Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Muslim Logic Exemplified by Yahya Snow

Muslims believe that Muhammad was the best person to ever live; many of us demur, and would cite as proof, among many other things, the fact that Muhammad hit his wife, Aisha.

In response to the claim that Muhammad hit Aisha, Muslim Yahya Snow, in a display of impeccable "logic", offers the following argument:

Indeed Muhammad taught that the best of you are those who do not hit their wives and Muhammad was the best of them, thus we realise Muhammad indirectly told us he never hit his wives.
But this would only be indirect evidence that Muhammad never hit Aisha if we already know in advance that Muhammad "was the best of them". But this is just what many of us are trying to get at when we look at the evidence that Muhammad hit Aisha. In other words, Yahya is assuming in advance what has to be proven, which is just to say he is reasoning in a circle.

One of the ironies of this is that one of the Islamic sources that support the claim that Muhammad physically assaulted Aisha, Sahih Muslim (Book 004, #2127), indirectly tells us that Aisha herself did not assume the question begging premise that is critical for Yahya's circle to get all the way around.

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came(to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet)entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves)and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of his city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have ercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.
Muhammad's question to Aisha indirectly supports the idea that she did not assume, in advance of the incident in question, that Muhammad was the best of people, since the very idea that someone is "the best of you people" would surely entail that such a person would not deal unjustly with others. Muhammad's question to Aisha implies that she doubted that Muhammad would not deal unjustly with her, which in turn means she did not have unshakeable confidence in the idea that Muhammad was "the best of you people". (Of course one may argue that Aisha did not assume what Muhammad's question implies, but then in that case Muhammad assumed something bad about Aisha that wasn't true, which refutes the premise in another way).

Of course Aisha may well have suppressed or quelled her doubts about Muhammad's impeccable character after being struck by him (and according to the above Hadith she was struck by him), but this only reminds us that getting hit in the chest by a man can be as persuasive to some women as reasoning in a circle can be to some Muslims.

24 comments:

yohannes said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c0P4YXiBUI&feature=player_embedded

yohannes said...

Islamic logic, well they would do anything to justify the wrong doing of Muhammad.

Semper Paratus said...

Yahya sent me a message voicing his disagreement with the fact that I did not link to his original article. What kind of a person would do that sort of thing? Hmmmm....

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow is loosing the ground under his feet more and more... how long will he be hable to stant up right? My dear friends: let's pray for him and his family thate surely (seeing whate he has been writting and doing) must endure a lott off illogical behavior from him:

Dear Jesus, You that promised that all our prayers done in Your behalf woulde be recieved by our beloved God, please help Yahya Snow and his family so that they can leave the islamic mentalitty behind and oppen theire hearts to You, our God and Saviour...

GreekAsianPanda said...

"Indeed Muhammad taught that the best of you are those who do not hit their wives and Muhammad was the best of them, thus we realise Muhammad indirectly told us he never hit his wives."

When did Muhammad teach that "the best of you are those who do not hit their wives"? The Quran gives husbands permission to beat their wives when they disobey, if I understand correctly. (4:34)

P.S. Is Yahya Snow still blocked from this blog?

Nakdimon said...

YEP! Thats Muslim logic: They start with a premise and adjust the evidence to fit the premise so that Muhammad fits the premise. circular reasoning comes to mind.

Simon said...

i dont consider a 6 year old to be moe"s wife. thats doesnt sound right in any way. i wonder if aisha cooked clean and did all them chores that of a regular wife does? i doubt that. i can picture that happening.

by the did anyone see ANN COULER speech at the university in canada?
she basically said that all muslims sud ride on a magic carpet or on a camel. i cudnt stp laughing at that one.
I wud have said all muslim sud have their own plane so if they they want to blow themselves up they can. not that i have anything against them its just their sick quranic mentality. its called mohamalzimer disease. it usually occurs in the brain(figures). thats when they dont realize wuts happening around them. they r simply stuck in a bubble.

minoria said...

Considering Yahya's position,I believe even if one grants that Mohammed was a saint(for argument's saint)one VERY strong reason why Islam is false is that it's very easy to write a SURA of equal and better quality than the ones in the Koran.The LAST suras are very short,read them,they can easily be imitated.Yahya,if you are reading this,the last suras in the Koran are very easy to imitate,and certainly surpass.That really disqualifies the claim in the Koran.It's very obvious.The best thing is to leave Islam just based on that.

Sepher Shalom said...

Just to emphasize what minoria is saying, I thought I would post a little Surah:

"1. Say: We submit to our Lord, Ruler of the worlds.
2. It is We that created you as diamonds: a sign for the rightly guided.
3. To Him we seek refuge and bow in submission. To Him we return.
4. Beside Him, there is no Helper: and a painful torment for the disbelievers, though We make Our signs plain to them."


Anybody know which Surah number this is?

I think this backs up minoria's point. I just hammered it out in one shot with no revision. What do you think guys? Sound good?

I also have a "scientific miracle" in my "revelation". Verse 2 compares the creation of humans to diamonds. This is true because diamonds are made of compressed carbon, and humans are made of carbon as well. Mashallah, a scientific miracle.

Imagine what I could do if I spoke Arabic and spent a little time editing and revising :-P

Semper Paratus said...

Sepher (peace be upon you), thanks for the wonderful Surah. In fact, it masterfully captures one of my favorite features of the Qur'an and is (at the very least) equal to it in both style and content. Here are my humble efforts at interpreting it. I hope you are pleased.

"Say: We submit to our Lord, ruler of the worlds."

The first verse begins with "say," which implies that "we" in the first verse refers to someone other than the (original) speaker. "We" refers to the one(s) reciting.

While this might initially seem to also imply that the reciters are non-divine, not only because they are being told what to say, but also because they "submit to our Lord, ruler of the worlds", which presupposes a distinction between them and their Lord, but this is dispelled by the next verse.

It is We that created you as diamonds: a sign for the rightly guided.

In the second verse, the reciters, who just got through saying, "we submit to our Lord," continue: "It is We who created you as diamonds..." Thus the reciters are evidently divine, and this indicates that there are probably four or more divine persons in view in this Surah. After all, "we" (nahnu) is plural rather than dual and indicates 3 or more.

This same pattern is followed in the final two verses.

Putting this all together, we have: the speaker, to whom the others submit; and the reciters (3 or more) who "created you as diamonds".

The speaker tells the others what to say, and the others submit to him, seek refuge in him, and return to him. At the same time, the reciters created people as diamonds and make their signs plain, such that those who refuse to be rightly guided by their signs shall receive a painful torment.

Even if one wishes to pretend that the "we" here is a plural of majesty, that still leaves us with at least two divine persons: 1) the original speaker ("Say"); and 2) the one reciting ("we submit...", "it is we that created...").

minoria said...

Part 1

Hello Sepher Shalom:
Your sura was very good.If the Koran had been written in English we would all be able to write a sura like it.It's plain to see.A short sura of a few lines.

LORD OF SABBATH

I read this argument against Jesus claiming divinity in Bassam Zawadi.It's that the complete sentence is:"The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath,so the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath".He said that the word "man" refers to "son of man" where son of man is a Jewish expression meaning human.

TRUE but...

My little knowledge of Judaism tells me that:
1."The Sabbath was made for MAN" means God on Mt Sinai created the Sabbath rest day only for his Chosen People...the Jews.It was NOT for humanity,but specifically for them.Rest on the sabbath is not one of the 7 NOAHIDE laws(the 7 laws for NON-JEWS in Judaism).On that day they were to remember God,resting.

NOT MAN FOR THE SABBATH

Since "man" means Jewish person(in Genesis 2X "man" is "male and female")they quesion is:
"Did the JEWISH people,the people of the 12 tribes of Israel exist BEFORE Mosaic law on Mt Sinai?"
Yes,after all they had existed for 400 years as a separate group in Egypt.So of course "Man(Jewish people) was NOT made for the Sabbath"since the Jews existed BEFORE the Sabbath was instituted.

minoria said...

Part 2:

SON OF MAN
Yes,it means human but if you take the argument like that then Jesus said:"The Jews are Lord of the Sabbath".Not God,but them,a blasphemy.
Notice Jesus did NOT say "MAN is Lord of the Sabbath"but the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath".He wanted to:
1.Tell the people he was differentiating and
2.Alluding to the Son of Man in DANIEL who comes on the cloud of heaven.That'show I see it.

yohannes said...

New sura
could someone please explain what it means
Kiss the unbelievers wherever you find them, hug them, encourage them

Edward Ott said...

why is it christian priests are always raping little kids?

David Wood said...

I suppose for the same reason many Muslims rape little girls. People are sick, sinful, and perverted. Of course, in Christianity, we condemn such abuse of children. In Islam, raping little girls is perfectly acceptable. (Please read Nujood Ali's book for a description of what this is like for a little girl.)

minoria said...

Hello Edward:
Your comment is false because I know the history and people of LATIN AMERICA very well,which is the area with the biggest number of Catholics in the world,with many priests and you can ask Latin American after Latin American(from Mexico to Panama to Brazil to Argentina) if they have EVER heard of a case of a Catholic priest raping a child and they will say no.If there have been cases they are negligible.I am not Catholic but I know the reality.There have been many cases of priests getting girlfriends/lovers but it was with women,that's all.I think the situation is the same with regard to priests in AFRICA,though you would have to ask Africans.It's definitely an American case.

Sepher Shalom said...

Semper ibn Paratus,

Your tafsir is exemplary :-)

The Fat Man said...

From the Reliance on the Travelor

e10.3 When a woman who has been made love to performs the purificatory bath, and the male's sperm after wards leaves her vagina, then she must repeat the ghusl if two conditions exist:
(a) that she is not a child. but rather old enough to have sexual gratification
(A: as it might otherwise
be solely her husband;s sperm);
(b) and that she was fulfilling her sexual urge with the lovemaking, not sleeping or forced.

The Fat Man said...

Another little nugget from the Reliance on the Travelor

e13.5 If a woman claims to be having her period, but her husband does not believe her, it is lawful for
him to have sexual intercourse with her.

The Fat Man said...

Ok one more and that's it.

It is better for women to pray at home than at the mosque (A; whether they are young or old). It
is offensive for an attractive or young woman to come to the mosque to pray (O: or for her husband to
permit her), though not offensive for women who are not young or attractive when this is unlikely to
cause temptation.

hugh watt said...

Hey Sepher,are'nt there some Arabic readers/speakers around here?
"Just to emphasize what minoria is saying, I thought I would post a little Surah:

"1. Say: We submit to our Lord, Ruler of the worlds.
2. It is We that created you as diamonds: a sign for the rightly guided.
3. To Him we seek refuge and bow in submission. To Him we return.
4. Beside Him, there is no Helper: and a painful torment for the disbelievers, though We make Our signs plain to them."

"1.قل : نحن يقدم إلى ربنا ، حاكم في العالم.2. وهو الذي أنشأ لكم ونحن على الماس : علامة لمهتدون.3. تعالى نعوذ وانحني اجلالا واكبارا في تقديمها. إنا إليه راجعون.4. دونه ، لا يوجد أي مساعد : وعذاب أليم على الكافرين ، على الرغم من إننا نصنع بآياتنا سهل لهم ".

"Imagine what I could do if I spoke Arabic and spent a little time editing and revising :-P."

واضاف "تخيل ما يمكن أن تفعله إذا تكلمت بالعربية وأمضى وقتا قليلا تحرير وتنقيح : ف".

minoria said...

Part 1

My thought on what Muslims say.The one called TARIQ RAMADAN has written in a disparaging way about using the term Judeo-Christian values for Western civilization.Many who aren't Christian and who are Western also do.First Western civilization has 2 aspects:
1.GRECO-ROMAN:
a.Politics(democracy)
2.Legal(equality of all before the law,by Romans)
3.Literature(Homer,Virgil)
4.Philosophical(Plato,Aristotle)
5.Ethical(Golden Rule:by stoics like Seneca,and some Greek thinkers)
6.Even scientific-mathematical
2.JUDEO-CHRISTIAN:
1.Religious(monotheism)
2.Ethical(Golden Rule:Jesus,Paul,even Leviticus 19)

minoria said...

Part 2
The great influence of Jewish culture on the West,and Jesus and Paul were undenialy Jewish has been in tipping the balance in favor of belief in ONE God.In 313 AD when Christianity was legalized,the Roman Empire had 70 million.Of which 10% were Jews,and 5-10% Christian.At least 80% polytheistic.By 380 AD most(at least 36 million) were Christian,plus 10% Jews,would give us at least 60% monotheists in 70 years.

GOLDEN RULE=basis for HUMAN RIGHTS

The second great contribution was that the Golden Rule was FORTIFIED as part of Western culture because of the prestige/authority/influence of Jesus and Paul.True,it had already appeared in Western culture before the Jewish influence but was not as strong an element.In fact,no other culture has been influenced strongly with a Jewish element except Western civilization(not India,China,Japan,the Muslim countries).

IN SPITE OF

True,alot of human rights abuses(by the ancient Greeks,Romans,in Middle Ages,including Judeophobia,first religious then based on race,in the Renaissance,18th,19th,20th century(has everybody already forgot Nazism and Communism?).But in spite of that the Golden Rule ideal was such a strong element of the West that it kept popping up and changing society over and over again.It was crushed but would rise up.

minoria said...

Part 3
ISLAM
So as I said before it was due to the Judeo-Christian factor that has made the West a culture that is the way it is,plus the enormous NATIVE element given by the Greeks and Romans.

REALITY CHECK
In spite of their faults the Greeks and Romans of Antiquity had a strong element of religious toleration and the right to change religion without being harmed(to go from Mithraism to Isis and then to the Greek gods and then to Judaism and then to other ones if you found out about them,like Buddhism,etc).
But has the history of Islamic culture,based as it is on the Koran and Mohammed's actions,shown itself to FORTIFY the GOLDEN RULE ideal(the basis of Human Rights)?No.

WHAT IF?
What if all Europe had been conquered by the Muslims in 717 instead of being stopped at Constantinople by Greek fire,that terrible weapon(against 80,000 soldiers)?Then what would have happened to the GRECO-ROMAN element of:democracy,all equal before the law,free thinking on anything under the sun?It would have been not allowed to flower again.And the GOLDEN RULE would have been stymied,those who would have been for its application would be persecuted as they are today in Pakistan,Egypt,Iran,Sudan,Algeria.They would be persecuting the proponents of human rights for all,for freedom of speech,etc in Italy,France,Germany,England,Spain.