Wednesday, November 3, 2010

ABC's Islam Deception: Are Men and Women Equal in Islam?

We're continuing our responses to ABC's 20/20 special "Islam: Questions and Answers" (see earlier responses here and here). The following videos address two false (but related) claims made in ABC's program. First, Diane Sawyer claimed that, according to Islam, Adam and Eve were created equally from dust. Second, Irshad Manji claimed that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities in Islam.

Were Adam and Eve Created Equally from Dust?


Are Men and Women Equal in Islam?

114 comments:

Traeh said...

Here's a cartoon in which Diane Sawyer makes a repeated cameo:

Part 1
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/freedoms-superheroes-counter-sharia-superheroes-the-counter-jihad-dynamic-duo.html

Part 2
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/the-counter-jihad-dynamic-duo-rides-again.html

Traeh said...

Brilliant. Thank you. These videos should go way viral.

SophieB said...

I always wonder what on earth a modern lesbian like Irshad Manji sees in this religion. I wonder how much of the text she has to explain away and how much doublethink is involved in doing so. Everything about this faith points to a pagan desert warlord with mental problems.

A British woman who was taken hostage by the Taliban, Yvonne Ridley, converted to Islam after she promised her captors that if they let her go she'd read the Koran. I read an interview with her and she said that she was surprised to find that the Koran wasnb't oppressive to women but rather a 'manifesto for women's liberation' or some such phrase. I couldn't believe what I was reading. I still wonder how on earth she could read surah 4:34 and reach that conclusion. Makes me think that maybe Mohammed was right; perhaps us women are mentally deficient.

GreekAsianPanda said...

I heard a totally crazy interpretation of 2:223 from one of the feminist Muslim ladies on the National Geographic show about Islam. She interpreted it as meaning that men shouldn't treat their women as property. That's kind of weird, because usually one's "tilth" IS property.

Anyway, great videos, David. I look forward to the next one!
=)

Bartimaeus said...

David you hit another one out of the Ball Park. Now if you go only get Daine Sawyer and those four brilliant women on the view to watch these videos you might get some place. OOOps I am assumong liberals have some intellegence. But what the heck you and I are nothing but a bunch of hateful rightwing bigots and Islamaphobes

hugh watt said...

Bukhari Book 1 Volume 2 Hadith 28
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."

So, women are in the Hell-fire, not because of some sin against Allah, but for being ungrateful to their husbands! They just can't see Muhammad's psychological hold on them. I've not seen any Muslim woman defending Muhammad on this one.
I wonder what a Muslim feminist would make of this.

helen said...

hahah thank you david. that was genius. seriously, your my hero. i had a dream i met you and started crying like as if i met a famous celebrity or something. the evil in islam is what bothers me the most about this world. thank you for exposing it to so many people. God bless you and protect you for doing such good work.

Traeh said...

sophieb,
Perhaps Yvonne Ridley has Stockholm syndrome.

Islam has raped her soul, and she has not recovered.

Bartimaeus said...

I have posted the Anjem Choudary interview with comments on my blog http://challenging-islam.blogspot.com/ and on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxRZarc9ddk

This is much more imfortive than ABC and Duane Aawyer

cinnamon said...

so glad you did this I posted on abc;s websight that where sugar coaters and there could not be moderate muslims and them believe in the quran they kept deleting the comment and then blocked me@>>@>@

Gabriella Oak said...

What Traeh said :)

SophieB,
I have seen Yvonne Ridley on British TV many times. A human being with less warmth or humility it is hard to imagine. Small wonder the Taliban let her go.

Tizita said...

I'm trying to buy the quran cuz i would like to have a copy of it......

which is the best translation to get? One that doesn't sugar coat the true meaning of the Arabic words, If u guys can recommend the best translator (in english) that would be great.

David ur doing great, tnx

David Wood said...

Tizita,

I'd suggest the Hilali-Khan translation.

Of course, you can read several translations online here:

http://www.quranbrowser.com/

Will said...

I can't believe anyone would accept this stupidity and still be Muslim. Don't also forget that Muslims men are allowed to divorce their wives by just saying "you are divorced", then he has three months to bring back if he wants unless he says "you are divorced" three times then he's not allowed to bring her back. If he says it three times and he wants to bring her back, it's by Islamic law that the woman has to sleep with another man before her original husband can marry her. equality indeed.

minoria said...

Hello:
Though off-topic,it is not as much as you think.There is an online petition to save Sakineh,the Iranian woman who is in danger of being stoned to death.

Alreay 814,000 have signed it.It is astonishing.Here is the link to sign:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/24h_to_save_sakineh/?cl=820762599&v=7497

SophieB said...

Gabriella Oak,

So true. If I were a Muslim I wouldn't be all that thrilled at having this woman represent me. She described the guy who led the Beslan massacre as a martyr. How somebody develop such distorted thinking is beyond me.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

@ David yeah you would recommend the Hilali-Khan (The Salafi translation) go figure...

Any way on this post above, I am not aware that Islam teaches that any two human beings are truly equal. You can quote me on that.

In fact Islam does not even teach that any two human souls are equal. You can also quote me on that.

Unfortunately, as David points out you get people like Menj (a self professed lesbian) spinning and I guarantee you the liberals lap it up.

So you basically have three approaches.

1) Muslims who for various political purposes and agenda try to twist and distort everything in the Qur'an that is peaceful and teaches co existence so they can use it as a pre-text for war and their own nefarious ultra conservative agenda.

2) Muslims who for various political purposes and agenda try and twist and distort things not palatable to liberal audiences so they can use it as a pre-text to push their own nefarious liberal agenda.

3) Muslims who will tell you like it is. Islam is a religion of 1.3 billion people, it has a history like Christianity, and with in it's body there is a divergence of opinion, hermeneutic and view points. Some of which will not be palatable to others.

For example: Some people who are strict vegans find the idea of sacrificing animals to be unpalatable.

Personally I think if anyone can except that God ordered the killing of babies (1 Samuel 15:3) Than the sky should be the limit on what we are prepared to accept.

hugh watt said...

TGV:

"Personally I think if anyone can except that God ordered the killing of babies (1 Samuel 15:3) Than the sky should be the limit on what we are prepared to accept."

So you have no problem with the Beslan Massacre then? How about the civil war in Sudan where multitudes of non-Muslims were slaughtered by Muslims?

Magdalene Ashraf, a Pakistani Christian trainee nurse, was raped by several Muslim men at the Jinnah Post - Graduate Medical Centre, Karachi, in July. After her ordeal, a doctor threw her out of a fourth - floor window. Please pray that she will recover from her severe physical injuries as well as from the trauma of the incident, and that those involved will be brought to justice.

Source: Barnabasfund.org

This doesn't bother you? The skies "the limit!"

YFC777 said...

David,

Great job on the are men and women equal video. I came across this Hadit, baby girls who were buried alive will be in paradise. Sadly it was used to defend Islams claim that children go to paradise without realizing how self destructive the statement is..

Hasnaa’ bint Mu’aawiyyah from Bani Suraym said: my paternal uncle told me: I said, O Messenger of Allaah, who will be in Paradise? He said: Prophets will be in Paradise, martyrs will be in Paradise, infants will be in Paradise and baby girls who were buried alive will be in Paradise. Narrated by Imaam Ahmad, 5/409; classed as da’eef by al-Albaani in Da’eef al-Jaami’, 5997

Fernando said...

Hi everybody... I need some help on a debatte I'm habing withe a journaliste person who saide thate «acording to the Qur'an and the Haditha no muslim is alowed to kill another muslim and iff he does so he ain't a (good) muslim»... I can present some arguments for myself, butt coulde someone help me proving he's wrong?

p.s.: who'll habe the lucky chance to answer to the grandverbalier?...

hugh watt said...

Fernando:

S.4:93 “If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (for ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.”

But does this apply only to each sect, or, as has been seen even in this current age, Shia's, Wahabi's and Sunni's etc, sort out their differencies violently.

'Honor killings.' Unless you're reading the Hilali/Khan Koran you won't see this in S.24:2 in (...)

"This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime, (fornication), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law."

Obviously, Muslims who kill fornicators are killing other Muslims, by Allah's consent!

YFC777 said...

@TGV: You quoted Samuel 15:3 out of context. I believe the Bible itself answers why Samual 15:3 occurred (read below). If you think you can show us the "sky", we will show you the 7th heaven of your prophet(viewer discretion is advised, contains sexual content between man and raisins)

Genesis 17.8 The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim.
Genesis 17.14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."
Deuteronomy 25:17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt.
Judges 6:3Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country.
Judges 7:12 The Midianites, the Amalekites and all the other eastern peoples had settled in the valley, thick as locusts. Their camels could no more be counted than the sand on the seashore.
1 Samuel 15:2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
1 Samuel 15:8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.
1 Samuel 15:15 Saul answered, "The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest."
16 "Stop!" Samuel said to Saul. "Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night."
"Tell me," Saul replied.

17 Samuel said, "Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.' 19 Why did you not obey the LORD ? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD ?"

20 "But I did obey the LORD," Saul said. "I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal."

22 But Samuel replied:
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king."

Odo said...

Fernando,

Here is hadith of Muhammad burning people because they did not go to prayer. I think the people referenced in this hadith are actually "believing Muslims" at the time of Muhammad, they just did not attend the prayers.

Volume 1, Book 11, Number 617:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said,“By Him in Whose Hand my soul is I was about to order for collecting fire-wood (fuel) and then order Someone
to pronounce the Adhan for the prayer and then order someone to lead the prayer then I would go from behind and burn the houses of
men who did not present themselves for the (compulsory congregational) prayer. By Him, in Whose Hands my soul is, if anyone of them had known that he would get a bone covered with good meat or two (small) pieces of meat present in between two ribs, he would have turned up for the ‘Isha’ prayer.’

Volume 1, Book 11, Number 626:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said,“No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these
prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.” The Prophet
added,“Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then
take a flame of fire to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer, along with their houses.”

Besides, Muslims have been killing Muslims since the time of Muhammads death. Do you think Shia consider Sunni as Muslims and vice versa? Not likely, not all the time. And what Hugh said, right on - killing anyone for any transgression would mean killing a fellow Muslim. Of course, they probably wouldint be considered "Muslim" after the transgression (ie. missing prayers).

yohannes said...

More on ABC’s 20/20 special "Islam: Questions and Answers revisionist account of Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1q9GhRBe7A

At 1:55 a moderate Muslim says: ‘somebody that would kill somebody else with Arabic prayer said over them, we would say who are you’

It looks like this guy has not read the Islamic sources in close detail. Has he done so, he would have come across Muhammad's massacre of the Jewish tribe - Banu Qurayzah.
Any possibility in making a video on this David:)

GreekAsianPanda said...

@ Odo,

Just wondering, but what collection of hadith are those from? Because I have one from Sahih al-Bukhari (the most reliable collection of hadith) that forbids burning people.

Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

The Fat Man said...

Hello All, David, Nabeel, Nageen and anyone else.

Yahya Snow is at it again, attacking Sam Shamoun and others. Nothing un usual there. But what is even more telling is that Yahya Snow is aware of a paltalk interaction with Nakdemon and Shredded Lewis were Shredded not only attacks Nakdemon but also his fellow room admin, and woman in general.

I will not repeat the foul comments done by everyonse favorite racist Muslim Shredded Lewis, but suffice it to say. Instead of condemning his Muslim brother Yahya Snow instead praises Shredded and post two of his nonsensical video's.

So here is what I am thinking.
David, Nabeel I think we (and by we I mean you guys) should put up the donation meter from Paypall. So that every time Yahya Snow attacks a Christian we can donate either to the Christian being attacked or to a general fund to support some charity or special event.

What do you guys think?

David Wood said...

Well, if we took up a collection every time Yahya Snow attacked a Christian, we'd be able to support several international ministries. And if people double their donations every time Yahya's attack is factually false or illogical, we could finish the Great Commission by the end of the year.

The Fat Man said...

David thats what I was thinking. I think it would be great.

Odo said...

Hey Panda,

Thanks for asking and keeping me on my toes. Last thing anyone wants to forget is the SOURCES, DUH! LOL

Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 11, Number 617:
Abu Huraira

Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 11, Number 626:
Abu Huraira

They can be found here, 617 and 626

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/011.sbt.html

What do you think?

Odo said...

Here are those hadith again but by *hyperlink* (i just learned how to do this)

Call to Prayers

YFC777 said...

I couldn't help but notice a pattern in the moderate Muslim voices.

Irshad Manji, Zeba Khan, Daisy Khan, Eboo Patel(guy in the video that Minoria posted) all have an Indian background. The reason I bring this up is because we need to understand the source of their belief's. I personally don't think their "moderate" thinking is a result of their understanding of Islam but rather a a mixing of cultures (American and Indian). India may not be the best example of religious tolerance but it is definitely a culture that respects all religions. I know a lot of Indian Muslims (students) who clearly distance themselves from the troubling aspects of Islam. They do this not because Islam teaches them but because this is the culture they have been brought up in.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

@ Hugh Watt you make some good points and I concede that. I am simply trying to say that if a person could stomach the idea of God giving permission to hack and kill babies and infants (a messy affair for sure) than it amazes me what a person would find to be unpalatable.

I have problems with the specific examples you cited. I also pray for justice to be done.

Your question, "But does this apply only to each sect, or, as has been seen even in this current age, Shia's, Wahabi's and Sunni's etc, sort out their differencies violently."

This is a very good question, and a great Muslim theologian by the name of 'Imam Al Ghazali' contributed a great work in Islam 'The Boundaries of Theological Tolerance' to help meet the challenge of this particular issue.

If after all you can kill someone for leaving the faith, all one needs to to do is call the other person 'outside of the fold' and we have chaos on our hands.

Theologians such as Imam Al Ghazali (May Allah have mercy on him) saw how this could be and was in fact problematic.

You could obtain Sherman Jackson's translation of this work (via the library loan etc)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

By the way women are not only the majority in hell, they are also the majority in heaven.

Even when you say majority what is the margin? It is not given.

So for example if you say 10004 men are in hell and 10005 women are in hell than women would be the majority on account of that one particular person.

Many Muslims are not very interested in trying to rework the statements of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to appease liberalism.

shafsha said...

YFC777

Great notice. I believe that their indian origin makes them less capable of accurately investigating and reading islamic sources which is all in arabic.
And probably if there has been any translation, would have occurred lately and in a deceptive manner to watter down facts like most english quran translations.

hugh watt said...

TGV:

YFC777 put this affair in its proper context. You have to see why God sanctioned this, from the texts YFC highlighted.

You can't stomach the idea of infants being killed. Does it make it any easier knowing people who never wanted to follow Islam were forced back into Islam after Muhammad died, or were slaughtered if they refused to return? Let's see some consistency. The Amalekites were gross people, much like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you find anything unpalatable about God's judgment in this instance? Maybe the Koran says the infants were first given passage to leave S and G before fire fell. If so, I'd like those refs' so I can check.
You find nothing unpalatable about Muhammad killing poets, the elderly, those who Q'd his 'prophethood' etc?
The Amalekites, like the Sodomites pushed God past the point-of-no-return. God now says judgment will fall. Contrast this with Muhammad's battles.

hugh watt said...

Hey Odo,

Guess what I'm trying to figure out right now; hyperlink!

GreekAsianPanda said...

Thanks, Odo. I guess either mine is inauthentic or both of yours are inauthentic, since they contradict each other.

Sam said...

Let me expose and correct the lie that women are a majority in heaven. Earthly women will form only A MINORITY IN HEAVEN according to Muhammad:

Chapter 1: THE MAJORITY IN PARADISE WOULD CONSIST OF THE POOR PIOUS PERSONS AND THE MAJORITY OF THE DENIZENS OF HELL WOULD CONSIST OF WOMEN, AND THE TRIAL BY MEANS OF WOMEN

Usama b. Zaid reported that Allah's Messenger said: I stood at the door of Paradise and I found that the overwhelming majority of those who entered therein was that of poor persons and the wealthy persons were detained to get into that. The denizens of Hell were commanded to get into Hell, and I stood upon the door of Fire and the majority amongst them who entered there was that of women. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6596: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/036.smt.html#036.6596)

Ibn Abbas reported that Allah's Messenger said: I had a chance to look into the Paradise and I found that majority of the people was poor and I looked into the Fire and there I found the majority constituted by women. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6597: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/036.smt.html#036.6597)

Imran b. Husain reported that Allah's Messenger said: Amongst the inmates of Paradise THE WOMEN WOULD FORM A MINORITY. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6600: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/036.smt.html#036.6600)

The majority of the women of paradise are the houris with swelling breasts that Muslims will be busy deflowering for all eternity:

"Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards, and maidens of SWELLING BREASTS (kawa'ib), like of age, and a cup overflowing." S. 78:33 Arberry (see also Dawood, Rodwell)

meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid and others have said,

"This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age..." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=78&tid=56852)

Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse) before them. S. 55:56

and made them virgins, immaculate -every time their spouses enter them they find them virgins, nor is there any pain [of defloration] - (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=56&tAyahNo=36&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0; bold and underline emphasis ours)

minoria said...

ABC does not know what is in the Koran.Would ABC point that the Koran says:

JEWS are CURSED by ALLAH till the DAY of RESURRECTION?

"The Jews have said, 'God's hand is fettered.' Fettered are their hands, and they are cursed for what they have said. Nay, but His hands are outspread; He expends how He will.

And what has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will surely increase many of them in insolence and unbelief; and We have cast between them ENMITY AND HATRED, till the DAY OF RESURRECTION. As often as they light a fire for war, God will extinguish it. They hasten about the earth, to do corruption there; and God loves not the workers of corruption. "

CHRISTIANS ARE CURSED BY ALLAH TILL DAY OF RESURRECTION

"And with those who say 'WE ARE CHRISTIANS' We took compact; and they have forgotten a portion of that they were reminded of. So We have stirred up among them ENMITY AND HATRED, till the DAY OF RESURRECTION; and God will assuredly tell them of the things they wrought. "

NOT THE BEST THING FOR INTERFATH DIALOGUE

Would ABC ask the Muslims to comment on this curse that still lasts?If they are honest they should.

YFC777 said...

Shafsha: That's a good point. Yes, most of them don't speak Arabic. I believe they use English or Urdu translations.

Here is a link that was forwarded to me by an Indian American Muslim friend of mine. Its a talk show between moderate Muslims and one hardliner Zakir Naik :) It is not everyday that you see Zakir Naik listening rather than talking. In the below link he talks about, why there cannot be a "moderate" Muslim and is challenged by other Muslims in the panel. In fact the Muslims in the panel and the audience debunk him so badly that he later published a 25 part series on this particular talk show.

If you like to listen to Muslim views in other cultures like India then this is a good video to watch, most of it is in English.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTPnQjmcc8 (This is the part where he makes his comment that there are no moderate Muslims)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyh9jP3FbV8&feature=related (Part 1)

SophieB said...

"The majority of the women of paradise are the houris with swelling breasts that Muslims will be busy deflowering for all eternity."

In no way can the houris be called 'women' or even female. They take the shape of women at a certain stage of life, but to describe sophisticated sex dolls as 'women', as the Muslim sources do, is utterly degrading to women and to all femininity.

It's deceitful in the extreme that a Muslims would actually use their presence in Islamic Paradise as a way to COUNTER the inherent sexism of their religious traditions.

SophieB said...

...Now I think of it, the Mohammed's paradise is degrading to everyone.

For me the main point of Heaven has always been that God will be there in all His glory, and no one there can ever be separated from His Presence. I'd be devastated to get there only to find out that Heaven is merely eternal sex with indescribably attractive partners. No doubt if I had a very tough life like the early Muslims did, tales of food and wine and physical pleasure would be much more appealing. Even so, when John was a slave on Patmos, hungry and thirsty and belittled, his vision of Heaven as recorded in Revelation still was all about the Presence of God. So it says a lot about Islam that Allah's presence isn't even found in Mohammed's concept of paradise.

Odo said...

Panda,

I just checked the hadith you provided and it does appear in Bukhari. Maybe Muhammad ordered his followers to burn people alive but later changed his mind about killing them with fire? Im not sure, but Bukhari vol 1 book 11 num 626 seems to make it clear that people were burned alive. Besides, its the thought that counts.

I think the ones you and I gave are both "authentic" (in a strange Islamic sort of way). Its just that, to be brutally honest, NO hadith is actually *reliable* or *authentic*, historically speaking. The hadiths (and for most part the Quran itself) are light-years away from the historical reliability of our Gospels. You want something reliable and authentic about Muhammad, read Ishaq. A REAL historian and not a liar like the crazy imams. and he is earlier.

But Muslims will tell you opposite: "Ishaq was a liar, Tabari was a liar, yadda yadda yadda".

In fact all those IMAMS who tried to COVER UP Muhammads wicked actions are the liars and hypocrites! I dont trust the "sahih" Imams.

Ishaq had nothing to cover, Ishaq was a historian and not an Imam. Ever read the one about Umm Qirfa? Check out this short snippet from Ibn Ishaq. You wont find that kind of detail in any "authentic hadith".

I encourage you to read through Ishaq and Tabari when you get a chance if you havent done so already. Fascinating (and wicked) stuff!

And here is a great blog post about Umm Qirfa.

Here again are the hadith about burning fellow believers alive, Bukhari 617 and 626. (The hyperlink will go DIRECTLY to those hadith numbers.)

Odo said...

Hugh,

Can you tell im having a blast with my newly acquired skill? BTW it is really easy and i would type out the code for you, but everytime i try its converted into a hyperlink.

Miniora,

Dont forget Surah 98:6:

Those who disbelieved among the people of the scripture, and the idol worshipers (wa al mushrikeena, ie. Christians), have incurred the fire of Gehenna FOREVER. They are the WORST of creatures.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

hugh watt said, "Let's see some consistency."

Sure I agree, otherwise inconsistency is a signed of not only a failed argument but of a failed position.

"Do you find anything unpalatable about God's judgment in this instance? Maybe the Koran says the infants were first given passage to leave S and G before fire fell. If so, I'd like those refs' so I can check."

No Muslim disputes that Allah takes what ever life he so wishes. Be it in a car crash, plane crash, volcanic eruption, tsunami,or earthquake.

What the Muslim would dispute is that Allah ordered for human beings to take the life of babies and children. I think this is where we would differ with you theologically.

Now I can respect that you have a presupposition that allows for the creator to command the killing of babies and infants. But we have no such precedent in the Qur'an.

hugh watt said, "Let's see some consistency."

However, I do appreciate your feed back and it is an interesting point theologically speaking.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Sam said,

"Let me expose and correct the lie that women are a majority in heaven. Earthly women will form only A MINORITY IN HEAVEN according to Muhammad"

You are quite the combative one eh?

Sam this is why people do not take your debating skills very seriously.
No doubt you have pride (don't we all) yet passing papers around during a debate is not very academic at all.

Any one who reads your post can see obfuscation at work.

Your subtlety is surely exposed by your opening response to what I said.

"Earthly women will form only A MINORITY IN HEAVEN according to Muhammad".

So notice that Sam says, "Earthly women" curious isn't it?

Yet he never gave us one reference to support that claim.

He gave us references that said the majority of the people of heaven are poor.

Now if Sam wants to argue that he gave an analogical proof or what we call Qiyas he could be on to something.

What do I mean by an analogical argument?

For example if I want to give a proof text that the majority of the people of heaven are poor, I could by analogical deduction say that the majority of the people of hell are rich; although the text does not say this.

So this is why Sam's argument is dependent upon analogical deduction and not proof text itself.

In order for Shamoun to save himself from being inconsistent he would than have to say that the majority of the women of hell are "earthly women". (As opposed to jinn etc)

However, if he wants to say he gave a textual proof than his argument is easily grounded to powder by anyone who has the ability to read.

The Prophet (saw) said,

Ibn Abbas reported that Allah's Messenger said: I had a chance to look into the Paradise and I FOUND that majority of the people was poor and I looked into the Fire and there I FOUND the majority constituted by women.

To those who struggle with subtleties of the English language.

found 3 (found)
v.
Past tense and past participle of find.

"Imran b. Husain reported that Allah's Messenger said: Amongst the inmates of Paradise THE WOMEN WOULD FORM A MINORITY. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6600:

would (wd)
aux.v. Past tense of will.

would (past tense) Not that this would be some permanent arrangement.

First the scholars understand the text above to be juxtaposed next to the hadith that mentions about women being the majority in hell.

So the understanding for some scholars is that women are indeed the majority in both heaven and hell (however among their own i.e-womankind those in the hell outnumber those in the heaven),-at least at the time of the Prophet (saw) vision meaning those that he did see in the hell could end up in heaven (as Allah also releases the inmates of hell).

I can understand why Sam Shamoun would feel quoting a hadith (even from Muslim or Bukhari) would have an impact as he is mostly used to dealing with Muslims who call themselves Salafi.

Shamoun is very learned about Islam in comparison to the average Christian without doubt; but he often takes advantage of the average Christian's ignorance of Islam as well.

So this is understandable why he would take such an approach.

Sam Shamoun is only guilty of taking a literalistic (zahiri) approach to the particular hadith text. Not that I am faulting him for doing so, but it is by no means the only approach in the vast intellectual tradition of Islam.

Lastly,

His droning on and on about women's breast seems more like a psychologically ingrained response to years of dealing with Muslims bringing up Ezekiel 23 so that's also understandable.

I hope this gives elucidation to the truth seekers. If Sam or anyone else is looking for further clarification I would be more than happy to offer input where helpful.

Fernando said...

Brothers Odo and Hugh Grant... many thanks,,, may the Holy Trinity bless you and your families...

Fernando said...

Sorry... Hugh Watt and not Hugh Grant... my mistake...

hugh watt said...

1-

TGV:

"No Muslim disputes that Allah takes what ever life he so wishes. Be it in a car crash, plane crash, volcanic eruption, tsunami,or earthquake."

Ok; but why stop there? We have differing theological views on this, agreed. Where are your sources to support where you're coming from? God can choose to take my life or yours right now if He so pleases, His prerogative, and however He so wishes. Now, for me to tell His Majesty there must be an age limit on His creatures is to Q His Sovereignty.
Do you Q Him when babies die in a plane/car crash? How about an earthquake/tsunami etc? Don't misunderstand me here, I can see why you say this, but humans [all] tend to contradict when it suits us. Atheists use this against theists. I'd be genuinely interested on how you tackle this from an Islamic angle.

"Now I can respect that you have a presupposition that allows for the creator to command the killing of babies and infants. But we have no such precedent in the Qur'an."

This is it. You see, God looks right to the end of a situation and knows the outcome, we can not. This is a very important point that you need to consider.
Say you were an employer and you had prior knowledge about a potential employee that could influence your company in a bad way. Others, not having your insight are telling you, 'this guy's good, let's hire him.' You say no. They think you're not a good judge of people and are making a mistake. I'm sure you can follow my flow on where I'm going here. God knew the Amalekites would not give up on their hatred towards His people and so, looking right down through history ordered their extinction. I need to throw something in here. You want like this, but God has a contract out on Islam...

hugh watt said...

2-2

Read Ezekiel 38 & 39.

Ezekiel 35: 1 A message came to me from the Lord. He said, 2 "Son of man, turn your attention to Mount Seir. Prophesy against it. 3 Tell it, 'The Lord and King says, "Mount Seir, I am against you. I will reach out my powerful hand against you. I will turn you into a dry and empty desert. 4 I will destroy your towns. Your land will become empty. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 5"People of Edom, you have been Israel's enemies for a long time. You let many Israelites be killed with swords when they were in great trouble. At that time I used Nebuchadnezzar to punish them and destroy them completely. 6 Now I will hand you over to murderers. They will hunt you down. You murdered others. So murderers will chase you. And that is just as sure as I am alive," announces the Lord and King. 7"I will turn Mount Seir into a dry and empty desert. No one will be able to go anywhere or do anything there. 8 I will fill your mountains with dead bodies. Some of those who are killed with swords will fall down dead on your hills. Others will die in your valleys and in all of your canyons. 9 I will make your land empty forever. No one will live in your towns. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

Psalm 83:1 God, don't keep silent. God, don't keep quiet. Don't be still. 2 See how your enemies are getting ready for action. See how they are rising up against you. 3 They make clever plans against your people. They make evil plans against those you love. 4 "Come," they say. "Let's destroy that whole nation. Then the name of Israel won't be remembered anymore." [Palestine!!!]5 All of them agree on the evil plans they have made. They join forces against you. 6 Their forces include the people of Edom,
Ishmael, Moab and Hagar. 7 They also include the people of Byblos, Ammon, Amalek, Philistia and Tyre.
8 Even Assyria has joined them to give strength to the people of Moab and Ammon.
Selah
9 Do to them what you did to the people of Midian. Do to them what you did to Sisera and Jabin at the Kishon River. 10 Sisera and Jabin died near the town of Endor. Their bodies were left to rot on the ground. 11 Do to the nobles of your enemies what you did to Oreb and Zeeb. Do to all of their princes what you did to Zebah and Zalmunna. 12 They said, "Let's take over the grasslands that belong to God." 13 My God, make them like straw that the wind blows away. Make them like tumbleweed. 14 Destroy them as fire burns up a forest. Destroy them as a flame sets mountains on fire. 15 Chase them with your mighty winds. Terrify them with your storm. 16 Lord, put them to shame so that people will worship you. 17 May they always be filled with terror and shame. May they die in dishonor. 18 Your name is the Lord. Let them know that you alone are the Most High God over the whole earth.

hugh watt said...

minoria:

Could you give refs' for your sources, so lazy people like me, y'know.

Odo:

Was life ever meant to be so much fun! You're like a kid in a candy store. I got it figured now [I reckon], but don't tell anyone else about this; knowledge is power:]

SophieB:

"No doubt if I had a very tough life like the early Muslims did, tales of food and wine and physical pleasure would be much more appealing."

Good point. I suppose when you throw in man's sexual lust and dominance here and there we see how the promise of more carnality in Jannah appeal[s]ed to many.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord...

Hugh Watt said,

"Say you were an employer and you had prior knowledge about a potential employee that could influence your company in a bad way. Others, not having your insight are telling you, 'this guy's good, let's hire him.' You say no. They think you're not a good judge of people and are making a mistake. I'm sure you can follow my flow on where I'm going here."

I'm sure your aware there are problems with this analogy? For example in this case the employer(God) is sovereign so others should not be telling him what ultimately to do, after all he ends up hiring the employer doesn't he? Not only that but why can't the employer (God) show effective leadership by changing the employer's heart?

After all in Christian theology you (Hugh Watt) were an enemy of God until he changed your heart.

Why not at the least adopt the infants and the babies and bring them to God's ways?

Ultimately you said it "God's sovereignty" the good pleasure of God is why he wanted the babies and infants to be slaughtered.

Now ultimately I haven't seen David Wood's debates with Loftus on God and the problem of Evil but I am keen to watch them. I would also wonder since David is a teaching fellow for Philosophy what books he would recommend that he feels tackles the problem of evil and looks at it from an objectionable stand point.

The only thing I could offer at the moment Hugh Watt would be a work translated from an Egyptian scholar entitled,

"The 17 Benefits of Tribulation" < This would deal with (from a theological perspective) why perceived tragedy happens to us from a personal level.

minoria said...

Hello Hugh:

I had overlooked that I had not written the exacts suras.For the curse on the Christians till the day of resurrection,it is sura 5:14.For the curse on the Jews,it is sura 5:64.
They are both in the SAME sura.

Hello Fernando:

Glad you are back.I hope you are well and soon will enjoy the Christmas holiday,in spite of the cold.I am glad to hear you were trying to convince an atheist.I did too,I gave good arguments,I did not convince him but maybe in the future he will change his mind.It was in avraidire.eu,which will soon change its name to "avraidire.com"

I also gave a few people I know the Jesus Film.It is the DVD that comes in several languages(all the SAME DVD),in:Arabic,Bengali,English,Farsi,French,Hausa,Indonesian,Kurdish,Mandarin,Punjabi,Russian,Somali,Spanish,Turkish,Urdu.Who knows?Maybe it will do some good.At least I tried.

Sam said...

I actually had to read gv19's post several times in order to make sure that this wasn't a joke aimed at making us laugh, but an attempt at serious interaction with my points. it turns out he wasn't joking.

If anyone is obfuscating it is gvb19 with his desperate polemics which he masquerades as a serious intellectual reply. More on this in my next post.

Sam said...

This is for gv19.


Let me help this young lad out by showing him why I know that the majority of women who will be in hell are not jinn or the whores of paradise but earthly women:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
 Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) on ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that THE MAJORITY of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion THAN YOU. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WOMEN EQUAL TO THE WITNESS OF ONE MAN?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301; see also Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541)

Did you notice Muhammad’s words carefully? Muhammad was obviously speaking to earthly women when he said that he saw that THEY were the majority of women in hell!

Now unless this lad wants to say that Muhammad was speaking to the women of the jinn or the whores of paradise it is obvious that the women that Muhammad saw in his perverted, sick, and demented mind were earthly human women.

Who knows, maybe gv19 wants us to really believe that Muhammad’s statements apply even to female jinn so that Islam’s prophet actually believed that they too are deficient in intelligence and religion. Perhaps this lad wants us to believe that Muhammad truly thought that female jinn also have periods and that it takes two of them to equal the witness of one male jinn!

Therefore, in light of the foregoing it is crystal clear that my so-called analogical argument is based on the explicit statements of Muhammad. My assertion that Muhammad taught that earthly women would be in the minority in paradise and the majority of those in hell happens to be the necessary and logical conclusion of what Muhammad explicitly said.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

To gv19

Now it is time for me to grind his “reply” to powder. Since he insinuates that he can actually read his blunders are therefore inexcusable. He claims:

To those who struggle with subtleties of the English language.
found 3 (found)
v.
Past tense and past participle of find. 



It is not the issue of struggling with the English language that is your problem but with the fact that you forgot that you are not dealing with texts which recount the words of native English speakers. Rather, you are dealing with narrations that are allegedly recounting the statements of an Arabian who is speaking in a language and culture different from that of English!

Moreover, what you forgot to inform the folks here is that the reason why Muhammad spoke in the past tense IS BECAUSE HE IS RECOUNTING HIS VISION WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST! However, what he saw in the vision is about WHAT WILL SUPPOSEDLY TAKE PLACE IN THE FUTURE.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

To gv19

The reason why we know that Muhammad is not talking about a present reality, i.e. what hell is like right now or at the moment he spoke, but what it will be, e.g. describing what is supposed to take place in the future, is because Muhammad taught elsewhere THAT THOSE WHO DIE REMAIN IN THEIR GRAVES! They do not enter hell or paradise:

Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "When a human being is laid in his grave and his companions return and he even hears their foot steps, two angels come to him and make him sit and ask him: What did you use to say about this man, Muhammad ? He will say: I testify that he is Allah's slave and His Apostle. Then it will be said to him, 'Look at your place in the hell-Fire. Allah has given you a place in paradise instead of it.'" The Prophet added, "The dead person will see both his places. But a non-believer or a hypocrite will say to the angels, 'I do not know, but I used to say what the people used to say! It will be said to him, 'Neither did you know nor did you take the guidance (by reciting the Quran).' Then he will be hit with an iron hammer between his two ears, and he will cry and that cry will be heard by whatever approaches him except human beings and jinns." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 23, Number 422: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.422)

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

To gv19.

The very next narration which you comment on also proves this:

"Imran b. Husain reported that Allah's Messenger said: Amongst the inmates of Paradise THE WOMEN WOULD FORM A MINORITY. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6600) 



Muhammad clearly said that women would form (future) a minority, not that they do form one. However, if we were to use your skewed method of exegesis this actually proves that women who form a majority in heaven right now will actually be in the minority in the future.

In light of this rather pathetic response I can see why neither you nor Yahya have the courage to debate any of us. You know what would happen if you were to ever try to use such lame responses against us in a live debate. You guys would be laughed off the stage or set.

And if any of us are looking for more laughs we will make sure to look you up.

Anthony Rogers said...

Quotes of TGV contradicting himself from one statement to the next:

"For example in this case the employer(God) is sovereign so others should not be telling him what ultimately to do,..."

"...why can't the employer (God) show effective leadership by changing the employer's heart?"

"Why not at the least adopt the infants and the babies and bring them to God's ways?"

TGV, God is sovereign, so take your own advice and quit telling Him what to do. Who are you to reply back to God?

(Leave it to a Muslim to prove that Islam is not a religion of submission to God.)

hugh watt said...

1-

TGV:

You've taken what I said out of context. It's not for nothing that I gave Bible refs'. I was not likening the employer to God, but simply saying a person with more insight into any given situation, though they may seem harsh at the time, has an advantage over those who do not have such prior wisdom.
Again, I understand why you would Q why a Holy God would do such a thing, based upon you're misconceptions. I still see inconsistency with your reasoning.

Q's regarding the Koran account of S and G need to be A too. I have several Q's.

What happened to the infants before fire fell?

If you say Allah removed them I'd like to see those refs'. The Bible account tells us God warn[s]ed these people before judgment. They refused to repent.

What does Allah do to those who were never warned about judgment?

What happened to the infants in the Pakistan/Haiti/Tsunami's/
Volcano's incidents of late? Were they removed beforehand?

I think, when you ask the same Q's about Allah you may see you can say nothing against the God of the Bible without condemning Allah also.

The refs' I posted show coming judgment against Israel's enemies. Notice, God first outlines from past history the crimes that will cause the judgment. Show from the Koran where Allah does this but first puts the infants out of harms reach.

hugh watt said...

2-

"Not only that but why can't the employer (God) show effective leadership by changing the employer's heart?"

God is no dictator. He does nothing against man's will. This is true submission to God, when sinners willingly surrender; which is why I have issues about Allah's/Muhammad's forced conversions.

"After all in Christian theology you (Hugh Watt) were an enemy of God until he changed your heart."

Breaking the law of the land makes you an enemy of the state. Breaking God's Laws makes us enemies of God. You've broken His Law, His wrath abides on all law-breakers until they repent and have the fine paid for their crimes. If the fine is not paid before breathing stops, God's prison awaits all debtors. Bernie Madoff cannot pay any fine himself, he doesn't have what it takes. Islam teaches you can pay it, maybe!

"Why not at the least adopt the infants and the babies and bring them to God's ways?"

God adopts us when we submit to Him through Christ. Such is His mercy.

"Ultimately you said it "God's sovereignty" the good pleasure of God is why he wanted the babies and infants to be slaughtered."

What was Allah's 'good pleasure' in the Pakistani flood?

1 Tim.2:1 First, I want all of you to pray for everyone. Ask God to bless them. Give thanks for them.
2 Pray for kings. Pray for all who are in authority. Pray that we will live peaceful and quiet lives. And pray that we will be godly and holy. 3 That is good. It pleases God our Savior. 4 He wants everyone to be saved. He wants them to come to know the truth.
5 There is only one God. And there is only one go-between for God and human beings. He is the man Christ Jesus.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord isn't slow about keeping his promises, as some people think he is. In fact, God is patient, because he wants everyone to turn from sin and no one to be lost.

hugh watt said...

3-3

A certain man built his house upon fraud and deceit and hoped to pass his empire onto his posterity.
One day the law came knocking on his door and carried him away to jail, where he stayed until his death.
His estate was taken from his family, who launched an appeal against the decision, claiming it to be an injustice against them, they, not having been the ones who broke the law in the first instance.
The ruling went against them.

Was justice done?

"TGV, God is sovereign, so take your own advice and quit telling Him what to do. Who are you to reply back to God?"

hugh watt said...

Fernando:

How can you mix me up with Hugh Grant? I look nothing like him; though I will say, I stopped by a mirror this morning and made its day:)

mkvine said...

Sam,

You did a glorious job in exposing "thegrandverbalizer19" by the Grace of Jesus. He tries to come off as an intellectual with his analogical and verb tense arguments. You showed that he has no arguments and in fact, you made his arguments look like a joke. I couldn't stop laughing in a few instances, "that female jinn also have periods and that it takes two of them to equal the witness of one male jinn!" LOL. Hey that's what his argument would amount to if you take it to its logical conclusion. You clearly showed that the majority of women in hell will be earthly women, and you destroyed his verb tense argument and showed that presently people are in their grave so Muhammad's vision must have been of the future. You make this look too easy. It's no wonder they never want to debate you

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance form their Lord.

Anthony Rogers good to see you again.
I'm still waiting for your reply to my refutation of your written material here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/jesus-created-or-uncreated-anthony.html

What I take from what you said Anthony is that you do not find allot of things morally objectionable about Islam it's just that your presupposition has it that Christianity is true and I respect that.

However, I also want consistency. I think you should be careful when cherry picking the things you find distasteful about Islam as you end up destroying the foundation of Christianity (Old Testament).

So let's say for the sake of argument that Muslims did invade other nations, forced their will on them, and attacked 'innocent' people. I guess using the logic you have laid out for us if this is the sovereign will of God than so be it.

So I hope we can be consistent all around.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

As for Sam

Sam does an excellent job of pin pointing the problem that he struggles with the most (The issue of the Arabic language)

"It is not the issue of struggling with the English language that is your problem but with the fact that you forgot that you are not dealing with texts which recount the words of native English speakers. Rather, you are dealing with narrations that are allegedly recounting the statements of an Arabian who is speaking in a language and culture different from that of English!"

Exactly. So for a man who is always laying down debate challenges right, left and center.

I have always been curious if Shamoun is up for a debate in the Arabic language?

Anis Shorrosh junior anyone?

So now that Shamoun has pin pointed his number one problem (is inability to retain the Arabic language after moving to the States) we can proceed...

Now before we examine Shamouns' wild tangent about Jinn menstruating (more obfuscation rest assured) let us return to the focal point.

"Earthly women will form only A MINORITY IN HEAVEN according to Muhammad".

So notice that Sam says, "Earthly women" curious isn't it?

Yet he never gave us one reference to support that claim.

Again he is using analogical deduction which (I even admitted he could use) I'm not taking him out of the game completely

I'll tell you how he is using analogical deduction.

"Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that THE MAJORITY of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)."

Thus he reasons if the majority of women are in the hell the minority of women would be in the heaven.

But wait a minute didn't he give a textual proof as well?

"Imran b. Husain reported that Allah's Messenger said: Amongst the inmates of Paradise THE WOMEN WOULD FORM A MINORITY. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6600)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

To this the answer was already given.

First the scholars understand the text above to be juxtaposed next to the hadith that mentions about women being the majority in hell.

So the understanding for some scholars is that women are indeed the majority in both heaven and hell (however among their own i.e-womankind those in the hell outnumber those in the heaven),-at least at the time of the Prophet (saw) vision meaning those that he did see in the hell could end up in heaven (as Allah also releases the inmates of hell).

Of course he gives a hadith that he feels that people remain in their graves, and when I give him hadith about people who are in hell now what will he do than?

Hadith that people are removed from hell every Ramadhan what will he do than?

Hadith that people are in the paradise now what will he do than?

GV19 that's your problem! Those are your contradictions. Your headache etc.

Of course this is to be expected by a person who did not retain his native language when he moved to the United States and has no academic background in Islamic studies.

It is to be expected from a person who takes a zahiri (literalistic) position on hadith where it suits his polemic and than employs analogical deduction where it suits him.

Sam is clearly use to dealing with neo-salafist claims.

He has an atrocious knowledge of Islamic eschatology and our theological positions. He is a rather obtuse individual when it comes to the Arabic language.

I don't think these are matters I would be chuckling or laughing about.

But than again....

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

As far as not wanting to debate Sam Shamoun or Anthony Rogers, and 'running' from people. I think some things are in order here.

What purpose do these engagements serve (live debates) as opposed to written exchanges? Or putting the material juxtaposed side by side for the general masses to ponder over?

If they "humiliate the enemies of Christianity for the glory of Jesus" could I know where on the Answering-Islam web site I could go and watch all these glorious debates of Sam Shamoun?

Not only that but I am sure that both Christian and Muslim are quite weary about debates that get withheld, or are not released or made available.

Both sides are clearly guilty of this. Sam Shamoun has withheld debates by his own admission as has Anthony Rogers.

When I reflect upon these two in particular mighty is the sound that comes from the field mice.

Sam said...

I can't help myself. I just have to expose more of gv19's inconsistencies and dishonesty. He has a problem with the OT wars but has no problem with the fact that his own prophet taught that his god did the same thing.

In the first place, the Quran teaches that Allah wiped out entire places, villages and cities, such as Sodom and Gomorrah by flood, fire, winds etc. The Quran even points out the fact that Allah’s destruction of these places and peoples was terribly painful and violent:

Such is the seizing of thy Lord, when He seizes the cities that are evildoing; surely His seizing IS PAINFUL, TERRIBLE. S. 11:102 Arberry

All of these places surely had women, children, animals etc., which means that Allah deliberately wiped out babies and infants as well as the elderly and women!

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

To gv19 pt. 2

Secondly, the Quran further mentions an instance where a young boy was killed by a servant of Allah:

Then they found a servant of OURS, upon whom WE had bestowed mercy from US, and whom WE had taught knowledge from Ourselves… So they journeyed on till when they met a young boy; he slew him. Moses said, ‘What! hast thou slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone! Surely, thou hast done a hideous thing’ ... ‘And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest on growing up he should involve them into trouble through rebellion and disbelief;’” S. 18:65, 74, 80 Sher Ali

Continued.

Sam said...

To gv19.

Moses’ companion, who was supposed to have been one of the slaves of Allah, murders a young, innocent boy on the grounds that the boy may have grown up to be a rebellious unbeliever! He wasn’t even certain!

In fact, this text served as a basis for allowing Muslims to kill children whom they suspected would turn out to be disbelievers!

This tradition has been narrated by the same authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abbas: The Messenger of Allah used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to be a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457:http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4457)

Continued.

Sam said...

Khadir is the name traditionally given to this unnamed companion of Moses, the one that killed the child.

How disturbing. Muhammad gives Muslims the leeway to use their fallible discretion to determine whether a child may grow up to be an unbeliever, which in turn could result in the child being murdered on the mere grounds of suspicion!

But there is more for gv19. The Quran and ahadith also confirm that the Israelites wiped out the nations according to a direct order which came from God!

See next post for the details.

Sam said...

To gv19.

Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of God." He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of God, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But God Has full knowledge of those who do wrong. Their Prophet said to them: "God hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "God hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: God Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. God careth for all, and He knoweth all things." And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: "God will test you at the stream: if any drinks of its water, He goes not with my army: Only those who taste not of it go with me: A mere sip out of the hand is excused." but they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: "This day We cannot cope with Goliath and his forces." but those who were convinced that they must meet God, said: "How oft, by God's will, Hath a small force vanquished a big one? God is with those who steadfastly persevere. When they advanced to meet Goliath and his forces, they prayed: "Our Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against those that reject faith." By God's will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and God gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not God Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is full of bounty to all the worlds. S. 2:246-251 Y. Ali

Sam said...

To gv19.

Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of God." He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of God, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But God Has full knowledge of those who do wrong. Their Prophet said to them: "God hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "God hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: God Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. God careth for all, and He knoweth all things." ....

Sam said...

To gv19.

"And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: "God will test you at the stream: if any drinks of its water, He goes not with my army: Only those who taste not of it go with me: A mere sip out of the hand is excused." but they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: "This day We cannot cope with Goliath and his forces." but those who were convinced that they must meet God, said: "How oft, by God's will, Hath a small force vanquished a big one? God is with those who steadfastly persevere. When they advanced to meet Goliath and his forces, they prayed: "Our Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against those that reject faith." By God's will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and God gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not God Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is full of bounty to all the worlds. S. 2:246-251 Y. Ali

Continued.

Sam said...

To gv19.

In this passage the Quran recounts the story of the people of Israel asking the prophet Samuel for a king, Saul’s appointment as a king, Saul’s wars, and David killing Goliath (cf. 1 Samuel 8-17). What is interesting about all this is that even though the Quranic narration presupposes the biblical account of God’s commission to wipe out the Amalekites it nowhere condemns this event. It does not say that killing women and children was an evil thing or that the Israelites tampered with the story since this isn’t how it happened; nor does it deny that these things did happen. Its very mention in the Quran without any qualification presupposes that the author(s) of the Quran had absolutely no problem with these wars since s/he/they believed that God sanctioned them.

There is more. Notice what this next report says regarding Muhammad’s view of the prophet Joshua’s battles against the enemies of God...

Sam said...

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "A prophet amongst the prophets carried out a holy military expedition, so he said to his followers, 'Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage, and has not done so yet, should not accompany me; nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof; nor a man who has sheep or she camels and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.' So, the prophet carried out the expedition and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the 'Asr prayer, he said to the sun, 'O sun! You are under Allah's Order and I am under Allah's Order. O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.'...

Sam said...

To gv19.

It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said (to his men), 'Some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' (They did so and) the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet. Then that prophet said (to the man), 'The theft has been committed by your people. So all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet and he said, "You have committed the theft.' Then they brought a head of gold like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the booty. The Prophet added: Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 353: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.353)

Continued.

Sam said...

Here Muhammad conflates several biblical stories, namely, Moses' instruction in Deuteronomy 20:1-9, Joshua’s expeditions against Ai and the king of Jerusalem (cf. Joshua 7 and 10). These are the very expeditions where God commanded Joshua and the Israelites to wipe out everything that breathes!

Since gv19 accepts the sahih ahadith as reliable he must therefore accept the fact that Muhammad had no problems with God ordering the Israelites to annihilate everything that breathes, including women, children and livestock!

So why does gv19 attack the Holy Bible for something which Muhammad himself confirmed and had no problem with? Does he know better than his own false prophet? And doesn't he realize that by attacking the Bible he ends up condemning his own wicked prophet? He obviously does.

Anyway, I hope this silences his attacks and deception.

Sam said...

To Mkvine - All glory to our risen Lord Jesus who gives us the grace and wisdom to expose the lies of false prophets and antichrists like Muhammad! Always praise him my brother!

Sam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam said...

I need to expose another lie of gv19. i have never admitted to withholding ANY OF MY DEBATES. So I am going to ask for evidence for this lie and slander.

BTW, nice try of making up excuses to mask over the fact that you are too afraid to debate us. We all know the real reason why you won't. The same reason that Shabir won't debate me after what happened to him in our first exchange, in my first public debate with a leading taqqiyist and dawagandist.

Sam said...

BTW, isn't it hilarious that gv19 keeps chiding me for not knowing Arabic and yet he has failed to refute me either in English or Arabic! He has yet to show from the Arabic where I am wrong or mistaken.

Therefore, if my knowledge of Islam is atrocious then what does this say about your knowledge of your own false religion seeing that you didn't even bother to appeal to the Arabic to refute me? Nor did you show how i misunderstood the Arabic. Instead, you got so desperate that you actually appealed to the English to "refute" me!

What makes this all the more laughable is that you even you butchered and misused that language!

Like I said, if we want a good comedy or if we are looking for laughs we will make sure to look you and Yahya up.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Wow Shamoun that was quite a mouthful!

So I take it your done with the whole 'women are the majority of hell fire theme' exchange?

Sam you really do need to take a deep breath before you jump in the water.

You will note if you scroll up that the more cordial exchange with Hugh Watt on November 6, 2010 9:19 PM

you will see the following response:


No Muslim disputes that Allah takes what ever life he so wishes. Be it in a car crash, plane crash, volcanic eruption, tsunami,or earthquake.

What the Muslim would dispute is that Allah ordered for human beings to take the life of babies and children. I think this is where we would differ with you theologically.

I will say that was that was some crafty exegetical leaps you made indeed!

One this is certain you can type.

Anthony Rogers said...

TGV said: "Anthony Rogers good to see you again.
I'm still waiting for your reply to my refutation of your written material here:
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/jesus-created-or-uncreated-anthony.html"

TGV, thanks for letting me know you "responded" to me.

The bulk of your post consists of part of my conversation with a Muslim named James, which I think stands on its own. The full discussion can be found here, and so is available for everyone to read. Your brief prefatory and concluding remarks on that discussion, a conversation which you were obviously reticent to join - or should I say you opted out of that discussion and never returned? - add nothing to what was said. Anyone reading it will see all of James would-be objections were refuted, and he could not make sense out of Islamic unitarianism. If you want to renew that discussion and make up for James inability to extricate Islamic Tawheed from the philosophical conundrums and absurdities that it generates, just say the word. (By the way, have you seen dear old James? He dropped off the map after that discussion.)

TGV said: "Both sides are clearly guilty of this. Sam Shamoun has withheld debates by his own admission as has Anthony Rogers."

Would you please point to a single debate I am witholding, TGV? My debate experience is limited to informal discussions with people on University campuses, the marketplaces, the highways and byways, etc. I have never participated in a formal debate. If you would like to be the first, then put your money where your 'verbalizer' (i.e. mouth) is. In the meantime, until I even have the opportunity to "hide" a debate, please stop prevaricating about me.

As for your other remarks, if you think you have an accurate understanding of my theology and apologetic method - and judging from some of your other blog posts I do not think you do - I would be happy to put my theology, methodology and consistency to the test. I propose we debate the following proposition: "The Trinity or Tawheed? Which Provides the Preconditions for Solving the Philosophical Problem of 'The One and the Many'?"

If you are not interested, please stop wasting my time. I don't read your blog, and I don't need to go there to hear lies similar to the one you stated here - i.e. I am withholding debates - or to read a conversation in which I was one of the parties. I know you are trying, but you are not trying hard enough to make it worth my time.

Anthony Rogers said...

TGV,

I should make it clear, when I say above that I don't read your blog, I meant I don't normally read your blog. I did go there a long time ago, if I recall correctly, and I did have a look around just recently when I went to see the link you supplied above, but other than that your comments pose no serious challenge or interest to me. I am sorry to say that. I have no interest in tearing you down as a creature made in the image of God, and I know you are doing what you do in the hopes that you might move Allah's arbitrary will so he will admit you to the carnal pleasures of Jannah, but that is honestly how I see it.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

I'll make a note of it Anthony that you have backed out of a chance to respond. I know when you visit my web site and when you do not.

The one thing you do have is a penchant for collegiate English most impressive.

But as I said I exposed and thrashed your deficiency on Islamic theological perspectives.

I am ever ready to educate you once again when you cook up another hodgepodge feigning knowledge of my theological tradition.

Anthony said,

TGV, thanks for letting me know you "responded" to me.

<rolls eyes...sure Anthony you didn't know that I wrote that. What ever helps get you through the day guy.

"Would you please point to a single debate I am witholding, TGV?"

Sure always glad to remind you,

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/07/muslims-refuse-to-release-debates-with.html

Anthony Rogers said...

I have the Morey/Badawi debates on video. However, I have no idea how to download them.
July 24, 2010 5:11 PM

I think the word you were looking for is 'upload' but that's alright. Maybe you never got my e-mail either huh?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

More inconsistency from Anthony Rogers aka Charles The Hammer!

Anthony says,
"and I did have a look around just recently when I went to see the link you supplied above, but other than that your comments pose no serious challenge or interest to me. I am sorry to say that. I have no interest in tearing you down as a creature made in the image of God,"

But is the same, who said in a comment prior to the one above,

"I propose we debate the following proposition: "The Trinity or Tawheed? Which Provides the Preconditions for Solving the Philosophical Problem of 'The One and the Many'"

Why would we debate this Anthony? So you could 'tear me down as a creature made in the image of God'.

There is a rancid odor to this kind of inconsistency.

So let me get this straight,
Anthony Rogers (blogger extraordinaire, part time apologist, 2nd fiddler) finds my refutation of his writings to "pose no serious challenge or interest" yet I am supposed to debate "The Trinity or Tawheed...."

Riiight

Sam said...

Apart from the ad hominems, all gv19 is able to do by way of "reply" is to make a desperate appeal to how some Muslim scholars have interpeted these texts in order to salvage Muhammad's despicable and wicked teachings regarding women!

Now why in the world would you need to consult scholars when Muhammad's statements are explicit and clear? And why would you expect us to take the words of scholars who tried to make sense out of Muhammad's irrational and immoral teachings, explaining them in such a way so as to make them more palatable for the mass consumption of Muhammadans?

isn't it ironic that we keep appealing to Muhammad whereas gv19 keeps appealing to the interpretation of scholars?

It is obvious that these desperate explanations are nothing more than the feeble attempts of Muhammadans such as yourself in order to try to prevent people from getting repulsed and shocked by such vile and filthy teachings. Unfortunately for you, IT AIN'T WORKING!

You need to face the facts gv19. Muhammad clearly taught that the majority of women will be in hell and only a minority will make it to the whore house you call paradise. And, unfortunately for you, no amount of tap dancing on your part will ever be able to erase these misogynistic statements uttered by an immoral antichrist who deceived people like you into thinking he is God's role model for humanity.

Finally, your argument concerning the hadiths where Muhammad said that women will be the majority in hell whereas they will form a minority in paradise was perhaps the most laughable and desperate part of your "rebuttal".

The reason being is that your argument is dependent on Sahih Muslim's placement of these hadiths side by side, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MUHAMMAD!

In other worse, it wasn't Muhammad who placed these narratives next to each other, but a compiler who came centuries later. Talk about being desperate.

Moreover, the juxtaposition of these hadiths does not lead to the conclusion that you seek to make. It is obvious that the reason why these narratives are placed side by side is to simply highlight the obvious implications of the claim that women will be the majority of people in hell, namely if the majority of them are in hell then that means that they will only be a minority in paradise.

Time to face the music gv19. your prophet was a wicked, immoral misogynist and one of the antichrists that the Bible warned us about.

Sam said...

It is obvious that gv19 is getting even more desperate when he offers replies such as the following:

What the Muslim would dispute is that Allah ordered for human beings to take the life of babies and children. I think this is where we would differ with you theologically.

This statement makes it also obvious that gv19 didn't even bother reading my response SINCE I PROVED THAT ACCORDING TO HIS OWN FALSE PROPHET ALLAH DID OIRDER THE KILLING OF BABIES AND CHILDREN!

This is simply nothing more obfuscation on your part. But since my examples weren't good enough for you, here is another:

And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture, that indeed you would do mischief on the earth twice and you will become tyrants and extremely arrogant! So, when the promise came for the first of the two, We sent against you slaves of Ours given to TERRIBLE WARFARE. They entered the very innermost parts of your homes. And it was a promise (completely) fulfilled. Then We gave you once again, a return of victory over them. And We helped you with wealth and children and made you more numerous in man power. (And We said): "If you do good, you do good for your ownselves, and if you do evil (you do it) against yourselves." Then, when the second promise came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to make your faces sorrowful and to enter the mosque (of Jerusalem) as they had entered it before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that fell in their hands. S. 17:4-7

Here, Muhammad recounts the times when God sent nations to punish the Israelites for their rebellion and sins. Yet these were the same nations that raped Israelite women, ripped open the wombs of pregnant women, and slaughtered infants and children, all of which Muhammad said was ordered by his own god (Isaiah 13:15-22 - cf. 2 Kings 8:9-13; Hosea 10:13-15; Nahum 3:10)!

Gv19, time to start facing the music. You made an argument against the Bible that ended up being used againat your own prophet and his god with disastrous consequences. You got caught and now are trying to go into damage control. Like I said before, IT AIN'TT WORKING!

Keep up the great job of producing these comedy sketches you call rebuttals. You and Yahya make the three stooges proud.

Sam said...

Gv19 ays,

But as I said I exposed and thrashed your deficiency on Islamic theological perspectives.

Riight!!! And Muhammad is a prophet sent by the true God. RIIIGHT!!!!

Anthony Rogers said...

TGV,

Are you serious? All along you were complaining that I have not uploaded (there, are you happy...I said uploaded) a debate between two other people? Really? A debate I mentioned having back in July? That debate is who knows how many years old, and for all my knowledge of "collegiate level English" I wouldn't know the first thing about how to put that on the web (just ask the FatMan about my I.T. skills.), and to be honest I am not interested in working with you on the matter. Especially not now. Maybe someday, if and when I am told by anyone that it would be legal for me to put that debate on the internet, then I might do so. Besides all that, I really have no idea why you are so anxious for me to put up a debate in which Morey issues a devestating defeat to Badawi. In fact, if I recall our discussion on this, you acknowledged that Badawi lost. So implying that I am withholding even someone else's debate due to some worry that it won't be favorable to Christianity is completely false.

When I said I have no interest in tearing you down, I wasn't referring to Islam. Islam is an evil, pernicious lie of Satan. Refuting Islam is a joy and delight that I perform in the service of the Lord Jesus. What I was saying is that I am not interested in tearing you down on a personal level. However, if you insist on pushing me, I will treat you as you want to be treated...just don't complain after all is said and done.

The Fat Man said...

TGV

Yes I can testify that Anthony's IT skill are non existence. It's a miracle he can turn on a computer.

hugh watt said...

Sam:

Given those refs' you produced in your latest post regarding:

"What the Muslim would dispute is that Allah ordered for human beings to take the life of babies and children. I think this is where we would differ with you theologically."

Isn't this tantamount to admitting the God of the Bible and Allah aren't the same God!!!?

Sam said...

Hugh Watt, can you explain what you mean?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Goodness Sam Shamoun some times I wonder if your debating me or yourself?

In fact the best 'argument' you had in your box of tricks was the story of Moses, Khidr and the youth. You should have stopped at that.

Sam you just don't know when to quit, and you keep digging that hole a little deeper.

"So, when the promise came for the first of the two, We sent against you slaves of Ours given to TERRIBLE WARFARE."

Terrible-formidable in nature : awesome
Warfare-the waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict

Argument from Silence is an informal logical fallacy where a positive conclusion is drawn from someone's silence.

You may fret, and sweat and wish to God that it said kill babies and infants but Sam that's your scriptures not ours.

Continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued from above...

Sam as far as appealing to scholars in case you did not know this is a part of the Islamic faith tradition.

Of course today you have the 'Qur'an Only' and their five factions.

You have the Shi'a and the Sunni etc. However, I am of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah.

You need to understand Sam something about our interpretative principles if you are going to engage us in SERIOUS (and I do emphasize serious) debate.

Maybe you could point me to one of your 'scholarly' articles on Answering-Islam that deal with the nature of transmitted proofs in Islam?

Just so I know you have a serious handle on it.

Quick example and something many here could relate with.

John 3:16 That's a favorite Arminian proof text that Norman Geisler likes to use contra-James White is it not?

For God so loved the 'world'.

Calvinist like White love Romans 9:10-23 and that whole spiel.

How Protestants and Catholics understand 2 Timothy 3:16.

But Christians on either side would argue not to isolate one particular text because that is a characteristic of a cult.

So not only can Sam Shamoun not speak to the Arabic language (as admitted above) he does not understand the nature of transmitted proofs in Islam.

You have given us hadeeth which are
qat`i al-thubut & dhanni al-dalalah

Even those hadeeth which are qat`i al-thubut and qat`i al-dalalah there is differences among the scholars concerning them.

Of course Sam your polemic works well with uneducated masses, and you lucked out choosing a great domain name (Answering-Islam); however it's possible you may lay the ground work for more serious contenders to come into the picture.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

To Anthony Rogers...

I owe you an apology if you are unable to upload the material based upon your lack of know how.

However, your matter becomes transparent when you now say:

"Maybe someday, if and when I am told by anyone that it would be legal for me to put that debate on the internet, then I might do so"

If you would have left it at this it would have greatly helped your sincerity. That is all the meat you needed. But nooo you had to dress up the sandwich with (lack of I.T know how, how many years is this debate now, why would you want it posted since Morey crushed Badawi etc).

This is where you have over stated your case for not wanting to put it up. Anyone can respect copy right issues. But the rest is obfuscation without doubt.

"In fact, if I recall our discussion on this, you acknowledged that Badawi lost."

Not fact and you 'recall' incorrectly. How could I make a statement like that over a debate I have never seen? I took Menj (bismillallahumma) to task for saying Muslims won every debate against Christians and I wondered how he could make such a statement seeing that the Morey-Badawi debates were never released.

How can we make heads or tails of material not made available.

Wood, Qureshi have my respect in that they make their debates available (when they have them in hand).

I don't respect people who issue challenges right, left and center and do not even post them on their own web site! Sounds like someone is trying to uplift their ego rather than their risen Lord.

An eye opener for the attentive for sure!

mkvine said...

TheGrandVerbalizer19,

You said to Sam:

"In fact the best 'argument' you had in your box of tricks was the story of Moses, Khidr and the youth. You should have stopped at that."

OK, great. But how come you didn't deal with these arguments? I was looking forward to reading your response. Since you didn't provide one yet, that means Sam's point has not been refuted.

Sam,

If tgv19 has such a problem with OT stories of warfare, then how come Muhammad himself approved of the OT?

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4434:

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:

A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I BELIEVE IN THEE AND HIM WHO REVEALED THEE."

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/038.sat.html

Since Muhammad approved of the Torah, then doesn't that mean that tgv19 is not following the Sunnah of his prophet? Please help me understand this Sam.

hugh watt said...

Sam:

TGV's reasoning is not based upon the Koran or Hadith but commentaries. S:29.46 says..."Our God and your God Is One; and it is to Him We bow (in Islam)." TGV Q's God's character by appealing to sources other than the Koran and Hadith. This leads me to 3 things.

#1 The objections aren't based upon what the Bible actually says but peoples interpretations.

#2 The Koran and Hadith were not appealed to to counter what the Bible says but commentaries by fallible men.

#3 Commentaries are peoples opinions not divine sources.

God ordered the death of the Amalekites and in Sodom and Gomorrah. The Koran says it's the "One God!"

TGV's god is not even the Koran god, but a god of some commentary.

Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”

Are we to believe infants will be spared in the Islamic end-times view? Jewish children!!!?

Sam said...

Goodness gv19, you don't know when to stop. But that's ok since the more you talk the more you expose your false prophet as well as just how your inconsistent and dishonest you truly are.

You quote a part of Q. 17:4-7 and harp on the phrase "terrible warfare" in order to avoid the obvious. And you then accuse me of arguing from silence which shows you don't know what an argument from silence is.

Did you bother reading the context? If so, did you bother paying attention to the fact that this is dealing with the history of the Children of Israel? If so did you bother to consult any commentator, historical reference etc., to see that your false prophet is referring to God banishing Israel from their land for their sins on two separate occasions? If so didn't you read that one of the nations that came up against Israel were the Babylonians?

Continued in the next post.



say my quotation of

"So, when the promise came for the first of the two, We sent against you slaves of Ours given to TERRIBLE WARFARE."

Terrible-formidable in nature : awesome
Warfare-the waging of war against an enemy; armed conflict

Argument from Silence is an informal logical fallacy where a positive conclusion is drawn from someone's silence.

Sam said...

Here is a reference for you:

Ibn Jarir recorded that Yahya bin Sa`id said: "I heard Sa`id bin Al-Musayyib saying: `Nebuchadnezzar conquered Ash-Sham (Greater Syria, including Palestine), destroying Jerusalem and killing them, then he came to Damascus and found blood boiling in a censer. He asked them: What is this blood They said: We found our forefathers doing this. Because of that blood, he killed seventy thousand of the believers and others, then the blood stopped boiling. This report is Sahih from Sa`id bin Al-Musayyib, and this event is well-known, as he (Nebuchadnezzar) killed their nobles and scholars, and did not leave alive anyone who knew the Tawrah by heart. He took many prisoners from the sons of the Prophets and others, and did many other things that would take too long to mention here. If we had found anything that was correct or close enough, we could have written it and reported it here. And Allah knows best. (Ibn Kathir: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=17&tid=28573)

Continued.

Sam said...

To gv19,

Now did you ever bother consulting the passages that I ace you to show how the Babylonians treated the nations that they conquered? If you did you would see that they spared no one, not even infants.

Now since you you like logic so much let me break this down for you:n

A. Muhammad said that Allah brought his servants against the Israelites to punish them for their sins.

So, when the promise came for the first of the two, We sent against you slaves of Ours given to terrible warfare. They entered the very innermost parts of your homes. And it was a promise (completely) fulfilled. S. 17:5

B. One of these servants included the the Babylonians who didn't just kill the male Israelites, but their women and children as well.
C. This means that the terrible warfare which Allah ordered included the killing of men, women and children.
D. Therefore, Allah is personally responsible for the deaths of men, women, and children.

You see very simple and basic. But I can see why you couldn't follow this line of logic seeing that you follow a man whom you boast was illiterate and who passed himself off as a prophet of God.

Continued.

Sam said...

To gv19.

Since you avoided adequately addressing ANY of the verses or hadiths that I cited, but went into a rant about me being so ignorant of your "interpretive principles," perhaps you would be so kind as to entertain us with an actual response this time, especially to my following question. According to this next verse Allah ordered his servants to attack Israel:

So, when the promise came for the first of the two, We sent against you slaves of Ours given to terrible warfare. THEY ENTERED THE VERY INNERMOST PARTS OF YOUR HOMES. And it was a promise (completely) fulfilled. S. 17:5

Seeing that your false prophet said that Allah's servants entered into the very innermost parts of the Israelites' homes can you tell us what they did once they entered.

Did these servants sit down with the women and children and sip some tea or chai? Were they busy watching Arabic soap operas like recitations of the Quran, which happens to be one of the best programs to watch on satellite tv seeing that it combines comedy with imaginary figures like talking ants and birds? This even puts cartoons like Tom and Jerry to shame!

Continued.

Odo said...

Grand,

I wanted to ask you - how in the world can you even mention 1 Sam with all that your prophet has done? Seeing what Sam has written your hypocrisy is exposed. I cannot believe you stoop so low as to condemn the Biblical stories in your own Quran just to attack the Bible.

I dont know if this makes much of a difference to you but..

When God commanded the fate of the Amalekites to Moses He wasnt simply speaking through a prophet -THE CLOUD OF THE LORD abode over the Tabernacle. Whenever God wanted to speak with Moses, ALL of ISRAEL would SEE and witness the CLOUD descending on the Tabernacle. For 40 years, during the exile in the wilderness, THE CLOUD OF THE LORD was their guide. Every DAY, every NIGHT, the Cloud, the Pillar, would dwell with His chosen. Israelites witnessed the Cloud of the Lord everysingle day, and by night the Pillar provided the light. They KNEW God was with them, they could be assured God was the one giving commands. Not a man's word, but Gods.

Exodus 19:9 The LORD said to Moses, "I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the PEOPLE WILL HEAR ME SPEAKING WITH YOU and will always put their trust in you."

Also, right before God commanded the Amalekite fate, HE MADE BREAD RAIN DOWN FROM THE SKY AND WATER SPURT FROM A ROCK! Can we get any more confirmation? I dont think so.

Now i dont know you, BUT I WOULDINT QUESTION GODS DIVINE JUDGMENT AND HOLY WRATH. Specially if there was NO POSSIBLE WAY I could deny it was His. The Amalekites were not innocent. They were abominable people deserving punishment, According to God, according to THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD among HIS peoples.. When Amalek attacked Israel, the battle was not against Israel but against God.

On the other hand, we have Muhammad :p A mere man who hears a god in his ear and changes his mind on small things like burning people alive, slave girls, alcohol, numver of wives, etc. Not only that, but this man has some sort of medical condition nd is by palm leaves after his shame. NOT ONLY THAT, but this mere mortal THOUGHT he was possessed by Satan. Did you catch it? HE THINKS, HE BELIEVED IT, HE GOT HAD BY IT, HE WAS CONVINCED ABOUT IT. How do you expect rational thinking people to believe Satan spoke through Muhammad and then later Allah spoke through Muhammad and abrogated what Satan said?

Hmmm...so how many surahs are abrogated in the Quran? How many times did Muhammad go back on his word, change his word, forget his word?

How can anyone ever be sure that those thousand dead Qurayza Jews were ment to die according to Allah? They simply CANT.

Ill take God Tabernacling with His chosen over a MAN who uses men to kill other men! At least I KNOW its His will and not mans. In fact, this is what gives me ASSURANCE that ISREAL prophets are GODS CHOSEN and that Jesus is the continuation, and finalization - the First and the Last.

And you come up like nothing is going on in the world! ON THE SAME DAY your co-religionists announced "open hunting season on Christians" in Iraq, you came to this thread and posted an attack on Holy Holy Holy Bible. But not a peep from U on the other thread about the Iraqi Christians (not a peep on your blog either), not a word of condemnation or outrage for what these supposed (according to you) "bad" Muslims are doing to your religion. Since ISNA said something you dont have too? No need to waste your breath?

Oh and that grand condemnation from ISNA. Did you read ALL they wrote about ending violent jihad? Neither did I, becauze it was not there, and violent jihad is a gift passed on from Father Muhammad to His children – cmon now, ISNA wouldn't DARE..would you?

Sam said...

to gv19,

I think it is obvious to everyone that you are not capable of providing a meaningful response and are dealing with issues that are way beyond your ability to adequately address. This explains why you spent an entire post on irrelevant issues, specifically on the methodology that your particular cult of death employs in interpreting your incoherent and chaotic book. In logic we call this a red herring.

What is ironic is that you mention Geisler and White but you fault to mention how you take the sides of anyone who is against Dr. White. Case in point, you have a blog post on Louis Riggerio's (a.k.a. Lou Rugg) challenge to White where you slam and slander White, accusing him of backing down from debating Lou.

However, I am not surprised since this is the kind of human being that Muhammad and his god produce.

Finally, isn't it amazing that a guy who you keep accusing of not knowing Islam is constantly embarrassing and exposing you and your ignorance of your own religion? No wonder that neither you nor Yahya will ever debate either myself or Anthony since you are aware of the major embarrassment you will bring upon yourself, much like you have done here.

Like I said. If we want some good laughs and comedy we will make sure to look you and Yahya up.

Odo said...

On another note, it makes me sad when the Quran calls Muhammad perfect. You see, this is where all the idolatry and paganism comes in.

Christianity puts everyone on a level playing field. Everyone is a sinner, and the only "perfect" is God. The only "man" to follow is perfect Jesus, and He was Fully God.

But with the Quran calling Muhammad usawa hasana ("excellent role model") and Muhammad being al Insan al Kamil ("the person who has reached perfection") in Islamic theology, you actually get the followers of Muhammad thinking they can be perfect too. Perfect people. Just like Muhammad, if they are pius enough, spiritual enough, and of course kill enough infidels, they will attain that transcendental worldly (did I say worldly - I mean "universal") perfection, and after death those wonderful houri sex machines.

No wonder Arabi believed Muhammad communicated with him in a vision, he was standing near "a" Kabaa and the holiness apparently rubbed off ("a" since there are just sooo many other shadows and copies, or pieces of wood and stone, or nganga’s and zamzam’s)

it ALL leads to idolatry.

And what I mean by idolatry is this: "I am descendant of Muhammad! I have Muhammads lineage! I am perfect and more holy than others because im in Muhammads family! ITS IN MY BLOOD!" Kind of like some hasids but Muslims also blow themselves up.

Pretty soon you get people bowing down and putting their faith in a rock, or a "holy city" where Muhammad DWELLED. NOT GOD!

I also can see how you might say: "well since Jesus came as God incarnate any person can now think they are God in the flesh which leads to idolatry!" - I would be happy to respond about the un-Christian nut-jobs simply by quoting from scripture. And I can also show you, by quoting Quran, that your radical co-religionists are nothing more than orthodox, Quran abiding, Muslims. And all that black stone idolatry.

Odo said...

Truth about Jews and Israel in Islam? Please, no shame. And for a minute I actually thought you were sincere.

For I believe in all warnings that are given in scripture, all the strong instincts, every revelation, every miracle, every experience of love, all contemplations, every exaltation, every God Breathed intimation.

You see, I have the privilege of being able to say that about the Holy Bible. You fly to another universe in order to harmonize anything previous with the Quran.

Odo said...

Sorry for messing up your flow Sam.

Sam said...

BTW folks, please excuse me for all those typos. The reason why there are so many is because I am rushing through these replies. Normally, I would go over my posts carefully in order to correct them. However, gv19 and his partner in crime Yahya are not worth the time. This is why I am challenging either of them to debate me since in that way it won't take much time that writing a post does. It would only take me less than ten minutes to expose these charlatans and their arguments. And the fact is these guys are not worth the amount of time it takes to write a response exposing their lies, distortions of facts, and smokescreens.

Sam said...

To brother Odo. No problem. The more folks we have exposing these charlatans the better.

Anthony Rogers said...

TGV,

I really can't believe you are still pestering me. First you imply that I was hiding a debate that I was in (which is a lie), then you complain that I am guilty of something nefarious since I haven't uploaded a debate between two other people (which is stupid).

Contrary to how you want to be understood now, you did in fact suggest that Morey crushed Badawi (and Ally, for that matter). Here is what you said in an e-mail you sent to me back on July 25th:

"...that would be great if we had the Badawi/Morey debates and Ally/Morey debates.

I think these debates should be interesting because these along with one or two that Jay Smith did represented a turning point in Christian apologetics.

I think that instead of the usual debates which put Christians constantly on the defensive the Christians actually put us on the defensive in these debates which was good for a change."

And if the above does not make your point obvious enough, the very blog post that you made on this issue back in July - you know, the post where you say "we Muslims are the most uneducated people on the planet" - makes it even clearer that you are of the persuasion that Morey won the debate and that is why Menj and co. are keeping it under wraps. If anyone has an obligation to put these debates on the web, it is the people who are responsible for them. (And if you want my copies so bad since they are no longer avaialble (that I know of), I am willing to sell them to you for the low price of $500. Rest assured I will buy some good books with the money to further refute Islam.)

Putting that all aside, who in the world do you think you are anyway? In spite of your own self-designation, you are not that grand and I am certainly not your dhimmi. Even if I knew how to upload a VHS recording onto the computer, and even if I had the authority to do so and wouldn't be violating any possible copyright law that applied, I still wouldn't be under any obligation to upload it, even if you, theGrandverbalizermufti, said so.

Before I go, why in the world do you call yourself thegrandverbalizer? Do you really think your rhetorical skills are that much better than that of my four year old or of Aishah at the time your prophet bedded her? (I would have compared you to my nine year old, but I didn't want to compare her to a mental midget. Give my four year old a year or two and I am sure she will outstrip you in any rhetorical contest (and maybe even arm wrestling).) You are as much of a grand verbalizer as your false prophet who had great difficulties stringing two intelligible sentences together. Every time you write something, you meet (and therefore falsify) the Quranic challenge to bring forth something as eloquent as the Quran.

Sam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam said...

Brother Anthony, that is why I call gv19 granddiarheaofthemouth19 because of the garbage that spews from his mouth and keyboard. I think everyone here would agree that is a more befitting name than grandverbalizer19.