Monday, August 31, 2009

The Rifqa Bary Case Continutes: Lawyer Presents Evidence

Rifqa Bary's lawyer just presented documents detailing Rifqa's own statement and the ties of her parents' mosque to terrorism. (The documents can be read here.)

Here's an excerpt from Rifqa's statement:

15. I became a Christian on Friday, November 18, 2005 at the Korean United Methodist Church in Columbus, Ohio;

16. I hid my Christian faith from my parents as best as I could and had to sneak around to attend Christian campus meetings. I also hid my Bible at home in various locations;

17. In about 2007 my father discovered a copy of a book entitled the "Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren that I hid in my bedroom. My father had a serious talk with me about the importance of retaining the Islamic blood line in my family but I did not tell him about my conversion;

18. In June of 2009 my father confronted me with several questions about whether I had become a Christian, whether I was baptized, ifl was going to a church. Out of fear I remained silent;

19. Then my father told me that he received numerous e-mails and phone calls from the leaders of the Noor Center community who informed him that he needed to deal with this matter immediately;

20. In a fit of anger that I had never seen before in my life, he picked up my lap top, waived it over my head as if to strike me with it and said "If you have this Jesus in your heart, you are dead to me! You are no longer my daughter." I continued to remain silent and then he said to me even more angry than before, "I will kill you! Tell me the truth!"

21. On July 17, 2009, my mother confronted me about another Christian book she discovered that I had hid in my bedroom. She had just spoken with my father was on the phone who was out of town. She was very upset, in tears, and almost grieving and told me I was going to have to be sent back to Sri Lanka to be dealt with.

Audio of the press conference can be heard here.

41 comments:

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

David, how did the surgery go?

But I bet this girl never even studied Christianity--rather she read books by Christians and got fooled by their arguements (which aren't very good) not books written by un-biased scholars. If she did she would either

1) Convert to Atheism

2) Stay a Muslim

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Ryan S said...

We know the religion of Peace will show great tolerance to her conversion to the Christian Faith.

After all the Koran says there is "No compulsion of Religion"

David Wood said...

Ehteshaam,

I didn't get any surgery yet. This was my first trip to the doctor since I was a teenager, so I'm not in a rush.

As for Rifqa, watch your mouth. Like Nabeel, I'm getting quite sick of your constant ignorant comments. I was once an atheist. I'm a Christian now because I became convinced BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY. Nabeel was once a Muslim. He's a Christian now BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.

You really don't understand how silly you sound when you point to the worst atheist apologists as proof against Christianity, and then refuse to apply their absurd reasoning to Islam.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

David Wood said: Like Nabeel, I'm getting quite sick of your constant ignorant comments.

My response: No, Nabeel insulted Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), therefore I just responded. His comments about Prophet Muhammad (p) marriage to Aisha were offensive and ignorant.

Moreover you let Osama Abdullah come here and post the most vile arguements against Christianity-- For example what you, David Wood, wrote on August 21st:

"Notice, once again, the Muslim view. Osama is free to post the most offensive comments he can dream up against Christians and Christianity. But Christians must be extremely respectful in return."

Know what is interesting? Now its reverse. David Wood and Nabeel can say all kinds of bad things about Prophet Muhammad (for example see the Ali Atari Who was Muhammad debate), and get away with it.

Yet when I try to defend Islam or Prophet Muhammad using the same type of apporoach as some other bloggers here I get blamed for being offensive. I don't get it. How come you let Osama Abdullah get away with this stuff? Yet I can't defend my own faith using the same apporoach others use here. I don't understand.

David Wood said: I was once an atheist. I'm a Christian now because I became convinced BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.

My Response: We can discuss the evidence against Christianity some other time.

David Wood said: Nabeel was once a Muslim. He's a Christian now BASED ON THE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.

My Response: No, Nabeel was an Ahmediyya Muslijm-- That is not Orthodox Muslim. That's not Islam.

I can see the unfairness and out right rudeness Christians are playing here. Farhan Qureshi was right-- this is getting us nowhere. Thats why he quit this stuff (thats right Farhan Qureshi is OUT), Nadir Ahmed Quit, Now I am thinking of quitting. Extremely impolite and lack of consistency, and insulting the Holy Prophet Muhammad over and over. Yet when Muslims like me want to defend our faith--using similar apporoaches we get shut down and they say we have ignorant comments, etc.

YOU LET OSAMA ABDULLAH DO 1000% WORSE THAN what I write yet you yet him get away with it. You even said it. But when I try to raise scholarly objections to Christianity I am shut down.

I am done.

Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
David, how did the surgery go?

But I bet this girl never even studied Christianity--rather she read books by Christians and got fooled by their arguements (which aren't very good) not books written by un-biased scholars. If she did she would either

1) Convert to Atheism

2) Stay a Muslim

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam

ubiquitouserendipity says:
boy howdy, the passive/aggressiveness sure comes through in that post. very borderline personality type behavior slick (so typical of you 7th century throwbacks). ehteshaam gulam (i apologize for mispelling your last name a few times in my last posting), you've been schooled, scolded, counseled, and warned. get real man, seriously. if you truly care about david wood and his medical well-being, read the answers to your posts, which would preclude you from continuing with this inanity. and if you truly cared about david's health, you would NOT be such a cheap shot artist on his blog,,, dude.

as for that little girl who fears for her life (i say that because that is her claim,,, see, i believe her), there is no way under the heaven of creation that you could know what she has done, or would do,,, other than by hearing her. and since she has given her life to Jesus Christ, there is no way that you can even truly hear her.

pray for the precious child, who just wants a life worth living. G_d bless you dear sweet child rifqa bary.

my ma said that even as a precocious 6-7 year old i didn't suffer fools gladly. now i'm a seasoned 59 year old, and i'm not supposed to answer a fool according to his folly.

i don't know where you got your education, but i must ask: do they have a professional ethics module in your degree track?

Peace to all who bow the knee to Jesus, our Lord, our G_d, our Savior, and our King.

may King Jesus shine His Light into your soul ehteshaam gulam, and reign in your heart. Peace, in His love, papajoe

David Wood said...

Ehteshaam,

Please provide Nabeel's offensive comments about Muhammad.

And I simply don't understand your reasoning. You're talking trash about a teenage girl (whom you don't even know), and you insulted Nabeel's professor (a very kind and peaceful man) without reason, and you're comparing this to Nabeel and me offering arguments against Islam???

When did we tell you that you can't defend Islam? When did we tell you not to offer arguments against Christianity? We're telling you to stop personally attacking people without reason, and you refuse to stop. But I suppose that when your heros are Nadir Ahmed and Richard Carrier, this is inevitable.

The Fat Man said...

Wow just got done reading the attatched memorandum. This girl is in danger. She needs to go into hiding, into some form of WITSEC. This is not about dishonoring her parents, this is now about exposing the mosq that her family went to.

Ryan S said...

Ehteshaam Gulam says:


"YOU LET OSAMA ABDULLAH DO 1000% WORSE THAN what I write yet you yet him get away with it. You even said it. But when I try to raise scholarly objections to Christianity I am shut down."

As far as Ive seen it they have graciously allowed you to post your objections to Christianity....

But what has this to do with Rifqa Bary? It takes real courage to leave a religion that calls for your death if you leave it.

And you react as usual as every muslim does when someone converts away from Islam.. you cannot belive it (Denial) then Anger
follows.

Do you think she should be killed Ehteshaam Gulam? We know what Muhammand thinks about it.

The Fat Man said...

Its a shame that this girl got outed in such away. She could of had a good carer with the FBI or Homeland Security.

The Fat Man said...

David/Nabeel

I'm wondering if either of you have been contacted as a expert witness in this case.

The Fat Man said...

Guys, you really shouldnt be so hard on Ethshaam the OLD. After all he is a muslim.

As a muslim he posted on his blog about his encounter at 1:30 Am with a woman who was running away from something in tears. He and his muslim brothers debated on what to do. Now think about this. Any of us, including most athesist I know who saw a woman, or a man, running down the street at 1:30 in the morning, in a obvious state distress would have had no problem in offering assisants. But what do the muslims do? They debate on what they should do?

He then goes on to say how this woman told him she was a christian, snorting cocain, and drinking to much and that her husband beat her. Thats why she was crying and thats why she was running away.

So what does Ethshaam do? Does he offer to take her to the police, the hospital, to a womans shelter, or any other place thats safe? NO insead he takes her back home to her husband who just got done beating her.

He then goes on to say that he was glad he got to tell this christian the truth. I serioulsy doubt Ethshaam told her the truth. That would require him to open the bible and point out to her that what she was doing was wrong and that she was not following christ.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

David--

Weren't some of the guys listed in the document speakers at ISNA? The name "Siraj Wahhaj" certainly rings a bell...

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Just googled him - turns out he's the same guy who was in the"Brittany Converts to Islam" video.

Very interesting...

minoria said...

Hello:

I used to really think that the Koran did NOT sanction HONOR KILLING but it does,in essence:

HONOR KILLING IN THE KORAN

There is a story in the Koran that is HONOR KILLING.

STORY OF MOSES

Moses is traveling with an excentric fellow in SURA 18.It is not too long.This man does a few excentric things in Moses’ presence.In SURA 18:74-81 he KILLS a LITTLE BOY,an innocent being.Moses PROTESTS.Later the excentric traveler JUSTIFIES his action by saying that in the FUTURE the child would be EVIL to his parents.

SO?

So in the future the boy would be DISHONORABLE,bring shame on his parents.In essence it is an HONOR KILLING.

COUNTER ARGUMENT

That it is not honor killing because it has to be done by a father or brother.That is weak.In ESSENCE it is.

minoria said...

THE TEXT:sura 18:74-80:

18:74: So they went. When they met a young boy, he killed him. He said, "Why did you kill such an INNOCENT person(NOTE:Moses tlking), who did not kill another person? You have committed something horrendous."

[18:75] He said, "Did I not tell you that you cannot stand to be with me?"

[18:76] He said, "If I ask you about anything else, then do not keep me with you. You have seen enough apologies from me." ....



[18:78] He said, "Now we have to part company. But I will explain to you everything you could not stand.....


[18:80] "As for the boy, his parents were good believers, and we saw that he was GOING(FUTURE SENSE) to burden them with his TRANSGRESSION and DISBELIEF.''

minoria said...

2 OPTIONS:

BOY WAS INNOCENT:

So it in essence justifies honor killing on MERE SUSPICION

BOY WAS GUILTY

Notice it says TRANSGRESSION and DISBELIEF.

SO?

The DISBELIEF means the boy had become an UNBELIEVER,an APOSTATE.Taking the boy as guilty and killing him for his disbelief justifies DEATH for APOSTASY.

Either way the result is wrong,otio 1 or 2.As for me I have sent like 200 emails to youtubers asking them to send an email to the governor of Florida to help save Rifqa.I will add the info in answeringmuslims.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Nabeel,

I believe Saraj Wahhaj was an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a recent FBI investigation that had something to do with funding terrorism. Also, if I recall, he was a central figure in organizing last year's Ramadan "Islam is peace" propaganda campaign in New York.

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam: we're startingue to see your true colours... they were present from the satrt, as I stated, butt now they are so clear that I'm getting worried aboutt youre presence in this blogg: you're becoming a treat to us all... I beg you: do nott follow the same pathe Osama Abdalah choose... the worlde does nott need a second Osama Abdalah... take care dear Ehteshaam Gulam: Jesus loves you more than you can understand...

Nakdimon said...

Esteshaam: But I bet this girl never even studied Christianity--rather she read books by Christians and got fooled by their arguements (which aren't very good) not books written by un-biased scholars.

I wonder which “unbiased” scholars you are referring to. I HOPE you aren’t talking about Richard Carrier.

Btw, can you tell us which books of “unbiased” scholars YOU have read?

Nakdimon

ubiquitouserendipity said...

seems siraj wahaj is just one of the moslum crowd,,, a traitor to this country. and realize, this below article was written in nov.2001, exposing him for his traitorous lying behavior in the early 1990's. personally, i don't understand why this type of person is allowed to continue to reap the benefits of the freedoms for which many noble sons and daughters have sacrificed and died.

http://www.danielpipes.org/77/the-danger-within-militant-islam-in-america
In June 1991, Siraj Wahaj, a black convert to Islam and the recipient of some of the American Muslim community's highest honors, had the privilege of becoming the first Muslim to deliver the daily prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives. On that occasion he recited from the Qur'an and appealed to the Almighty to guide American leaders "and grant them righteousness and wisdom."

A little over a year later, addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj articulated a rather different vision from his mild and moderate invocation in the House. If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." In 1995, Wahaj served as a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman in the trial that found that blind sheikh guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. More alarming still, the U.S. attorney for New York listed Wahaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the sheikh's case.


just another taqqiya liar. no surprise though. for the folks who come and read here, be aware that if you are talking with a moslum about an issue of values, morals, ethics, they will lie to you as a matter of course. their inculcation into islam removes their common sense, their social conscience, their human compassion/empathy, and their sense of community and patriotism. it is as if they have stepped into that bizarro world where everything is backwards, upside down, bad is good. remember, for them rape is legal, killing your own children is honorable, pedophilia is a social more` exemplified in their demi-god mohammed.

though we must remember that they are victims of satan, and most of them are victims of fate, being born into the G_dless system, but that doesn't mean that we allow them to play the victim at our expense, so that they can perpetuate their victimization of the innocent.

mohammedanism is a death cult,,, but the truth can kill it.

may the eternal Father, the G_d of abraham, isaac, and jacob (israel), reveal His Self in your hearts, by the power of His Holy Spirit. in Jesus' precious name, amen

Peace, in His love, papajoe

Fernando said...

Ehteshaam Gulam saide: «Now I am thinking of quitting»... please Ehteshaam Gulam, don't go, don't simply disapear... we could not stande thate: you're one off our top muslims apologists gurus... please: do continue to show to us all whate islam is...


Ehteshaam Gulam saide: «Extremely impolite and lack of consistency»... like wahte: like saying 1000 times thate Mary was 12 when got married and refusinf to present a single ebidence to this caime? and thate there wer no Christian (people and sources) in Arabia in the time off muhammad? etc., etc... I see here a patern...

Ehteshaam Gulam saide: «and insulting the Holy Prophet Muhammad over and over»... to you he may bee a prophet, and a holy one, butt to me and other non-muslims he's nott as such and the respect it's due to him is in the direct proportion off the FACTS thate show tahte he was a person withe total lack off moral integrity... butt can you presente justt an ebidebce tahte we saide anything aboutte muhammad that was not true? since our actitude was repeated "over and over" it will bee simple... thankes...

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam: I woulde begg you to stopp diffunding rumours aboutte eberyone here... iff someone wants to say something aboutt him (professor Wood, doctor Nabell, your friende Nadir Ahmed, your nemesis Osama Abdalah...) let him to do soo...

Yahya Snow said...

Poor Lady. I really feel for her.

I hope her situation with her family improves.

It is also unfortunate the media have got hold of this story as I believe it may hinder a family reunion. I would like to see an intermediary get involved.

I am in the UK, hence I am unaware how big this story is in the US but I do know that the US has many fine representatives of our Islamic faith; perhaps somebody of the calibre of Hamza Yusuf could act as an intermediary and help the situation. (Wishful thinking?)

I also feel (from reading the selected excerpts provided) that the father is not very literate in Islam as he went down the emotional route of bloodline to persuade her to stay/come back to Islam. (Reminded me of Pharaoh's argument style with Moses, peace be upon Moses)

It is sad that Muslims have got to this situation (illiterate in Islamic knowledge and even using coercive tactics on their own offspring).

As a solution I hope the family can get an intermediary involved and may Allah help the family to get back together in harmony and love.

Nobody like to hear of stories of this nature.

Peace
Defending and Proclaiming Islam at:

http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

David Wood said: Please provide Nabeel's offensive comments about Muhammad.

My Response: Sure. Here it is (And I swear to Allah I am not making this up):

"By the way, if you'd like to debate the age of Aisha when Muhammad had SEX with her, I'm sure we can arrange that as well."
-Nabeel Qureshi said this on facebook.

He also said: ..That Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old girl?

I can give more examples but for now this would suffice. If you want print outs of the actual comments I would be more than happy to send them.

These comments are extremely offensive. Imagine if Nabeel said that in front of Muslims, imagine how angry they would get.

This is so offensive: "...when Muhammad had sex with her..."
As a devoted Muslim, I find this highly offensive. I am sure other Muslims will agree with me. Let me ask you question, David Wood. Wouldn't it be better if he said at what age did he MARRY her at? Did he really have to use "sex"? All Nabeel could have said is that "I find Prophet Muhammad marriage to Aisha wrong" or something like that.

Oh course I lost my respect when I brought up The Virgin Mary, also, but now I fully apologize for it, and I am not going to bring it up again. The big difference between me and Nabeel is If I know I said something wrong, I apologize something which he won't do.

Same with Farhan Qureshi. When Farhan and Nabeel were in Michigan, Nabeel also made fun of a hadith of Prophet Muhammad in front of Farhan which Farhan later told me was offensive.

David Wood said: And I simply don't understand your reasoning. You're talking trash about a teenage girl (whom you don't even know), and you insulted Nabeel's professor (a very kind and peaceful man) without reason, and you're comparing this to Nabeel and me offering arguments against Islam???

My Response: Please go to website. When did I ever "talk trash" about this teenage girl on my site or this site? Did I ever make fun of her? No, all I said was she never investigated the evidence for Christianity. That's it. If this is insulting, then I again I apologize.

Also I never really insulted Nabeel's professor, All I said was he was acting like an arrogant child because he demanded I give out my explanation for Quran 4:157-- which I didn't want to do yet (and no its not the swoon theory). I later apologized to Clay Jones, and he forgot about it. The only person who is upset is Nabeel for some reason. He became so upset he vowed he wouldn't debate me and would tell others not to debate me. All because I made one simple mistake (again All I said was I am not going give out any new info I found on the crucifixion and I slipped and called him and arrogant child) and apologized for it.

David Wood said: We're telling you to stop personally attacking people without reason, and you refuse to stop. But I suppose that when your heros are Nadir Ahmed and Richard Carrier, this is inevitable.

My Response: I don't think I ever insulted anyone here. If I did I apologize, it was very UnIslamic for me to do so. Moreover you wrote bad things about Nadir Ahmed, Mr. Wood. I still remember when I read them I thought they were funny, but now it realize it was wrong for you to do that.

Just imagine if your best friend Nabeel Qureshi went on my site and I wrote all bad things about you (which I'll never do by the way). He wouldn't like it. Same thing here, now I don't like what you wrote about Nadir Ahmed.

Of course I appreciate all that you did for me David. I just don't appreciate what Nabeel said about Prophet Muhammad. And I apologize for anyone I might have offended on this blog.

Forever yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Bryant said...

This is an excellent post. Thanks for this. Kudos to Rifqa Bary's defense team for continuing to expose the Noor Center. The truth is getting out there.

Rafa-el_1 said...

Ethesaam Gulam,

I was not about to respond but you trickerd me yet again. First and foremost: i do not consider you to be a real contender. Your weak and plagerized arguments are far from scholary.

you seem to be a kid looking for attention.Why on earth David ever accepted to debate you is beyond me. I believe it isn't fair to debate ethesaam from the muslim perspective cause no muslim i ever talked to thought of him to be a good representative.

ps a Quick comment to minoria: What makes things more interesting concerning al khadr ,surat 18:74 -80) is that ibn katheer narrates the followung explenation


Interpretation of why the Boy was killed

Ibn `Abbas narrated from Ubayy bin Ka`b that the Prophet said:

«الْغُلَامُ الَّذِي قَتَلَهُ الْخَضِرُ طُبِعَ يَوْمَ طُبِعَ كَافِرًا»

(The boy Al-Khidr killed was destined to be a disbeliever from the day he was created.) It was recorded by Ibn Jarir from Ibn `Abbas

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=18&tid=30700

So allah prteordained him to be a unbeliever and then sent al khadr after him to kill him, does not make very much sense!!

Rafa-el_1 said...

A quick addition to my last post.

If you know some babies are decreed as Unbelievers, you can do what Khadir did to the boy he killed

Sahih Muslim Book 19 , Number 4457
Sahih Muslim Book 19 , Number 4460

Fernando said...

Dear Rafa-el_1... thanks to thate point...

Osama Abdallah said...

"A quick addition to my last post.

If you know some babies are decreed as Unbelievers, you can do what Khadir did to the boy he killed

Sahih Muslim Book 19 , Number 4457
Sahih Muslim Book 19 , Number 4460"

Rafael,

You obviously got this from the clowns of the internet, the "answering Islam" team.
Here is what the narration says:

"The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)"

Do you have any idea what this narration is saying? Here is what it says:

1- Prophet Muhammad never killed any child.

2- You also must never kill any child, for you will never know whether the child you killed will grow to become a believer or not.

Khadir was given the knowledge of the child he killed directly from Allah Almighty, and the child was going to be very a very harmful infidel to his parents. So Allah Almighty Commanded Khader to kill him. Allah Almighty, however, NEVER GAVE THIS KNOWLEDGE TO ANYONE ELSE, and not even to Prophet Muhammad himself. This is further proven in the following Noble Verse:

"At length, when they see (with their own eyes) that which they are promised,- then will they know who it is that is weakest in (his) helper and least important in point of numbers. Say: 'I know not whether the (Punishment) which ye are promised is near, or whether my Lord will appoint for it a distant term. HE (ALONE) KNOWS THE UNSEEN, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Mysteries,- EXCEPT AN APOSTLE WHOM HE HAS CHOSEN: and then He makes a band of watchers march before him and behind him, That He may know that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord: and He surrounds (all the mysteries) that are with them, and takes account of every single thing.' (The Noble Quran, 72:24-28)"

Got it now? Getting desperate, aren't we? It is your Bible that commanded even the killing of the suckling children! Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

Osama Abdallah...

1) glad to see you arounde here: itv denies ANOTHER rummour started by Ehteshaam Gulam...

2) aboutte youre claime Bible thate commanded even the killing of the suckling children I habe refutted you more than ounce on thatte topic in this blogg... glad to see thate you are still the same person incapable off any truth in your heart..

here is justte one the links to those threads in witch I reffuted your're claims:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/child-bride-debacle-continues.html

p.s.: do you Know ANYTHING aboutte the Bible and its hermeneutical? I don't think you do, butt you justte habe to prove me wrong...

p.p.s.: are you on youre real mind bie saying «You also must never kill any child, for you will never know whether the child you killed will grow to become a believer or not»... so... in your own wordes: iff someone shoulde know iff a childe woulde becomme a non-belieber (as Rifqa Bary became more and more aware during her convertion process) thye coulde habe killed him/her»... man... this is, someone coulde habe saide, disgusting... this desearves a new thread only dedicated to you Osama Abdallah...

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Osama Abdallah said...
"A quick addition to my last post.

If you know some babies are decreed as Unbelievers, you can do what Khadir did to the boy he killed

Sahih Muslim Book 19 , Number 4457
Sahih Muslim Book 19 , Number 4460"

Rafael,

You obviously got this from the clowns of the internet, the "answering Islam" team. Here is what the narration says:

"The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)"

Do you have any idea what this narration is saying? Here is what it says:

1- Prophet Muhammad never killed any child.

2- You also must never kill any child, for you will never know whether the child you killed will grow to become a believer or not.

Khadir was given the knowledge of the child he killed directly from Allah Almighty, and the child was going to be very a very harmful infidel to his parents

ubiquitouserendipity says:

Not so fast slick,,, lets look at that hadith again. this time, no caps, and with one word bolded, unless you miss it again:

Book 019, Number 4457:
This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he (sic) a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html

A few points for osama:

1. Rifqa bary’s father “know[s] what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could [and he can] distinguish between a child who would grow up to he (sic) a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer…” at the point which rifqa bary’s father became aware of rifqa’s conversion to faith he met the “unless” criterion allowing “that you [he] [kill]ed the (prospective) non-believer…”

continuing~

ubiquitouserendipity said...

~continuing

2. You say mohammed never killed a child. Well, if he didn’t personally, he allowed for the killing of children because they were the children of the pagans,,, “they are from them.”

Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

Book 019, Number 4322:
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

Book 019, Number 4323:
Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html

That hadith doesn’t say that you should never kill a child as you claim,,, it says you can kill a child if you can determine their future unbelief. And mohammed allowed for the killing of children, as long as they were the children of the unbelievers. i guess there are NO innocent non-mohammedans.

So osama, your misrepresentation of the hadith has been refuted, simply. It may be because of your lack of English language skills. I understand, as many of my relatives were “English as a second language” limited. So here’s some help:

Unless conj. Except on the condition that; except under the circumstances that: "Exceptional talent does not always win its reward unless favored by exceptional circumstances" (Mary Elizabeth Braddon).
prep. Except for; except.

[Middle English unlesse, alteration (influenced by un-, not) of onlesse : on, on; see on + lesse, less; see less.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Word Origin & History
unless
1467, earlier onlesse (c.1440), from on lesse (than) "on a less condition (than)," the first syllable originally on, but the negative connotation and the lack of stress changed it to un-.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

May the Light of G_d’s truth shine in your soul, and may King Jesus come to reign in your heart. Peace, in His love, papajoe

ashraf said...

Fernando said...
p.s.: do you Know ANYTHING aboutte the Bible and its hermeneutical? I don't think you do, butt you justte habe to prove me wrong...

Hi double standard kabayaan fernando, according to your bibilical teaching whoever troubling their parents should be killed, am i right? so what decision you can take in rifqa bary case with the help of your bible.kabayaan please no double standard be honest and tell me.

mathew:
15:4 For God commanded, saying,
Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death

mark:
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Prophet said...

Honour killing is not only in the qur'an as shown by Minoria, and further discussed by Rafa-el, there is evidence from "islamic sacred law" that clearly shows a parent can kill their child.

In Reliance of the Traveller, an authoriative though not exhaustive text on "islamic sacred law" we have the following exclusions from retaliation for murder -
a) child or someone insane at the time of the killing;
b) a muslim for killing a non-muslim;
c) a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate;
d) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

Clearly, (d) alone provides protection for the parents to kill their child in an honour killing, and (b) just makes it impossible for any muslim to squirm their way out.

18:74-80 is the basis for (d) above no doubt.

Reliance of the Traveller (or 'Umdat al-salik wa 'uddat al-nasik') approved by :-
Mosque of Darwish Pasha Damascus, Syria
Dr. Taha Jabir al-'Alwani:
-Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces
-President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought
-Member of Islamic Fiqh Academy at Jedda
-President of the Fiqh Council of North America
General Director of Research, Writing and Translation, al-Azhar

These are laws that most islamic majority countries give precedence to.

Fernando said...

Hi ashraf... thankes for your question... its one thate muslims presente bery often... let's see iff I can present whate happens in those texts... please: just try to follow mie presentation and in the end iff you habe doubts, please: point them to me... thankes...

for a simplification process lets assume thate mt 15:4 and mk 7:10 are the same... can you agree withe this first step? iff noot I'll separate them latter...

The context of these pasage is “the orall traditions off the elders” which were defended by the Pharisees…

where in the Torah is saide (as the Pharisees claimed in Mt. 15:3) says one should wash one’s hands before a meal? Cann you answer us all on this pointe ashraf?… We’ll bee waiting… for a long time I recon...

Whate Jesus does is too redirect the Pharisee’s stupide statement to another poinet: the “korban”, this is, the ways thate, according the Pharisees, one shoulde folow too declare something sacred in order to show that these “oral traditions” coulde diverte someone to the morre important aspects presented in the Law…

Jesus is nott eben saying to respect the Law, butt just trying to explain thate there’s, or should bee, an specific hierarchy in someone’s worries in which the oral traditions had much less importance when in contraste with the Law, which, by her side, and by herself, was much less important than the New Law Jesus declared to be…

Jesus, as you know ashraf (and iff you habe doubts just present them to me as I asked in the previous thread...), is the "New Torah", the perfectt and decisibe "Torah" that is condensed in one word: Love…

so, ashraf, Christ is not saying thate onne should be killed when disobeying his parents: everything that apparently contradicts this central reality, testified by the Cross, has to be reinterpreted at the light of Love.

And Jesus did not asked the Pharisees with whom he was debatting to bee killed eben when He accused directedlie them nott too respect there parents in order to have personal benefits…

Mt 15:5 shows thate: «But you say, "If anyone says to his father or mother: Anything I might have used to help you is dedicated to God”, he is rid of his duty to father or mother." In this way you have made God's word ineffective by means of your tradition»

These same Pharisees were bery worried aboute a break in ann oral tradition creatted bie them butt, nonetheless, were not worried in not respecting the Torah who says to respect ones’ parents (Deuteronomy 5:6)…

But eben then He didn’t ask them to be killed… So, as a matter of fact, Jesus is indeed breaking a law (Leviticus 20:9)… He’s surpassing itt because the perfect law of Love makes all the other precepts only applicable when not in contrast with it…

so ashraf: Jesus nott asking (on the contrarie) the Pharisees to bee killed shows whate He thought about thate OT law... He was quoting thate demonstrative and temporary percept (thate were neber applied in historie due to the always lenient jewish tribunal thate allways looked to theprescriptive and universal "you shall nott kill") only to show thate iff eben the mosaic law was reinterpreted by Him in coherence with love, more shoulde the "oral tradition" bee relativised in thate same context...

ashraf... was I clear? iff nott, please do tell... thankes...

Ilena said...

"mathew:
15:4 For God commanded, saying,
Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death

mark:
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:"

again no context. lol typically muslim. this refers to moses law and aint applicable for christians. but the thing goes like this: mark 7:11-12
But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.

Corban is "a word applied to a gift or offering in the Temple which declared that gift dedicated to God in a special sense. Once a gift was offered under the special declaration of Corban, it could not be withdrawn or taken back; it was considered totally dedicated for the Temple's special use. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for encouraging the people to make such gifts to the Temple while neglecting their responsibility to care for their parents .Jesus taught that proclaiming something as Corban as an excuse for refusing to help one's needy parents was a violation of the Fifth Commandment, "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12).The Jewish people of Jesus’ day had a way to get around the command to honor your father and mother. If they declared that all their possessions or savings were a gift to God, specially dedicated to Him, they could then say that their resources were unavailable to help his parents. Through this, someone could completely disobey the command to honor his father or mother and our Lord Jesus criticised this kind of behaviour.

u see, u just have to put the things into context and everything is clear. cheers

Rafa-el_1 said...

Osama said:

Rafael,

You obviously got this from the clowns of the internet, the "answering Islam" team. Here is what the narration says:

"The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)"



Rafa-el says:

obviously osama got trouble comprehending my argument.My argument was never that muhammad used to kill children but that you can kill children if you know what al khadir knows, namely that a child will become a unbeliever in the future , and that is exactly what the hadeeth says

let me quote the relevant part:

''so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE.''

unless you know what al khadr knew!!!!

So like al khadr was killing this boy cause he would islam ,you can do the same if you same(if you have the same knowledge)

even if Allah decreed tis. like ibn katheer was saying. I wonder why you didn't adress ibn katheer:)

Fernando said...

dear Ilena... youre unsere is far better structured than mine... I wished I habe seen it before posting mine... God bless you...

Ilena said...

hi fernando,

it doesnt matter bc its obvious that this guy isnt interested in truth :D as a matter of fact almost all answers can be googled. still, its up to us to give him a response when he poses a question.
god bless u too

ashraf said...

Hi illena & fernando

do you know the world's first and very famous honour killing according to your holy bible. it is the crucifiction of your lord jesus christ. when god almighty who has no any weakness like us, killed his own begotten son(according to bible) for honour & others sin, human beings can't do that?

if any questions raised about your bible you guys are giving context for that particular verse by your own, why you guys don't apply the same criteria to islamic scriptures, this is what we say double standard christians, am i right kabayaan?

Fernando said...

Hi ashraf... glad to see you arounde here again... just some points:

1) nowhere in the Bible it is saide thate God, the Father, killed his own begotten son... nor for honor, neither for pou sins... perhaps iff you coulde present some off the verses you think where thate is saide we can see thate that's nott the case... iff tahte was the case God woulde bee a dreadfull, a tyranic, a desponic being: all the oposite off a God thate is Love...

2) we are nott gibing contexts for our interpretation bie ourselfs: we are simply using the context thate is clearly presented in the text... for instance: yoou quouted one verse; I and Ilena just explained thate verse using the vereses imiediately before and after off thate same verse...

3) ashraf... I do beliebe I habe saide this before to you: the notions off revelation, inspiration, textual tradition and hermeneutics are, according to theire own specific rules, totally different between the Bible and the qur'an... it's nott because we are incoherent thate we use different aproches to the Christian sources and the muslim ones... its theire intrinsic specifity thate requires thate... nevertheless we can aplly neutral rules off textual analiis to both: thats called the historico-critical method: the same thate muslims deny to aplly to theire sources because itt leads them to a "no way zone"...

woulde you like me to explaine those differences again? iff so, justte please tel me so and I'll do itt again... thankes, and may God help you and your family...