Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Ehteshaam Gulam Proclaims: Muhammad's Life Was Extremely Offensive!

Recently, our friend Ehteshaam accused Nabeel of making offensive comments about Muhammad. I asked Ehteshaam to provide the offensive comments. He responded:

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.

So according to Ehteshaam, it's "extremely offensive" to say that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl. Well, there are two problems here. First, Islam's major collections of ahadith declare that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl. So if it's offensive for Nabeel to say this, it must also be offensive for everyone from Aisha herself to al-Bukhari to say the same thing.

Moreover, if Ehteshaam finds it offensive to say that Muhammad had sex with a young girl, he must be embarrassed about the fact that Muhammad had sex with Aisha.

But we need to be clear here, Ehteshaam. Nabeel's comments weren't offensive. They reported straightforward factual information taken directly from your most reliable sources. Hence, it's not Nabeel's words that are offensive to you. It's the life of Muhammad that it offensive to you. Why are you still a Muslim?

SOURCES:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3895: “. . . and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 5133: “. . . and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.”

Sahih Muslim 3309: “. . . and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine.”

Sahih Muslim 3311: “ . . . and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her . . .”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116: “Aisha said: . . . He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6130: “Narrated Aishah: ‘I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet’ . . . It was allowed for Aishah at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 5236: “Narrated Aishah: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida . . . So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) . . . should be treated in this respect.”

97 comments:

Anonymous said...

come on ehteshaam. it's not like nabeel said that muhammad raped her or sth. ur comment is pure nonsense.

Yahya Snow said...

Dear all,

I appreciate this thread is directed at Gulam but I would appreciate the platform to try and clear a few misunderstandings here. So I will attempt to take this opportunity try and clear a few things up .

The issue of the age is disputed. Jamal Badawi and R.W.Maqsood suggest the age was older.

Geza Vermes (Jewish Jesus scholar) confirms that the semitic communities married (betrothed) the girls to the man prior to puberty and then awaited the right biological moment (ie puberty) and then consummated the marriage. The Essenes did this too. So essentially a critic of the union between Muhammed and Aisha simply discards context and history in favour of unscholarly mud-slinging.

There is an article which deals with the different facets of the argument against the marriage. Please do read it for further understanding:

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

Also, as a point of note, it is worthy of mention that the union between Joseph and Mary was a similar one to Muhammed's with Aisha.

Peace be on all the prophets.

May Allah guide the people to good sense so they do not ignorantly insult the Prophets and the pious ones of the past. Ameen.

Peace

Defending and proclaiming Islam:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

Yahya Snow said...

A side note to whomever wrote the title of this thread.

I feel it is misleading.

Sensationalism does not always guarantee you accuracy:)

Defending and proclaiming Islam at:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

Adnan Khalil said...

Yahya Snow:

"Also, as a point of note, it is worthy of mention that the union between Joseph and Mary was a similar one to Muhammed's with Aisha."

Funny how the only book that directly mentions the age of Mary is not scriptural and was concocted way later after the four canonical gospels, hardly a reliable source is it?

Fernando said...

Someone saide: «There is an article which deals with the different facets of the argument against the marriage. Please do read it for further understanding:»...

all these false claims made bie this person were denounced and refuted by me in this thread of this same blog: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=411254356749068257...

as you'll bee hable to see, that person's tactic was: "either you get silence and stop denouncing mie lack off honesty and intelectual hability or else I'll stop ralking to you"... latter, trying to put a rock on that fact he stated that his silence was due to the fact I was being rude to muslims justt becuase (that's the only way I can see itt) I was speaking the truth...

lets pray for thate person: he's going by a bad patch...

do please: read them both and make your own mine... a small book aboutt ALL the lies (38 to bee more precise) thate person presented will soon be avaiable in the net for free...

Fernando said...

Thate same person made this claime:

The issue of the age is disputed. Jamal Badawi and R.W.Maqsood suggest the age was older.

Geza Vermes (Jewish Jesus scholar) confirms that the semitic communities married (betrothed) the girls to the man prior to puberty and then awaited the right biological moment (ie puberty) and then consummated the marriage. The Essenes did this too. So essentially a critic of the union between Muhammed and Aisha simply discards context and history in favour of unscholarly mud-slinging



here is whate I wrotte aboutte that SAME claime in this thread of this same blogg:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/08/isna-2009-brittany-converts-to-islam.html

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...


so: everyone can see a pattern here: muslims do nott deal withe the true: they create a new one to fullfill theire needs to conceal the lie islam is...

Michelle Qureshi said...

Notice, everyone, how Ehteshaam capitalized the word "SEX" and attributed that to me. I didn't do that, and he needs to learn he is being deceptive.

Also notice that he's unable to grasp the difference between when Muhammad married aisha (6 years old) and when he had sex with her (9 years old). He keeps saying I should use the phrase "when muhammad married aisha" but I cannot, as this confound the two separate events (the marriage vs. the consummation).

Also, Ehteshaam should know that I'm a medical doctor, and the word "sex" is not offensive to me whatsoever. It seems Ehteshaam is more offended by my use of the word than by Muhammad's use of the act on a 9 year old pre-pubescent girl.

Fernando said...

Someday we'll see muslims point it out thate they're offended by reading/listening to non-muslims say thate muhammad ate, drank, and did other physical necessities... untill then I'll say that muhammad did infact eat, drink, urinated and defecated...

let's see iff some muslim guru will say I'm being hypocrital by pointing these aspects because thate will open the door to them to say thate Jesus did the same...

oops... let's make the first step: He did...

Fernando said...

Let's not forget Beslam and the barbaric islamic people who kidnapped those inocent little people... some would say thate was due to islam itself... I habe mie doubts on thate: islam is far worse...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Wow, now this is really getting out of hand.

You insult my fellow brothers in Islam Nadir Ahmed and Osama Abdullah, now you insult me and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? Pathetic, David.

Prophet Muhammad consummated the marriage when she reached PUBERTY-- and that's when all girls in Arabia were ready for marriage.

The way Nabeel said it was offensive, I didn't say what Prophet Muhammad did was offensive.

Oh and also mention the fact that God the Father impregananted the 12 year old Virgin Mary--- Also the 90 year old Joesph consumated his marriage with the 12 year old Virgin Mary--- please mention that also.

Bassam Zawadi, Nadir Ahmed and Farhan Qureshi were right about you, David.

Also I am done here. When I come to my "senses" I'll listen to people like David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi who insult my faith and prophet over and over and ask for donations.

I thought Nabeel was my friend, but he is not. He is an Anti-Islamic polemicist and hate monger. And Richard Carrier is right-- David Wood is nothing but a hate monger.

Also Yahya I advice you the same. Leave these people to their hate mongering. Farhan Qureshi was right-- this is getting me nowhere.

Forever Yours In Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam,
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Anonymous said...

Compare the following:
(1)"Look at this guy, he married a nine year old girl. Sick."
(2) "Look at this guy, he had sex with a nine year old girl. Sick."

To me, there really isn't that much of a difference between them.

Compare those now:
(3) "The beast hunts humans, kills them and eats their flesh."
(4) "The animal gets its food from the humans that live in the same area."

(3) implies (4), but (4) does not imply (3).
Someone who knows that (3) is true but only tells you about (4) would not be someone I would want to be near.

Anyone see parallels?

David Wood said...

Ehteshaam said: "You insult my fellow brothers in Islam Nadir Ahmed and Osama Abdullah, now you insult me and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)? Pathetic, David."

It's strange how stating facts is equivalent to insulting in the minds of Muslims.

Ehteshaam said: "Prophet Muhammad consummated the marriage when she reached PUBERTY-- and that's when all girls in Arabia were ready for marriage."

Wrong. Read the hadith I quoted for you. They specifically say that she hadn't yet reached puberty.

Etheshaam said: "Oh and also mention the fact that God the Father impregananted the 12 year old Virgin Mary."

Notice, everyone, that when we say something about Islam, we have evidence. When Muslims criticize Christianity, they have to make things up.

Ehteshaam said: "Bassam Zawadi, Nadir Ahmed and Farhan Qureshi were right about you, David."

Hmmm, so Bassam and Farhan have been saying some bad things about me, eh? That's interesting, since they were my favorite Muslims up until now. Care to enlighten me as to their comments? Never mind. I'll email both of them and ask what they've been saying to you about me.

Michelle Qureshi said...

Ehteshaam gets offended when someone simply mentions what Muhammad did. No charged language, no exaggerations, no false accusations.

He says "I thought you were my friend!" when someone simply points out Muhammad's actions.

Ehteshaam is not upset with me. He thinks he is, but he's not. He's abhorred at the thought of Muhammad sleeping with prepubescent Aisha (just like we all are). And he's venting this abhorrence by lashing out against anyone who simply states the fact.

I am surprised - I thought most Muslims were immune to the negative aspect of Muhammad's actions. Most translate them into a good thing: "Oh, it was good for Muhammad to marry more wives than anyone else was allowed!" and "Oh, it was good for Muhammad to hit Aisha in the chest, causing her pain!" and "When Muhammad beheaded 500 Jews with his own hands, this was a good thing!"

But Ehteshaam showed more character than that - he did not try to defend Muhammad's actions. He instead tries to redefine them (for those of you who didn't know, he advocates that Aisha was actually 14-16 years old when Muhammad had sex with her) and he shows a human disgust when someone points out how old Aisha really was (thus explaining why he tries to redefine her age).

But alas, the positive character qualities ended here. Instead of becoming disgusted with Muhammad's actions and Bukhari (which reports it) and Muslim (which reports it) and Sunan Abu Daud (which reports it) and countless other sources, he gets angry at the one pointing them out.

Did I insult Muhammad? Only if quoting history is an insult. Am I a hate monger? Only if stating the truth is hateful. But for these actions, I will gladly take the blame.

Anonymous said...

"Oh and also mention the fact that God the Father impregananted the 12 year old Virgin Mary--- Also the 90 year old Joesph consumated his marriage with the 12 year old Virgin Mary--- please mention that also."

get serious. these kind of posts make us laugh :D and this thing abt consummation of the marriage...hmm u see, u proved urself here quite unknowing abt our beliefs. catholics and orthodox christians believe that marry stayed virgin after the marriage too, that is to say, that she never consumated the marriage with joseph. i know that protestants believe otherwise, but still , the point is that ur argument doesnt make sense b/c u dont quote the holy bible but fairy-tales or apocrypha. just like ur prophet, ur using the wrong material ;)

Michelle Qureshi said...

Ehteshaam shows zero integrity in reporting events. This is what he said about me in a previous post:

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.

So what actually happened? An Arab Christian at the event told me a hadith of Muhammad sucking on mens' tongues, and another hadith of Muhammad wearing girls' clothing. I said to Farhan "I do not believe these ahadith are authentic - they're too unbelievable, and I'll have to see the sources for myself."

Yet somehow this equates to me making fun of a hadith!

Ehteshaam's integrity is plummeting faster than a rock cast into an abyss. Either he must show an improvement in his character (by apologizing for false accusations) or show an improvement in his scholarship before I or David or any of our friends will debate him or offer him a public forum.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

To my friends David Wood and Nabeel:

Sorry to both David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi.

I apologize for my remarks about both of you. I lost my temper and now I have finally cooled down. It was wrong of me to insult David Wood, Nabeel and his professor Clay Jones.

And no Bassam and Farhan didn't say those things, I got mad and made it up. Sorry, man.

Are you two willing to forgive and forget-- because I am willing to forgive and forget both of what you wrote about me.

I am willing to put this behind so we can focus on our faiths apologetics. I'll forgive, if you forgive.

Thanks,
Yours Forever In Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Yahya Snow said...

Wood states the hadith mentions that she (Aisha) had not reached puberty.

There is no such hadith. Why are people so eager to misrepresent hadith. Morey forges ahadith while other missionaries misrepresent them. Why?

Oh btw, Islamic Law (Sharia) confirms that sex with pre-pubescent girls is not allowed. Tabari also confirms Aisha had reached puberty. Geza Vermes confirms this type of union was the norm in semitic Jewish culture. Thus rendering it hypocritical on the part of the Christian/Jewish critic. Also this type of argumentation has a touch of racism entwined in it as by stealth the critic is insulting all the Arabs as the Arabs all (unanimously) viewed this type of union acceptable at the time.

Also, before you go running to the dolls point; none of the ahadith mention when she was playing with dolls. We must remember Abu-Bakr was the best friend of Muhammed and it is more than conceivable that the hadith dealing with dolls was at a stage when Aisha was unmarried. So please stop with the unschoarly efforts. You really do not know the dim light you are portrayed in when you use such a line of argumentation.


PS I can understand Gulam's frustration it does seem that alot of the exchanges on here are childish and even uncivilised. I personally feel that this site has many unsophisticated Christians who loiter in this forum awaiting an argument/slanging match with a passing (unassuming) Muslim.

I certainly do not have time to waste hence my reluctance to communicate with a few people on here.

Gulam, brother I admire your patience and enthusiasm but Muslims must refute the misconceptions and misrepresentations regarding our faith simultaneously we must avoid the sites which belong to bottom-feeders who are looking to further their careers and their bank accounts. I personally avoid Shamoun's site.

The trouble is in deciding which site is which; for this we have our (God given) judgement. Do Muslims really think this site is not worthy of our time (in refuting)? People like zawadi and F.Qureshi (who I like greatly)?

If so,I would say this site does allow freedom of thought in that it does not censor. Rendering it a platform for Muslims to get the Truth across to an unsure audience.

I have not come across any censorship issues so I ask you to reconsider. Just avoid communicating with the illiterate types and just concern yourself with the arguments presented and the genuine dialogue hunters (such as FifthMonarchyMan, Minoria etc)

On the flip side perhaps you could persuade me not to come back.

On a personal note I do intend to keep checking in to view the argumentations which require refuting.

I think it is all too easy to waste huge chunks of our time on sites such as these so self discipline is required as we do not want to waste our time on futile activities especially as Muslims as we need to leave a legacy of good behind so that we have benefitted our fellow man and ourselves when we meet our Creator.

Brother E.Gulam; I have wondered this, you saw (first hand) the way NA was treated; what made you think you would not be the target in the future?

I have viewed some of the past threads concerning NA and it just frightens me the way people who claim to have a god inside them (Christians claim to have the Holy Spirit inside them whom they believe to be one of the three gods making up the Trinity) could behave in such a nasty way to NA.

I have got to say in the way of a disclaimer the Christians in real life (that I have met) are normal people and I am friendly with them and they reciprocate. That includes a pastor too.

Is there something about the internet which turns religious people into something else? That includes Muslims as there are some unsavoury Christians and Muslims alike on the net. They all in fact do their communites a disservice.

Sorry for the Loooong post. :)

Peace.

Defending and proclaiming Islam:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_prophet_muhammed_marry_aisha_at_a_young_age__is_that_morally_right__what_about_paedophilia___by_dan_1988

Adnan Khalil said...

Ehteshaam Gulam- I'm wondering what historical evidence you have that indicates that Ayesha was between the age of 14-16 when she had consummated her marriage with Muhammad.

Evidence from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud seem to suggest otherwise.

Michelle Qureshi said...

Yahya Snow--

You claimed there are no ahadith which say Aisha had not yet reached puberty.

What do you do with Sahih Bukhari 6130: “Narrated Aishah: ‘I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet’ . . . It was allowed for Aishah at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.”

Yahya Snow said...

N.Qureshi

You would nothave proclaimed such an ignorant suggestion if you had not overlooked this:

Also, before you go running to the dolls point; none of the ahadith mention when she was playing with dolls. We must remember Abu-Bakr was the best friend of Muhammed and it is more than conceivable that the hadith dealing with dolls was at a stage when Aisha was unmarried. So please stop with the unschoarly efforts. You really do not know the dim light you are portrayed in when you use such a line of argumentation. (This was stated in the post which Nabil referred to but somhow missed this elephant at the back of the room)

So I ask people on this site to stop sullying scholarship with such butchering of hadith literature and imposing insincere agendas on hadith literature. Especially considering Islamic Law forbidding intercoure with pre-pubescent girls or boys for that matter.

The issue of the paedophile claim (only the unwise and unscolarly make this claim) is discussed here:

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

Howvere, I see Gulam has posted a link to Zawadi; his (Zawadi's)work will be more authoritative and thorough so please go there first and then drop by my link if you want more.

Do Christians know how ignorant and unsophisticated they appear when they make the paedophile claim?


May allah guide us all. Ameen.

Peace
Defending and proclaiming Islam:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

To Yahya Snow,

Asslams my brother in Islam. May Allah's peace and mercy be upon you.

This whole thing reminds me of a hadith of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which he says whoever controls his anger is the strongest of all. Apparently David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi and I all lost our temper these past few days-- but I am the only one willing to apologize and let it go. Seriously David and Nabeel lose their temper over and over, say bad things about both Islam and Muslims and are not willing to apologize when they get out of line. I am shocked--very shocked--at how hostile, mean, and rude these two seem to get sometimes.

They accuse me of insulting others. I have never done that on this blog. I called Nabeels former professor an arrogant child and apologized for it, that's it.

Whenever I am out of line I immediately apologize.
But I already apologized to both of them. If they accept it good, if not, at least I tried.

Yes, Yahya, it was a mistake for me to come and post things here. You are 100% correct. Recently I've become more mean, insulting and out of line because I hang out here. And that worries me a great deal, my goals were to become more scholarly and more like a gentleman like Richard Carrier, not like Christian polemic writers ( cough David Wood cough) who write about Islam on the net. When I started coming more and more here, I lost my respect,cool, etc. So it was mistake. I thought Muslims could proclaim Islam here-- I was dead wrong. Most Muslims on the internet are not persuaded by Christians and most Christians are not persuaded by Muslims.

For example see:

http://www.answering-christianity.com

This is the web site is the biggest site defending Islam. And the web runner made it just to respond to people on the internet who write smut about Islam. My site however was a re-boot, I never responded to answering-islam, faithfreedom.org, carm.org, etc. Rather I do my own thing.

Yahya Snow said: PS I can understand Gulam's frustration it does seem that alot of the exchanges on here are childish and even uncivilised. I personally feel that this site has many unsophisticated Christians who loiter in this forum awaiting an argument/slanging match with a passing (unassuming) Muslim.

My Response: I agree. The internet is very dangerous place to learn religion. That's one of the reasons I made my site to be as scholarly as possible. Bassam Zawadi warned me of hanging out too much here. I wished I listened. Things kept getting out of hand here sometimes. But I keep foolishly coming back for some reason and saying stupid stuff. Not anymore.

Yahya Snow said: I have viewed some of the past threads concerning NA and it just frightens me the way people who claim to have a god inside them (Christians claim to have the Holy Spirit inside them whom they believe to be one of the three gods making up the Trinity) could behave in such a nasty way to NA.

My Response: Yes, attacking Nadir Ahmed was immature. David Wood was way out of line when he wrote that non-sense about Nadir. Imagine if I wrote smut (and I've been hearing some rather disturbing rumors about David's past) on my site about David Woods past. Imagine how mad his friend Nabeel Qureshi would get. But I am not that low.

Instead people here are sinking into ad-hodeimn attacks. I think its best for us not the engaged in these things anymore, Yahya, since its getting out of hand. I am going to work on my site and focus on Apologetics on my own. Yahya, I advise you to leave this site and work with me, Farhan Qureshi and Bassam Zawadi you can email me (you can find my email on my website) for defending and proclaiming Islam. You can go to my site, and see how clean and scholarly it is compared to other sites. I'll comment on this on my site.

I read your blog Yahya its really good. You can shoot me an email and tell me what you think of my site of if you like to contribute.

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

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

One last thing:

Bassam Zawadi ( One of the greatest Muslim Apologists out there) has a really good point:

Regarding the Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Catholic Encyclopaedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm), says:

"When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."

Note: That article on Catholic Encyclopaedia obtains its information from early
Christian writing including apocryphal writings.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia goes on to conclude "...retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God." If Christians do not find any difficulty in accepting "Mother of God" (according to Catholic Encyclopaedia), who was 12-14, marrying a 90 year old man then why do they raise objection towards the marriage of Aisha (RA) to the Prophet?

From his site, http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_prophet_muhammed_marry_aisha_at_a_young_age__is_that_morally_right__what_about_paedophilia___by_dan_1988

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

Yahya Snow said...

Fernando said...
Let's not forget Beslam and the barbaric islamic people who kidnapped those inocent little people... some would say thate was due to islam itself... I habe mie doubts on thate: islam is far worse...

September 1, 2009 1:15 PM


This is the type of hate filled, ignorance fueled and bigoted comment that is giving this site a reputation of hate as well as driving reasonable people away. Why in the wordl was that comment allowed?

Why in the world is this guy allowed to insult the memory and the lives of the innocents who were murdered in the Beslan attrocity in order to further his right wing Christian agenda?

And this guy and those who allow/support such contemptible burbage claim to be Christians and full of a god?

That for one is another argument against the Trinity. but that is a side note. The main issue is the hate. Is it just myself who sees such savagery and illiteracy of religious norm?

I normally do not read comments from the chap I qouted but it was a short post and I was drawn to it. Please abjure yourselves.

May Allah guide us all and protect us from the ones who are bent on hatred. Ameen

Defending and proclaiming Islam:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Okay sorry let me provide evidence for what I said: I wrote:

I wrote: Bassam Zawadi, Nadir Ahmed and Farhan Qureshi were right about you, David.

Now I remember what Farhan said. When we were in Michigan he said a lot of misguidance comes from David Wood and Nabeel foolishly fell for his trap. So I wanted to clear that up. As for Bassam, he told me to stop being a kiss &@# to David Wood. I even have the email. That's it.

As for Nadir, Nadir has been making fun of David Wood and his past for about a year and half. But if you want to read a review of Ahmed vs Wood debate, you can find it here:

http://www.examinethetruth.com/melvin_thomas_review.htm

You can also read why Nadir believes that David is cursed here (although I don't agree, I don't think David is cursed):

http://www.examinethetruth.com/signs/

As for the source on Richard Carrier on David Wood you can find a lot of it here:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/contrawood.html

Below are some of the quotes I find very interesting. My friend Richard Carrier has this to say:

...Instead of telling his readers any of this, Wood prefers to lie instead...

and ....Wood's critique is a fine example of Christian bigotry. It is essentially a trash-talking diatribe, filled with open disdain and lack of manners or respect, entirely founded on misrepresenting the facts. It is hard to take it seriously....

Read the link, I not making ANY of this up. Richard Carrier really exposes and corrects him.

Sorry for not providing the sources earlier. But I didn't want people thinking I lied when I wrote those statements.

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

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Sorry, the FULL link to Bassam's thoughts on this are here:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_prophet_muhammed_marry_aisha_at_a_young_age__is_that_morally_right__what_about_paedophilia___by_dan_1988

for some reason it got cut off when I first posted it.

Fernando said...

yahya snow saide: «Why in the wordl was that comment allowed?»...

maybee because this is, by the day, the 5th aniversery off the occupation off the school by muslim terrorists inspired by the teachings off the qura'n and muhammad's liffe, who, latter, made itt explode... ooo... I see: thate was also a zionist conspiracy...

yahya snow saide: «That for one is another argument against the Trinity»... iff my true is an argument to attcak the trinity only thate can be the proof thate those who actt thate way hate the truth present both in the Trinity and in whate happended in Beslam...

yahya snow saide: «I normally do not read comments from the chap I qouted but it was a short post and I was drawn to it...

sure... youre burstt off hate against me and the historical truth in youre comment as nothing to do with the fact I presented the lack off honesty in two claims you presented... sure it did not...

I saide it and I'll say itt again: islam in it's pure form woulde habe done a thousand ways worse than whate happened in Beslam... muhammad's model "oblige"...

so: eberyone can see:

1) I made a refference aboutt a tragic ebbent (originated by a muslim terrotist action) whose 5th sad aniversary was celebrated today;

2) I claimes thate islam (nott muslims...) is far worse than whate happend there;

3) some muslim person (who has some deep problems and usualy gets to emotional and sensitibe as some kind off kindergaten childe) attacks the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Christians and my self...

the pattern is clear so all can see...

only those who are filled off hate can be ungry by the truth thate dwells in those who are inhabited by the Holy Spirit...

Fernando said...

Ehteshaam Gulam: you and yahya snow are doing a great pair off muslim apologists... perhaps one day we'll be hable to watch a debatte between you both... the title coulde be:

"who's the muslim apologist thate uses more ignorance and irrational claims in is argumentation"... the score woulde bee bery eben...

Fernando said...

Ehteshaam Gulam saide: «As for Bassam, he told me to stop being a kiss &@# to David Wood»...

yeep... that sounds the Bassam I know: the same thate threattened in this same blogg our good friend Abdul Haziz when he started learning some things aboutt islam...

Ehteshaam Gulam: you are becomming a person in need off quick help from youre friends... the reall ones, nott those who're just clapping when you're makking a fool off yourself with youre false rumors, incapacity to deal withe the realitty, promotting yourself and your blogg, saying 1000 times the same lies and falsitys... lets hoppe some off them will gather and ask to themselfs: "whatte shall we do?... let's tell him the truth"... you'll need it... you're credibility is att an absolutte low...

Fernando said...

Just some links in order Yahya Snow getts more familiar with historyt:

Russians mark 5 years since Beslan school tragedy

The children of Beslan five years on

whate muslims are eager to sillence (and try to make others get sillenced) lets us cry out loud...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Nabeel said: Ehteshaam's integrity is plummeting faster than a rock cast into an abyss. Either he must show an improvement in his character (by apologizing for false accusations) or show an improvement in his scholarship before I or David or any of our friends will debate him or offer him a public forum.

My Response: Nabeel, I already apologized to not only you but to Clay Jones, your professor. How many times do I need to apologize? You saw it with your own eyes.

As for my scholarship-- its good on issues in regards to Answering Christian claims (hence the title of my site) and not as good when it comes to Islamic history (but I am getting better).

As for a debate, I challenge you next year for a debate on Who Was Jesus? OR Was Jesus really resurrected? I will then show you that ISLAM is the truth, always has been always will be.

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

Fernando said...

Ehteshaam Gulam... only know I saw your words, again, on the Catholic Encyclopaedia...

here some threads in this blogg tahte have dissecated (also withe my poor help) the stupidity off youre claimes:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/08/acts-17-radio.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/05/who-was-muhammad-qureshi-vs-wood.html

even your nemesis, Osama Abdallha, folowed thate pathe and admitted implicitle (he did not do thate same stupid claime again in teh latter times) he was out of touch:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/child-bride-debacle-continues.html?showComment=1234280520000

so Ehteshaam Gulam: you say Nabeel is not a muslim and still want us to beliebe thate you do nott understand thate gnostics are not Christians? Try again in a more truthfull and knowledgeble way or "Hit the road, Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more" as woulde say Ray Charles...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Okay ONE LAST THING. Sami Zattari has some really good points which I want to share against David Wood here:

http://muslim-responses.com/Wood_Coward/Wood_Coward_

I find this interesting:

Sami wrote: "Notice all this Islamophobe has down is expose his own hypocrisy and double standards, he feels it's okay for him and his Islamophobic friends to attack Islam and the Muslims, yet when the same is given back to them, in their own style, then they cry foul play! Indeed Wood, when I deal with cowards and hypocrites as yourself I give you the same as you give to others, however when I deal with well mannered people there is a different way in which I talk and address them, you my friend do not come under that category, you are a bigoted hater, and hence I treat you as such. "

So there you have it. David Wood and his best friend Nabeel can say whatever they want against Muslims and Islam. Yet when Muslims return the fire they are "black" listed. To either David or Nabeel, please correct me if I am wrong.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

I apologize if I am being too rude or offensive to my friend David Wood, I just wanted others to see what other Muslims/Atheists have to say about him.

Yahya Snow said...

To my dear brother Ehteshaam.

Walaikum Salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

It takes a bigger man to apologise. May Allah reward you and make us all have the same good attribute. Ameen.

I am surprised you did not listen to Bassam. He (imo) is an authority and have scholarly credentials unlike most on the net involving themselves in apolgetics (both Christian and Muslim).

I guess he envisaged this site as a hinerance to scholarly endeavour. You are still a young man who has potential to do alot for the Ummah. Continue with your work sincerely and Insha'Allah you will produce good quality work.

Also, I have been to your site and it seems as if it is really coming along. Keep it up.

But, yeh you need to chill out and keep your cool man! :)

Do not blot your copy book as your opponents (Christian missionaries) will use it against you for the rest of your years in order to discredit your argument.

Face facts, they misrepresent ahadith in order to take swipes at the character of Mohammed (p) in ad hominem fashion so they will not hesitiate to circumnavigate your (Ehteshaam's) argument in favour of mud-slinging at your character as they cannot refute your points.

Think about it; none of the missionaries on the net argue against Tauhid (what Muhammed preached), all they do is mud-sling by misrepresenting ahadith and even forging narrations! Such is their level of debate.

I have just admonished Wood (and his friend Qureshi) for misrepresenting a hadith. He suggested that the Hadith mentioned Aisha had not reached puberty. This is not what it said. This is dishonest (at worst) or (at best) misleading due to ignorance.

I mean these two masquerade as educated apologists yet they cannot summon enough comprehension skills in order to correctly read a hadith. Yikes!

If you want to have last laugh just continue gaining knowledge and refuting their arguments.

Also brother; do not be too soft with them…they have an agenda and it is not in your favour. Bassam was right in his advice...you did seem to over do the lovey-dovey thing with Wood. I found that incongruous with his view of good Muslims as he suggested good Muslims encourage rape to be covered up:

David Wood said...
Yahya Snow said: "Sites like this tend to use sad events of real-life in order to capitalise and point-score against an opposing group (the opposing group being Muslims in this case)."

Translation: "Would you please stop pointing out all the atrocities committed by Muslims around the world! When you see Muslims raping, killing, etc., you should do what all good Muslims do--keep quiet about it!"

From:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=2873809493347206745

Talking of apologies; I am yet to receive an apology for such a reckless comment by Wood. He really hurt me with that comment.

BTW I have just subbed to Carrier. Insha’Allah I will check his material out when/if I have time. Must admit I had not heard of him before you mentioned him. Excuse my ignorance.

Also bro. I saw you linked to NA's site about Wood. I have read some material allegedly attributed to NA about Wood's children. I want to say that is sick and I find those writings totally against Islamic principles and abhorrent with human nature.

I am no fan of Wood's 'scholarship' (or lack of) but going down a personal route of his family is deplorable so if that is what you linked to then you should not link to such derisory material in the future bro.

May Allah hlp Wood in this life and guide him and also protect Wood from people who trash on his family. Ameen

May Allah guide you (Ehteshaam) in this difficult situation and may Allah help you to make the right decision. May Allah bless you and your family this Ramadan.

Sorry for the long post Ehteshaam and to the moderator.

Please bro make dua for me as well, Jazakallah.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

"Ehteshaam is not upset with me. He thinks he is, but he's not. "

Nabeel, I wasn't upset, But I was offended. There is a difference.
But I apologized for everything, Nabeel. However I don't appreciate you telling David Wood every single thing we discuss. It was suppose to be private, my man.

I only thought that what you said about Prophet Muhammad was offensive, that's it. Muslims don't like it. I am NOT offended by Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha--- if Semetic cultures arranged for marriage when puberty hit-- then so be it.

Whatever bro, its water under the bridge. You and I both did wrong (you told David Wood something which was suppose to be private), and its best to forget it and move on.

May Allah guide you back to Islam, Nabeel.

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David Wood.

It's strange how stating facts is equivalent to insulting in the minds of Muslims.

Yes because whenever Ehteshaam opens his mouth to speak his mind, it must be indicative of what Muslims as a collective group do and say right Mr. Wood?!

I seriously see you treading the path of someone who doesn't distinguish between the actions of a few and a collective group. Welcome to the world of Faithfreedom and Jihadwatch... in collaberation with Acts17.

Btw, fellow Muslims please don't come on here and impute words into Farhan or Bassam's mouths, Individual Apologists can speak for themselves...

Oh and by the way, Ehteshaam speaks for himself, so don't ask me to comment on what he has objected to, its nothing to do with me.

Radical Moderate said...

Its amazing even when muslims try to do the right thing, they do it so wrong.

Ethshaam Gulam said....
"I'll forgive, if you forgive. "

Anonymous said...

"The Catholic Encyclopaedia goes on to conclude "...retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God." If Christians do not find any difficulty in accepting "Mother of God" (according to Catholic Encyclopaedia), who was 12-14, marrying a 90 year old man then why do they raise objection towards the marriage of Aisha (RA) to the Prophet?"

u quote "catholic encyclopoedia" lol.. well, then dont miss this: catholics believe that mary never had SEX with joseph. never means during her entire life. this cannot be said for muhammad and aysha. so what's the problem if she married an older guy, with whom she never had sex with? of course this fairy-tale u quoted doesnt prove anything bc we dont need apocrypha to deduct holy bible, like u need hadiths..it would be fair u quoted only source we find acceptable and that is the holy bible. thnx.

Radical Moderate said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
I apologize if I am being too rude or offensive to my friend David Wood, I just wanted others to see what other Muslims/Atheists have to say about him.

Wow Muslis and Atheist United in attacking God, his children and his inpired word. Why am I not surprised.

Michelle Qureshi said...

Ehteshaam has accused me of losing my "temper over and over" and insulting Muhammad "over and over". I have done neither.

Apparently, to Ehteshaam and many other Muslims (though not all, Yahya) a simple rebuke is equivalent to "losing your temper over and over".

Apparently, to Ehteshaam and many other Muslims (though not all) simply stating what Muhammad did is equivalent to "insulting Muhammad over and over".

This is ridiculous. Just saying "I'm sorry" is not meaningful, especially if it's contingent upon me apologizing for something I never did. Ehteshaam still has a lot to learn.

(And I'm just going to totally ignore the fact that he said Bassam and Farhan said things about us, then he admitted that he made those things up, and then he tried to justify himself again. Consider it ignored.)

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Nabeel Qureshi said: Ehteshaam has accused me of losing my "temper over and over" and insulting Muhammad "over and over". I have done neither.

My Response: Yes you did. You lost your temper, must I post it here? Must I embarrass you further? For your sake I don't think so. Because I am a nice person (or try really hard to be), I am not even going to post it on my site. And as for insulting Prophet Muhammad, yes again you did, you even admitted that most Muslims would find it offensive, just like if a Muslim said that about the 12 year old Virgin Mary. But atleast your willing to ignore some of what I did and said. And I appreciate that. But try to forget the whole thing, okay Nabeel? After this don't bring it up.

Yahya said: Yes because whenever Ehteshaam opens his mouth to speak his mind, it must be indicative of what Muslims as a collective group do and say right Mr. Wood?!

My Response: Yes, Yahya I said some stupid stuff, which I apologize for. Its best the Muslims here at least accept my apology and move on.

Yahya Snow said: I am surprised you did not listen to Bassam. He (imo) is an authority and have scholarly credentials unlike most on the net involving themselves in apolgetics (both Christian and Muslim).

My Response: Yes, and look what happened. I only wished I listened to Brother Bassam. He is miles smarter than all of us.

Again Read what Bassam has to say about this here:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_prophet_muhammed_marry_aisha_at_a_young_age__is_that_morally_right__what_about_paedophilia___by_dan_1988

But if you want to see and understand how David Wood mind works read Sami Zattari's article on him:

http://muslim-responses.com/Wood_Coward/Wood_Coward_

very informative, and very true.

I tried being nice to David Wood. I also appreciate all that he has done for me. I already apologized to him,Nabeel and Nabeel's professor over and over and over. I don't know what else I can do. But then he goes behind my back and announces these "facts" in public. If he keeps acting like this, then I am sorry, I must inform others about him.

David Wood can say whatever he wants about Nadir Ahmed, Islam, etc. Then when I try to correct his friend Nabeel Qureshi on one little thing, he tries to "expose" me. I am sorry, friends. It doesn't work like that. If he wants to "expose" me then I have to do the same to him.

Read Sami's article on him. Its FLAWLESS.

But I suggest everyone forget about this and we all move on. To those I hurt, I apologize, including Nabeel Qureshi.If Nabeel and David don't accept my apology then there is nothing I can do.

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

Radical Moderate said...

This is amazing. This thread is turning into a muslim love fest for Ethshaam Gulam. Lets review.

1. Ethshaam gets offended by Nabeel stating the facts. That Mohamed had sex with Aisha when she was 9. There is not a single hadeeth that says otherwise.

2. Ethshaam then goes on in typical muslim fasion to attack God, and Mary by implying that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary creating Jesus. Just for good mesure he throws in the Catholic Mythology that Mary was 12 or 14 and Joseph was 90. Leaving out the rest of the myth that says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Something that Ileana pointed out.

3. Ethshaam Gulam then goes on to Make things up about other Muslim Appologist are saying bad things about David Wood.

4. Ethsaam then attacks Nabeel by making up things that other muslim appologist said about Nabeel.

And finaly Ethshaam apologies for his lies, and slander, but this appology is contingent on David and Nabeel apologizing to Ethshaam. I'm wondering exaclty what David and Nabeel have to appolgies for. They are not the ones who slandered Etshaam, made up entire slanderous coverstations or even really said anything offensive about the muslism prophet mohamed.

Then muslims in the thread pat Ethshaam on the back for his contigent apology.

nma said...

Sunan Abu Dawud 2116: “Aisha said: . . . He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.”

So intercourse is not sex. LOL.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey all,

I hope you don’t mind my interrupting but I’ve got a few questions for the Muslims here.

1)Suppose it was undisputed that Mohammad was a pedophile would that make pedophilia acceptable in Muslim eyes?

2)Would such a thing (that Muhammad was a pedophile)make you question his claim to be a prophet?

3)What if it were shown that pedophilia was not frowned upon at the time?

Now looking at this from another angle


1)Suppose Ehteshaam Gulam is correct and Mohammad only married a prepubescent girl in his old age but waited until she reached puberty before he knew her (in the biblical sense) would that make this practice acceptable for a Muslim today?

2)If I find such a practice (an old man marring a innocent prepubescent girl) to be immoral and I do, would I be justified in denying Mohammad’s claims to a prophet?

3)Should it make a difference if such a practice was common at the time?

I’m trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Thanks in advance


peace

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

David Wood, the Epitome of a Christian Islamophobic Coward:

By Sami Zaaatari

http://muslim-responses.com/Wood_Coward/Wood_Coward_

A must read to all! Nabeel I hope you read this too, because it also applies to you.

Radical Moderate said...

Someone please anyone even a muslim. Please take the shovel out of the rabid Christianphobe Ethsaam's hand. Please this is almost to painfull to read.

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

OMG, muslims are still cant admit the truth !!! why dont your just admit that your prophet was pedophile and you dont have problem with that, you have your own values as muslim , something like Hijab and polygamy, u admit it, and have no problem with it !!

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

My apologizes if I am sounding too arrogant or mean spirited. I just posted links about other views on David Wood, NOT my own. Notice I never said anything about David on my site.

See I apologize If I am wrong. Not David or Nabeel.

nma said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
David Wood, the Epitome of a Christian Islamophobic Coward:

By Sami Zaaatari

http://muslim-responses.com/Wood_Coward/Wood_Coward_

A must read to all! Nabeel I hope you read this too, because it also applies to you.



Do you really expect us to read such excrement?

nma said...

Yahya Snow wrote...

So essentially a critic of the union between Muhammed and Aisha simply discards context and history in favour of unscholarly mud-slinging.

Exposing the truth is not mud-slinging. If Mohammed were God's prophet, he would have known what he was doing was wrong, regardless of history and context. His having sex with a 9 year old girl proves that he was a false prophet.

Bryant said...

Hmm,

I don't get you Ehteshaam. One minute David and Nabeel are a part of your "wolf pack," and the next minute you lie to them and threaten to expose them because they are critiquing Islam.

I'm glad that Muslim apologists have enough sense to distance themselves from you.

Radical Moderate said...

Ethshaam said
"See I apologize If I am wrong. Not David or Nabeel."

What exaclty do they have to appologies for? Did they make up stores that other people had said bad things about you?

Did they then go on to post links containing personal attacks against you? Oh no you did that.

So again what do they have to appologies for? By the way, saying you will forgive someone if they forgive you is not really asking for forgivness.

Dude your melting down big time.

Chennai Man said...

Fernando said...
Just some links in order Yahya Snow getts more familiar with historyt:

Russians mark 5 years since Beslan school tragedy

The children of Beslan five years on

whate muslims are eager to sillence (and try to make others get sillenced) lets us cry out loud...

Hi double standard kabayaan please read this article too.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-08/09/content_11851094.htm

Japan marks 64th anniversary of Nagasaki atomic bombing

NAGASAKI, Japan, Aug. 9 (Xinhua) -- More than 5,000 people gathered Saturday in the Peace Park in Nagasaki to mark the 64th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the southwestern Japanese city.
On Aug. 9, 1945, a second atomic bomb was dropped by the United States on Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima suffered the world's first atomic bombing. The attack, which occurred at 11:02 a.m., killed an estimated 74,000 people by the end of 1945, and many more later from radiation sickness.

Statistics showed that to date the atomic bombing has claimed a total of 149,226 lives in Nagasaki, including 3,304 people who died from injuries related to the bombing in the past year.

kabayaan i know jesus means love and christians know only to loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
please correct yourself first

Radical Moderate said...

Ethshaam PLEASE READ THIS.
Look man, I know me and you dont get along. I know I can be overbearing, a bit of sarcastic jerk, opinionated and even arogant.

But I'm kind of worried about you. This is beyond islam and christianity. This is one humanbeing to another. Really man I think you need to get some help. I'm not being sarcastic on this one. Im totaly serious.

Your a real young guy and you seem to be wound up pretty tight for someone who is so young. You have displayed a few things that are just screaming WARNING WARNING.

For instance when we first encounterd you and your blog. You mentioned something about two woman attacking you and a law suit.

Then you come on this blog and your all over the place. One minute you, David, and Nabeel are the best of friends. The next post you are personaly attacking them. These personaly attacks keep escelating and escalating to the point of you making up stories about them.

In one blog post you say that you love your school. And then you post that you hate the school and your transfering.

You seem to be very manic, and now you are dispalying even paranoid dellusions. Your escalating dude.
Someone please talk to this young man. Really he needs profesional help

Nakdimon said...

Esteshaam: The Catholic Encyclopaedia goes on to conclude "...retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God." If Christians do not find any difficulty in accepting "Mother of God" (according to Catholic Encyclopaedia),

Here is a classical demonstration on how the Muslims (Bassam Zawadi in particular!) read this source in order to help their untenable position. This whole objection is so absurd that it would funny if Muslims weren’t as stubborn to continually bring it up and would just listen to correction. Now it is just nothing short of sad. Notice, though, the part that Bassam quoted and put in his article and look at what the article really says in the direct context of the quote, below. The article in the same link that Bassam provided starts out by saying:

The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; THEY ARE PRACTICALLY ALSO THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCES, for, whilst, on the holy patriarch's life, as on many other points connected with the Saviour's history which are left untouched by the canonical writings, the apocryphal literature is full of details, THE NON-ADMITTANCE OF THESE WORKS INTO THE CANON OF THE SACRED BOOKS CASTS A STRONG SUSPICION UPON THEIR CONTENTS; and, even granted that some of the facts recorded by them may be founded on trustworthy traditions, IT IS IN MOST INSTANCES NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN AND SIFT THESE PARTICLES OF TRUE HISTORY FROM THE FANCIES WITH WHICH THEY ARE ASSOCIATED.

Then it goes on to say:

(under the heading “Marriage”) It will not be without interest to recall here, UNRELIABLE THOUGH THEY ARE, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings…. THESE DREAMS, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), ARE VOID OF AUTHORITY; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity;… FROM THEM ALSO POPULAR CREDULITY HAS, CONTRARY TO ALL PROBABILITY, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, RETAINED THE BELIEF THAT ST. JOSEPH WAS AN OLD MAN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE WITH THE MOTHER OF GOD.

Did you see the last part? This is the section where Bassam gets his information from, but look at how he deceptively leaves vital information out. For those that missed the unclear statements of this article in the Encyclopaedia, let me clarify: THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT WHOLE THING ABOUT MARY BEING 12 AND JOSEPH BEING 90 IS A TOTAL MYTH! This is the very source they quote saying it! And THIS is what Muslims like Esteshaam calls “strong evidence” as a counterpoint to justify Muhammad’s having sex with Aisha at 9??

Maybe Muslims should start reading the actual source instead just limiting their scope to the particular quote their Islamic peers quote for them in their apologetic works.


Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Esteshaam: And no Bassam and Farhan didn't say those things, I got mad and made it up. Sorry, man.

Esteshaam: I'll forgive, if you forgive.



I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine? At one time you say one thing and a minute later you say the exact opposite. Dude, can you say bipolar?

Nakdimon said...

Esteshaam: Oh and also mention the fact that God the Father impregananted the 12 year old Virgin Mary--- Also the 90 year old Joesph consumated his marriage with the 12 year old Virgin Mary--- please mention that also.


WHAT? Can you make up your mind? So the Father impregnated her at 12, but Joseph consummated the marriage at 12. Which one is it? The only authentic sources say nothing about her age, for one, but they also say that Joseph didn’t have sex with her the whole time she was barren. And also, a 90 year old man having kids is something that is sheer impossible. Let alone a man that lived long enough to impregnate Mary multiple times for multiple years from his supposed 90th year on. Don’t you see how untenable this position is, unless you will include supernatural intervention?

And seeing that your source for the ages of Mary and Joseph have been proven completely untrustworthy, can you tell me what your source is for their ages?

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Yahya Snow: Also, before you go running to the dolls point; none of the ahadith mention when she was playing with dolls. We must remember Abu-Bakr was the best friend of Muhammed and it is more than conceivable that the hadith dealing with dolls was at a stage when Aisha was unmarried. So please stop with the unschoarly efforts.


Yahya, your logic is totally upside down. Nabeel quotes your scholarly works to prove his point. Yet you are making a wild guess about the time of the hadith about Aisha’s dolls and then, in the very next sentence you claim that Nabeel is making unscholarly efforts. What scholarly work do YOU base your assumption on that this hadith is before Aisha was married?

Btw, it doesn’t matter at what stage this hadith is. What we know is that when Muhammad consummated the marriage, her dolls were with her:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he [sic] WAS TAKEN TO HIS HOUSE AS A BRIDE WHEN SHE WAS NINE, AND HER DOLLS WERE WITH HER; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.( Sahih Muslim 8:3311)

"Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old." (Sunnan Abu-Dawud 2:2116)

So I think the evidence is conclusive. Aisha moved into Muhammad’s house at the age of nine and her dolls were with her at which time Muhammad had sex with her.

Furthermore, YOU need to stop making unscholarly efforts and finally come up with the proof that Aisha had her menses at the age of 9! I have yet to see a single source that says that Aisha had her menses at the age of 9.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Yahya Snow: Wood states the hadith mentions that she (Aisha) had not reached puberty.

There is no such hadith. Why are people so eager to misrepresent hadith. Morey forges ahadith while other missionaries misrepresent them. Why?


Au contraire, Yahya. There is no hadith that says that she HAD reached puberty. Can you please show us? Thanks.

And the excuse “Oh… girls in that climate mature very quickly” will not work. You are the one that demands “scholarly approach”. Please set the correct example and hold yourself to that standard too.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Yahya Snow: Also, as a point of note, it is worthy of mention that the union between Joseph and Mary was a similar one to Muhammed's with Aisha.

Again, what is the source for this. And please don’t bother to respond if your source is “Encyclopaedia Catholica” or something. That source says that those stories are myths.

And how is a man marrying a pubescent girl equal a man having sex with a pre-pubescent girl?

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Yahya Snow: Geza Vermes (Jewish Jesus scholar) confirms that the semitic communities married (betrothed) the girls to the man prior to puberty and then awaited the right biological moment (ie puberty) and then consummated the marriage. The Essenes did this too. So essentially a critic of the union between Muhammed and Aisha simply discards context and history in favour of unscholarly mud-slinging.

Wow, appealing to Essenes now? What do Essenes have to do with Scripture? You now need to show how scripture supports the Essenes’ behaviour.

And, since you are called to emulate the behaviour of your prophet, who is said to be the pinnacle of human behaviour, let me ask you a question:

1. Would you agree that the plight of the little girls in Islamic countries (them being handed out in marriage around the age of 7) is due to the behaviour of Muhammad?
2. Do you think that something should be done about it? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Would you allow me to marry your 6-year old daughter and have sex with her at 9?

Nakdimon

chrisse said...

Yahya Snow says:
Oh btw, Islamic Law (Sharia) confirms that sex with pre-pubescent girls is not allowed.

No, it doesn't. In fact Islamic Law (Sharia) states -
Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission.

As for the non-virgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's faher, or someone else

-The Reliance of the Traveller (previously cited on another post)

Shariah law (sunni) allows pre-pubescent girls to be married and for their "husbands" to fornicate with them.

Actually "marriage" is a misnomer. Islamic "marriage" is simply a fornication contract and is closer to sexual slave trading than western marriage.

Fernando said...

ashraf...

ounce again thankes for your wordes... I know thate teh facts I present sometimes are considered offensive bie muslims... butt thates nott mie problem: its theirs: facts are facts, here, there, everywhere...

I saide this here manie times, and I'll do itt again:

one thing to be made in name off any religion must bee done:

1) bie persons who are beliebers off thate religion;

2) in coherence with the teachings off thate religion ;

on the negative side we woulde habe: one thing is nott made in the name off one religion iff it is made:

1) bie persons who are not beliebers off thate religion;

2) against the teachings off thate religion...

so:

1) was the Beslam happening made by muslims? Yes they were: they had qur'ans with them and were praying to allah during the siege;

2) was the Beslam happening made in coherence to muslim teachings? Yes they were: the liffe off muhammad and the qur'an are full off things like these thate were, in fact, the motivational force off whate happened in Beslam...

on the other hand:

1) was whate happened in Japan something made bie Christians? we can eben admit thate they were, eben I woulde say the large margority were non-believers and free-masons;

2) was whate happened in Japan something made in coherence to Christian teachings? No they were nott... nothing in the NT (or in the OT when read by the only hermeneutical tool to rewad itt: Jesus life and wordes) support such thingue...

saide this, I obviously regreat all thate died in Japan due to the nuclear bombs... butt this blogg is called "answering islam", and recalling Beslam is an answer to islam thate calls itself "the religion of peace"... making a reference to whate happened in Japan in THIS site is nott a priority nor a concern... butt thankes to point thate out... it was another opportunity to clarify thate whate muslims call "incongruences" and "hipocrisy" is indeed a coherent and logical relity...

Fernando said...

brother The Fat Man saide: «Someone please talk to this young man. Really he needs profesional help»...

yes... he needs help... fro mwhere I live I can only pray to him... and I'm doing so... iff I lived in the USA I woulde go to some sort off public service, point whate he was been presentig and ask them to take care off him...

Fernando said...

Dear Professor Wood and Doctor Nabeel...

I'm deeply sorrow for whate you're going through due to the lack off integrity off Ehteshaam Gulam...

butt as I saide previously: he is in need off help, and I guess the best thing you can do is to give him a lot off love: the ramadan being in summer makes some muslims habe to stay a lot off time without eating and drinking... thate can creatte a medical disorder (likke the abuse off alcohool... butt whie in this case it's allowed... perhaps Yahya Snow can explain us thate...) that, as you know Doctor Nabeel, can habe influences in the normal function off the endocrine sistem thate, on its side, can converge in non-normal brain activities...

can this bee whate is happening with Ehteshaam Gulam? perhaps his behaviousr can habe something to due with this...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I must say: in this thread I think we hid a muslim nerve.

Radical Moderate said...

I just want to know what David and Nabeel did that Ethshaam wants a appology for. Anyeone know?

Michelle Qureshi said...

Fernando--

I have been praying for Ehteshaam, as I have been since before this fiasco. He has apologised for his behavior, tainted though his apology was. I am considering how to treat him currently - it seems he does not understand kindness or gentle words, because I had sent him advice and encouragement via private messages over facebook which he seemed to ignore wholesale.

I also figure a more stern approach might be better for him in the long run - he just doesn't seem to realize that when he goes on a rampage calling people arrogant and childlike, that he is acting arrogant and childlike! Again, he said I lost my temper while he was in the throes of losing his temper. He hasn't learned this yet, and for his sake, I'm trying to figure out how he might. He is my friend, after all.

Another concern I have is his desire to go into public debate with the worst arguments I've heard (rivaled only by Osama Abdallah). Even Nadir's fetal alcohol syndrome arguments are better than theirs. People like Shabbir Ali, Ali Ataie, and Farhan Qureshi have far superior arguments, and he should learn from them. I have been encouraging Ehteshaam to study with good Muslim debaters and scholars, and to pass his arguments by them before putting his reputation on the line in public. This will require a lot more than a year, especially if that year is divided in its attention through school affairs and whatnot. Hopefully he'll listen to my encouragement.

I pray that God will reach Ehteshaam before he goes on a self-destructive rampage. He has a good heart, and I don't like seeing him suffer. But if Ehteshaam ignores the Godly path, then I pray that God will make the best of a broken man when the time comes. It's true, when we are completely broken is when God often restores us to a point far better than ever before.

Thanks for your heart, Fernando. Your brother in Christ,
-Nabeel

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I think that Gulam is possibly feeling the pressure of his religious convictions being slightly dismantled. It is a scary, confusing and unpleasant experience, such as the thought of entering hell frying in there for ever due to his adherence of a possible wrong religion; therefore the reaction; it's understandable.

Fernando said...

I defnately agree with brother Hogan Elijah when he saide thate "we hid a muslim nerve"...

I'm just wondering... how many off them habe grown upp seeing theire extremely young mothers being sexuali used by these same muslims older fathers? The complex off Oedipus mustt bee a hard one to be dealt and overcome in some muslim minds and hearts: on one hand they must recpect thate behaviour since itt is saide to them to bee accepoted due to muhammad's example; on the other hand all off theire human being is shoutting out loud: "this is utterly disgusting"...

more: they also are, I beliebe (as I was...), called to do the same in order to show thate muslim religious tradition are more important than whate the westernized world believes... they are internaly in a turmoil, in a hurricane off fealings and thoughts... making sex with a 9 years old girls is as close to being a paedophilicus than anything I can remember... butt whille the western civilized societies hunt the paedophilicus taht exist in muslim countries these behaviour is incited and remunered...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

The truth needs to be told about David and Nabeel.

Ha ha ha:

I just viewed this debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLbAi1Chkso

Nabeel Qureshi got owned real bad !!!

Sami Zaatari destroyed Nabeel Qureshi!

Nabeel Qureshi resorted to mocking an Arab accent, the raising of his voice, making sarcastic gestures as Sami talked, n then using his 'im so sad' n sorrowful tone when making excuses for his behaviour. Nabeel throughout the debate was frustruated the whole debate. Nabeel was Nabil over sensitive and emotional. And Muslims want to debate this guy? .Bro Sami made Nabeel looked like an illiterate emotional fool and idiot who started mocking when he was badly pawned and owned.

you can clearly see Nabeel is an imposter..i can smell his b.s all the way out here in Michigan. He was never a Muslim, only Ahmediyya.

Also Sami Zaatari destroys David Wood here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq6Mdu8idic&feature=related

and Nadir destroys him here as well:

http://www.examinethetruth.com/RefutingAI/ahmed_wood_debate.htm

But David Wood acted very immature and stubborn about it. Instead of taking it like a man, he claims Nadir decieved him, and he resorted to mocking Nadir not too long ago. Even I am way more mature than this. I'll admit I lost both my debates-- will these two ever do the same? Nope. And that's the problem.

These are the kinds of people Muslim Apologists are dealing with?!? Give me a break. Both David and Nabeel are too arrogant, too sensitive and way too emotional. What a joke.

brother Sami is very good indeed. He's a million times better than me. I think our brother Sami Zaatari is our new Deedat and Naik. Just in the age of 20 he is debating and refuting these liars. May Allah make him ever successful. Same with Bassam Zawadi. Ameen.


Yeah I am out here. I just wanted to share.

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

minoria said...

A comment on RICHARD CARRIER.Ehteshaam holds him in high esteem.But I have less esteem for him,not as a person,but regarding CONSISTENCY(that of Richard Carrier).

I dont know if Ehteshaam is still reading us but if he is this might be of interest.

ATHEIST

He is an atheist.God can NOT be proved to exist 100%.But the EVIDENCE is MORE in favor that he does.Read DINESH D'SOUZA's "What is so Great about Christianity?".

WHY?

It is for ATHEISTS,and gives solid reasons why a God exists.Again,we can not prove 100% he does.I think it was the scholar SWINEBURNE who calculated that based on everything there is a 97% probability God exists,I will have to verify.That is very high.

YET...

Yet RICAHRD CARRIER continues to go agaisnt the evidence and insists it is NOT ENOUGH for him to go where the evidence leads.SO?

So Carrier is an atheist NOT because the evidence is AGAINST God but because ,essentially,he does NOT want to believe.It is the truth.

ANTHONY FLEW

He was one of the top atheists in the world for many decades.But recently in his book THERE IS A GOD he has become convinced God does exist...based on the evidence.He still believes God does NOT intervene(no miracles happen)but he does not rule it out 100%.

CARRIER AGAIN

The evidence is very high that Paul meant a PHYSICAL resurrection,and not a spiritual one.Even Carrier says his 2 body theory is only a theory.Yet Carrier is NOT being as logical as he should be,and this time regarding the kind of resurrection.

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

I find the fact that GEZA VERMES ,the famous Jewish scholar,wrote that the age of consent in Jewish marriages was NOT the age of puberty in general practice,to be very interesting.Coming from him it must be based on evidence.Thank you for the info.

minoria said...

I do NOT understand why Ehteshaam gives credibility to a work written in 150 AD,though some say it may be from 125 AD called the PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES.

There Mary is 12 and Joseph is 90.His teacher Richard Carrier certainly rejects it as a good source.He is not being consistent.

It is sad he left.And I really do no think he will ever think David and Nabeel were his friends,but they were.They really were.They pointed out the faults in his arguments.

I pointed out faults in the Muslim argument also,yet Ehteshaam never addressed why one they were not good in his opinion.And David Wood and Nabeel are NOT hatemongers.Too bad Ehteshaam came to that conclusion.

IslamSINS said...

Ehteshaam, after publicly agreeing that Abdallah is a quack, you're now sucking his tongue in public?

Vomitus Maximus. But moving right along, ...

Ehteshaam said: I apologize for my remarks about both of you. I lost my temper and now I have finally cooled down. It was wrong of me to insult David Wood, Nabeel and his professor Clay Jones.

And no Bassam and Farhan didn't say those things, I got mad and made it up. Sorry, man. (It's called 'LYING', Ehteshaam).

Are you two willing to forgive and forget-- because I am willing to forgive and forget both of what you wrote about me.
David and Nabeel didn't lose their temper and lie; you did.

I am willing to put this behind so we can focus on our faiths apologetics. I'll forgive, if you forgive. Oh, that's magnanimous of you. LOL!! You have nothing to "forgive" unless exposing Muhammad's foul sexual mores needs your forgiveness. Since your scholars have exposed him, maybe you should practice dispensing your 'forgiveness' on the Tabari and Sahihs.

Tabari IX:131 "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old."

"mother came to me"
"while I was being swung on a swing"
"My nurse took over"
"wiped my face"
"Muhammad was sitting on a bed"
"made me sit on his lap"
"The Prophet consummated"
"I was nine years old"
Sahih Muslim,8.3309, 3310, 3311; Sunan Dawud, B41N4915, 4916, 4917; Tabari 9.131
Nine. No breasts. No pubes. No intellectual/emotional development. Only a sexual pervert/predator would look with lust on such a wee girl. GAG!

Fernando said...

dear IslamSINS... youre quottes are quitte damaging... yahya snow had saide in his pseuo-article thate poor baby Aisha went absolutelly willing to her first sexual intercourse... yeep... she was crying withe happiness...

Fernando said...

dear brother Minoria... yes... thate fact is, as a matter off fact, a quite known one...

for instance: a survey on all jewish female epitaphius showned that only less than 10% off them had married in their early teens... and not a single one before teh age off 12...

more: iff girls could only habbe an active roile in the choice off her husband after her 16th anyversery and there are several pharisee acounts (latter even recompiled in the Talmud) in witch they rule whate to do in these cases when, due to the fact women were marrying after their teens (after theire 20th aniversarie), some fathers of their were already dead, we can assume thate marriage after the teens were a commum practice...

about Mary's age: the fact the NT text do not refear her parents, which should habe done in the case Mary coulde habe not giben her active role in the relation withe Joseph, thate implyes, directedely, thate she was, at the minimum, more than 16...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ehteshaam,

I am beginning to agree with some of my other brothers on this thread that something is seriously wrong, you are simply not acting in consistency.

Perhaps Fernando is right, maybe ramadan causes this reaction, or maybe as I suspect you are no longer as confident about your faith as you were a few months ago.

I believe you have tasted Christianity bro. I suspect that loosing a number of debates and gaining insight into Christian responses to islam has created doubt and confusion as to your view of islam. This is a very normal reaction when muslims find themselves loosing faith, the worry about travelling on the wrong path and ending up in hell is constantly present. This typically creates frustration, then denial, then anger and finally religious breakdown.

I can only encourage you brother, that this is God calling you out of islam and into the truth, it will hurt, it will challenge you and turn your life and world up side down, but save your own soul bro and do not resist that divine calling.

I will be praying for you.

Traeh said...

This is a very long thread.

Has anyone taken notice of the Qur'an verse that refers to a time period before divorce is permissible, and refers to wives who have not yet had menses (pre-pubescent) and wives who are in menopause?

Not only the hadith, but the Qur'an itself assumes marriage and sexual relations with prepubescent females. That is why there is a waiting period before divorce. To be sure that the little girl, around the time of divorce, was not crossing the threshhold to puberty and had not become pregnant by her husband, in which case new considerations come into play in divorce.

See www.quranbrowser.com for about ten different translations of verse 65:4. Most of the translations refer clearly to girls who have "not yet" had menses.

nma said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
Nabeel Qureshi got owned real bad !!!
Sami Zaatari destroyed Nabeel Qureshi!

You are entitled to your opinion but in reality, no muslim ever won a debate except when it was with an unprepared Christian.

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

I have a quesiton.

Why are the authors of this blog oblivious to the fact that Gulam clearly is in that "stage" in his life?

Gulam is a teenager going through "changes", his mood-swings are eqivolent to that of the opposite sex in that period of the month. This is not to insult Gulam as he will grow out of it.

This is only said after I have read all of his comments on atleast two or three articles.

Even this article is sufficient in showing Gulam is merely a puppet and his emotions are pulling the strings:

"I apologize, forgive me..

Wait no David is a hypocrite!

I'm so sorry I hope we can move past this

I'm out of here!

Wait no i'm back.

Nabeel is a joke! Sami desetroyed him, oh and David was humiliated by Sami!

Can you ever forgive me? etc etc"

How can anyone expect to take David and Nabeel seriously when they are debating children?

Hogan was so oblivious to this fact that he thinks that Gulam is losing his religion...lol, which has nothing to do with it. Hogan the kid hast NO CLUE how to reason, HUGE assumption on your part that he can actually follow an argument logically. His world view is hardly falling to pieces rather it is being reinforced as he has connected his beliefs with VERY powerful emotions that will make it virtually impossible to leave Islam.

These are my honest observations.

Please bring the credibility of
this blog up a notch.

IslamSINS said...

Ed, you're right, and the Tafsirs al Jalalayn and ibn Abbas leave NO doubt that this 65.4 applies to girls too young to have menses. There isn't enough Compazine in a pharmacy to stem my nausea over that foul teaching. :-(

Dk said...

Yahya Snow said:

"Think about it; none of the missionaries on the net argue against Tauhid (what Muhammed preached), all they do is mud-sling by misrepresenting ahadith and even forging narrations! Such is their level of debate."

EXTREMELY ignorant claim to make.
Answering Islam and Answer Islam have devoted dozens of articles to this very topic, NONE of which have been answered. Not even the lay internet apologists Zaatari or Zawadi have bothered to address them. If you would bother to get off your "high horse" and read Answering Islam you would see the website offers ALL people a chance to e-mail in and contact the authors and bring up objections.

nma said...

Yahya snow,

You said:
Fernando said...
Let's not forget Beslam and the barbaric islamic people who kidnapped those inocent little people... some would say thate was due to islam itself... I habe mie doubts on thate: islam is far worse...

September 1, 2009 1:15 PM

This is the type of hate filled, ignorance fueled and bigoted comment that is giving this site a reputation of hate as well as driving reasonable people away. Why in the wordl was that comment allowed?


Fernando is talking not about a particular group of Muslims.

Muslims' complaining about hate, ignorance and bigotry is just ridiculous because Muslims in general are not only ignorant fueled, but are the some of the worst bigots and hate-mongers. For example, their hate towards Jews as bad as that of the Nazis. Don't say that is not a fact because it is. And your Al-Quran is full of hate.

Maybe you are not aware of it, but you are a bigot because you have strong, unreasonable beliefs and you think anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong. Also, you side with bigots like Osama Abdallah. So before pointing the finger, look in the mirror.

Adam said...

Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be on all


The followers of religion of Peace truly follow the foothsteps of their prophet.
very few child marriages are celebrated in the media and by the police.
If any Pious Western muslim want to have a child wife, India and Pakistan is the place to be.
No body will report this in public, every the Immam will be on your side.


80-year-old Arab buys Indian bride for Rs 10 k

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1422414,prtpage-1.cms


OK for 10-year-old girls to marry: Saudi grand mufti

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/OK-for-10yearold-girls-to-marry-Saudi-grand-mufti/410727/


One minor girl, many Arabs

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/One-minor-girl-many-Arabs-/articleshow/1219601.cms

Stop the atrocities – stop selling young Indian girls to old oil rich Arabs

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/4489.asp

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

When I lived in India in the midst of a muslim community, I heard this very rumour (from members of this community)that a centre exists in India where Indians sell off their girls, often in very young age to rich Arabs who are then married on the spot by a mulana. We might say that the families benefit of receiving money for the girl and that the girl might benefit from leaving poverty, however, the thought of a 60-70 year old marrying a 7-8 year old is virtually sick. In all fairness we can conclude that the business is driven by the lust of pedofilia.

Fernando said...

Dear Ed... trhanks to point out the verse 65:4 off the qur'an... our good friend and brother, minoria, gabe an amaizing exegisis to thate verse in a previous thread off this blogg and showned, without any possible doubt, thate, from the text itself, the text was speaking off pre-pubescent girls...

its in this thread... there you can also find good analisis by brother Sepher and others...

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/06/fot-foundation.html

without asking him, butt expecting he won't gett mad aboutte me, I here re-apresent whate brother minoria saide then:

«Hello Yahya Snow:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in thate thread you'll also habe a clear knowlegde off whate kind off intelectual person is yayha snow...

God bless you and your family...

minoria said...

First,to Fernando.Thank you for the additional information about Mary and Epiphanius and the Talmud.I was not aware of it.

Secondly,I think Ehteshaam should be held in good esteem for recognizing he had commited an error.We all do.I have many times,though for different reasons.It is hard to do and what he did is recommendable.

ABOUT AISHA

Nabeel said Ehteshaam thinks Aisha was 14-16 at consummation.As I said before,there is a certain porbability she was not 9.But using the HISTORICAL METHOD it is more probable the story is true.

CRITERIA

The criterion of EMBARASSMENT and that of MULTIPLE ATTESTATION (3 different sources,and like 8 repetitions)are in favor of her being 9(better said 8,according to our calender).

THE COMMENTATORS THEMSELVES

BUKHARI and MUSLIM wrote 200 years later.Yet they were intelligent.They had to verify 2 simple things:

1.Age of marriage
2.Age of consummation

Just because X and Y had said it would not make it true.Certainly they would have looked for written documents concerning those 2 details.

BOTH DETAILS HAD TO COINCIDE

If they had found some written source that said "marriage at 6,consummation at 15" or " marriage at 8,consummation at 9" then they would have (I think) been forced to REJECT all the hadiths where said "marriage at 6,consummation at 9".

Obviously BOTH details had 2 coincide:that of the age of marriage,and age of consummation.If ONE did not,then no matter how strong the isnad,the hadith would have to be rejected.

minoria said...

Wow,just read the latest from Ehteshaam.He is against Nabeel and David again.I have to admit,to apologize and then attack.It is not logical.I read a bit about what Ricahrd Carrier wrote about David but I think in essence Carrier's idea can not be defended,that is to say about there being no God and yet be good.

WHY BE GOOD?

Carrier would certainly agree or should agree that:no God=no good and evil.

Good is what I decide is good which may be your idea or not.The same for bad.It is so obvious.One can invent a "common good" to make society work(utilitarianism) but it is still ARTIFICIAL.

There is no God,so whatever X decides is "good" is ARBITRARY.Z may decide something different is "good".Whatever makes you happy.

HOWEVER

I said before that the EVIDENCE(while not 100%)is that God exists.Again,it is not enough for Carrier.So be it.But he should say very explicitely in his works that most would disagree with him and that they have very solid reasons.

AISHA AND PUBERTY

The argument is she had reached PUBERTY at 9.While not probable it can happen.So let us accept it.That still poses a problem.And Bassam accepts that Aisha was 9,unlike Ehteshaam.

THE PROBLEM

Tell any NON-MUSLIM that Mohammed was the GREATEST man who ever live,even greater than Francis of Assisi,Jesus,Buddha,Confucius,etc.

Then say he slept with a 9 year old wife.But it was ok because she had reached puberty.And Islamic law doesn't allow it before puberty.

WHY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Since the reaction is negative by all non-Muslims,why did Allah allow it to happen in the first place if in his wisdom he should have known it would be a GREAT OBSTACLE for NON-MUSLIMS to believe that Mohammed was the GREATEST man?

That it would be a great obstacle in believing that Islam is true?


It is illogical.

Adam said...

Shalom Brother Hogan Elijah Hagbard,

I was just curious to know which part of the Indian Sub continent you were residing. As I am from Bombay.

Such act of Muslim and Islamic perverts has been India and elsewhere. Very seldom such acts are reported in the media and the court. Many a times Islamic scholar accuse non muslim for bringing bad name to islam, and warn them not to interfere in their personal law. In India muslims are vote banks for politicians hence higher authorities also wash their hands.
Point to remember there are more Muslims In India than in Pakistan even after Indian partition of 1947. After Indonesia, India rank second with highest Muslim population in the world.

I am posting a link of the famous case on Child bride in 1992
Arabian knightmare
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040822/women.htm#1


THE IMFAMOUS IMRANA CASE.
'Imrana rape case is defaming Islam'
http://www.expressindia.com/news/messages.php?newsid=50546
Chronology of Imrana case
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Chronology-of-Imrana-case/articleshow/2208796.cms

minoria said...

Again about Christianity,Atheism and Islam.As I said before Ehteshaam will never be convinced.That is ok in the sense it is part of free will.But when you apply the SAME method to find out if:

1.Is there a God?
2.Did Paul mean a physical reusrrection?
3.Is the Koran's claim that it has no errors exact?

Then you find the evidence is in FAVOR of 1 and 2,and against 3.

BART EHRMAN

Even EHRMAN rejects the "spiritual resurrection" idea of Carrier.Now I am not equipped to know how accurate Carrier is in his critique of David's critique of his 300 plus page book.But I do know the arguments for and against God,Christianity,Islam.

I think Ehteshaam has studied the case for and against God,and that he will never(like Carrier) be convinced by Christianity.But at the same time using a logical method the Koran does not pass the test.He can still believe in God,but he should reject Islam.

Fernando said...

dear minoria: it's not "Epiphanius", rather epitaphius: the writtings in tumular stones... sorry for mie poor english... God bless...

nma said...

CORRECTION

nma said:Fernando is talking not about a particular group of Muslims.

Correction: "Fernando is talking about a particular group of Muslims"

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam: You have now repeated your allegation about Joseph and Mary.

I will ask you a second time sir, will you please stop making false allegations? If you wish to be taken as a serious apologist, you have to stop repeating things that you hear from people, and actually go to the trouble of checking your facts out.

When you say that Joseph had sexual relations with mary when he was 90 and Mary was 12-14, you are you repeating a falsehood, a misrepresentation of what is spoken concerning the issue.

Please tell me, have you actually bothered to read the extract from the catholic encyclopedia in it's entirety or just a small snippet out of context?