and all she knew of the Aztec Empire and its customs and beliefs.

minoria said...

Thanks for telling me she is with a good family,really.I am glad,1000%.

BTW I have alrady sent my monthly $40 donation for the radio program.If it didn't get through just say so to verify what went wrong.If it got through then no need to say a word.

Chennai Man said...

Kabayaan Fernando, i know very well, you guys always use double standard to understand bible & quran. whatever bible tells you, even if it is funny, you got a explanation and you don't apply the same Criterion to quran.

Kabayaan you just explain me about the versus which i mentioned above later we will see the rest.

kabaayan just look into history who were the barbarians?

Sepher Shalom said...

ashraf said: "i know very well, you guys always use double standard to understand bible & quran."

Really? "Always"? That's a gross generalization. I don't see any double standards. If you do, you will have to be more specific.

ashraf said: "you just explain me about the versus which i mentioned above later we will see the rest."

Explain what? You just posted a bunch of verses. As far as I can tell, any perceived issue you could have had was already answered in this thread.

ashraf said: "just look into history who were the barbarians?"

There has been violence in history coming from people of all kinds. If we are going to look at it in the context of religions, we can't just "look into history". We have to look into history, and then look into the religious texts of the faiths to find out if the people's behavior is consistent with the teachings of the text, or contradicts it.

My main question, ashraf, is...what does any of this have to do with the "Brittany Converts to Islam" vid? I don't see the connection.

Sepher Shalom said...

The Fat Man said: "Sepher, I noticed the Iman saying she was married as well. I think thats why she converted to islam. Her husband is a muslim."

I think that is very likely. I would like to see some sort of statistics on this issue, because a lot of the female western women I see that convert to Islam are already married to Muslim men.

The Fat Man said: "I also found it funny that the imam made the point of telling all the muslim men in the audiance that she was married. Basicaly breaking out the garden house and spraying down the muslim men."

Haha! I was kind of thinking the same thing :D Too funny!

Fernando said...

ashraf... glad to find anotther philipino arounde here... my heart is eben more withe you...

why do you mean I aplly double standard when dealling withe the Bible and the qur'an? coulde you explainn itt? thankes...

in the meanwhile justte remembrer: since:

1) the nottion off revelation;

2) the nottion off inspirattion;

3) the nottion off the possible relation between God an humans;

are totally different between the Bible and the qur'an bothe books CANNOT bee read inn the same way;

nevertheless critical and neutral methods (historical-crittic methods) cann bee apllyed to both books as well they're donne to all historical books... and do you know whate? schoolars, applying those methods, doo agree on the lack off substance off the claims on the divine authorshipp off the qur'an...

more: I did nott eben interpreet the texts YOU presentted... they do nott, on ANY possibility, support your pointt off view: please: read those verses on the internall context off them...

and, ashraf: do presentt more verses anytime you wantt on a thread dealling withe that point...

abboutt the barbary: no doubte aboutt thate: never, eber a Christian (someone who says he follows Jesus and supports his action on His wordes) did a barbaric action: can you eber say thate a muslim (someone who says he follows muhammad and acts uppon his teachings) neber did a barbaric action? justte think on thate...

Unknown said...

Yes Fatman / Sepher .. thats true, marriage and reprduction is one of the most important and common way for preaching for Islam, since the early islamic history till now.

For instance look at Muhammed who married more than Four. whne U ask a muslimm why did he break his Allah Laws' ?! their common answer cause these marriages were important to help building the islamic empire !!

Also, polygamy is allowed. And divorce as well. So all these helps to keep muslim women reproducing all the time.

And not only 4 wives, but they can have sex with all those in their right hands ( and there were not much contraceptive technology!)

In addition look at the birth rate in islamic countries, though most of them are poor, and cant support themselves, they are reproduccing like rabbits !! and stil marrying more than four !!

Islam also allowed a muslim man to marry non-muslim woman, and Muslim scholars admits that this is to help the growth of the empire !!

So they are using Britanny (as well as other non-muslim wives) as a method for preaching

Unknown said...

I think this is a good message to Brittany. This file in the link is a testimony of an American lady (Mrs. Of Mohammed Rahoma) who converted to islam and then reveted to christinity. Very realistic everyday story.

(I dont know if you would like to post it separately)

here is the link:

http://files.ww.com/files/56844.html

(audio file, English estimony + arabic translation)

Unknown said...

Mohammad a Former Muslim ACCEPTED Christ Jesus as his Lord

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2om54cCkNw

Unknown said...

Why don't you think that there are different sources out there? Just because you hate Islam, you happen to believe in more extreme sources. Please stop misrepresenting Islam.

Jabari said...

Zakaria:
Is slavery allowed in christianity or not?

Absolutely not.

We know that the law is good when used correctly. For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are SLAVE TRADERS,liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God.
1 Timothy 1:8-11

So the answer to your question is an obvious NO.

And besides it was a Christian who put an end to the slave trade in Britain, and Fredrick Douglas worked to end it over here in America.