Sunday, January 31, 2010

The Qur'an Kills Again (Another Woman Dead Due to Surah 4:34)

As everyone who visits this blog knows, the Qur'an commands faithful Muslim men to beat their rebellious wives into submission:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. (Qur'an 4:34)

If anyone has doubts about the meaning of this passage, I invite you to read Osama Abdallah's elegant description of situations where a Muslim man should not only beat his wife, but "beat the daylights out of her." Note that, according to Osama, a man should beat the daylights out of his wife for not taking care of her children properly.

What is the result of the Islamic position on wife-beating? Muslim women usually remain quiet about such beatings, since they're raised to believe that it's acceptable to beat women. But sometimes women die from the beatings.

Notice from the following case that the husband was beating his wife for refusing to breastfeed her child on command. Thus, he was completely within his Muslim rights to (as Osama likes to say) "beat the daylights out of her." Unfortunately, the beating killed her.

A woman was beaten by her husband after she refused to resume breastfeeding her baby, Dubai Criminal Court heard yesterday.

The defendant, MN, a 26-year-old Pakistani tailor, again ordered the woman, AF, to feed her baby, but she refused once more, put the baby on the bed and went onto the roof of their house.

There, she removed her headscarf, which annoyed her conservative Muslim husband. He then allegedlly slapped her and brought her back to her room.

When she left the room again and went back up to the roof, he allegedly hit her several times with a plastic pipe, and she fell to the ground. He lifted his wife up and lay her on the bed, but when her condition deteriorated, he took her to hospital. She passed away after a few days due to complications from an injury to her head. Read More.

For more on wife-beating in Islam, click here.


Fernando said...

I'm sure thate WomanforTruth or her avatar, Ali, will explain us all why this is a non islamic actitude... lets juste waite and see...

Semper Paratus said...

This reminds me of something I tell people when they come swimming at our house: "The only rule is, if you drown, you aren't allowed to come back here and swim."

Likewise, if you beat your wife to death for not breastfeeding on command, when she probably just needed a break, she probably won't breastfeed on command in the future.

GreekAsianPanda said...

We recently had a religion unit in my geography class at school. My teacher showed us the movie "Not Without My Daughter." After we watched it, my geography teacher told us that the movie depicts Islam in a negative light, but in reality men and women in Islam are equals. I raised my hand and told him and the whole class about this verse (4:34) and that it allows wife-beating. But then a few days later he told us again that men and women in Islam are equals. Sheesh...I bet it's because his Quran has the word "lightly" in parentheses after "beat them."

minoria said...

GreekAsian Panda did the right thing.The teacher was ignorant.Now some Muslims now say "beat/strike/hit"really means "to leave".Let's say it's true.Yet the Koran is SUPPOSED to be a CLEAR GUIDANCE.So why did Allah NOT use the Arabic word that UNDENIABLY means,100% with no doubt means,"to leave" INSTEAD of using an Arab word that can also mean "beat"?Isn't Allah supposed to be more intelligent than that?So for 1,400 years all the Muslim scholars had it WRONG because Allah was not wise enough to use the adequate Arabic word.
Again Greek Asian Panda,good job.You did the right thing.That teacher lacked knowledge,and it seems,later on,he also lacked logic.

hugh watt said...

In my dialogue with Muslims i am told that Islam is the 'greatest of all religiions'. If this is so, can any Muslim explain, in what way has Islam improved society? On Woman's rights? Human rights? Rights for those who do not embrace Islam? I would like to compare Islam & Christianity on these issues.

ChristianAndTheQuran.BlogSpot said...

Greetings, I've just now come across this blog, and I find it interesting, as I myself have just begun to learn in depth about Islam. I must vehemently say, regardless of religion or beliefs, any person (man or woman) that can beat another person (man or woman) to the point of death - has something very wrong with them. I also must vehemently point out that such behavior towards woman, in all countries, religions, tribes, places, etc. at some point in history has excepted the hitting of woman. The Bible (I am Christian, so don't beat me up too bad :) lol) has been "fondled" so much since it's conception. It took, give or take a couple hundred years, 1600 years to get it all down. Not to mention different versions of the Bible omit different verses or chapters. There have been numerous debates over translations. There are numerous verses in the Bible about the inferiority, possession, sale, killing, raping, etc. of women. Not to mention numerous people in this world that beat, kill, harm, etc. woman and others in the name Jesus Christ. What we now find hard to stomach about the Qur'an, is that it hasn't changed since it's conception. These are old world ways in a new world. If we all followed the Bible to a T, we would live very different lives. We have conformed Christianity to fit the modern world. I am NOT in any way condoning the beating to death of a woman, HARDLY. What I am saying is, any man worth his salt regardless of what his religion may or may not allow him to do, does not put his hands on a woman in this day and age. Some things in both Books, can't or shouldn't be followed to a T, it just does not fit society today.
All the Best
Follow Me :)

Tom said...

Note to self: "Anytime an ideology or behavior or mindset enables the degradation or devaluation of women, remember what precious Walid Shoebat told us about "enmity between the woman and the serpent".

It's in the BIBLE, folks. I had never seen it as going both ways. I always thought (duh!) the enmity was only going to be held in the heart of the "woman" while the fear would be held in the heart of the snake. Walid has helped me to see that it is the SNAKE that maintains enmity towards the woman - as in Hissslam. And thanks also to GreekAsianPanda. It appears you young people are growing with eyes more wide open than we did. We thought the only enemies we had were Communism and Nazi Fascism. Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were mere pretenders, however, to Muhammed's throne of evil. And now, more than ever (thanks to Pam Geller, over at 'AtlasShrugs'), we understand how much the Nazi Fascists were inspired by the pseudo-prophet.

GreekAsianPanda, I pray that your teacher is still a student and still capable of learning.

I remain Kafir and grateful to God in Jesus Christ.

David Wood said...

Christian(i.e. Taqiyya-practicing Muslim)andtheQur'an:

Well, I doubt you're a Christian. Muslims do this regularly. Emails and comments from Muslims pretending to be Christians typically run as follows:

"Hi, I am a Christian. But as everyone knows, the Bible's been completely corrupted, Jesus wasn't the Son of God, and Christianity is violent. Of course, I condemn the actions of Muslim radicals. But it should be pointed out that they aren't following the glorious Qur'an, which has been perfectly preserved and is a scientific masterpiece. Yep, I'm a Christian saying all of this."

I have never seen members of any religion so willing to engage in deception. Why is it Islam which produces such a steady supply of internet liars? Could it be because Muhammad encouraged lying?

Here's some advice: If you're going to try to deceive us, don't make it so obvious! What Christian would comment on a post about a Muslim brutally beating a woman to death, and then spend his entire comment attacking and misrepresenting Christianity? This is just pitiful. Taqiyya isn't meant to be this obvious, my friend.

Fernando said...

Professor Wood asked: «Could it be because Muhammad encouraged lying?»...

yeppp... and lets not forget he himself lyied in order to have sex to a woman...

ned said...

Hi All:

I smile when they try to deceive because they don’t know who they are dealing with. Jesus said truth will set you free and He said my Word is Truth. When we have the Word of Jesus in us then we are free from their deception. Their prophet told them to be away from us because he didn’t want them to be free and wanted muslims to be slaves of his ideology. Only this action where they are deceiving is sufficient to prove what they are trying to spread; one doesn’t need to go further into teaching because the fruit of deception is already showing which tree they belong to. Unless they have the Word of True Christ in them, they will keep on trying to deceive. Have faith my brothers and sisters; enjoy the ride if you have Jesus as the Driver.


minoria said...

Hello ChristianandtheKoran:

I disagree with you.You said in effect that the Bible is in favor of harming women.


Read LEVITICUS 19:18:"LOVE your NEIGHBOR like YOURSELF."It doesn't say to only love male neighbors.

LEV 19:34:"You will LOVE THEM(note:foreigners,strangers)like YOURSELVES."Again,it's a GENERAL statement,for men and women.


Jesus said "Do to others as you would have them do to you" in MATT 7:12/LUKE 6:31.If you want others to treat you well then treat others (including women) you would like to be treated.

"Love your neighbor like yourself"in the NT:JAMES 2:8/ROM 13:8-10/GALAT 5:14.Jesus says it in MARK 12:31(repeated in MATT 22:390

DEFINITION OF LOVE:in the NT it's in 1 COR 13:1-8/13:13.
So that shows your affirmation is incorrect.


DINESH D'SOUZA wrote "What's so Great about Christianity",a very good book written for ATHEISTS.I don't agree with his ideas about Islam however.His latest book is LIFE AFTER DEATH,THE EVIDENCE (2009).For an interview of him where he explains his ideas on that write in youtube:"Life after death evidence part 1/12".It's good to know all that in case another asks why he should believe it's possible.

Fernando said...

Someone saide: «We have conformed Christianity to fit the modern world»...

no my friend: we have conformed Christianity to Jesus' message... can those "moderate" muslims say the same about being conforming theire actitude to muhammad's message? I do not think so...

recently some saudi arabian prince saide in a TV interview thate allah, through muhammad, gave to women whate no one gave before: total respect since he saide: «half of your religion is given by women»... I almost shoked when he said thate... he must have digged and digged to find thate supposed women-friendly text, covering and covering, in that process, thousands and thousands off texts comparing women as nothing...

the problem is thate bad-informed persons will always fall for thate kind off trick and beliebe thate islam is an wonderful religion only to figure out latter thate thate is not the case...

islam is the evil incarnated... I'm not saying thate muslims are ebil, rather that they are under the direct influence off the most devlishe ideology thate eberv existed in the world...

hugh watt said...

To the unbeliever pretending to be a Christian. Your're kinda obvious dude. Try changing your name and having another go, that might do it! I have a Q for you. Do you think Islam has better values than Christianity? If so, would lying be a step up in morality on, 'You must not bear false witness'?

Paul Guralivu said...

Hi everybody,

I've checked a bit the blog of christianandthequran and I must say: SHE IS A MUSLIM.
She tell her story from a romano-cathlic to nondenominational to Hinduism, Budhism .... (Fact 1)bla until Islam.
(Fact 2)
After 9/11 she defended her friends in front of her family(why ?). (Fact 3)Anyway her husband IS A MUSLIM.

(Fact 4)
Even the starting post on reading Noble Qur'an is closed with Insahallah.

(From 1-4 =>)So the entire thing is a LIE.

As for beating women in Islam, that's just nuts.
A religion made to lie, manipulate and establish a maniac world order.

May God(The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost) have mercy on us.


retsamknup said...

how do we get rid of this cancer called islam??

it imitates normal mammalian cells, but proliferates uncontrolably and is not capable of carrying our the same functions as normal cells.

The only way to rid it of the body is to remove the tumor....remove the Quran.

David you should add this video to your series on the Coptic demos

minoria said...

Hello:here I am copy-pasting myself with what I wrote in a Muslim blog but I think it has some interest since it gives a new view:


This idea is never heard among Christians but in JOHN 14:6 it’s:”I (Jesus) am the WAY,THE TRUTH and the LIFE.”


One of them is AL-HAQQ (THE TRUTH,in suras 6:62/22:6/23:116/24:25).Now a Muslim can write a book about Islam and call it “The Truth”.It does NOT mean the BOOK is Allah.Or a MOSQUE can be called “The Truth”.It does NOT mean the mosque is Allah.


What if a HUMAN says “I am THE TRUTH.”Not “I spoke to you about the truth”/”I am truthful”/”I know the truth” but DECLARES himself to be “THE TRUTH”?Allah is not an inanimate object like a book or a mosque.Yu can also call a belief system ,like Islam “the truth”.Allah is also called THE KING,THE GENEROUS,THE WISE(other of the 99 names of Allah).A mere HUMAN can call himself “the king” or “the wise”/”the generous” and it would be ACCEPTABLE,correct?But to use the title THE TRUTH in a declarative statement and apply it to a HUMAN would not do,since it encompasses and implies ALOT more that the other names mentioned.It is a statement of being God himself.

ChristianAndTheQuran.BlogSpot said...

Hello again,
Well, I must admit I wasn't expecting that, and I did have a little bit of a giggle to myself, that I was thought not to be a Christian. I will tell you, I was raised Catholic, went to St. Margarent of Scotland Church, in Selden, NY.. (you can google it, it is a real church), received religious instructions till the age of 12 or 13, was batized, received communion and confirmed a Catholic. At the age of 17, I started to go to a Non-Denomination Christian church, for a little over two years. I, however, have always had friends of different religions and races. Because of this, I think it has helped me to maintain an open respect for those with different views then myself. I respect the Muslim, I respect their religion as I do anyone else. I find Islam has many beliefs that are similar to that of Christianity. I, myself, have read the Bible and am currently reading the Qur'an. I changed from Catholic to Non-Dem. Christian, I did this because I will not allow others to tell me what to believe or what the Bible supposedly says. I have read it for myself and have chosen to follow what is written and nothing more, nothing less. I am reading the Qur'an, because I am tired of people telling me what Muslims believe, when they themselves know nothing but what they have been told about it. I think anyone that will makes claims on other peoples religions shall know what they are speaking of before they open their mouths (not to say those who commented haven't, I am not aware of what you have or haven't read, just making a statement). I also believe that those who wish to comment of the views of others should do so with respect. I can not command the respect of others if I do not respect them myself.
To Minoria: I am in total agreement with you that the Bible teaches to love all equally, that that love is meant for men and woman. But what will you do when your neighbor is a Muslim? God did not mean love thy neighbor, but only when they are Christians! He did not mean do unto others as you would have done unto you, but only to your fellow Christians. But to answer the point being made here, there are verses in the Bible that show a woman shall be inferior, and set punishments towards woman. I direct you to, Lev. 21:9, Deut. 25:11-12, 1 Corinth. 11:8-9, Tim. 2:11-14 (might I point out about this verse, uses the word subjection rather then submission. Why is this interesting, to under go subjection is to do so without agreeing, to be made to, or forced. Submission is to agree upon, or voluntarily do so.) 1 Corinth. 14:34-35, Eccles. 26:25, the ever popular Gen. 3:16. My favorite has always been where it says to a man that it is better to dwell on the corner of a house top or in the wilderness then with an angry or contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:19 and 25:24, that's right it was so nice he said it twice) Bottom line is, both books can have quotes pulled from them to prove or disprove each others points. When you take the overall meaning of the Bible and the Qur'an, they both preach of love and respect.
Those of you who claim to be Muslim or Christian or whatever, should show others respect, and agree to disagree. No one will convert any to each others religions by debasing each other. I can not come on here and tell a devout Muslim- hey your religion is crap, your spewing evil from your mouth and your a rotten person and expect them to listen or to respect my opinion. (Mind you I don't feel that way). Compassion and love is dripping from both books, it's about time we all start following what is written and what we claim to believe, start putting the hate out of our hearts and allowing respect and love to fill it!
Always happy to chime in:

The Fat Man said...

Amazing, if you want to laugh you guys have to read "ChristianQuranblogspot" blog its to funny. Its almost as good as our friend Esthshaam's blog. Almost as good as the Woman Minister who was finally defrocked for converting to Islam and still remaining to be a "Christian Minister"

Now on the story. First to you Muslims who say he went to far in beating his wife to death. HE DIDNT BEAT HIS WIFE TO DEATH. It was the fall that killed her not the beating :)

Fernando said...

To teh author off ChristianAndTheQuran... none off your passgens imply you presented (when will someone be original?) thate women are to be threated infiriorly to men... iff you were a Christian you should know thate...

and you should know thate we all arounde here love muslims! we might want to denounce the evil inside islam, butt we eben do so because we love those who are under the influence off thate barbaric ideology named as islam...

you also saide: «Compassion and love is dripping from both books»... can you present ONE single verse from the qur'an thate shows universal compassion? thankes...

Fernando said...

To teh author off ChristianAndTheQuran... none off your passgens imply you presented (when will someone be original?) thate women are to be threated infiriorly to men... iff you were a Christian you should know thate...

and you should know thate we all arounde here love muslims! we might want to denounce the evil inside islam, butt we eben do so because we love those who are under the influence off thate barbaric ideology named as islam...

you also saide: «Compassion and love is dripping from both books»... can you present ONE single verse from the qur'an thate shows universal compassion? thankes...

hugh watt said...

ChristianandtheQuran.So you're a she! Sorry, dudess. I can respect those who are honest even those who are mistaken about a matter, but when outright lies are told in the name of God that i have no respect for. The Bible condemns lying. Islam/Allah/Muhammad encourage it. Christians and Muslims believe in a literal Hell where sinners spend eternity. This is not some game we are playing here, the stakes are high. You can not respect 2 books that clash on there most essential foundations. The central persons are Jesus and Muhammad. If one is right the other must be condemned. Many Muslims i speak with do not even know what their books say because at most they read it in a language they don't understand! This is not intelligent. God gave you a mind and expects you to use it not pass your time here not knowing what it was all about. God gave Adam a mind to use and he being the head of humanity was an example for us all in that regards. When Jesus said, 'I AM the way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Me',(John 14v6). He meant just that. He also warned against false prophets who would deceive many even more so just before His return. You get one crack at life and without The Saviour...Do not play games. This is too serious. May God bless you and be merciful as you seek Truth.

ChristianAndTheQuran.BlogSpot said...

Fernando: I'm not quite sure what your first paragraph was trying to say, but if you were trying to say that the passages I directed Minoria to didn't suggest the inferiority of woman, you must not have read them all, within the first pages of the Bible comes Gen. 3:16, which is clearly written and has barely any room for interpretation, "Then to the woman He said: I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU.", and again in 1 Corinth. 11:8-9 "For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.", Tim. 2:11-12 "Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." These are some of what I posted before.

Asking for the quotes from the Qur'an about compassion and love, here they are:
"O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous."49:13
"And what will explain to you what the steep path is? It is the freeing of a (slave) from bondage; or the giving of food in a day of famine to an orphan relative, or to a needy in distress. Then will he be of those who believe, enjoin fortitude and encourage kindness and compassion." 90:12-17
There is two for you, second one is free of charge ;).
Paul: I am still giggle'n if only I could post me in my communion dress. But none the less, there is little I can say to make you believe I am who I am, sad but true. Yes I have learned about many religions, I have chosen to learn more about Islam, and no I'm not married, I did say other half though, so I could see the confusion on that one. Funny how you point out about my Muslim boyfriend, but miss the Holiday blog I posted about celebrating Christmas! We know how much those Muslims love Christmas. lol Oh you guys. I am really baffled by it, but hey it's ok. No respect lost, I understand peoples passions and that some people do deceive each other online.
Wow what a tough crowd.
Blessings to you all,
Oh and by the way I'm not shortening my name because I'm trying to hide myself, my name is Tiffany, but most everyone calls me T :)

ChristianAndTheQuran.BlogSpot said...

Me again, sorry I just had another thought, these things come to me in waves. :)
Fernando: you said that all around here love Muslims but only wish to point out that they are under an evil influence, more or less that they should follow in the path of Jesus. So I hope you all are going around to the Lutherans, Protestants, Episcopals, Catholics, Baptists, etc. for all of these religions are were formed by man (not Jesus) and created from the early Christian religion. If you all wish to follow in Jesus' light, then I hope you all are commenting on all these religions sites, praying and hoping they come away from their evil and brainwashing religions also. There is only one Jesus and one Bible, there should be only one Christianity, not 10 or 15 or who knows how many now. Bring them all back. Tell them the evil ideology they follow, tell them they aren't true Christians but follow the interpretations of mere men. Just pointing that out. :) ok, think I got it all this time.

shafsha said...

Dear All,

this debate is a complete defeat of Deedat, he anounced that clearly !!!

the topic is: the quran or the bible which is the word of God

between Ahmed Deedat, and Dr Anis Sharoush a christian arab

enjoy it

minoria said...

Hello ChristianKoran:

You said the Koran is dripping with compassion and love.You don't know of SURA 9:111:

"Allah has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for PARADISE. Thus, they fight in the cause of ALLAH, KILLING and BEING KILLED. Such is His PROMISE in the TORAH, the GOSPEL, and the KORAN - and who fulfills His pledge better than Allah? You will rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph."


You have read the Torah,so you know:

1.There is no mention of going to heaven there if you kill or get killed for God.
2.And there is NO MENTION in the ENTIRE OT of a HEAVEN.Nowhere in the Torah.
3.In fact,in no Jewish writings at all,outside of the OT(Talmud,Targum,Midrash,etc)is there such a doctrine of going to heaven for killing or getting killed for God.

And in the gospels Jesus NEVER made such a statement.

minoria said...

LEV 21:9 says to burn a priest's daughter who commits prostitution and DEUT 25:11-12 says to cut off one hand of a woman who damages(that is how it's understood)the male organ of another man who is fighting her husband.


They concern women and they are harsh punishments.But when one studies Judaism one learns that the MOSAIC LAWS(like those 2 there) were meant ONLY for Jews.99% of humanity was exempt.So it never applied to non-Jewish women.Ask any rabbi.


God gave the Jews a very strict code because they were the Chosen People(through which the prophets would come).That was why we have some 12 cases where punishment is DEATH(adultery,apostasy,idolatry,etc,for both men and women).About HALF the time,when you read the record there was MASS APOSTASY by the Jews,so a law can be strict but if there is no one to apply them then it's dead.


To me that the laws where often harsh due to the nature of the people.If they had been less inclined to go into mass apostasy,then the laws would have been far milder.If the CHINESE(who seem to be a very tranquil people in general)had been chosen as the CHOSEN PEOPLE I assume the laws would been milder.There is more to say on this but this is a start.


I had before addressed 1 COR 11:8-9/1 TIM 2:11-14/1COR 14:34-35,knowing it would be brought up.I will have to go back to it again but later.Regarding GEN 3:16 PAUL in ROM refers to the law as known by the pagans without supernatural revelation and he means the GOLDEN RULE,so GEN 3:16 is limited by the Golden Rule.

minoria said...


It is a book with CONDITIONAL passages,like SURA 5:32

"Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel (note:Jews) that anyone who murders a person UNLESS if it is for MURDER or for SPREADING MISCHIEF, it will be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it will be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing."


Notice it's CONDITIONAL.The key word is MISCHIEF.What is that?For many/most Muslim experts it includes SAYING NEGATIVE THINGS about MOHAMMED and the KORAN/or APOSTASY from ISLAM/or TRYING to CONVERT a MUSLIM.

SURA 5:33:"The just retribution for those who FIGHT Allah and His MESSENGER (Mohammed), and spread mischief, is to be KILLED, or CRUCIFIED, or to have their HANDS and FEET cut off on alternate sides, or to be BANISHED from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter."


You CAN say 5:33 ONLY refers to a SPECIFIC historical time(Moh.'s war)and is NOT supposed to be a UNIVERSAL LAW.Ok,but 5:32 says you can kill another person for "spreading mischief" and since "mischief" COVERS ALOT of situations then a Muslim can kill you for saying you don't believe in Islam for X reasons.


[5:34] "Exempted are those who repent before you overcome them. You should know that GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

5:34 is connected to 5:33.It's a THREAT to the Jews of Mohammed's day.It's saying they will be crucified/have hands and feet cut off/be banished/or killed if they don't submit to him.It's NO DIFFERENT from what Julius Ceaser,Alexander the Great,Genghis Khan,and many other military leaders have done:threaten to inflict cruelty in order to subdue an enemy.


He would have said:"You are fighting against me but let us make peace.If you don't I will defeat you but I WILL STILL treat you with DIGNITY and RESPECT,and after the battle is over there will be no useless violence commited against you."

minoria said...


I had stated the Koran puts conditions.Now SURA 90:12-17 was given where it says to free a slave,help orphans and the hungry.It also uses the words "encourage KINDNESS and COMPASSION."


In 24:13 it states that if a slave asks for freedom the owner is to give it only if he thinks he deserves it(has good in him).What I'm saying is:

1.One passage limits what another says and the "compassion and kindness"in 90:17 gets limited by 24:13.

2.The Koran nowhere condemns slavery.It accepts it.The NT does.


Many Christians can't give a definition but in the NT we see GOOD=Law of Christ=Law of God=Golden Rule=do to others as you
would have them do to you.Simple.


SURA 49:13 says:"The most honorable of you in the sight of God is the MOST RIGHTEOUS(good)."

I say to ChristianKoran that for the Muslim religious leaders the MOST GOOD has a different meaning.For most Muslims GOOD=submitting to Allah=laws and doctrines of ISLAM.It does NOT mean Golden Rule.That is why so many Muslims are in favor of killing apostates.(which goes against the Golden Rule).


If GOOD=Islam then EVIL=anything that is against it(criticism of it,apostasy,trying to convert others away from it).That is why FREEDOM of RELIGION (right to leave Islam) and EXPRESSION(right to critique other belief systems,including Islam)is rejected by most Muslims.WHY?Becasue THEIR CONCEPT of GOOD is DIFFERENT from the non-Muslims'.


Again,the KEY idea is that in the KORAN the GOLDEN RULE is NOT given as the CENTRAL ETHICAL LAW(it does appear rather indirectly in like 2 passages but nowhere is it given CENTRAL PLACE like in the NT).

So BECAUSE of that in ISLAM the DEFINITION of GOOD is different that in the West.No doubt about it.CONCLUSION:2 groups can use the SAME WORD but give a DIFFERENT DEFINITION to it.As simple as that.

Fernando said...

To the author off ChristianAndTheQuran... No, my friend, there are only one Church of Jesus withe different aspects beings given importance (butt all off them agreing withe the central Christian message), butt this one, as the home off the Father, has many dwellings... Yes, I'm praying in order thate all off these brothers will be more and more united, butt they are nott following neither an idiology, nor an develish idiology...

Fernando said...

To the author off ChristianAndTheQuran...

lets see the passages you presented to me...

Gen. 3:16... the word "yimšol" thate you presented from a translation as "rule" means, as a matter off fact, "protection with power"... does this mean directdely thate women is inferior to men? No it does not...

1Tim. 2:11-12... this is justt an cultural, located and liturgical recomendation, thate must not be extrapolated to other circunstances... the author was dealing withe some women thate were trying to do some men liturgical actions... men and women habe identical value, butt this does not mean thate they can do the same actions... men, v.g., cannot give birth...

can you presente more passages to me? thankes...

Fernando said...

To the author off ChristianAndTheQuran...

lets go, now to the quranic passges you presented...


dispitte your dubious translation, there is not the slightest reference to honour each other... sorry aboutte thate... the aspect off "honouring" or "respecting" is an taqiyya strategy to give a false idea off whate is islam... so: were is the fact to know each other is being universal compassive? Remember? This was the aspect I asked you too show us... more: 49:14 (the following verse) shows thate this knowledge is in order to "attained to faith"; this is: to become a muslim... so: where is compation?


it does not speak off freeing slaves or boundage, rather than freeing one from sin (whate only occours when one becomes muslim); then it speaks off helping the poor and the orphan and the needing... butt the key-hermeneutical aspect is whate is saiede in surah 90:17: «being like that to those who have attained to faith»... so: one only must do tahte to those who are muslims... so: ounce again: were is the fact to know each other is being universal compassive? Remember? This was the aspect I asked you too show us...

as you saide: there is two for you, second one is free of charge ;)...

can you present more pasages to me? thanks...

ChristianAndTheQuran.BlogSpot said...

If I had the time or the energy to continue on in this clearly out numbered debate, I would. But like I said before, I am still learning about Islam. No matter what any of you will say, it will not change the fact that I have respect for those who praise the same God as I do. I will have respect for those that believe Jesus spread the word of God. And shame to all of you who call yourselves Christians, you sit on your high horses thinking yourselves better then anyone. Just as there is nothing to change your minds on how you feel about Islam, there is nothing to change mind. So I bid you all ado, and pray you all find compassion.. sooner then later.

Fernando said...

To the author off ChristianAndTheQuran...

sure... now thate your positions lack credebility ans strenght you do not habe time... ok... another typical muslim tactic...

you saide: «I have respect for those who praise the same God as I do»... so: you admit, at last, you're a muslim... allah is not YHWH: the (false) god off the qur'an is not the (True) God off the Bible...

I do have respect to all muslims, butt do not habe the slightes respect to the ideology they follow... and saying this is my testimony off campation to them: its because I do feel compation to them thate I do want them to get away from yhat idiology thate is intoxicating them...

I do not think I'm better than anyone, butt I know I'm in the right path: the path inaugurated by my loved and beloved Jesus Christ thate died and ressurected (somethingue thate the qur'an denies) to gibe His Spirit to those who have faith in Him...

thanks you, author off ChristianAndTheQuran, and may God, the Holy Trinity, bless you...

Adam said...


-'And shame to all of you who call yourselves Christians, you sit on your high horses thinking yourselves better then anyone.'-


what about these entertainer

Late Ahmad Dedat ( may lord Jesus Christ forgive him)

Dr. Zakir Naik
Shabir Ali
Yusaf Estes
..............etc etc.

Sepher Shalom said...


All of your misrepresentations of the Bible and the Quran aside....

Are you really OK with a book that denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Messiah Yeshua? A book that preaches what EVERY sincere believer must immediately recognize as a false gospel? A book that insults the eternal uncreated Son, by whom all creation was made, denigrating Him as a creature and 'slave of Allah'?

I'm sorry, but anyone who actually understands the Gospel, and has been redeemed by the singularly eternal and efficacious sacrifice of the Lamb, can have no other reaction to the facts above besides disgust and moral outrage.

minoria said...


I had before addressed why 1 COR 11/1 COR 14/1 TIM 2:11-14 was not anti-woman when analysed well due to context,Jewish beliefs and history,etc in another post but here I add new info like that in REFORM and CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM a woman can be a RABBI(there are hundreds today).


We have God the Father,the Son and Holy Spirit.In GREEK spirit is NEUTRAL but in ARAMAIC-HEBREW it is FEMININE.So when Jesus talks of the Holy Spirit he refers it to as a SHE.So in the original language of Jesus we have a God that is feminine.This was known to the GNOSTICS and in one of their gospels they refer to the Trinity as the FATHER,MOTHER and SON.


Notice Paul here accepts LONG HAIR on a WOMAN as constituting the EQUIVALENT of a HEAD SCARF.So even the real scarf is not obligatory.

1 COR 11:13-15:"Judge among yourselves. Is it PROPER for a WOMAN to pray to God with her HEAD UNCOVERED? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a WOMAN has LONG HAIR, it is a glory to her; for HER HAIR is given to her as a COVERING."

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Its an established fact, that is of course if you believe Scripture:

that no one can be a Christian and accept Islam or the Qur'an as having originated from God!

This is what Muslim expect us to do, and then they get upset when we refuse; tell a Muslim to believe in the entire Bible and its doctrine and narrative; at least the Bible preceeded the Qur'an and the Qur'an is to confirm its teaching.

The Muslim if obedient to his book is to believe the Bible, but Christians are nowhere commanded to follow the Qur'an. Hence our response to the Qur'an is valid, while the modern muslim treatment of the Bible is contradictory to their own book.

Don´t misunderstand my position here, my dear Muslims. As Christians we are to love Muslims, but based upon our Scripture we are not to sympatise with the religion of Islam. There are certainly things in the Qur'an which are respectful and acceptable (I will respect such conduct), yet every religion and philosophy will contain something that appeals to the teachings of Jesus. Moral teaching is therefore not a valid evidence for truth.
Hence it does not constitute a valid excuse for a Christian to consider the Qur'an as a revelation from God.

minoria said...

Part 1:I tried to find the date and entry in the blog where I had spoken about woman in the NT,but had trouble.So I repeat it but with modification for EASIER reading.Please pardon the length.


I say yes based on the NT.I will give a short version of my argument and then a longer one for those who have the patience to read it in more detail.Plus it includes other things.
That is why women are allowed to be priests and ministers in the ANGLICAN ( also called EPISCOPALIAN church),LUTHERAN and PENTECOSTAL churches.Also in REFORM and CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM women can be RABBIS.



First of all the word EKKLESIA in Greek means a congregation,gathering or assembly of PERSONS.It does NOT mean a church building,that meaning appeared later.Ekklesia is a common word for everyday life.If PAUL had meant a BUILDING he would have said TEMPLE,not EKKLESIA.Paul in 1 COR 10:30-33 uses the word for the believers,for PERSONS.

In 1 COR 11 Paul says that women must cover their head and that men must NOT.Now Paul was Jewish and in the synagogue men do cover their head,so this detail about covering the head is a cultural preference of Paul.In 1 COR 11:17-22 Paul uses EKKLESIA again.So we know the covering of the woman's head is only meant for church.


In 1 COR 12 he talks about prophecy and prophets and apostles and uses EKKLESIA again. In 1 COR 14 he uses ekklesia again and 1 COR 14:37-40 has the famous passage about women to be silent (forever?) in the ekklesia or assembly(of PERSONS).In 1 TIMOTHY there is the part about women not allowed to have authority over men (forever?),but in ROMANS 16 he calls JUNIA,a woman,an apostle and in 1 COR 12 he includes apostles as those having authority in the gathering,assembly(of PERSONS).When you carefully analyze all that you see the restriction on women not speaking in the assembly was temporary due to DISPUTES and SCANDALS in the group,which are in 1 COR 1:10-13/ 3:3-5/ 5:1-2 / 6:15-16 / 11:17-22 / 15:12-14.

minoria said...

Part 2:


1 COR chapter 10 ends in 1 Cor 10:31-33. Here we have EKKLESIA:

" So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the EKKLESIA of God— even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. "


1 COR 11 has alot to say.


We have in 1 COR 11:3:

1. " the head of every MAN is CHRIST "
2. " the head of every WOMAN is MAN " and
3. " the head of CHRIST is GOD " :

1 COR 11:3:" Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. "



Paul says elsewhere that Jesus was God, so the head of Jesus, or God is he himself, God.


Paul was a PHARISEE, he knew the OT very well, and in the Torah, in Genesis, the word " MAN " means BOTH: MAN and WOMAN:


" Then God said, "Let us make ADAM ( MAN ) in OUR IMAGE, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created MAN in his OWN IMAGE,
in the IMAGE of GOD he created HIM;
MALE and FEMALE he created them. "

minoria said...

Part 3:

EXAMPLE 2: GEN 5:1-2:

" This is the written account of Adam's line.
When God CREATED MAN, he made him in the LIKENESS of God. He created them MALE and FEMALE and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them " MAN " ."

THEREFORE IN GEN 9:6 it means both sexes:

" Whoever sheds the blood of MAN,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the IMAGE of GOD
has God made MAN. "

CONCLUSION: the word " MAN " here means that the Christ is the head of MEN and WOMEN.


To those who know koine Greek the official word for WOMAN or GYNOS can also mean WIFE in popular usage. You will see it in some Bibles in a footnote " or wife ". In koine Greek the same word can be applied to both cases. That doesn't mean there is not a specific Greek word for wife, only that when one said " She is the woman ( gynos ) of X " one meant " She is the wife of X ".


The same happens in FRENCH. The official word for wife is EPOUSE. It is rarely used. The word used almost always is FEMME ( literally " WOMAN " ). Even in French language courses for foreigners that is the word almost used; " Elle est la FEMME de Jacques "/ " She is the WOMAN of Jacques. "

It sounds impolite but that is the way the word is used in French, and also in Greek, though I don't know if to the great extent as it is used in French. However by the context it is usually easy to tell if femme in the sentence is woman in general or wife.


" The head of the woman is man " if taken to mean WOMAN in GENERAL would go against the GOLDEN RULE and would mean that the following absurd situation is allowed : that an adult son has the right to DECIDE the LIFE and ACTIONS of his MOTHER/ADULT SISTER/ADULT FEMALE FRIEND. Considering the other writings of Paul it refers to " the head of the WIFE is MAN ".

minoria said...

Part 4:


Well, in EPHESIANS 5,Paul clearly states no less than 2X that the HUSBAND has to " LOVE his WIFE as HIS OWNSELF " ( EPHES. 5:28/ 5:33 ). Also in EHESIANS 5:28 you have to " LOVE your WIFE as though you LOVE your OWN BODY ". That guarantees equality in the relationship.


1 COR 7:3-4: " The HUSBAND should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the WIFE to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the SAME WAY, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. "Notice it's a relationship of EQUALS.


1 COR 11:4:" Every MAN who prays or prophesies with his HEAD COVERED dishonors his head. "

In the synagogues of the time then and today men COVERED their HEAD, including Jesus. It's a personal preference of Paul. The Jewish custom of a man covering his hair comes from a passage in the Torah, it certainly existed in Jesus' time. It is very noticeable. KUBIZEK, who was the only friend Hitler had as a youth in Vienna, in his book " The Hitler I knew ", written after WW II about an incident. They lived together in Vienna and he tells us one day Hitler took him to a synagogue. He told him that whatever he did " for no reason must you take off your hat. " They went in and Kubiczek tells us " in effect, all the men had hats on. "

1 COR 11:5-6:

" And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. "

minoria said...

Part 5:


We know that for a fact because just a few sentences later we have:

1 COR 11:12-16:

" But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

If anyone wants to be CONTENTIOUS ABOUT THIS, we have no other practice—nor do the EKKLESIAS of God. "


1 COR 11:7:

" A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the WOMAN is the GLORY of MAN. "


He knew that 2X in Genesis the word ADAM ( man ) means both genders.


From the LATER words Paul tells us he refers to the EVE CREATION story, where she was created to be the WIFE of Adam, not his SISTER/FOSTER MOTHER/FEMALE ACQUAINTANCE.


1 COR 11:8-10: " For man did not come from woman, but woman from man ( note: he refers to the story where Eve was created from a rib taken from Adam ); neither was man created for woman, but woman for man ( note: here he refers to the part where in Genesis Eve was created to be the WIFE of Adam ). For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. "

CONCLUSION:"WOMAN is the GLORY of MAN" in the 1 COR 11:7-10 context is "WIFE is the GLORY of MAN".

minoria said...

Part 6:


The phrase "woman ought to have a SIGN of AUTHORITY on her head"(by COVERING IT),the way the Greek is used,means it REFERS to HER OWN AUTHORITY(the woman's authority) and NOT to an authority over her.Again,it says "have a sign of authority on her head" and NOT "have a sign of authority OVER HER on her head "


1 COR 11:11-12:

" In the Lord, however, WOMAN is not INDEPENDENT of man, NOR is MAN INDEPENDENT of WOMAN. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. "


The TEXT indicates THAT(WOMAN in GENERAL) in the phrase " so also MAN is BORN of WOMAN ". It certainly can't refer to a WIFE unless a man marries his own MOTHER/SISTER.


COLOSSIANS 3:9-11: " Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. "

minoria said...

Part 7:


We have 1 Cor 14:29-40:

" Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of DISORDER but of PEACE.

As in all the EKKLESIAS of the saints, women should REMAIN SILENT in the EKKLESIAS. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the LAW SAYS.If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you IS THE LORD'S COMMAND. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and ORDERLY WAY. "


In the Greek text we have:

1.ALL the letters are TOGETHER, like: heisgoingtothemarketonsaturdayandhewillseehethen.

It was not till the Middle Ages in Europe that words were separated like today. You can easily see that facilitates grammatical and spelling errors by scribes, plus the cases of INATTENTION due to being TIRED or somewhat BAD EYESIGHT.

2. The were NO PUNCTUATION MARKS in the text: no commas, no periods, no interrrogation sign, no exclamation point, no quotation marks.

minoria said...

Part 8:


The text can be like this:


" The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of DISORDER but of PEACE. ( one way of arranging the punctuation signs )

" As in all the EKKLESIAS of the saints, " women should REMAIN SILENT in the EKKLESIAS. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the LAW SAYS.If they want to inquire about something, they should ASK their OWN HUSBANDS at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you IS THE LORD'S COMMAND. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. "



" The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of DISORDER but of PEACE " as in all the EKKLESIAS of the saints. " ( here is the difference due to the punctuation sign )

Women should REMAIN SILENT in the EKKLESIAS. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the LAW SAYS.If they want to inquire about something, they should ASK their OWN HUSBANDS at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you IS THE LORD'S COMMAND. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. "

LORD'S COMMAND( order or women not speaking?)

It is more logical to say the text is to be written as in case 2. The EMPHASIS is on having ORDER in the EKKLESIA. THAT is what Paul was referring to ( order in the ekklesia ) when he said " it is the LORD'S COMMAND ", not to the idea of women not speaking.


If case 1 is accepted Paul would be CONTRADICTING himself where in 1 COR he says a woman can PROPHESIZE ( speak ) in the assembly but covering her hair.

minoria said...

Part 9:


In " Women should REMAIN SILENT in the EKKLESIAS. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the LAW SAYS.If they want to inquire about something, they should ASK their OWN HUSBANDS at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. " the question is if the word in Greek refers to " WOMAN in GENERAL " or " WIFE ". I say the second because:


We have " Women should REMAIN SILENT in the EKKLESIAS. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the LAW SAYS. "

The Law is obviously that of Moses. In Christianity the Mosaic Law has been replaced but some aspects are valid like the TEN COMMANDMENTS and the idea that the husband is the head of the couple, but AGAIN, under the condition that " he love his wife as himself. " ( EPHESIANS 5 ).

The text even says " If they want to inquire about something, they should ASK their OWN HUSBANDS at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. " It is obvious by the text here woman means WIFE,that is the most logical conclusion.



1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15 SAYS:

" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do NOT permit a WOMAN to TEACH or to have AUTHORITY over a MAN; she must be silent. For ADAM was formed first, then EVE. And ADAM was not the one deceived; it was the WOMAN who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. "

minoria said...

Part 10:



1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15 SAYS:

" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do NOT permit a WOMAN to TEACH or to have AUTHORITY over a MAN; she must be silent. For ADAM was formed first, then EVE. And ADAM was not the one deceived; it was the WOMAN who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. "

COMMENT:this passage its interpreted by many churches to mean only to a woman being a minister in a church, not to her position in society. Others reject it even applying to that: the reason is that the prohibition is temporary ( based on the arguments I gave in parts 1,2, and 3 or otherwise Paul would really be contradicting himself ). There were false teachings and disputes in Timothy's ekklesia ( 1 TIM 1:3-8/6:3-5 ) so women were probably involved in spreading false ideas.



Then why have the passage " And AAM was no the one deceived, it was the woman who was DECEIVED ". It refers to EVE being tricked into a false idea ( false doctrine )by Satan and then later convincing Adam of it. So here Paul is making what is called an ANALOGY or comparison, like saying " the situation in the EKKLESIA of Timothy is false doctrines being spread, many of them by women, like when EVE convinced ADAM of a false idea. "


Paul knew the OT, he knew a PROPHETESS called DEBORAH had been the leader of the 12 tribes of Israel in the time of the JUDGES. They ruled from around 1380 till 1050 BC, one after another, till the first Jewish king Saul.
Prophets and prophetesses always TAUGHT.

Paul also knew recent history and that his people had been ruled by a woman less than 100 years ago: SALOME ALEXANDRA.

QUESTION: would Paul really order something he knew was approved in the OT?
ANSWER: Yes, but only temporarily due to false doctrines in the assembly.


Notice in JUDGES 4 Deborah is STILL MARRIED, she is called the WIFE, not the WIDOW of a man. Yet she ruled, she even gives MILITARY ORDERS.

JUDGES 4:4-7:

" DEBORAH, a prophetess, the WIFE of LAPPIDOTH, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.

She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, " The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.' "


She was a well-loved,pious woman, greatly admired. Check her out here:

hugh watt said...

Who should i trust? Pickthall translates, S:19v19,"he said: I am only a messenger of thy lord, that i may bestow on thee a faultless son".(Referring to Jesus).Now the modern translates it,"(The angel) said: " I am only a messenger from your lord,(to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son." So, Jesus is "faultless,righteous."
Now S:40v55, (Pickthall,referring to Muhammad)"..And ask forgiveness of thy sin." (See also S:47v19)
Now, a modern translation. S:40v55,"..ask forgiveness for your fault.." According to S:4v106 footnote,he was to seek forgiveness day and night."
Simple logic tells me that 'faultless' equals 'righteous'.So, he who had 'faults' was unrighteous, and had to ask forgiveness for his sin/unrighteousness! Jesus was taken to Heaven according to S:3v55. Muhammad in S:46v9, "Say: I am no new thing among the messengers(of Allah), nor know i what will be done with me or with you.I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and i am but a plain warner." You too can have this uncertainty if you follow Muhammad. Jesus said repeatedly in the Bible if we believe in Him we will have eternal life. You too can have this certainty if you follow Him.
Jesus never lied nor encouraged it. Muhammad/Islam/Allah encourage lying. Q.Is possible that Allah/Muhammad has lied to all? S:14v4."Then Allah sendeth whom he will astray, and guideth whom he will." Simply put, Allah/Muhammad can not be trusted. Jesus, even according to the Quran can be.

minoria said...


Thank you for the info about SURA 4:106/40:55/47:19.I had heard something about it,but didn't know the verses where it appears Allah is telling Mohammed and all Muslims to ask forgiveness for their sins(it uses the PRESENT tense).I have added it to my notes.

hugh watt said...

Hi Minoria, you've not been studying allah's book i can tell. We'll have to keep an eye on you! Ha ha ha!