Thursday, October 18, 2012

What Is the Shahada?

The Shahada (also spelled “Shahadah”) is the Islamic Creed, one of the Five Pillars of Islam. The word “Shahada” comes from the verb shahida, meaning “he testifies” or “he bears witness.” In reciting the Shahada, a Muslim bears witness that Allah is the only true god, and that Muhammad is Allah’s prophet. The shortest form of the Shahada would be translated:

“There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

Longer versions are common, especially those beginning with “I bear witness” or “I testify,” e.g.:

“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”

A person becomes a Muslim by reciting the Shahada with a sincere heart in Arabic.


The first part of the Shahada predates Islam. A monotheistic Arabian group called the Sabians recited “La ilaha illallah” (“There is no god but Allah”) as their confession of faith. Hence, Muhammad simply added “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” to a creed that was already familiar in Arabia.

Indeed, Muhammad and his followers were sometimes confused with the Sabians because of the Shahada. As the eighth-century Islamic scholar Abd al-Rahman Ibn Zayd wrote:

The polytheists used to say of the prophet and his companions, “These are the Sabians,” comparing them to them, because the Sabians who live Jaziartal-Mawsil (i.e., Iraq) would say “La ilaha ila Allah.”

The Islamic Creed is related to Jihad, for Muhammad claimed that he was commanded to fight people until they submit to Islam by reciting the Shahada:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (There is no god but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 33—The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

For more introductory material on Islam, visit our “Islam” page.

309 comments:

1 – 200 of 309   Newer›   Newest»
reconnaissance said...

it should be:

There is a wanna be god ie Satan and Muhammad is his messenger.

Jafar Saeed said...

So what? The Sabians are applauded in the Quraan 2:62.

Ibn al-Qayyim said: "The Sabians are a large nation among whom are both blessed and doomed." - Therefore, the righteous Sabians are likely to be a blessed people.

So what does your article prove? Mabye 'La ilaha illallah' was the declaration of faith of Prophet Dawud (as), because the Sabians followed Prophet David. Therefore, it would be fitting for Muslims to use such.

bob said...

The use and context of the terms "messenger" and "prophet" in the Koran [600 A.D.] were most likely appropriated from the passages in Malachi 3:1 [450 B.C.]...

"Behold, I send my messenger [John the Baptist], and he will prepare the way for me [The Son, Christ]. And the Lord, whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple, even the Messenger [Christ] of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, he is coming," says the Lord of hosts.

...and Luke 7;27, 28 [60 A.D.]...

"But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes I say to you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.' [Malachi 3:1]
For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist."

...and also in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 [1440 B.C]

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet [Christ] like me from your midst, from your brethren..."

"...from your brethren..." means that he would also need to be a Jew from the tribe of Judah (i.e. the Lion from the tribe of Judah. Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5), which Christ was, and Mohammad was not.

The Koran defends its plagiarizing of the Jewish and Christian scriptures by claiming that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were corrupted to hide the fact that Mohammad was the final righteous prophet of God.

Oh, people of the scriptures (Jews and Christians), our messenger has come to you to clear up what you have hidden of those scriptures... 5:15

The angel Gabriel is also and important personality in the Koran.
The term "Say:" is used frequently and means that Gabriel is telling Mohammad to say this to the people.
(from 'Mohammad and the Unbelievers' cspipublishing.com)

The Gabriel of the Koran and the Gabriel of the Bible in the book of Daniel [about 537 B.C.] and Luke [60 A.D.] are two different angels.
In Luke 1:32, 35, Gabriel says twice that Jesus is God's Son, but the Korans Gabriel says that Jesus is an ordinary man and not God's Son.

For one of God's faithful angels to provide new revelation that reinterprets the Bible and denies the diety of Jesus makes no sense.
Rather, Mohammad's visions and trances concerning Gabriel fall into the category of...

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder of which he spoke to you comes to pass, and he says, 'Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams..." Deuteronomy 13:1-3 [1440 B.C.]

...that which is found in New Age teachings practices and experiences.

Galatians 1:8 [53-57 A.D.] also warns against being impressed by supernatural manifestations that contradict God's word.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

John Bob said...

Bob that was a great post! Thanks for sharing.

David M said...

Amen with that brother Bob. It puzzles me so hard to see how many people do not accept Jesus as to what he was, what gains and did the Luke, Matthew, John, or Mark get from proclaiming Jesus the son of God,and why would they go against Jesus if he taught something differen't. Why? What reason too?Unlike there (muslims) prophet he gained power, respect from there people, fleshly pleasures, slaves, money....etc I can go on, and what's crazy is they say we have blind faith for believing in Jesus as the Son of god what about them they want us to believe Muhamad was the final prophet and he got word from god through Gabriel the angel from a cave with no other witnesses? Now that's blind faith, anyways that's my belief. And to think they think Heaven is like the Play Boy mansion with 70 something virgins, they must honor Hugh Hefner.. (saracsim)

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Wood said...

You just displayed your ignorance, Jamal. You said that "scholars and anthropologists" say that Christianity was embellished with Roman-Greek Mithraism. Actually, scholars don't say that at all. Lame internet sites and books by uneducated attention-seekers make claims like that. Genuine scholars know that any supposed parallels between Christianity and Mithraism actually post-date Christianity. In other words, Mithraism was copying Christianity, not the other way around. You would know this too, if you bothered to study.

John Bob said...

Brother David, you beat me to the punch.

Regarding December 25, I haven't found that in my bible..

John Bob said...

Mithra dead for Mankind?

He killed a bull. He did not kill or sacrifice himself.

In the Persian account he only had 2 followers! The idea of the 12 followers is traced to a carving of him sacrificing a bull with 12 people watching.. That's a great connection! Not! And besides the carving is Post Christanity. Mithra borrowed from Christanity and not the other way around.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Wood said...

Ha! Ha! Ha! I said that genuine scholars know that Christianity couldn't have drawn from Mithraism. Jamal responds by citing Franz Cumont, who's been dead for more than 60 years! Notice that since Jamal couldn't find a single actual scholar in the entire world who supports his claim, he had to cite someone who was still in school in the 1800s! Sheer desperation!

Then he says that since Mithraism was practiced from the 1st to the 4th centuries AD, it couldn't have copied Christianity, which began in the 1st century. It seems that Jamal doesn't even realize that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries came AFTER the 1st century!

And that's exactly what actual scholars point out. Mithraism existed before the spread of Christianity, but there were no common elements between Christianity and Mithraism in the earliest descriptions of Mithraism. The parallels don't come along until Christianity had already spread, showing that Mithraism did the copying, not the other way around.

Jamal, you're wasting everyone's time with arguments that died decades ago and are only used by the most ignorant people on the planet. Go somewhere else until you learn at least the fundamentals!

And you're doing this as a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that your prophet copied virtually everything in his religion from other groups, including pagans! Remember that the next time you bow down to the Ka'ba (a pagan shrine) and kiss the black stone (a pagan idol)!

John Bob said...

The only copies that we have available when it comes to Mithra are called the Avesta and these writtings date back to the 13th Century AD! At Least a 2000 year gap..you don't have a problem with that? But I bet you have a problem with the overwhelming manuscript evidence for the NT..and the extremely close dates to the events that took place in the 1st century..Not only that we have OT manuscripts that date back later than the 13th century (dead sea scrolls)

The available evidence shows clearly that mithra borrowed from Christanity, and not the the other way around!

bob said...

The nature of, and description of God's Son (John 3:16), by listing his names, titles, and the work he does and his character and attributes; from Genesis [about 4000 B.C.] to Revelation.

Seed or Offspring [Genesis 3:15; 22:18]
Angel (with capital A) of the Lord [Gen 16:7; 48:16]
Lion of the tribe of Judah [Gen 49:9; Rev 5:5]
Shiloh (the Messiah, the Peaceful One) [Gen 49:10]
I AM [Exodus 3:14; John 8:58]
the Prophet [Deut 18:15; John 1:21]
Lord of hosts [1Sam 1:3]
the Son [Psalm 2:7, 12]
Rock, Salvation, Defence, Fortress [Psalm 62:2]
the Rock, Most High God [Psalm 78:35]
the Shepherd [Psalm 23; 80:1, John10:11, 1Peter 2:25; 5:4]
Redeemer [Job 19:25]
Immanuel, Emmanuel (God with us) [Isaiah 7:14; 9:6, Mat 1:23]
Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace [Isaiah 9:6]
Shoot, Branch [Isaiah 11:1]
My Elect One [Isaiah 42:1]
My Servant [Isaiah 53:11]
Son of God [Daniel 3:25]
Saviour and Deliverer [Daniel 6:27]
Son of man [Daniel 7:13]
the King [Zech 9:9; 14:6, 1Tim 1;17]
the King of kings and Lord of lords [1Tim 6:15, Rev 19:16]
the Messenger [Malachi 3:1]
trustworthy Witness [Malachi 3:5, Rev 1:5]
Jesus Christ (Jesus the Messiah, the Anointed One) [Mat 1:1]
Thunder [Mark 3:17]
the Word [John 1:1]
the Life [John 1:4]
the Light [John 1:7]
Lamb of God [John 1:29, Rev 13:8]
Teacher [John 3:2]
bread of Life [John 6:48]
the Door [John 10:7, 9]
the Man [John 1:30, 1Cor 15:47]
the Way, the Truth, the Life [John 14:6]
Stumbling Block (or stone, for those who hold to the belief that they can be justified by leaning on the works of the law instead God's grace) [Isaiah 8:14; 28:16, Romans 9:23, 33]
High Priest [Heb 8:1]
the Mediator [Heb 8:6]
Advocate [1John 2:1]
the First and the Last [Rev 1:11]
Faithfull, True [Rev 19:11]
Morning Star [Rev 22:16]

Christ's arrival and redeeming sacrifice as foretold in the Old Testament.

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall concieve and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us]."
For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given... Isaiah 7:14; 9:6

"They pierced my hands and feet; I can count all my bones. They look and stare at me. They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." Psalm 22:16-18 and Mat 27:35
"My God, my God, why have you fosaken me?" Psalm 22:1 and Mat 27:46

_ said...

Jamal,

Now, why would you trust in a "prophet" who couldn't distinguish a demonic revelation from a sound revelation?

What steps would you take to assure someone that the Koran aren't the words of demons and satan?

John Bob said...

@_ the answer for that question is easy. Momo took the required steps...After receiving "revelation" momo was scared, his own testimony tells us that he thought he was demon possessed. So he ran to his wife and it was on the bases of her testimony that convinced him that he was not demon possessed....

Unfortunately a womans testimony is only worth half of a mans..so momo's testimony of being demon possessed stands!

bob said...

The standard procedure for checking the credibility of all prophets who claim to speak in God's name, is written in Deuteronomy 18:22

"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

_ said...

Bob,

The next question then for Jamal would be:

What steps would he take to assure us that momo's wife wasn't a demon in disguise?

The bible does say that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. So, I don't see why his goons coulnt either .

David Wood said...

Bob,

When we examine Muhammad, there are two even more important criteria two verses earlier in Deuteronomy. Read 18:20 and think about Muhammad delivering the Satanic Verses (one of the most embarrassing moments in his prophetic career).

_ said...

It will be interesting to see if Jamal shows back up.

John Bob said...

Hey guys check out this video on the trinity and let me know what u think..

Tx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUy-H5MmeGU

_ said...

Bob,

interesting video.

John Bob said...

_ yeah very ..


Question..someone posted an islamic argument for John 1:1.. Saying that the word for God is translated as Proohet?

Can someone point me in a direction,.so as to refute this...been looking with no success ..yet, I may come across something.

John Bob said...

_ yeah very ..


Question..someone posted an islamic argument for John 1:1.. Saying that the word for God is translated as Proohet?

Can someone point me in a direction,.so as to refute this...been looking with no success ..yet, I may come across something.

_ said...

Bob,

I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Muslim apologists are desperate.

John Bob said...

:D. Yes desperate is the word!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reconnaissance said...

Jamal,

Muhammad is in hell.


There is only one intercessor ie Jesus Christ


It's amazing how delusional you are.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reconnaissance said...

Jamal,

Explain what?

No, Sir, it's actually the other way around. if you don't believe that Jesus is God, he can't intercede for you.



svabraham said...

Jamal,
You r right when u claim that Jesus cannot intercede if Jesus is God. But as a christian I believe that Jesus is God-Man and therefore can be a mediator.
Read 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus".
Also Hebrews 2:17 "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way( i.e; become man), in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest( thus function as an interceder ) in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people."
Also Romans 8:34 "Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."

svabraham said...

Jamal,
You are right when u say that Jesus cannot intercede if he is God(if u mean God alone). But as a christian I believe that Jesus is God-Man and therefore intercede for us.
1 Timothy 2:5 says "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus"
Also read Hebrews 2:17 " For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way( i.e; become man), in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest( thus becoming an interceder for us) in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people"
Also read Romans 8:34 "Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us."
Shalom. May God bless

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Tell us how a man can intercede and compel God to forgive sins when he himself didnt know if his sins were going to be forgiven? And Mohamed himself said he cannot save anyone!

Narrated Abu Huraira:
When Allah revealed the Verse: "Warn your nearest kinsmen," Allah's Apostle got up and said, "O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah's Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 16)


Narrated 'Um al-'Ala:
An Ansari woman who gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that the Ansar drew lots concerning the dwelling of the Emigrants. 'Uthman bin Maz'un was decided to dwell with them (i.e. Um al-'Ala's family), 'Uthman fell ill and I nursed him till he died, and we covered him with his clothes. Then the Prophet came to us and I (addressing the dead body) said, "O Abu As-Sa'ib, may Allah's Mercy be on you! I bear witness that Allah has honored you." On that the Prophet said, "How do you know that Allah has honored him?" I replied, "I do not know. May my father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle! But who else is worthy of it (if not 'Uthman)?" He said, "As to him, by Allah, death has overtaken him, and I hope the best for him. By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me," By Allah, I will never assert the piety of anyone after him. That made me sad, and when I slept I saw in a dream a flowing stream for 'Uthman bin Maz'un. I went to Allah's Apostle and told him of it. He remarked, "That symbolizes his (good) deeds." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 266)


And does this sound like Allah speaking about himself, or Mohamed speaking about Allah. Think of the context of this statement! It also contradicts your statement!

And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring God to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins, - and who can forgive sins except God? - and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done. S. 3:135

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cristo Te Ama said...

@Jamal

First you have to read the concept of the Trinity, we believe in 1 God conformed by 3 different persons, the 3 persons are consubstantial, they conform what we call YHWH (Jehova) for more about this you can check James White's speechs or books about it, he will make it more clear to you. So it's not a problem that Christ who suffered in his flesh like us can intercede for us to the Father, as said in Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.". The problem i always see in Muslims is that you "try" to understand our beliefs using unitarian glasses, but to me it seems to be that you don't even try to know what we believe, you say you do, but when we explain you seem to "forget" it very quick, otherwise at this point we shouldn't have been telling you this, if you are trying to understand our doctrine using unitarianism, i will give you an advise: don't waste time...
PS: Stop watching "Zeitgeist" so you won't make a fool of yourself repeating such claims, also this documental says Moses was an invention, i guess that "schollars" support that, so let's be atheists because Judaism based on Moses as Christianity and even Islam are false. As David Wood well said, you have to check your sources and their reliability..
Peace.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

He says he cannot do anything. You are being willfully ignorant and using confirmation bias. You cant choose what you like and dismiss what you dont. Read it! Mohamed said he can do NOTHING!
And he didnt even know if he was going to Jennah!



How c an a man intercede when he doesnt even know if he is going to Jennah? And who is going to intercede for Mohamed?

Or do they say, 'He has forged it'? Say: 'If I have forged it, you have no power to help me against Allah. He knows very well what you are pressing upon; He suffices as a witness between me and you; He is the All-forgiving, the All-compassionate.' Say: 'I am not an innovation among the Messengers, and I know not what shall be done with me or with you. I only follow what is revealed to me; I am only a clear warner.' S. 46:8-9

Now if you have a problem with substitutional atonement, you better take a look at Islam! Because your sins even though they are as large as mountains will be sent upon Jews and Christians! INVOLUNTARILY! The Jews and Christians are not willing to take on your sins, and we are all certainly not messiahs! This makes NO sense at ALL!

Sahih Muslim 6666—Allah’s Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire.

Sahih Muslim 6668—Allah’s Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

Sahih Muslim 6665—Abu Musa reported that Allah's Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.

110 Hadith Qudsi—Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cristo Te Ama said...

@Jamal

You said "I feel like you have to force yourself to believe it", it is really surprising that a guy like you say such a thing, you who believe a book (quran) that says we Christians and Jews must follow what was revealed to us and then again every muslim in the world say that what was revealed to us is corrupted, i think you really force yourselves to believe that, even when it has no logic at all, other than a simple explainations: 1) Muhammad didn't know the Bible since he was no prophet at all, so he made a mistake saying such things. 2) allah an "all knowing god" had no idea of what he revealed to us, or that it was already corrupted, so it had no sense that he would say such things. Also i think you force yourselves to believe that a book which has clear errors, even gramaticals, is "perfect preserved" as all muslims say, and i think that even more important you all force yourselves and even try to force others to deceive yourselves to believe that Muhammad having the terrible life he had, doing the horrible things he did, like raping little girls, slaves, is somehow Honorable and mercyful!! that's at least how i see it.
Also i think you are using a very weak argument saying "Humans aren't born with this trinity concept".. According to who? because many atheists would say "humans aren't born with this God concept, it's an invention supersticious people teach to their kids", and an Hindu would say "humans aren't born with this only one God concept, you just have to use the logic, the same thing that created your God could've have created other Gods like Krishna, and if he appeared just like that, why can't other Gods appear just like that too, i think you Muslims are forcing yourselves to believe that, since even if we look in nature, it's more logic to believe in several Gods than one God"!! I don't know if you are new in this Blog, but using such arguments won't amaze anyone.
Peace

reconnaissance said...

I'm having a semi-interesting conversation with Jamal over on his strange blog just in case anybody cares.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

You keep making all kinds of assertions and say, "Ican prove it" or "I can write a book about it". But then you dont. This is what all Muslims do. They make assertions and claims that they cannot provide evidence for. You say there is a hadith about this and that, but it's irrelevant to the topic and you havent presented it. I am showing you that Mohamed said that the sins of a Muslim can be as high as a mountain and they will be put onto Jews and Christians. And you didnt answer anything. You just rambled on about irrelevant unsubstantiated assertions! As usual the non Muslim is presenting the evidence.

Now for 98:1 You say that it says, and I quote " Muslims are not allowed to damn people to hell, including non-Muslims. Chapter 98:1, one of the last surahs revealed, says the Jews and Christians are not accused of disbelief until the clear proof comes to them."

How did you reach that conclusion. You are commanded to subjugate or slaughter all non Muslims until there is a universal caliphate and all religion is for Mohamed and Allah. Now lets read 98:1

098.001 Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, were not going to depart (from their ways) until there should come to them Clear Evidence,-


Sura 98 was the 100th revealed. Sura 9 was the 113th.


Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

And Mohamed was a horrible example for humanity. I would be glad to present that evidence to you. Would you like the tafsir for 98:1?


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ لَمْ يَكُنِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ مُنفَكِّينَ حَتَّىٰ تَأْتِيَهُمُ ٱلْبَيِّنَةُ }

The disbelievers from among (min: explicative) the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, that is, the idol-worshippers (wa’l-mushrikīna is a supplement to ahl, ‘the People of’) were not going to leave off (munfakkīna is the predicate of yakun, ‘were’), that is to say, they were not going to abandon their ways, until the clear proof, namely, Muhammad (s), should come to them, that is, [until] it came to them;

Now where did you get your idea that it means what you claimed? Because it doesnt!


Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

It is you who is twisting the incidents to rationalize immoral and evil behavior! Mohamed was a horrible example for humanity! And if he were alive today he would be hunted down and executed for crimes against humanity! He was also a hypocrite who said do as I say but not as I do!


Qur'an (4:3) - (Wife-to-husband ratio) "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four"


Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old


Now can you imagine if people followed these examples. Oh wait. We see it all the time, in criminals who are sent to prison. At least in the West.

If a man had sex with a 9 year old today he would be sent to prison for life. And if a man took female married captives and raped them in front of their husbands, he would be a war criminal. You are living the delusional and using confirmation bias and rationalizing immoral and evil behavior because of your emotional ties. You are incapable of objectivity, critical thinking or intellectual integrity!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

That was a treaty he made with a specific people. Not all Christians. He lacked the strength to defeat them so he had to make some accommodations. Until such time as he would break his treaty and then subjugate or slaughter them.


Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."


Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Your selective in choices.
And I searched for this Hadith in Sahih Muslim. And i cannot find it for the life of me. Can you please give me the book number please. I find it all over the internet on Islamic propaganda sites but none of them produce the numbers. I would like to read it in its entirety and context. Thank you.

bob said...

Mohammad as intercessor

The capacity of Mohammad to intercede on our behalf would not be sufficient to protect us from God's wrath and judgement on our sins/crimes, because a price needs to be payed for our redemption; and Mohammad, being a sinnner himself...

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom 3:23

There is none righteous, no, not one. Rom 3:10

If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him [God] a liar, and his word is not in us. 1John 1:8, 10

...has no means of paying this price.

A Righteous and Holy Creator cannot simply forgive sins without a price being paid, as this would go against true justice.

But Christ, who was God in the flesh...

God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, recieved up to glory. 1Tim 3:16

...is able to intercede on our behalf.

Jesus was the only man that ever existed who was without sin, because God cannot sin; and he is therefore the only one with the means to pay the price and make intercession on our behalf.
He was the only one that could be a sinless, unblemished and acceptable sacrifice (John 3:16).

Mohammed, being a sinner (Rom 3:23), cannot even intercede for himself, let alone anyone else.

To have faith in a sinner instead of Christ is idolatry.

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Rev 21:8

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Wood said...

Jamal,

Let me see if I've got this right before we respond to some of your other claims. Did you just defend Muhammad's sincerity and good will in his marriages by pointing out that he married a MUCH OLDER, VERY RICH widow??? Not many people today consider young men marrying rich old women a sign of integrity.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

You seem to make giant leaps to explain these things away but you still have not produced one iota of evidence. These are your assertions without substantiation.

Where and how did you reach the conclusion that Jews and Christians are going to inherit the sins of Muslims not because of their faith, but because of their sins. Also the very act of being a Jew or a Christian is shirk in and of itself.

YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN IT! Just because you say something does not mean it is fact. EVIDENCE! And the hadith clearly say JEWS AND CHRISTIANS!


Sahih Muslim 6668—Allah’s Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

You are imposing your subjective views on this. Read what you posted!

Quote ". So Muslims sins are not just randomly thrown on Jews and Christians just because of their religions. The ayah proves it. Those at fault are those who reject the clear signs. Hence the surah name "Bayyinah" which literally means "the clear proof." God is just."

Where is the evidence for your assertions? The ayat does not say what you say it says. Which you have changed now. It seems to say whatever you wish it to say at any given time.


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ لَمْ يَكُنِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ مُنفَكِّينَ حَتَّىٰ تَأْتِيَهُمُ ٱلْبَيِّنَةُ }

The disbelievers from among (min: explicative) the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, that is, the idol-worshippers (wa’l-mushrikīna is a supplement to ahl, ‘the People of’) were not going to leave off (munfakkīna is the predicate of yakun, ‘were’), that is to say, they were not going to abandon their ways, until the clear proof, namely, Muhammad (s), should come to them, that is, [until] it came to them;


The very first statement is THE DISBELIEVERS! The people of the scripture and the idolaters! It even says the Mushrakin!


HOW DID YOU REACH YOUR CONCLUSIONS? YOUR WRONG, OR LYING! Why cant you comprehend and accept what it truly says? You are misrepresenting what it states!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal


9:29 is an open ended command for ALL time. Not just dealing with the Byzantines! Who were being invaded, raped and plundered by Muslims forces. And as you can see the very next verse clears it up. But lets do this in order!

Were the Byzantines Pagans?


Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Now I know your going to say this is justice because they can choose Islam to live! But that is compulsion!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱحْصُرُوهُمْ وَٱقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَٰوةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَٰوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

Then, when the sacred months have passed — that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment — slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use (kulla, ‘every’, is in the accusative because a [preceding] genitive-taking preposition has been removed). But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent.

See that, accept Islam or DIE!

Then Mohamed kicked all non Muslims out of Mecca! And how were they going to support themselves if they could not trade anymore? By invading and raping, and plundering and extorting the Jizya!

9.028 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُوۤاْ إِنَّمَا ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلاَ يَقْرَبُواْ ٱلْمَسْجِدَ ٱلْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَـٰذَا وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ ٱللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَآءَ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ }

O you who believe, the idolaters are indeed unclean, [they are] filth, on account of their inner vileness, so do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque, that is, let them not enter the Sanctuary, after this year of theirs, year 9 of the Hijra. If you fear impoverishment, poverty, as a result of the cessation of their commerce with you, God will surely enrich you from His bounty, if He will: and He indeed enriched them through conquests and [the imposition of] the jizya. God is Knowing, Wise.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

And then Mohamed (ALLAH) came up with a solution. Go out and fight ALL non Muslims. Either they are subjugated, enslaved, extorted from, or slaughtered!

9.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Now this doesnt say ANYTHING about the Byzantines! If it were just for the Byzantines it would say the Byzantines!''


BUT IT SAYS THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK! Thats Jews and Christians!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ قَاتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلاَ بِٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلْحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُواْ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ }

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, for, otherwise, they would have believed in the Prophet (s), and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, such as wine, nor do they practise the religion of truth, the firm one, the one that abrogated other religions, namely, the religion of Islam — from among of those who (min, ‘from’, explains [the previous] alladhīna, ‘those who’) have been given the Scripture, namely, the Jews and the Christians, until they pay the jizya tribute, the annual tax imposed them, readily (‘an yadin is a circumstantial qualifier, meaning, ‘compliantly’, or ‘by their own hands’, not delegating it [to others to pay]), being subdued, [being made] submissive and compliant to the authority of Islam.


So now lets look at the very next ayat!

9.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Your Allah curses the Jews and Christians, NOT THE BYZANTINES.


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتْ ٱلنَّصَارَى ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ }

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah, Jesus, is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, for which they have no support, nay, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them], from among their forefathers, mimicking them. God assail, curse, them! How they are deviated!, turned away from the truth, despite the proofs having been established.

Now either you are completely ignorant of Islam. Or you are a LIAR! Which is it? I can guess.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Quote " Muhammad did not lead any expeditions simply to "subjugate" and conquer. Absolutely not."



"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: If you come to a township (which has surrendered without a formal war) and stay therein, you have a share (that will be in the form of an award) in (the properties obtained from) it. If a township disobeys Allah and His Messenger (and actually fights against the Muslims) one-fifth of the booty seized therefrom is for Allah and His Apostle and the rest is for you. (Sahih Muslim 4346)


Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ قَاتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِّنَ ٱلْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُواْ فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً وَٱعْلَمُوۤاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلْمُتَّقِينَ }

O you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, that is, the nearest, followed by the next nearest of them, and let them find harshness in you, that is, severity, in other words, be harsh with them, and know that God is with the pious, helping and granting [them] victory.

That means go out and fight, rape, plunder, and force conversions or extort!

Now lets take a look at this Sahih hadith in which Ali didnt even know why he was attacking the people. But Mohamed cleared it up for him quite succinctly!

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)


(the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…”

I would say thats pretty clear! Would you like more? No problem!


Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."


So who is correct? You or Mohamed?

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Younger men, marrying wealthy older women is in NO way a virtue. It could be love, it could be usury, it could be compassion. But it is in NO way a virtue!

Just because she wore the pants in the relationship does not mean he would not have married more if he could.. In fact we see what he did when she passed away. He became a sex fiend. Engaging in sex with nine or elevan of his wives in one not=ght! And dont tell me its because of how I am making it seem. I did not write the sahih haqdith!



Bukhari (5:268) - "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.' "


And you say his sexual appetite would have decreased/ Well thats not all men! According to your Sahih hadith he had the sexual strength of thirty men. Thats not me saying it, thats YOUR scholars.


Now lets see what Aisha believed!


Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."


And what did Mohamed say to a man that married a widow?


Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?"

LOL! Again your making assertions without evidence. it seems the only people that provide evidence are non Muslims! You are repeating the lies that you have been indoctrinated with. And yes people were critical of Mohamed for marrying a child. The Jews had set a standard much higher and scientifically accurate then Mohamed. And Mohamed should have set a better example for all future Muslims! Because of his horrible example millions of Muslim children have been subjectified and enslaved by older men.

And just because Aisha was indoctrinated and suffering from Stockholm syndrome and didnt know anything other than what she was told all of her life does not prove anything. If your raised in an environment where cannibalism is the norm then you believe cannibalism is normal! Thats a ridiculous argument! And here is more evidence that Mohamed had a large sexual appetite!

Oh and you didnt take on all of the topics. But I dont blame you!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:
Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

WOW! May the Lord Jesus Christ allow you to see the logical fallacies, and misrepresentations you have been making. Not to mention your revisionist views. First of all I showed you that your interpretation of ayat 98:1 was incompletely and totally inaccurate.

You either lied or are ignorant. Now that I have shown you the truth I must assume you would rather cling to your lies!

Now what difference does it make when Muslims sins will be set upon Jews and Christians. Secondly you have N(OT established this as fact. You keep saying so, but without any evidence. Regardless, I know Islam, I have read the Quran, much of the hadiths and the tafsirs of Ibn Abbass,. the two Jalalayns, and Ibn kathir. So I know Islam. And I know what a lie and how convoluted it is. So I reject your false prophet Mohamed and the demon Allah. So the sins of Muslims will be placed on me.

NOW TELL ME HOW IS THAT JUST/ I have not offered myself. They are involuntarily placed upon me because i reject Mohamed and Allah. That is NOT justice in any way. No matter how you try and twist it!

Now as for ayat 2:62

2.062 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Let;'s see what Allah says of our Lord!


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

First of all the Jews do NOT say Ezra is the son of Allah, whoever Ezra is. Secondly my Lord and savior is Jesus Christ.

So are you saying that Allah is telling the Jews and Christians we will "shall have their reward with their Lord".

How can this be when according to islam there is only ONE God, and his name is Allah. It says THEIR Lord! So is Allah saying that there are other Gods other than him? This ayat makes absolutely NO sense at all. And this is suppose to be Allah speaking? LOL!

Jews and Christians will have the reward of THEIR Lord? But there is only ONE LORD! PREPOSTEROUS!

And thirdly this comes before the command to fight all non Muslims!

60.008 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

Ayat 60:8 came well after Sura 2 the Cow. And the tafsir says that it was abrogated by the command to fight the non Muslims!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ لاَّ يَنْهَاكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي ٱلدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوۤاْ إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ }

God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you, from among the disbelievers, on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly (an tabarrūhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhīna, ‘those who’) and deal with them justly: this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them. Assuredly God loves the just.

So we can also reasonably conclude that 2:62 was abrogated as well. By ayat 9:30 Which says that Allah will damn them to hell! And here is more!

Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)


Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Hasent the truth already been made apparent? According to 98:1 it says it has, and many others.


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ لَمْ يَكُنِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ مُنفَكِّينَ حَتَّىٰ تَأْتِيَهُمُ ٱلْبَيِّنَةُ }

And from his narration on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that he said regarding the interpretation of Allah's saying (Those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture): '(Those who disbelieve among the People of the Scripture) i.e. the Jews and Christians (and the idolaters) the Arab idolaters (could not have left off (erring)) could not have remained in their denial of Muhammad (pbuh) the Qur'an and Islam (till the clear proof came unto them) until clarification of what is in their Scriptures, the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians, came to them. There is another way of understanding the above: those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture, before the advent Muhammad (pbuh) such as 'Abdullah Ibn Salam and his followers, and those who ascribed partners to Allah before the advent of Muhammad (pbuh) such as Abu Bakr and his fellow Arabs, would not have desisted from their disbelief and idolatry until the clear proof came to them, i.e. until Muhammad (pbuh) came to them.

Mohamed has come and gone. So in what context are you speaking? Your reinventing Islam once again! You are not a scholar. I dont take what you say as facts concerning Islamic doctrine! I take the Quran, hadith and tafsirs.

98:6
* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَآ أَوْلَـٰئِكَ هُمْ شَرُّ ٱلْبَرِيَّةِ }

Truly the disbelievers from among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters shall be in the fire of Hell, to abide therein (khālidīna: an implied circumstantial qualifier, in other words, it will be decreed for them by God, exalted be He, to abide therein) — those are the worst of creatures.


Quote " Now, yes 9:29 is a command for all time. But only if you are threatened."

No you are misrepresenting it and trying to use fallacious apologetics in order to deceive me, or yourself. And how do i know that? Well your Prophet said what he believed Allah commanded him to do! And what was that? READ IT FOOL!


Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Search 4 Truth said...

@ jAMAL



Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

Now either Mohamed was correct in the commands that his imaginary Allah gave him, or you are. You cannot BOTH be correct. The command is for all time, and I showed you where ayat 60:8 was abrogated by the command to fight all NON MUSLIMS!

IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT RETALIATION! IT STATES! With no uncertainty! FIGHT THOSE WHO BELIEVE NOT IN ALLAH NOR MOHAMED EVEN IF THEY ARE THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS!

IT DOES NOT SAY FIGHT ONLY THOSE WHO ATTACK YOU FIRST. AND I SHOWED YOU WHAT MOHAMED BELIEVED HE WAS COMMANDED TO DO! FIGHT ALL NON MUSLIMS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE HE IS THE FINAL PROPHET AND ALLAH IS GOD! THATS THE FACTS!

Raping and plundering! How many times do I have to produce the evidence?

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱلْمُحْصَنَٰتُ مِنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَٰنُكُمْ كِتَٰبَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَّا وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَن تَبْتَغُواْ بِأَمْوَٰلِكُمْ مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَٰفِحِينَ فَمَا ٱسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَٰضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ ٱلْفَرِيضَةِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً }

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp

Thats rape and adultery ordained!

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Jews and Christians do not accept Mohammed as the final Prophet nor do they accept your Allah. Mohamed is incorporated in that command! How many times do i have to show you and how willfully ignorant can you be?


Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

The shahada incorporates Mohamed! Jews and Christians and Sabians do not accept Mohamed. So that ends that! LOL!

And here Mohamed tells Ali why they are attacking these people.

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

The crusades were a response to hundreds of years of Muslims raiding, raping, pillaging, and forcibly converting Christians in Christian lands! This is exactly what i am talking about. You are IGNORANT!

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.

Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though "often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation.... Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas... clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad."

Lewis goes on to state that, "unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory... The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule... The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.

The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders." Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.

For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.

Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191), even though the aim wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.

Qur'an (33:27) - "And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things."

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal


Theres even a whole sura about it!

AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)

Total Verses: 75
Revealed At: MADINA

008.001
YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning (things taken as) spoils of war. Say: "(such) spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger: So fear Allah, and keep straight the relations between yourselves: Obey Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe."


33.028 O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: "If it be that ye desire the life of this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.

Bukhari:V5B59N512 "The captives of Khaybar were divided among the Muslims. Then the Messenger began taking the homes and property that were closest to him."

Bukhari V4B52N46 "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'Allah guarantees that He will admit the Muslim fighter into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and booty.'"

Bukhari:V5B59N537 "Allah's Apostle divided the war booty with the ratio of two shares for the horse and one-share for the foot soldier."
Bukhari:V5B59N541 "When we conquered, we gained neither gold nor silver as booty, but we gained cows, camels, goods and gardens."

48.020 Allah has promised you many gains that ye shall acquire, and He has given you these beforehand; and He has restrained the hands of men from you; that it may be a Sign for the Believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path;


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَعَدَكُمُ ٱللَّهُ مَغَانِمَ كَثِيرَةً تَأْخُذُونَهَا فَعَجَّلَ لَكُمْ هَـٰذِهِ وَكَفَّ أَيْدِيَ ٱلنَّاسِ عَنْكُمْ وَلِتَكُونَ آيَةً لِّلْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَيَهْدِيَكُمْ صِرَاطاً مُّسْتَقِيماً }

God has promised you abundant spoils which you will capture, through the [various] conquests. So He has expedited this one, the spoils of Khaybar, for you, and withheld men’s hands from you, with regard to your families, after you had set off [on the campaign], as the Jews had intended [to plot] against them; but God cast terror into their hearts; so that it, the expedited one (wa-li-takūna is a supplement to an implied verb, that is to say, li-tashkurūhu, ‘that you may give thanks to Him’) may be a sign for the believers, of their being assisted [by God], and that He may guide you on a straight path, that is to say, the way in which you should rely on Him and entrust any affair to Him, exalted be He;

Bukhari:V4B53N373 "Allah's Apostle got property and war prisoners and gave them to some people to the exclusion of others. The latter seemed to be displeased by that. The Prophet said, 'I give to some people, lest they should deviate from Islam or lose patience.'"


Now here Mohamed tortures Kinana to get information as to where the booty is!

Tabari VIII:122
Ishaq:515 "The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him."

Why am I still the only one substantiating everything I say?

This seems to be a common theme when speaking with Muslims! LOL!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

I understand completely what you are saying. You are telling me because the Quran and Mohamed said it is the straight path and the only way that it must be the straight path and the only way. Well how do i know Mohamed was telling the truth?

Because the Quran says so.

How do I know the Quran is correct?

Because the Quran says so.

But How do i know the Quran is telling the truth about Mohamed being a Prophet.

Because Mohamed and the Quran say so.

But wait Mohamed is the only one who gave the revelations for the Quran, how do I know what he says is true.

Because the Quran and Mohamed say so. LOL!

Thats called circular reasoning. You cannot give me evidence from your book telling me your book is correct.

So if I write a book saying everything in this book is true and those who say this book is false are wrong and doomed to hell \does that make my book correct? That is circular reasoning! Its a logical fallacy and ABSURD!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Again you are being willfully ignorant. You are using confirmation bias! I showed you the hadiths and they said that he had sexual relations with them and that he had the strength of thirty men!

You are delusional like every other Muslim we speak to!

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6:
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.

What relevance do these ayats have in the evidence that I provided? NOTHING!

18:6 Then perhaps you would kill yourself through grief over them, [O Muhammad], if they do not believe in this message, [and] out of sorrow.
18:7 Indeed, We have made that which is on the earth adornment for it that We may test them [as to] which of them is best in deed.

You are the one pulling random ayats out of context that have NO relevance to the conversation. You make NO sense!

I am in NO way wronging my soul. I am providing factual evidence in context that refutes your logical fallacies, lies and misrepresentations. You cant scare me with something I reject. i reject Mohamed and your Allah 100%. So dont try and pull your scare tactics with me.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

I have read it and much of the hadith and the tafsirs.

In fact I am the only one using them in context and correlation. And all of your scholars and your Quran and hadith concur with me. I am the one providing evidence and you are the one making unsubstantiated excuses and logical fallacies!

Quote "It's not good to see that to prove someone a false prophet you have to resort to analyzing his intimate aspects of life. Read what your own Christian scholars say. They never ridicule this part of
Muhammad's life. "

But his intimate aspects of his life are the perfect example for all mankind. So are you trying to tell me he is not the perfect example?

What Christian scholars do not critcize him? Most do. And I dont really care about someones subjective pandering perspective! I am providing the evidence for every single thing I have said.

You on the other hand bring unrelated ayats or no evidence at all for your assertions!

Yes the road to heaven is a narrow path. There are temptations all about us. The differebce is that Christ had a high standard. Muslims on the other hand have been given permission to have sexual relations with children, rape and commit adultery with female captives even if they are married, steal and plunder, murder non Muslims who will not convert to Islam or accept second class citizenship and be extorted from, lie, torture etc....


So life is made easy for Muslims to commit all kinds of atrocities ordained by your Allah.

The standard of Christ is difficult. And just because you are referring to people who succumb to sin does not mean that sin and immorality has not been ordained by your false prophet and Allah.

i understand you have been indoctrinated and lied to. I pray that you can see that I am the one providing the evidence and you are the one deflecting and using logical fallacies. I hope to just plant the seed. And next time try bringing evidence. Because this is getting a bit absurd!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ JAmal



So is there this great Utopian Islamic country that follows Islam perfectly? Can you tell me where that is? Of course society goes against it. Thats why the path is narrow. Man is fallible! We are not Gods! You make NO sense!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

I am still waiting for the reference to that hadith, and several others that you used to try and make your points. You conveniently did not bring the book and numbers!

this is a pattern! Do you not see anything wrong with your inability to substantiate your minor attempts at rebuttal?

Where is the book and number for those earlier rebuttals you attempted to make?

So far every single thing you have said in your rebuttals have either been refuted or unsubstantiated?


How does that rest in your mind?

I know that is I could not substantiate my position with evidence then i would have to question my position. But you seem to just glance over it like its nothing?

How do you live with this? I know that I couldnt! Are you living a lie? What does it take?

bob said...

A refutation of the Islamic doctrine of the sins/crimes of some being imputed to others i.e. the sins of Muslims onto Christians and Jews.

Do not be decieved, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. Gal 6:7

Even as I have seen, those who plough iniquity and sow trouble reap the same. By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his anger they are consumed. Job 4:8, 9

He [the wicked man] has made a pit [trap] and dug it out, and has fallen into the ditch which he made [fell into his own trap].
His trouble shall return apon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown. Psalm 7:15, 16

The Lord is known by the judgement he executes; the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Psalm 9:16

Or, what goes around comes around.

"If you steal much, depend upon it that again as much will be stolen from you; and he who robs and aquires with violence and wrong will submit to one who shall deal after the same fashion with him.
For God is a master of this art, that since everyone robs and steals from the other, he punishes one thief by means of another. Else, where should we find enough gallows and ropes?"*

There is only two places our sins/crimes can go - on our own heads, or on Christ's shoulders.

...so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. Heb 9:28

God, who is a Righteous and Holy Judge, cannot but require an account of and reckoning for sin and crime; otherwise, he could not be called Righteous and Holy.


*From Martin Luther's large catechism; the Seventh Commandment.
(also lends weight to the saying: "No honour among thieves")

John Bob said...

Holy Jihad beat downs batman! Search 4 Truth slow down I think you just put him into a coma! Swallowing that much truth must hurt and taste bad for those for do not like its taste..

Great posts!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

First of all you have not refuted one single thing I have said. I am the only one who has presented any evidence. The only thing you have done is misrepresent the Quran and used unrelated ayats to try and scare me. Now lets move onto your next lies and logical fallacies!

1. You are changing the topic. And I am not speaking about going to hell. I was speaking about the clear commands for all Muslims for all eternity to subjugate or slaughter all non Muslims!

2. LOL! The Quran is scientifically accurate 100%? BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAH Cough cough! I cant stop laughing.

The Quran says that the sun sets in a murky pool of water, the earth is flat, and the sun orbits the earth, sperm comes from the ribs and backbone. comets are missiles that Allah is shooting demons out of the sky with. I could go on and on. I would be glad to educate you on the myth of scientific accuracy as well. But you said to bob you didnt want to change the topic. And here you go. Thats called hypocrisy!

3. How did i reach such a conclusion? FROM THE QURAN AND TAFSIRS! Denial of reality is not a rebuttal. Its a delusion!

2.062 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Now if our Lord is Jesus Christ then how will we be with our Lord when there is only one God named Allah according to Islam.

See you are incapable of objective reasoning, and critcial thinking. you have been so brainwashed you cant even think critically when it comes to islam! You have been so indoctrinated you can think. you just dismiss the question. Because you cannot answer it. Now if a Christians Lord is Jesus Christ how will we be with our Lord when there is only Allah according to Islamic doctrine?

4. Quote " His name is Uzayr, not Ezra. Ezra is just some Muslim guesses" you have got to be joking. Ok then who is Enoch? LOL! Jews do not believe he is the son of God. Where is the evidence for this? And according to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza
© 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan it says Ezra!



* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتْ ٱلنَّصَارَى ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ }

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah, Jesus, is the son of God.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

4. Continued. Thats not at all what it says Jamal. It makes a statement of fact. That the Jews call Ezra the sin of Allah. It doesnt say the Jews will call some dude named Ezra the son of Allah. This is exactly what I am talking about again.


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتْ ٱلنَّصَارَى ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ }

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah, Jesus, is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, for which they have no support, nay, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them], from among their forefathers, mimicking them. God assail, curse, them! How they are deviated!, turned away from the truth, despite the proofs having been established.

You are wrong again. How do you rationalize this in your mind. So far every single thing you have said has been proven FALSE!

LOL! Hate rampage! I am the one exposing the hate of Islam. Your just dismissing the evidence and attacking m,e instead of the argument! This is typical of Muslims! They cant refute the evidence so now Im an Islamaphobe and full of hate etc...

The only reason you are making personal attacks is because you cannot explain or refute me. So you try to demonize and minimize me!

And ayat 3:7 is just circular reasoning. Like I said. How do you know the Quran is from God, because the Quran says so, well how do you know the Quran is correct, because Mohamed said it was from God. Well how do you know Mohamed was telling the truth? Because the Quran says he is. But who gave you the Quran, Mohamed, but how do you know he is telling the truth? Because the Quran says so!

LOL! Its so absurd I cant believe it myself. It's PREPOSTEROUS!~

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal


Quote "Who are you to make rulings?"

I am nobody! And I am not making ANY rulings. Your scholars are. And your Allah! He says so! Your calling abrogation a game? LOL! You arent even providing any evidence. You are just giving me lists of names. Why dont you present the evidence like I do? Here I will show you how to do it again!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ لاَّ يَنْهَاكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي ٱلدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوۤاْ إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ }

God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you, from among the disbelievers, on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly (an tabarrūhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhīna, ‘those who’) and deal with them justly: this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them. Assuredly God loves the just.

2:106

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ }

When the disbelievers began to deride the matter of abrogation, saying that one day Muhammad enjoins his Companions to one thing and then the next day he forbids it, God revealed: And whatever verse (mā is the conditional particle), that has been revealed containing a judgement, We abrogate, either together with its recital or not [that is only its judgement, but its recital continues]; there is a variant reading, nunsikh, meaning ‘[Whatever verse] We command you or Gabriel to abrogate’, or postpone, so that We do not reveal the judgement contained in it, and We withhold its recital or retain it in the Preserved Tablet; a variant reading [of nunsi’hā] is nunsihā, from ‘to forget’: so ‘[Whatever verse We abrogate] or We make you forget, that is, We erase from your heart’; the response to the conditional sentence [begun with mā] is: We bring [in place] a better, one that is more beneficial for [Our] servants, either because it is easier [to implement] or contains much reward; or the like of it, in terms of religious obligation and reward; do you not know that God has power over all things?, including abrogating and substituting [verses]? (the interrogative here is meant as an affirmative).


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ }

Then Allah mentions what was abrogated of the Qur'an and that which was not abrogated, as a direct reference to the claim of the Quraysh who said to the Prophet: O Muhammad! Why do you command us to do something and then forbid it, saying: (Such of Our revelations as We abrogate) We do not erase a verse that was acted upon before and which is now not acted upon (or cause to be forgotten) or leave unabrogated so that it is acted upon, (We bring one better) We send Gabriel with that which more profitable and easier to act upon (or the like) in reward, benefit and action. (Knowest thou not) O Muhammad (that Allah is Able to do all things?) of the abrogated and unabrogated.


It seems to me that Muslims will say just about anything in order to rationalize just about anything. One thing that Muslims are is consistent, consistently inconsistent!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal


Quote ". How did Muhammad use these verses when they were revealed? Answer my questions. What did Muhammad do? What were his actions after these verses were revealed? Don’t quote to me hadiths that you have no clue about. A hadith is a saying. Do you know how many sayings one can utter in a single day? There are ways to analyze hadith. Quit making your rulings and conclusions based on them. It’s absurdly ignorant on your part."

What am I suppose to use? LOL! You tell me to tell you how he acted and then you tell me not to use the hadith that I dont know anything about? LOL!So your trying to tie my hands. You are using confirmation bias. You are trying to tell me what is evidence and what is not. LOL! So you want to direct and control the evidence so that I can only use something that would agree with your position. Now i am going to present the evidence and you will deny it. LOL! This is INSANITY!

HERE IS WHAT MOHAMED SAID!


Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."


HERE IS WHAT MOHAMED DID!

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)


And I told you. I understand your getting uneasy and feeling discomfort because you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. But these are the facts. I told you earlier. He most likely made the treay with them because he wasnt in a position to defeat them, or he wanted to collect the Jizya extortion from them.

Search 4 Truth said...

RAPE! I presented the evidence! Would you like more? It is rape and adultery!

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)



* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱلْمُحْصَنَٰتُ مِنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَٰنُكُمْ كِتَٰبَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَّا وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَن تَبْتَغُواْ بِأَمْوَٰلِكُمْ مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَٰفِحِينَ فَمَا ٱسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَٰضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ ٱلْفَرِيضَةِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً }

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp


YOU MAY HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THEM EVEN IF THEY HAVE HUSBANDS!

What dont you understand?

Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
Qur'an 23:5-6


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ إِلاَّ عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ }

except from their spouses, that is, to their spouses, and what [slaves] their right hands possess, that is, concubines, for then they are not blameworthy, in having sexual intercourse with them.



* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ إِلاَّ عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ }

(Save from their wives) up to four wives (or the (slaves) that their right hands possess) without any limit in number, (for then they are not blameworthy) when they engage in that which is lawful,


Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 8:3432

Search 4 Truth said...


Except what your right hands possessout of them are lawful for you; and he did not mention" when their 'idda period comes to an end". This hadith has been reported on the authority of AbuSa'id (al-Khudri) (Allah be pleased with him) through another chain of transmitters and the words are: They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed:" And women already married except those whom you right hands posses" (iv. 24)
Sahih Muslim 8:3433, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3433

Similarly a slave woman does not have the right to refuse her master’s requests unless she has a valid excuse. If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her in whatever manner he thinks is appropriate and is allowed in sharee’ah.
And Allaah knows best.
Husband forcing his wife to have intercourse
Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 33597

[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]
The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.
Al-Umm, 5/43.
The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.
And Allaah knows best.
Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife
Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 10382, November 24, 2005

What is meant by “those whom their right hands possess” is slave women or concubines. See also question no. 10382, 12562.
Once this is understood, it should be noted that what is suggested in the question, that this was zina, never occurred to the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). What they were asking about was the ruling on practicing ‘azl with the slave women whom they had acquired in the course of jihad.
Moreover ‘azl may be done with a concubine or with a wife, if she agrees to that. See question no. 11885.
And Allaah knows best.
Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)
Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 20802

Search 4 Truth said...

@ jamal

Everything I have stated is factual and has all the basis of fact! Because I presented the evidence. Denial of reality is NOT a rebuttal. Your just dismissing the evidence and using logical fallacies and confirmation bias. Your the one who is cherry picking. I am the one who is presenting the evidence for every single thing I have said!


Quote "There is no utopia. Islamic rulers are unbelievable. Read what wikileaks revealed about them. Disgusting."

So Allah has been a complete failure. I concur. And the West has been infinitely more productive and offers more liberties and human rights than Islamic doctrine and Islamic nations. The west has made the scientific and medical advances that people from all around the world go to for help, the industrial revolution, and places of higher learning. NOBODY is flocking to Islamic countries for anything. They are fleeeing! And Muslims keep boasting that Islam is the answer. Well where is the evidence. Allah cant even help Islamic nations that are 90% Muslims with Muslim leaders. Why is that? Like I said, your Allah is a failure and Islam is a curse and scourge on humanity and civilization.

Now continue with your denial of reality and all of the evidence. i understand you are indoctrinated and cannot think for yourself. I dont hate you, I pity you. But i do hate hate, so it is just and moral to hate Islam!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ bJamal

And that last post is completly irrelevant to any of our conversation. You cant scare me with your hell. I reject Islam and your Allah and your false prophet!

And as for pointing to ayats in the Quran that says the Quran and Mohamed are the truth. That is a logical fallacy. Its preposterous! Its called circular reasoning! ABSURD!

Search 4 Truth said...

Thanks John Bob! Look how he just dismisses all of the evidence and then tries to demonize me. Thats what happens 99% of the time! Peace!

bob said...

Did Mohammad inherit the kingdom of God?

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissentions, heresies, envy, murders...
...those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:19-21

Mohammad practiced many of the things mentioned above.

If Christ did not take Mohammad's sins on himself, then Mohammad's sins/crimes remain on him to this day.

There is no evidence that Mohammad accepted Jesus as his Lord and Saviour.
On the contrary, he persecuted Christ's follower's with great zeal and gave instruction's for this to continue after he died.

The only place of residence for those who die with their sins on them is hell.
Whoever follows Mohammad's example will find themselves there also, where they will become a good example of what NOT to do.

"And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched." Isaiah 66:24

As also verified by Christ:

"Where 'their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" Mark 9:48

In short...

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Heb 10:31

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

You cling to one instance. I told you it may have been a strategic move on Mohameds part to not invade. And yes he did follow that command I showed you. But you are willfully ignorant!


Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)


AND MOHAMED SAYS WHAT HE BELIEVES HE WAS COMMANDED TO DO! Mohamed agrees with what I am saying and refutes you in his OWN words!


Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

I DID NOT WRITE THE QURAN, HADITH OR TAFSIRS. I DID NOT TRANSLATE THEM. MY NAME IS NOT BUKHARI, NOR JALALAYN, OR IBN ABBASS. THESE ARE NOT MY HADITH OR TAFSIRS, THEY ARE YOURS.

Your not providing me with any reference for these stories. And i showed you already that abrogation is stated in ayat 60:8 which you tried to use again!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ لاَّ يَنْهَاكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي ٱلدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوۤاْ إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ }

God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you, from among the disbelievers, on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly (an tabarrūhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhīna, ‘those who’) and deal with them justly: this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them. Assuredly God loves the just.

Search 4 Truth said...

You are not debating me, you are debating Islam, Allah, Mohamed, and YOUR scholars. I am not writing these tafsirs. LOL! How absurd!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ }

When the disbelievers began to deride the matter of abrogation, saying that one day Muhammad enjoins his Companions to one thing and then the next day he forbids it, God revealed: And whatever verse (mā is the conditional particle), that has been revealed containing a judgement, We abrogate, either together with its recital or not [that is only its judgement, but its recital continues]; there is a variant reading, nunsikh, meaning ‘[Whatever verse] We command you or Gabriel to abrogate’, or postpone, so that We do not reveal the judgement contained in it, and We withhold its recital or retain it in the Preserved Tablet; a variant reading [of nunsi’hā] is nunsihā, from ‘to forget’: so ‘[Whatever verse We abrogate] or We make you forget, that is, We erase from your heart’; the response to the conditional sentence [begun with mā] is: We bring [in place] a better, one that is more beneficial for [Our] servants, either because it is easier [to implement] or contains much reward; or the like of it, in terms of religious obligation and reward; do you not know that God has power over all things?, including abrogating and substituting [verses]? (the interrogative here is meant as an affirmative).

Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza
© 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan (http://www.aalalbayt.org) ® All Rights Reserved

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=106&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ مَا نَنسَخْ مِنْ آيَةٍ أَوْ نُنسِهَا نَأْتِ بِخَيْرٍ مِّنْهَا أَوْ مِثْلِهَا أَلَمْ تَعْلَمْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ }

Then Allah mentions what was abrogated of the Qur'an and that which was not abrogated, as a direct reference to the claim of the Quraysh who said to the Prophet: O Muhammad! Why do you command us to do something and then forbid it, saying: (Such of Our revelations as We abrogate) We do not erase a verse that was acted upon before and which is now not acted upon (or cause to be forgotten) or leave unabrogated so that it is acted upon, (We bring one better) We send Gabriel with that which more profitable and easier to act upon (or the like) in reward, benefit and action. (Knowest thou not) O Muhammad (that Allah is Able to do all things?) of the abrogated and unabrogated.

Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, trans. Mokrane Guezzou
© 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan (http://www.aalalbayt.org) ® All Rights Reserved

Search 4 Truth said...

I have an argument. I have the facts. And I refuted every single thing you said with YOUR ISLAMIC DOCTRINE! I did not write them. I have made no conclusions. I have produced the conclusions from YOUR Islamic doctrine! I did not author or translate a single thing.

You dont make one iota of sense!

Here is more on abrogation!

16:101

When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَآ آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَٱللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوۤاْ إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ }

And when We exchange a verse in place of a [different] verse, by abrogating it and revealing another, for the welfare of [God’s] servants — and God knows best what He reveals — they say, that is, the disbelievers [say] to the Prophet (s): ‘You are just a fabricator’, a liar, making it up yourself. Nay, most of them do not know, the true nature of the Qur’ān and the benefit [to God’s servants] of abrogation.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza
© 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan (http://www.aalalbayt.org) ® All Rights Reserved


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَآ آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَٱللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوۤاْ إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ }

(And when We put a revelation) when We send Gabriel with an abrogating verse (in place of (another) revelation) in place of another abrogated verse, (and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth) and Allah knows the probity of that with which He commands His servants, (they say) the disbelievers of Mecca say: (Lo! thou art but inventing) from yourself, O Muhammad. (Most of them know not) that Allah commands His servants with that which is good for them.

Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, trans. Mokrane Guezzou
© 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan (http://www.aalalbayt.org) ® All Rights Reserved

Now you better go and contact the Royal Al Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought and tell them that they dont know what they are talking about.

Search 4 Truth said...



Here are some tesimonies for the site that I used from the Royal Al Bayt Institute!

"...This is a complete Qur'an site, surpassing by far the rest of similar sites combined through including mangnificent features such as searching in the Noble Qur'an by word or verse, the Contexts of the Revelation of the Qur'an, the meanings associated with the verses..., and translations along with a list of a staggering number of the most fundamental tafsir works from various schools of Islamic juridprudence. Likewise, it includes a special feature for the ten variant readings of the Qur'an and vocalisation of verses and words. However, the feature that most caught my attention is the recitation of the maqamat (tonal keys) ( e.g. al-ajam, al-hijaz, al-sikah, etc.). This feature is unprecedented to my knowledge. We hope to benefit from this great Qur'anic reference source...."
Hesham

"AlTafsir.com is arguably the best and most reliable website on the Qur'an and Tafsir"
Sheikh Faraz Rabbani from www.SunniPath.com

"The Altafsir website provides an immensely valuable access to many of the sciences of the Quran … any student of the Quranic sciences would find the website indispensable …"
Jubril Alao, www.salaam.co.uk

"I had the pleasure of visiting your excellent website altafsir.com. I'd like to express my gratitude to your organization for making such a valuable scholarly resource accessible. I'll make sure to include a link to your website in the new upcoming revision of Columbia University library's Middle East website."
Hossein Kamaly, Columbia University.

"Masha Allah, it is a very good effort. I will ask my students to visit your web site because there are lots of benefit they can get from there. Congratulations."
Professor Zulkifli, University of Malaya.

"Jazaka Allah Khayra for the kind gift of introducing me to this site."
Professor Mawil Izzi Dien, University of Wales, Lampeter.

"I did browse altafsir extensively today and mashaAllah, there’s some very serious work done there. May Allah bless everyone who were involved in this noble project."
Shakeel, www.Islamicity.com

"I wanted to say Jazakum Allah khayran to all of you folks for providing this valuable service to Muslims. Being a scholar of Islam, I find this site to be indispensable when researching Qur’anic Tafseer matters. You have saved me a lot of time and money by offering this service. This is the best site on the internet for the Tafseer of the Qur’an. Keep up the great work you are doing."
(Shaykh) Nazim Mangera www.sunniforum.com/forum Texas, USA

"Your website is one of the most accurate and authentic websites aimed at servicing God's Holy Book (Quran), its commentaries (Tafsirs), and related sciences. May God bless you and reward your great efforts on this sanctified work."
Abo AlHasan AlFalooji Webmaster of: http://islam.jconserv.net/index.php

http://www.altafsir.com/Testimonies.asp?LanguageID=2


Now go and debate them and tell them they dont know Islam and that you are the greatest authority that dismisses all of their tafsirs and that Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari and all of the scholars are incorrect and you are the only one who knows Islam. Far better than the ROYAL INSTITUE FOR ISLAMIC THOUGHT!

You are delusional!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aaron said...

@Jamal

"And please do not cite the US as an example as you have. You say they have all the technology etc? At what cost? They hog up 60% of the entire world's resources single handedly. I don't want to get into all that right now, but just because an empire is doing well doesn't make it right. They came here, slaughtered the Indians, brutalized African Americans, atomized 70,000 innocent japanese, now are making excuses to slaughter muslims, do you not see a pattern"

Do you really believe that all Americans are Chirstians? IF i apply that logic All muslims are terrorist. Did you know muslims castrated black slaves and only 1 in 5 survived? As for US being technologically advance ROFL China catch up with less which means resources is not the issue on research for technological advancement.

tu qou que fallacy there

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

1. Surah al-Kahf 83-101
83. They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain. Say, “I will rehearse to you something of his story.”
84. Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends.
85. One (such) way he followed,
86. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.”


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْماً قُلْنَا يٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْناً }

(Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun) where the sun sets, (he found it setting in a muddy spring) a blackened, muddy and stinking spring; it is also said that this means: a hot spring, (and found a people thereabout) these people were disbelievers: (We said: O Dhu'l-Qarnayn!) We inspired him (Either punish) either kill them until they accept to believe that there is no deity except Allah (or show them kindness) or you pardon them and let them be.

Now what did Mohamed say about the setting place if the sun?

…wajadaha taghrubu fee AAaynin hamiatin…

…he found it set in a spring of murky water…
Qur'an 18:86

The authoritative Lane’s Lexicon (freely accessible online) gives the definition below for wajada:
He found it; lighted on it; attained it; obtained it by searching or seeking; discovered it; perceived it; saw it; experienced it, or became sensible of it;
Lane’s Lexicon: Volume 8/ 178
Each of these meanings is then further explained. Regarding the last four, which could be relevant to Naik’s claim, the Lexicon says:
The finding, &c., by means of any one of the five senses: as when one says وَجَدْتُ زَيْدًا [I found, &c., Zeyd]: and وَجَدْتُ طَعْمَهُ, and رَائِحَتَهُ, and صَوْتَهُ, and خُشُونَتَهُ, [I found, or perceived, &c., its taste, and its odour, and its sound, and its roughness]. Also, The finding, &c., by means of the faculty of appetite, [or rather of sensation, which is the cause of appetite:] as when one says وَجَدْتُ الشِِّبَعَ [I found, experienced, or became sensible of, satiety].
Lane’s Lexicon: Volume 8/ 178


Narrated Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas: Ubayy ibn Ka’b made me read the following verse as the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) made him read: “in a spring of murky water” (fi ‘aynin hami’atin) with short vowel a after h.
Abu Dawud 30:3975

Now what did Mohamed believe that Allah told him about the setting of the sun?


Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.



Al-Tabari

The meaning of the Almighty’s saying, "Until he reached the place of the setting of the sun he found it set in a spring of murky water," is as follows:

When the Almighty says, "Until he reached," He is addressing Zul-Qarnain. Concerning the verse, "the place of the setting of the sun he found it set in a spring of murky water," the people differed on how to pronounce that verse. Some of the people of Madina and Basra read it as "Hami’a spring," meaning that the sun SETS IN A SPRING that contains mud. While a group of the people of Medina and the majority of the people of Kufa read it as, "Hamiya spring" meaning that the sun SETS IN A SPRING of warm water. The people of commentary have differed on the meaning of this depending on the way they read the verse.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

2. والارض مددناها والقينا فيها رواسي وانبتنا فيها من كل شئ موزون
Waal-arda madadnahawaalqayna feeha rawasiya waanbatnafeeha min kulli shay-in mawzoonin
And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
Qur'an 15:19


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱلأَرْضَ مَدَدْنَاهَا وَأَلْقَيْنَا فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَأَنْبَتْنَا فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ مَّوْزُونٍ }

And the earth We have stretched it out, spread it flat, and cast therein firm mountains, lest it should sway beneath its inhabitants, and caused to grow therein every kind of balanced thing, [every kind of thing] known and determined.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza
© 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan

(Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out, and has made for you roads (and channels) therein, in order that ye may find guidance (on the way);
Qur'an 43:10


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ ٱلَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ ٱلأَرْضَ مَهْداً وَجَعَلَ لَكُمْ فِيهَا سُبُلاً لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ }

He Who made the earth a cradle for you, a flat resting-place, like a child’s cradle, and placed for you therein ways, routes, that perhaps you may be guided, to your destinations during your travels;

Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza
© 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan

And the earth- We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and produced therein every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs)-
Qur'an 50:7


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱلأَرْضَ مَدَدْنَاهَا وَأَلْقَيْنَا فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَأَنبَتْنَا فِيهَا مِن كُلِّ زَوْجٍ بَهِيجٍ }

And the earth (wa’l-arda, is a supplement to the position of the words ilā l-samā’i, ‘at the heaven’), how, We have spread it out, [how] We have rolled it across the face of the water, and cast in it firm mountains, to fix it in place

And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!
Qur'an 51:48


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱلأَرْضَ فَرَشْنَاهَا فَنِعْمَ ٱلْمَاهِدُونَ }

And the earth, We spread it out: We made it level: what excellent Spreaders then!, We are.


And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),
Qur'an 71:19


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱللَّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُمُ ٱلأَرْضَ بِسَاطاً }

And God has made the earth a flat [open] expanse for you,

Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse,
Qur'an 78:6


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ أَلَمْ نَجْعَلِ ٱلأَرْضَ مِهَٰداً }

Have We not made the earth a cradle, a bed, like a cradle,

And the earth/Planet Earth after that He blew and stretched/spread it. [7]
Qur'an 79:30


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱلأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ دَحَاهَا }

and after that He spread out the earth: He made it flat, for it had been created before the heaven, but without having been spread out;



Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

3. And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float along in an orbit.
Qur'an 21:33

Your reinterpreting it. it says nothing of the galaxy. It says the sun and the moon are in orbit. The galaxies are not in an orbit. Actually the dwarf galazies are orbiting the Milky way. And this speaks nothing of galaxies. It says THE SUN AND THE MOON! Your a LIAR!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِي خَلَقَ ٱلْلَّيْلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ وَٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ }

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each (kullun, the nunation of this [particle] stands in place of the second noun [of the genitive construction] that would have been al-shams, ‘the sun’, or al-qamar, ‘the moon’, or their subsidiaries, namely, al-nujūm, ‘the stars’) in an orbit, a circular [one] like a mill in the sky, swimming, moving with speed, like a swimmer in water. In order to effect the analogy with the latter, the plural person [of the verb employed] for rational beings is used


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِي خَلَقَ ٱلْلَّيْلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ وَٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ }

(And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon) He made the sun and the moon subservient. (They float, each in an orbit) each one of them rotate around its orbit.

And here is the evidence from the Quran how Mohamed (ALLAH) didnt know what he was talking about. he was just listening to the common belief of that time! As did the Jalalayns and Ibn Abbas!

It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float in an orbit.
Qur'an 36:40


The sun catch up with the moon? LOL! Refuted and exposed again! This is getting so tiresome. How do you stay a Muslim?


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ لاَ ٱلشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَآ أَن تدْرِكَ ٱلقَمَرَ وَلاَ ٱلَّيلُ سَابِقُ ٱلنَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ }

It does not behove — it is [neither] facilitated nor is it right for — the sun to catch up with the moon, and so appear together with it at night, nor may the night outrun the day, and thus it [the night] never arrives before the latter ends and each (kullun: the nunation compensates for the [missing] genitive annexation [that would have been constructed] with al-shams, ‘the sun’, al-qamar, ‘the moon’, and al-nujūm, ‘the stars’) [of these] is in an orbit, swimming, moving — these [celestial bodies] are being treated as [though they were] rational beings.


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ لاَ ٱلشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَآ أَن تدْرِكَ ٱلقَمَرَ وَلاَ ٱلَّيلُ سَابِقُ ٱلنَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ }

It is not for the sun to overtake the moon) it is not proper for the sun to rise where the moon appears such that it takes away its light, (nor doth the night outstrip the day) nor does the night come at the time of the day such that it eclipses its brightness. (They) the sun, the moon and the planets (float each in an orbit) revolve and turn round an orbit.

If you would like more I can give it to you. But I digress. i think thats enough on that topic. LOL!

Search 4 Truth said...

4. LOL! This is hilarious.

He is created from a drop emitted .Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs
Qur'an 86:6-7

Sperm in NO way is created from between the ribs and the backbone. Or the loins and the ribs or any combination there of! Lets check your scholars.


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

issuing from between the loins, of the man, and the breast-bones, of the woman.

HILARIOUS STUFF!


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

(That issued from between the loins) of a man (and ribs) the ribs of a woman.

So it is actually referring to the loins of a man and the ribs of a woman. And there is no way of spinning this one. LOL! But lets take it a little further and see how convoluted Islam is.

Qur'an 86:7 says that sperm originates from the backbones and the ribs, a theory similiar to another erroneous theory proposed by Hippocrates in 5th century BC (1000 years before Islam). Hippocrates taught that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
'Referring to the creation of man from a drop of fluid gushing forth from between the backbone and the ribs, Allah emphasizes the inherent weakness of man... Allah says that man has been created from a mix of seminal fluid of man which gushes forth from the backbone and the yellowish fluid of woman that flows from her ribs.

Let's take it a step further. This is great stuff. LOL!

"As for the resemblance of the child to its parents; if a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets a discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets her discharge first, the child will resemble her." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Number 546)

PREPOSTEROUS!

Narrated Zainab bint Um Salama: Um Sulaim 'O Allah's Apostle! Verily Allah is not shy of (telling you) the truth. Is it essential for a woman to take a bath after she had a wet dream (nocturnal sexual discharges)?' He said, 'Yes, if she notices discharge. On that Um Salama laughed and said, 'Does a woman get a (nocturnal sexual) discharge?' He said, 'How then does (her) son resemble her (his mother)?'" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 113)

You have got to be joking!

The reproductive substance of man is white and that of woman yellow, and when they have sexual intercourse and the male's substance prevails upon the female's substance, it is the male child that is created by Allah's Decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed by the Decree of Allah. The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that. (Sahih Muslim, Book 003, Number 0614)

If your still a Muslim you are beyond help. You cant be serious! Dont you have any self respect bro? Oh Im sorry I cant be your bro according to Islam! But you know what I mean!

Search 4 Truth said...

5. Can i see demons. No I cant. But I can scientifically explain what shooting stars are. But the Quran has a ridiculous claim that is only based on superstitions!

And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with stars/lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.
Qur'an 67:5

And your arrogant and willfully ignorant to continue to cling to these arguments when I have refuted every single thing you have said. EVERYTHING!



Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

I dont care about apologists. I am using YOUR SCHOLARS> And I showed you that it was speaking about the people of that time. It says the Jews call him Ezra. Its not saying that he has not come yet. It says they are calling him that at that time.

Quote ""In the Qur'an, the verses do not specify to particular groups. For example, when it speaks of the Christians worshiping Christ as the son of God, it doesn't specifically say Trinitarian Christians, instead just using the generic term Christian. Therefore, it obviously does not refer to all Christians, such as Unitarians, who call Christ a prophet rather than son of God.""

Isnt the Quran the eternal word of Allah. Written by Allah? So how can Allah get the name incorrect? You have just undermined the Quran and Allah.

So your Allah got the name wrong? He didnt know who they the Jews supposedly called the son of God? How is that possible? How can an all knowing God get it so wrong? Isnt the Quran clear? So are you saying it's ambiguous? But I thought Allah said it was clear?

And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender. S. 16:89

A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur'an in Arabic for people who know S. 41:3

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآناً عَرَبِيّاً لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ }

A scripture) He says: this Scripture is a revelation from the Beneficent, the Merciful unto Muhammad (pbuh) (whereof the verses) explaining the commands and prohibitions, the lawful and unlawful (are exposited, a Lecture in Arabic) Allah sent Gabriel with it to Muhammad (pbuh) in the Arabic usage (for people who have knowledge) for people who believe in Muhammad, Allah bless him and give peace, and in the Qur'an. How about Yusefali, Shakir, Pickthal? Ok who is Uzair? These are fictitious names. Like the name Issa.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal


009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!



Didnt Ibn Abbas Mohameds second cousin and companion speak Arabic? How about the two Jalalayns? How about the Royal Al Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought? Dont they speak Arabic? Why do you have to bring modern apologist to try and explain this problem away? We have your greatest traditional scholars. All these people are doing is trying to figure out who this Ezra is? When they ALL said it was Ezra. So now Allah got the name wrong? This is PREPOSTEROUS!


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتْ ٱلنَّصَارَى ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ }

(And the Jews) the Jews of Medina (say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians) the Christians of Najran (say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths) with their tongues. (They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old) before them, i.e. the disbelievers of Mecca who said that al-Lat, al-'Uzza and Manat were His daughters, just as the Jews claimed that Ezra was the son of Allah and some of the Christians claimed that Jesus was the son of Allah, others that he was Allah's partner while there were others who said that he was Allah Himself or one god among three. (Allah (Himself) fights against them) Allah curses them. (How perverse are they!) from where do they get their lies?


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ وَقَالَتْ ٱلنَّصَارَى ٱلْمَسِيحُ ٱبْنُ ٱللَّهِ ذٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ }

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah, Jesus, is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, for which they have no support, nay, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them], from among their forefathers, mimicking them. God assail, curse, them! How they are deviated!, turned away from the truth, despite the proofs having been established.


It seems to me that Allah has made a mess of things. Nobody knows who he was speaking of. But one thing is for sure. Islam is Absurd. And all you do is dismiss any evidence to the contrary of what you wish the Quran said. I have refuted every single thing you have stated!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Yes i do have evidence for this. You pick one thing out of all of the other incidents that i have shown you. You dismiss where Mohamed clearly states that his Allah has commanded him to fight ALL non Muslims.

You dismiss the incident where Mohamed sends Ali to fight against a people, and Ali asks on what terms am I fighting them! And Mohamed replies fight them untill they accept Allah and his messenger!


Now in light of ayat 9:29 and the hadith that states to invite people to Islam. if they do not accept Islam, take the Jizya from them. If they pay the jizya with willing submission accept from them! if they do not. FIGHT THEM@!

YOU ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT! RAD IT YOU BRAINWASHED ZOMBIE!


Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

You are so indoctrinated you cannot even comprehend or accept the clear teachings in front of your eyes! Your eyes are disconnected from your brain! You are suffering from delusions and denial.


Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Allah said,

﴿حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ﴾

(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

﴿عَن يَدٍ﴾

(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾

(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, (Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.

Narrated Said bin Jubair: I asked Ibn Abbas about Surat Al-tauba, and he said, "Surat Al-tauba? It is exposure (of all the evils of the infidels and the hypocrites). And it continued revealing (that the oft-repeated expression): '...and of them ...and of them.'till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein."
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:404


WAKE UP! He needed to make money from those he extorted from because he was kicking all non Muslims out of the Arabian peninsula. And he ended the trade at the Pagan Kaaba where all people of all religions traded peaceably until he brought his bigotry and fascism! You are delusional!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

First of all we were fighting the Japanese Empire that was aligned with Hitler. The vast majority of the so called Christian world fought against Hitler. But Muslims fought FOR Hitler. The Grand Mufti Huesseini visited Hitler on many occasions and even visited Auschwitz. he also recruited Muslim troops for Hitler who became part of the SS! Now I suppose you want to condemn us for defeating the Japanese and minimizing our dead. But they believed that their Emporer was a living deity. They were willing to fight to every last man, woman, and child.

And the goal of any war is to minimize your dead and end the war with as little cost to yourself and your people. If the government did not do that then it would be irresponsible! Now you want to talk about the American Indians? Well I am appalled at there treatment. But lets not forget that there were thousands of Indian tribes who all fought one another. They were not a unified people. They fought and killed each other for better hunting grounds all the time and many were sworn enemies of each other that would kill the other on site! But have you ever heard anything about the other Indian genocide? I bet you havent! Muslims are never introspective of their own history and rewrite history in their favor always claiming victim hood. Continued:

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

In his book "Negation in India" Famous Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote:

The Blitzkrieg of the Muslim armies in the first decades after the birth of their religion had such enduring results precisely because the Pagan populations in West- and Central-Asia had no choice (except death) but to convert. Whatever the converts' own resentment, their children grew up as Muslims and gradually identified with this religion. Within a few generations the initial resistance against these forcible converions was forgotten, and these areas became heidenfrei (free from Pagans, cfr. judenfrei).

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).

But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible.

Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them.

Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans.

Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Now you want to talk of African slavery? Again because you have been indoctrinated you have not been told the entire truth. i understand. I feel bad for you. But here it is. The West is very critical of its past and has the ability to examine and criticize itself openly. To a faulty at times. Muslims and Islamic countries lack that ability! Because they rationalize and rewrite history to always benefit \the,selves and put themselves in the best light. Whenever they commit an atrocity they deflect or blame the victims. Because Muslims and Islam are never at fault! But the world is waking up to your lies and nonsense! It's only a matter of time that truth will prevail!

Slavery has been rife throughout all of ancient history. Most, if not all, ancient civilizations practiced this institution and it is described (and defended) in early writings of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians. It was also practiced by early societies in central America and Africa. Slaves were obtained through conquest, tribute from vassal states (in the first such treaty, Nubia was required to provide hundreds of male and female slaves), offspring (children of slaves were also slaves, but since many slaves were castrated this was not as common as it had been in the Roman empire), and purchase. The latter method provided the majority of slaves, and at the borders of the Islamic Empire vast number of new slaves were castrated ready for sale (Islamic law did not allow mutilation of slaves, so it was done before they crossed the border). The majority of these slaves came from Europe and Africa -- there were always enterprising locals ready to kidnap or capture their fellow countrymen.

Black Africans were transported to the Islamic empire across the Sahara to Morocco and Tunisia from West Africa, from Chad to Libya, along the Nile from East Africa, and up the coast of East Africa to the Persian Gulf. This trade had been well entrenched for over 600 years before Europeans arrived, and had driven the rapid expansion of Islam across North Africa.

By the time of the Ottoman Empire, the majority of slaves were obtained by raiding in Africa. Russian expansion had put an end to the source of "exceptionally beautiful" female and "brave" male slaves from the Caucasians -- the women were highly prised in the harem, the men in the military. The great trade networks across north Africa were as much to do with the safe transportation of slaves as other goods. An analysis of prices at various slave markets shows that eunuchs fetched higher prices than other males, encouraging the castration of slaves before export.

Documentation suggests that slaves throughout Islamic world were mainly used for menial domestic and commercial purposes. Eunuchs were especially prised for bodyguards and confidential servants; women as concubines and menials. A Muslim slave owner was entitled by law to use slaves for sexual pleasure.

As primary source material becomes available to Western scholars, the bias towards urban slaves is being questioned. Records also show that thousands of slaves were used in gangs for agriculture and mining. Large landowners and rulers used thousands of such slaves, usually in dire conditions: "of the Saharan salt mines it is said that no slave lived there for more than five years.

Search 4 Truth said...

The most favored of all Islamic slaves seems to have been the military slave -- although performers were the most privileged. By the ninth century slave armies were in use across the whole of the Islamic Empire. The early slave armies tended to be white, taken from Russia and eastern Europe. However, the first independent Muslim ruler of Egypt relied on black slaves and at his death is said to have left 24,000 (white) Mamaluks and 45,000 Nubian military slaves. In north Africa the source of black slaves from Nubia and Sudan were too convenient to ignore. At the time of the Fatimid defeat, in the twelfth century, black troops formed the majority of the army. By the fifteenth century black military slaves were being favored with the use in battle of firearms (the Mamaluks refused to use such dishonorable weapons). Slave troops in Tunisia in the seventeenth century even included cavalry, and the Sultan of Morocco is recorded as having an army of 250,000 black slaves.

Even as late as the mid-nineteenth century, Egyptian rulers actively recruited black slaves into their army -- for example, they were included in the Egyptian expeditionary force sent by Sa'id Pasha to Mexico in support of the French in 1863.

The transatlantic slave trade sent Arab slavers into overdrive, here was a new market which could be exploited. When the Europeans abolished slavery in the 1800's, the taking of slaves in Africa continued. The eradication of such practices was cited as a major justification by the Europeans for the colonization of Africa. Certainly Britain had a significant fleet of ships patrolling the coasts against such slave traders.

Now lets take a look at the last nations on the face of the planet to abolish slavery!

The U.N. was formed after WWII. So dont try and say look how long it took for them to do it. Look how long it took for Islamic countries to abolish slavery! You are delusional and indoctrinated. Sorry to tell you.


1948: UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally[62]
1952: Qatar abolishes slavery
1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962: Yemen abolishes slavery
1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970: Oman abolishes slavery
1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery

Search 4 Truth said...

A comparison of the Islamic slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims.

While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Trans Sahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%.

While almost all the slaves shipped across the Atlantic were for agricultural work, most of the slaves destined for the Muslim Middle East were for sexual exploitation as concubines, in harems, and for military service.

While many children were born to slaves in the Americas, and millions of their descendants are citizens in Brazil and the USA to this day, very few descendants of the slaves that ended up in the Middle East survive.

While most slaves who went to the Americas could marry and have families, most of the male slaves destined for the Middle East were castrated, and most of the children born to the women were killed at birth.

It is estimated that possibly as many as 11 million Africans were transported across the Atlantic (95% of which went to South and Central America, mainly to Portuguese, Spanish and French possessions. Only 5% of the slaves went to the United States).

African Slaves

However, at least 28 million Africans were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since at least 80% of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave markets, it is believed that the death toll from
1400 years of Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been over 112 million. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the Trans Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 million people.


THE ABSENCE OF ARABIC ABOLITIONISTS

While Christian Reformers spearheaded the anti-slavery abolitionist movements in Europe and North America, and Great Britain mobilised her Navy, throughout most of the 19th Century, to intercept slave ships and set the captives free, there was no opposition whatsoever to slavery within the Muslim world.

Even after Britain outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and Europe abolished the slave trade in 1815, Muslim slave traders enslaved a further 2 million Africans. This, despite vigorous British Naval activity and military intervention to limit the Islamic slave trade.

By some calculations, the number of victims of the 14 centuries of Islamic slave trade could exceed 180 million.

Nearly 100 years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in America, and 130 years after all slaves within the British Empire were set free by parliamentary decree, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, in 1962, and Mauritania in 1980, begrudgingly removed legalised slavery from their statute books. And this only after international pressure was brought to bear. Today numerous international organisations document that slavery still continues in some Muslim countries.

Search 4 Truth said...



THE ISLAMIC SLAVE TRADE

The birth of Islam and its conquests, brought about the birth of INSTITUTIONALIZED, SYSTEMATIZED and RELIGIOUSLY SANCTIONED SLAVE TRADE, on a MASSIVE & GLOBAL SCALE.

As Ronald Segal in "Islam's Black Slaves" documents: "When Islam conquered the Persian Sassanid Empire and much of the Byzantine Empire, including Syria and Egypt, in the 7th Century, it acquired immense quantities of gold from stripping churches and monasteries ... either directly or by taxes, payable in gold, imposed on the clergy.... looting gold from tombs, the state encouraged the search and sanctioned the seizure, in return for a
fifth (khums) of the finds."

Segal notes: "Female slaves were required in considerable numbers as musicians, singers and dancers....many more were bought for domestic workers....and many were in demand as concubines (RAPE). The harems of rulers could be enormous. The harem of Abdal Rahman III (912 - 961) in Cordoba contained over 6000 concubines. The one in the Fatimid Palace in Cairo had twice as many."

The death toll from 14 centuries of the Islamic slave trade in Africa is estimated at over 140 million.

Islam's Black Slaves also reveals that the castration of male slaves was common place. "The Calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7000 black eunuchs and 4000 white eunuchs in his palace."

It was noted that there were widespread "homosexual relations" as well. Islam's Black Slaves notes that Islamic teachers throughout the centuries consistently defended slavery: "For there must be masters and slaves."

Others noted that blacks "lack self-control and steadiness of mind and they are overcome by fickleness, foolishness and ignorance. Such are the blacks who live in the extremity of the land of Ethiopia, the Nubians, Zanj and the like."

Ibn Khaldun (1332 - 1406) the pre-eminent Islamic medieval historian and social thinker wrote: "The Negro nations are as a rule submissive to slavery, because they have attributes that are quite similar to dumb animals."

By the Middle Ages, the Arabic word "abd" was in general use to denote a black slave while the word "mamluk" referred to a white slave.

It is not common knowledge that the Arabic word 'ABD' is synonymous with the meaning of SLAVE; that is, in the language of the Arabs,

ALL BLACK PEOPLES ARE CALLED 'ABEED' PLURAL FOR 'SLAVES'.

Even as late as the 19th Century, it was noted that in Mecca "there are few families that do not keep slaves; they all keep mistresses in common with their lawful wives."

It should be noted also, that black slaves were castrated "based on the assumption that the blacks had an ungovernable sexual appetite."

When the Fatimids came to power, they slaughtered all the tens of thousands of black military slaves and raised an entirely new slave army. Some of these slaves were conscripted into the army at age ten. From Persia to Egypt to Morocco, slave armies from 30,000 to up to 250,000 became common-place.

Search 4 Truth said...

Even Ronald Segal, who is most sympathetic to Islam and clearly prejudiced against Christianity, admits that well over 30 million black Africans would have died at the hands of Muslim slave traders or ended up in Islamic slavery.

The Islamic slave trade took place across the Sahara Desert, from the coast of the Red Sea, and from East Africa across the Indian Ocean. The Trans Sahara trade was conducted along six major slave routes.

Just in the 19th Century, for which we have more accurate records, 1.2 million slaves were brought across the Sahara into the Middle East, 450,000 down the Red Sea and 442,000 from East African coastal ports. That is a total of 2 million black slaves - just in the 1800's. At least 8 million more were calculated to have died before reaching the Muslim slave markets.

Islam's Black Slaves records: "In the 1570's, a Frenchman visiting Egypt found many thousands of blacks on sale in Cairo on market days. In 1665 Father Antonios Gonzalis, a Spanish/Belgian traveller, reported 800 - 1000 slaves on sale in the Cairo market on a single day. In 1796, a British traveller reported a caravan of 5000 slaves departing from Darfur.

In 1838, it was estimated that 10,000 to 12,000 slaves were arriving in Cairo each year." Just in the Arabic plantations off the East Coast of Africa, on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, there were 769,000 black slaves.

Slave Markets-

The slave market in Zanzibar sold an average of 300 slaves every day.

In the 19th Century, the East African black slave trade included 347, 000 slaves shipped to Arabia, Persia and India; 95, 000 slaves were shipped to the Arab plantations in the Mascareme Islands.

Segal notes "The high death rate and low birth rate among black slaves in the Middle East and the astonishingly low birth rate amongst black slave women" in North Africa and the Middle East. "Islamic civilization lagged increasingly behind the West in protecting public health.

The arithmetic of the Islamic black slave trade must also not ignore the lives of those men, women and children taken or lost during the procurement, storage and transportation.

The sale of a single captive for slavery might represent a loss of ten in the population from defenders killed in attacks on villages, the deaths of women and children from related famine and the loss of children, the old and the sick, unable to keep up with their captors or killed along the way in hostile encounters, or dying of sheer misery."

One British explorer encountered over 100 human skeletons from a slave caravan en route for Tripoli.

The explorer, Heinrich Barth, recorded that a slave caravan lost 40 slaves in the course of a single night at Benghazi.

The British explorer, Richard Lander, came across a group of 30 slaves in West Africa, all of them stricken with smallpox, all bound neck to neck with twisted strips of bullock hide.

One caravan with 3000 proceeding from the coast in East Africa, lost two thirds of its number from starvation, disease and murder.

In the Nubian desert, one slave caravan of 2000 slaves literally vanished as every slave died.

Search 4 Truth said...



AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT-

In 1818, Captain Lyon of the Royal Navy reported that the Al-Mukani in Tripoli "waged war on all its defenceless neighbours and annually carried off 4000 to 5000 slaves, a piteous spectacle! These poor oppressed beings were, many of them, so exhausted as to be scarcely able to walk, their legs and feet were much swelled, and by their enormous size formed a striking contrast with their emaciated bodies. They were all borne down with loads of firewood, and even poor little children, worn to skeletons by fatigue and hardships, were obliged to bear their burden, while many of their inhuman masters with dreadful whip suspended from their waist All the traders speak of slaves as farmers do of cattle.

The defenceless state of the Negro kingdoms to the southward are temptations too strong to be resisted, a force is therefore annually sent to pillage these defenceless people, to carry them off as slaves, burn their towns, kill the aged and infants, destroy their crops and inflict on them every possible misery.

Their slavery is for an unlimited time. None of their owners ever moved without their whips - which were in constant use. Drinking too much water, bringing too little wood or falling asleep before the cooking was finished, were considered nearly capital crimes, and it was in vain for these poor creatures to plead the excuse of being tired. Nothing could withhold the application of the whip. No slaves dared to be ill or unable to walk, but when the poor sufferer dies, the master suspects that there must have been something 'wrong inside' and regrets not having liberally applied their usual remedy of burning the belly with a red-hot iron."

Search 4 Truth said...


Slave Traders-

Arab slave traders along the Ruvuma River, East Africa, 1866, axe a straggler.
Records for Morocco in 1876 show that market prices for slaves varied from £10 ($48) to £30 ($140). Female slaves comprised the vast majority of sales with "attractive virgins" fetching between £40 to £80 ($192 - $386). It was reported that "a considerable majority of the slaves crossing the Sahara were destined to become concubines in North Africa, the Middle East and occasionally even further afield."


CHRISTIAN SLAVES - MUSLIM MASTERS-

Segal also observed that: "White slaves from Christian Spain, Central and Eastern Europe" were also shipped into the Middle East and served in the "palaces of rulers and the establishments of the rich."

Muslim slave raiders kidnapped women from Europe for harems in the Middle East.
Historian Robert Davis in his book "Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters - White Slavery In the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy", estimates that North African Muslim pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780. These white Christians were seized in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall.

Thousands of white Christians in coastal areas were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim slave masters in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya. Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were the hardest hit, but the Muslim slave raiders also seized people as far afield as Britain, Ireland and Iceland. They even captured 130 American seamen from ships they boarded in the Atlantic between 1785 and 1793.

According to one report, 7,000 English people were abducted between 1622 to 1644, many of them ship crews and passengers. But the Corsairs also landed on unguarded beaches, often at night, to snatch the unwary. Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were captured in 1631, and there were other raids in Devon and Cornwall.

Many of these white, Christian slaves were put to work in quarries, building sites and galleys and endured malnutrition, disease and mistreatment at the hands of their Muslim slave masters. Many of them were used for public works such as building harbours.

Female captives were sexually abused in palace harems and others were held as hostages and bargained for ransom. "The most unlucky ended up stuck and forgotten out in the desert, in some sleepy town such as Suez, or in Turkish Sultanate galleys, where some slaves rowed for decades without ever setting foot on shore." Professor Davis estimates that up to 1,25 million Europeans were enslaved by Muslim slave raiders between 1500 to 1800.

coptic crusader said...

A question for Jamal,
Assuming you have children, who's example would you want them 2 follow between Jesus n Mohammad? Regarding all aspects of their life... I mean you gotta ask yourself would you be ok marrying a young daughter any age to an older man with 3 other wives? Would you be ok with your son beating his wife.. Even lightly for that matter or if it was you're daughter on the other end? How bout punishment 4 apostasy? Issues regarding women proving rape almost impossible? Hate from Allah 2 his entire creation that do not submit that Mohammad his prophet? explicit orders 2 hate and kill the non believers so that there are non left but believers? Let me guess that's just 4 oppressors and those who cause mischief in the land..hmmm sounds like 100% of the kuffar fall into that category. Then you come 2 the Gospel the Good news of Jesus Christ. U learn of love, forgiveness, kindness, justicE, tender mercy and salvation. The funny thing Jamal is its easy who's example I want my kids 2 follow as I myself a Christian find it extremely difficult to even come close 2 being like Christ but find myself living Mohammad's example and feeling guilty and ashamed each time I do.
The Holies 4 holy, what is 4 the flesh is from the flesh.

bob said...

The nature of serving Islam

Ultimately, Islam holds a very dim view of those followers who retreat or surrender.
Serving Islam is like being in the Mafia or the Nazis. Any failure is not tolerated and can end in execution as punishment to the offender and which at the same time becomes an example to others.

An Islamic appologist cannot admit defeat in an argument that is 'close to the bone' when defending Islam because failure or surrender can incure serious punishment or death for 'letting the side down' and is therefore not an option.

If their arguments are crazy and without logic it could be because they are trying to avoid punishment.

The devil is a hard master.

Search 4 Truth said...

One moire thing you grossly exagerating the U.S's cunsumption of natural resources. But regardless the U.S is made up of all people of all races and religions. Including Muslims! Who are coincidentally regarded as equals and have equal rights under the constitution.

Something the Quran, hadith tafsir and sharia does not afford non Muslims! Al people are taxed equally under the law regardless of their race or religion. And all people of all races and religions have equal rights. Nobody is to be subjugated and extorted from. That would be unconstitutional and un Christian. Now every single thing you have claimed has been refuted. Do you not have any self respect? Intellectual integrity? We can continue this. But why? You have no basis or leg to stand on. I know your not used to being told the truth. But I am compelled to do it!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Bob

That is so true. They dont care about truth or integrity! It is all about defending Islm! Regardless of how much Islam contradicts itself, and they contradict each other. The goal is to defend Islam at all costs! There is no self analysis, or introspection! if this interpretation, or scholar doesnt work, then they will find another subjective view that does. Islam is a convoluted amalgamation of speculation and conjecture! They could find a ruling or a subjective opinion for anything and everything! Islam is truly from Satan himself! Its only for the indoctrinated!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coptic crusader said...

It's really a crack up Jamal how you dodged the question all together. Let's just say u were right and we r only seeing 5% of Mohammad which of course is absurd, would u want ur children 2 imitate that 5% our follow in Jesus righteous path? Then this nonsense about the crucifixion nd resurrection. . The most attested event in all of history. I would take an hour n list proof after proof but after seeing brother search 4 truth bombard u with evidence after evidence u just seem 2 dismiss it like it's not even there. I'm sorry Jamal but you can't serve 2 masters.. Jesus was a living example unless u can tell me of any 1 else who lived a perfect life? Can u imagine a mass murderer, rapist, child molester pardoned because hey he was a Nice guy at times it's a joke.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Quote "When we're discussing scientific matters, you should not expect to find explanation in tafsir. The Quran's scientific accuracy was not of interest back then when the tafsirs that you quote were written."

EXACTLY! But they believed it to be. They did not try and rewrite and revision it. They took the Arabic word for word and were honest! unlike yourself and the modern day apologists who are revisionists! When history is written the most accurate historical accounts occur during the period closest to the historical account that occurred. The further and further it gets the more it become a subjective interpretation. Are you serious right now? I have to believe your either extremely young or just pulling my leg.


You dismiss anything that goes against your subjective perspective, you command me to ignore anything that goes against your view, and then you want me to believe your subjective view over the historical and greatest scholars of Islam and accept you as a greater scholar. Are you serious?

And now you want to blame the Jews for reporting hadith!

How do you live with yourself?

What is Islam!?


All you do is deny, cherry pick and blame! This is the most ridiculous accusation you have made to date.


So any hadith that you dont like, Just blame the Jews. Can you get any more stupid? You and Islam are a complete failure! I doubt you even read anything or very little of what i posted. So you havent brought any knew arguments so i guess I will repost them! You actually believe, like most Muslims, that if you say anything, anything at all it is a rebuttal. But thats not how it works!

Quote "He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that's why He says "he found it set" and does not say "it sets". (Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw'il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt)
Imam Al-Qurtubi states,"

Do you really think this is a rebuttal? I am using YOUR classical early scholars.

THEY DIDNT SAY Probably! they knew the arabic and had no reason to reinterpret the quran because they didnt know that the west would figure it out.

thats right. the west. now that the western civilized modern science has reached these factual conclusions muslims are trying their hardest to reinterpret the quran, hadith and tafsirs to fit what is the truth!


i am going back and showing you what the true muslims believed because the west wasnt around to correct them
are you by any chance in a mental institution?



Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

1,2,3,4,5, You didnt say anything or produce any evidence to the contrary! So you admit defeat!

Saying there are hadith and telling us that there exists contrary evidence to the evidence that i fully produced is not a rebuttal. Neither is denial of reality!

5. Lets take another look. You are in total denial of reality!

LOOK AT WHAT IT SAYS! IN NO UNCERTAIN REVISIONIST VIEWS OF YOURS AND APOLOGISTS!

You ignore the Quran and the classical tafsirs because they are wrong. Your only source fo evidence is the rewriting and revisionist views of modern day apologists because the Quran and the hadith and tafsirs are incorrect.

086.005
YUSUFALI: Now let man but think from what he is created!
PICKTHAL: So let man consider from what he is created.
SHAKIR: So let man consider of what he is created:

086.006
YUSUFALI: He is created from a drop emitted-
PICKTHAL: He is created from a gushing fluid
SHAKIR: He is created of water pouring forth,

086.007
YUSUFALI: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
PICKTHAL: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
SHAKIR: Coming from between the back and the ribs.


That is completely inaccurate. You can lie and twist and squirm all you want. But thats not what it says! And i showed you what the tafsirs say.

ALLAH IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!


Man is not created from anything issuing from the ribs and the backbone! Or the loins and the backbone!


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

issuing from between the loins, of the man, and the breast-bones, of the woman.



You are not a scholar, nor are you anyone to be taken serious! And the apologists are not either. You are trying your hardest to reinterpret Islam!


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

(That issued from between the loins) of a man (and ribs) the ribs of a woman.


And the hadith back me up, not you. ME!





Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

So Allah doesnt have the time to be accurate? Are you kidding us?

It says that the sun is in orbit with the moon around the earth! Is Allah so stupid he cant say that the earth orbits the sun? Are you just joking with me or are you really this stupid?


Look the Quran says that the earth is still.

Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water). Is there any ilah (god) with Allah? Nay, but most of them know not.
Qur'an 27:61


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ أَمَّن جَعَلَ ٱلأَرْضَ قَرَاراً وَجَعَلَ خِلاَلَهَآ أَنْهَاراً وَجَعَلَ لَهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَ ٱلْبَحْرَيْنِ حَاجِزاً أَإِلَـٰهٌ مَّعَ ٱلله بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ }

(Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof) in the middle thereof, (and placed firm hills therein) on earth, (and hath set a barrier) preventing mixture (between the two seas) the sweet and salty seas? (Is there any God beside Allah) who has done this? (Nay, but most of them know not) most of them believe not!

And then it says the sun and moon orbit the earth you mental patient! This is exhausting how brainwashed you are! And all you are doing is denying your scholars and hadith that correlated with the Quran and using reinterpretations! LOL!

(Is not He Who has made the earth as a fixed abode,) meaning, stable and stationary, so that it does not move or convulse, because if it were to do so, it would not be a good place for people to live on. But by His grace and mercy, He has made it smooth and calm, and it is not shaken or moved
The Command to praise Allah and send Blessings on His Messengers
Tafsir Ibn Kathir

And maketh the sun and the moon, constant in their courses, to be of service unto you, and hath made of service unto you the night and the day.
Qur'an 14:33


* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ وَسَخَّر لَكُمُ ٱلشَّمْسَ وَٱلْقَمَرَ دَآئِبَينَ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ ٱلَّيلَ وَٱلنَّهَارَ }

(And maketh the sun and the moon, constant in their courses) until the Day of Judgement, (to be of service unto you) subservient to you, (and hath made of service) and made subservient (unto you the night and the day) which come and go.

It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float in an orbit.
Qur'an 36:40

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!

YOU ARE NOT A SCHOLAR!

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ لاَ ٱلشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَآ أَن تدْرِكَ ٱلقَمَرَ وَلاَ ٱلَّيلُ سَابِقُ ٱلنَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ }

It does not behove — it is [neither] facilitated nor is it right for — the sun to catch up with the moon, and so appear together with it at night, nor may the night outrun the day, and thus it [the night] never arrives before the latter ends and each (kullun: the nunation compensates for the [missing] genitive annexation [that would have been constructed] with al-shams, ‘the sun’, al-qamar, ‘the moon’, and al-nujūm, ‘the stars’) [of these] is in an orbit, swimming, moving — these [celestial bodies] are being treated as [though they were] rational beings.

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ لاَ ٱلشَّمْسُ يَنبَغِي لَهَآ أَن تدْرِكَ ٱلقَمَرَ وَلاَ ٱلَّيلُ سَابِقُ ٱلنَّهَارِ وَكُلٌّ فِي فَلَكٍ يَسْبَحُونَ }

It is not for the sun to overtake the moon) it is not proper for the sun to rise where the moon appears such that it takes away its light, (nor doth the night outstrip the day) nor does the night come at the time of the day such that it eclipses its brightness. (They) the sun, the moon and the planets (float each in an orbit) revolve and turn round an orbit.

You need to seek psychiatric evaluation!

coptic crusader said...

@ Jamal
Just wondering why ur all mighty all knowing Allah had no idea that Christ's earliest followers according 2 sura 4:157-158 (the only place in the Koran that speaks of the crucifixion) would believe Jesus died on the Cross and arose from the dead, preaching this to their death (with no glory in it for themselves) therefore starting the worlds largest religion to date. What was Allah thinking I mean there were several opportunities before
600 Ad how to say more than just 40 obscure words to clear it all up. I I wonder if that was a revelation given to Muhammad while on Aisha.s bed wearing her clothes? How does this make any sense to you is beyond me.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Well it was only inevitable. You couldnt refute me. then you tried to demonize me and misrepresent what I said. Now your going to deflect and lie about the Bible!

But wait. i will get to that in a minute! NO non Muslims are not treated equally! And here is the evidence to refute your delusions!

"O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4:52:283


This is getting so tiresome. I guess when your as indoctrinated and suffering from cognitive dissonance it takes repeated attempts to snap you out of it! I understand, I was almost deceived into Islam. Until I checked all the lies that were being told to me. Thank you Jesus for my intellect! Not all are as fortunate as me!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

'
] Tafsir Ibn Kathir


Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Allah said,

﴿حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ﴾

(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

﴿عَن يَدٍ﴾

(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾

(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»

(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari


This is getting so tiresome and boring. Its like talking to a retarded brick wall!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Jamal

Quote" Jamal Hassan said...
Again here you go quoting Muhammad's sayings. These were all sayings that he uttered during battles"

No are you kidding me?

Are you saying that he was interpreting something incorrect? These are very clear commands for all time! he doesnt say forf a sopecific battle. Like I have been commanded to fight these people or those people!

YOU ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT AND DANGEROUS! Your mind is not complete! You need to seek psychiatric evaluation! These are speaking of a specific people!


ALL NON MUSLIMS WHO DO N OT ACCEPT HIM AND ALLAH! YOU MORON!


Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."


Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists (which includes Christians), invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

YOU JUST CANT ACCEPT REALITY. THIS IS SO DISTURBING AND SCARY. THE MIND OF A MUSLIM IS A DANGEROUS THING. BECAUSE THEY CAN RATIONALIZE ANYTHING. AND THEN WHEN YOU BECOME IN A POSITION OF POWER YOU WILL REINTERPRET IT IN ANY WAY YOU WANT


ISLAM IS PURE EVIL TO ITS VERY CORE. IT IS FROM SATAN HIMSELF. I AM MORE CONVINCED OF THAT EVERY TIME I SPEAK TO A MUSLIMS OR READ THE QURAN, HADITH AND TAFSIRS. SATAN OWNS YOU!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coptic crusader said...

Jamal again u side stepped everything search 4 truth posted. Overlooked every shred of evidence he presented u with (all from ur very own sources I may add) and came spewed some nonsense about a prophet who we do not presuppose is infallible about telling Ali that this book he made up is full of wisdom and knowledge and events still 2 come (yeah the killing and subjugation til all submit 2 Islam).

bob said...

For proper science, visit creation.com

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bob said...

The Law That Jesus left us.

Then one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' [Deuteronomy 6:5] This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it: 'You shall love your nieghbour as yourself.'" [Leviticus 19:18]

"On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Mathew 22:36:40

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
Mathew 7:12

These verses demonstrate that Mohammed [570-632 A.D.] was not one of God's prophets, since he rejected these commands.
For example, if you love God with all your heart, then you will automatically love anyone who is made in his image; which is EVERYONE, not just Muslim's.

The history of Mohammad and the religion that he founded, and the teachings in its book, the Koran, show that Islam only violates the Law and the Prophets of God.

In fact, The Koran atributes characteristics to God which are not true. What is this but trying to make God into a pagan idol?

coptic crusader said...

Jamal

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " sound a lil self indulgent to you? What does any of this have to do with God, a Spirtual God? So far a great a example?
Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed." Another prime example! I mean you couldn't help but lust after his adopted son's wife, can you imagine just having is 8 other wifes and all his right possesed but not her?
Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" Gotta hand it to you there Jamal thats pimp status. Wives were a lil upset about him getting some extra tail with Mary the Copt (from your own hadith). An example muslims in Egypt follow to this day, kidnapping young girls and forcing them to convert(and pls notice I am not saying all muslims).
Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased" Again more sexual convenience because of his escapeds with his Christian slave.
Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." Thats quite a bounty considering the number of raids and battles that took place.

Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Yet another example muslims (not all) follow. So much for a book for all times. You were absolutely right The Virgin Mary was married at a young age and Joseph was older which was a practice at that time, but six yrs old? Oh wait he did wait til she was 9 God bless him. This is a supposed Prophet of God who's people are told he is the perfect role model for mankind. Would You Jamal give up your 6yr old to your prophet's harem?

coptic crusader said...

Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:

Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." Seemed like Abu Bakr had a lil prob with that but Mohammad put him in his place.

Bukahri Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). What self control, This guy is my hero!


Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them. He was said to have the sexual stamina of up to 30 men.

Jamal this is from your most trust worthy sources.. Not my words, but hey if you claim to know better than they did more power too you brother. That was just a miniscule few from 100's of sahih hadiths, sura's and didn't even get to the tafsir yet just on Mohammads self revelations and sexual appetite. I will hopefully tackle more tomorrow along with rape and mass murder, and i know nothing I have cited was reliable or I just have a crazy, twisted interpretation im sure you'll correct me on... looking forward, for now Goodnight!

coptic crusader said...

Poor Jamal, I couldn't sleep, just so much I wanna share. Just 5%...

Quran 65.4 “and those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'iddah (prescribed divorce period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. They are still immature) their 'iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens) (give birth) and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to him, he will make his matter easy for him.” You catch that Jamal.. That means some girls were married before reaching the age of puberty. So much for the clear, consice, eternal book of God. Great example.

Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 639:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet used to recite the Quran with his head in my lap while I used to be in my periods (having menses). What a bloody mess indeed!

Bukhari (62:6) - "The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives." Then when the wives would get upset with him, he suprisingly gets a revelation that hey its not your fault Mohammad I mean its impossible to treat them all equally..(what an understanding God), don't know how he even had any time for much else.




coptic crusader said...

Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311
Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily)." (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." Seems even Aisha agrees that Allah hastens to fulfill any of Mohammads desires.

Muslim Book 008, Number 3424:

' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be eupon him) and said: Messengerof Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man 'Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed. Know this one's just classic! Can you imagine suckling just to be under the same roof?






coptic crusader said...

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; " Special privelage??

Qur'an (33:51) - "You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased"

Mass murder

002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. (Sura 2:191, 193)

002.216
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
You must not agree with allah, oh I forgot to add the sura were Allah clarifies that this is just a war time sura because he knew people would use this sura in the future to kill innocent people....oh no there is no such sura, but its ok Jamal i'll take your word for it over Allah and Muhammad.

coptic crusader said...

005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
in the Hereafter;

008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Speaks for itself loud and clear!
Hope this is enough evidence for some of my claims for now, but now I really need to go. Brother There are mountains more to come when I get a chance. You wanted evidence your sources are full of them, not one evidence I put forth were my own words.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

@Jamal "Now before discussing this, you have to first comment on the marriage of Joseph and Mary fr your earliest sources."
What is there to comment about? There is NOTHING in the bible that indicate the Mary was only 12. You're using non-canon accounts from a single branch of Christianity that doesn't say she was definitely 12, but MAYBE 12. (hmm, and yet you keep saying people are not using reliable Islamic sources, but you have no problem doing it with Christianity? That's called hypocriticy), and even if there was, this is called Tu Quo Que, and is a logical fallacy. It doesn't justify in any way Mohammad's relationship with a 9 year old girl. This is exactly why people don't exactly think you're being the honest scholar you perhaps think of yourself in your own head.

As for your cry of "context" I'm curious how saying fight until the end of days against the non-beleivers until he pays the tax, or beleivescan be explained away in context. It's been already given many many verses that show Mohammad's raids were NOT defensive, sinch he told one of his followers to fight not to defend, but to fight until they are subdued or beleive! This is just getting annoying how you keep repeating how you refuted things and aren't sidestepping... and then you provide no evidence to refute what's being said and sidestep!

coptic crusader said...

Jamal
Please correct me if i'm wrong but u said u want historical evidence. R u saying that all of the koranic and and hadith evidence I presented was not historically accurate. Allah n Mohammad command this from their followers? Not quite sure what u are talking about, but hey if u wanna help me discredit the Koran and hadith i'm all 4 it.
Then this nonsense about Mary n Joseph again... Maybe i'm missing it but can u please tell me anywhere in the Bible it says that Joseph is an example 2 mankind and 2 follow teaching. C Jamal the Bible as the word of God is eternal.. God knew as humanity evolved, so did are way of life unlike the Koran which is stuck in 600ad. We are told 2 render 2 Caesar what us Caesars and 2 God what is God's (follow the law of the land as long as it doesn't go against his commandments. He tells us his kingdom is not of this world (God is not worried about how n what 2 wash after intercourse like Mohammad explains in several hadith's). laws of.that nature have nothing 2 do with God's heavenly kingdom. We as a civilized humans know 2012 is very different then 600 and that a 6yr olds.is TO YOUNG, 1.) To consent 2 marriage 2.) Just flat out 2 young 2 be married 2 someone in his his 60's. now u.ve dodged this question be4, so i'm hoping u answer this time. If Mohammad was alive 2day and wanted 2 Marry ur 6 yr old daughter from what ur saying is ud be ecstatic about it?
And you know us Christians, we've got a real worldwide epidemic of older men marrying prepubescent girls because of Mary n Joseph.. Get a clue brother, u are living in delusion. It's really not even worth my time 2 offer u any more evidence from (YOUR SOURCES) cuz ur soooo blinded u couldn't c the truth if it slapped u in the face. Brother it's never 2 late because unlike Allah n Mohammad, Jesus loves you!

coptic crusader said...

I must say Jamal you are fighting an unwinnable battle. With technology we now have,.we don't have 2 rely on an uneducated imam's version of Islam or a pleasant westernized water downed version, but exactly what Mohammad and his earliest followers practiced, preached and taught. U have no ground 2 stand on! I feel blessed and thankful 4 this new information highway and people like David, Sam, James, search 4 truth that not only dedicate their time 2 preaching the Christian message but also exposing the evil of Islam and it's lies towards Christianity.

bob said...

The problem with Islam is that it was built on a foundation of lies and fables; so all it has as ammunition in an argument, is lies and fables.

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

The true and complete law of God

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your nieghbour as yourself." [Leviticus 19:18. 1440 B.C.]

Love does no harm to a nieghbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law. Romans 13:8-10

The command from God in Leviticus 19 was verified by Jesus (God was manifested in the flesh. 1Tim 3:16) in Mat 22:39

For those who consider themselves above this universal command from God, and disobey it on the grounds that it is a little 'limp wristed,' then there is the big stick i.e...

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority [temporal government] resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves [for criminal behaviour].
For civil authorities are not a terror to good works [abiding by the law], but to evil [crime]. Do you want to be unafraid of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
For he is God's servant to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword [law enforcement] in vain; for he is God's servant, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience's sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending contiually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due; taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue, respect to whom respect. Romans 13:1-7 [A.D 57]

The above verses (1-7) have sometimes been referred to out of context by Islamist's in trying to justify their Sharia law.

But obviously, Sharia law is unecessary, because the real thing already existed long before Islam [A.D. 600]

Tom said...

Thank you David Wood, Search 4 Truth,
coptic crusader,Foolster41, bob & others

The lessons I picked in this tread is invaluable:
The hadith on imputing sin on the christian.. outstanding.. used it in a couple of forum... think they were stunt..:) & they always say that Our Grace message is 'licence to sin'..I can now let them know based on this hadith they too have licence to sin! :)
The lessons on the Crusades, Slavery etc with briallant data...
stupid mitraism arguement they bring forth..
The post on the description of God's Son ETC ETC...

Thanks guys...

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

"With regards to Mary giving birth between ages of 12-14, I got that from a christian encyclopedia. If you want to claim that none of that is in the bible, you're saying nothing outside the bible has grounds in Christianity?"
Ha! It's called "canon". So, it's ok to take extra biblical sources (a bible encycloedia, which you know very well would never be considered as canon by Christians) as being confirmed fact of what Christians believe, then I can take any book that calls itself an Islamic encyclopeia, by any sect of Islam and you will accept it as fact as well? I know the answer must be yes, but I couldn't EVER imagine a Muslim apologist being a hypocrite and applying a different standard to other people than to muslims!

at any rate this is still Tu Quo Que fallacy (I urge you to look that up). That Mary was 12 does not in any way make Mohammad having sex with a 9 year old any better.

You keep asking for evidence, but could you please show in Quoran 9 where it says it's talking about the byzantines? also, if fighting is only defensive, why did mohammad tell one of his companions that the cause they are fighting isn't until the defense is over, but until no one is left who hasn't converted?

bob said...

All Islamic apologists have no idea that they are really working for Christ. Their absurd and weak arguments are some of the best witnesses of Christ's truth.

God is such a great Lord and Master that he is even able to turn the wickedness of the devil into good.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

"If Mary was indeed that young I'm sure you guys would have pages of defense written. But you can conveniently just throw it out and totally ignore it. Typical of Christian folk. Shameless."

This is ridiculous, and another logical fallacy (you now might want to add "straw man" and "ad honim" to your understanding!)! Now you're having a debate with us in an alternate demention where Mary is shown to be 12, and you can see us making excuses and throwing out evidence! Of course it didn't happen (the demension is in your mind!), you're just sure it would have! But no, we're the shameless ones! Do you even read over what you are typing before you hit publish? You don't even apologize or actknowledge the hypocracy of saying "what, you don't accept non-bibical sources like this dictionary which I don't even give the name of?". Please answer my question: Would you accept then any scholarly book on Islam outside of the Koran as true, regardless of the sect of the person who wrote it (Suni, Shiite, etc.), and even if there was no direct confirmation (or contradiction) in the Koran or Hadiths, nor any solid historical evidence? If not, then do you see why your argument is ridiculous? I await you answer.

As for 9:29 and the burden of proof. The conditions in the Koran for warefare apear to be not defense (I've asked you to point out where it says about only defending once before), but until nonbeleivers are subdued (paying a tax, and obeying the rules that do not allow them to build or repair churches or convert Muslims), converted or killed (See Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294)). YOU are the one that said 9:29 was specifically about the Byzantines. When I asked for proof about that you suddenly claimed that it is in fact open ended, but only for defense, and that the burden of proof is on US to prove it is not defensive? Again, do you read what you type? This makes no sense. The common reading of the text appears to be about converting, conqouring or killing non-beleivers. (See: the question asked of Mohammad of why they should fight).

You should be able to show the context of where this is a command only for a specific time and place (against an enemy that intiated combat against mohammad) that perhaps we're missing instead of making silly gestures for us to disprove you.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

RE: Mary.

I don't really see you asking when you first brought it up whether or not, you said in reply to criticism (as a tu quop que argument by the way) that the catholics (a sect of Christianity which is FAR from majority) accept it. I see no question about whether Christians here accept it.

Since you asked what I think, personally, I find no historical basis to either accept or dismiss it outright. At any rate it doesn't natter. Not for the reason you think, not because I wouldn't be bothered by it, but because as I've said a number of times before it is a FALSE ARGUMENT (tu quo que), that Mary was 12 in no way makes mohammad's relation to a 9 year old any more or less acceptable.

I see you still won't actknowledge that you are making an tu quo argument, and later ad honim by making claims what we "would have done" had mary been shown to be 12. A little humility wouold be refreshing. Now then, perhaps it would be best to drop it.

"With regards to your question, the answer is absolutely not. I would not just accept sources outside Quran and Sunnah from any sect. Likewise, I do not completely accept non-biblical sources. This is what I do know:" That's strange, this contradicts what you said previously when you said "you're saying nothing outside the bible has grounds in Christianity?" (which implies we SHOULD accept sources outside the bible, such as this encyclopedia). Do you now say that you were wrong in saying this?

Re: Surrah 9.

"Also, let me explain about context. The Quran was revealed to challenge us until the end and to make sure we do not reach stupid conclusions. It was revealed in such a way."
Ha! so it is meant to be challanging to understand (rather than being in clear language), but also so we don't make stupid conclusions, by understanding it as the clearest terms, which it apears thousands of your co-religionists are doing!

At any rate, I see no specific mention of Byzantines. Was these verses about only being defensive? perhaps, but not, as you previously claimed specificly about byzantines. Perhaps you could admit that you were wrong?

Ok, so there are defensive verses, but you STILL havn't explained how they jive with the clearly NOT defensive ones, (the ones that say muslims should fight, until the end of days not until defense is over, but until non-muslims convert, are subdued under Sharia (paying special taxes, no building/repairing churches, no converting muslims)? How do you show that the defensive ones are supercede the non-defensive ones? Since they contradict each other, they both can't be true? Which came later, the defensive ones or non-defensive ones? When and where were each revealed? If there is a changing from one to the other, how does this jive with the statement in the Quroan that Allah's word cannot be changed?

Also, it seems you too are riping verses out of context. That verse you quote from verse 9 is 9:12 (it would have been nice if you'd cite ALL the verses you quote). What does the verse before it say? "If they repent and establish prayer and give the poor-rate, then they are your brethren-in-faith. And we detail the revelations unto a people who know." (and 9:5 echos this same idea again) I.e. if they convert to Islam, they are not to be fought. So again, we find more evidence that it is those who do not convert to Islam that are to be fought. the "oath breakers" are in fact, those who have rejected Allah and Mohammad as his prophet!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

I've already explained that I don't beleive Mary was 12, that no major demoniation of Christianity beleives she is 12, and since you can't show definitively that Mary was 12 (the same way the Quran outright says Aisha was 9) then NO, it isn't hypocritical at all. It boggles my mind that you are sticking to this point, evem though it makes no sense!How can it be hypocracy when Chrtisitans don't beleive she was 12? And just saying "whatever" to logical fallacies doesn't make them not logical fallacies. Like I said, it's probibly best drop the whole Mary Issue before you dig yourself deeper. You did in fact attack what you said "we would have done" and that is absolutely a dishonest argument (Actually this is called "attacking a strawman"). If you can't actknowledge when you are making silly unfair arguments, then there's no real reason for us to have a discussion. I STRONGLY suggest you read up on logical fallacies, and understand them better so you don't make them in the future. Don't you agree that only honest arguments should be used?

Ok then, I apollogize if I misunderstood the question. it sounded like a retorical one. The answer is "no", so then since there are no strong biblical or historical sources that say Mary is 12, then you will drop it, right?

What are these verses you are quoting? Again, you have a very bad habit of not sourcing what you quote. It'd be nice if you gave the sources so we could see for ourselves what those verses say to verify it, and to read the context.

My comment about your co-religionists was mearly pointing out how many many people misunderstand what is written in the Koran and hadiths. If the Quoran and Hadiths indeed say what you say they mean, then it would have been nice if it was more clear to understand it that way. Would save us the trouble of thousands of attacks and over 100,000 dead in the last 11 years alone.

So, my Oath breakers comment was a little bit of an exaggeration. Your explanation is interesting, (that the verses that command conquest of non-believers only applies to conqouring the fighting non-believers), but as I said before, since the verses that are defensive are so separated from the ones that are not (i.e Until they are killed, converted or subdued) it makes your interpration extremely unclear in the most simple reading of it.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Bob said...

This is the source which many Muslim websites in regard to Joseph's age..

Please note: how the source says that it is unreliable within the First sentence, and yet this is used to prove their case..

Read
It will not be without interest to recall here, ((**unreliable though they are**)), the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the ((**apocryphal writings.**)) When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are((** void of authority;**)) they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.

Would any Muslim allow christians to use unreliable sources to disprove their points? No I don't think so!

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

In what way am I "beating around the bush"? I stated quite clearly WHY what you said was unfair, and WHY they are logical fallacies. Your dismissal doesn't make them just magically disappear. I also said that I would be bothered by it. (so yes). It is YOU who are using dishonest arguments (attacking things we are not saying, calling on something else to dismiss a charge etc.), not me. that you refuse to admit it is, as I've said most troubling. You didn't answer my question: Do you agree we should stick to hoenst arguments? If so, then wouldn't you agree that it is fair when other people are using false arguments (called "fallacies"?). I'm not going to waste my time talking with you if I can't hold you accountable (as I expect you to do so for me) to honest arguments.

As for Aisha's age, you are right it is not in the Quoran, but it is in the hadiths (See Sahih Bukhari 5:58:236, Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, pp. 6-7, Vol. 9, pp. 129-130, Ibn-i-Majah vol.3:1876).

I think you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying anything about the specific motivation, but the fact that all these muslims who have brought forth thousands of attacks in the last 11 years all "misunderstand" the Quoran the same way, that is, to act violently to fight the unbeliever. My point was, it would have been nice if the Quoran was more clear, if as you claim it is peaceful to be understood that way.

John Bob said...

Jamal if she was that young but the fact is we really don't know.

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

I think you're still not understanding me.
What I mean is, when I read the Quoran cover to cover (including context of surrounding verses), what I read apears to be not clearly saying warefare should only be defensive (whether or not it was written to mean that). There are no verses akin to those in the new testiment that call for people to turn the othe cheek, or pray for those who persecute you. It isn't dishonest or a logical falacy to point this out. I'm NOT saying because a number of followers understand the Quoran as violent that means the Quoran is violent as you seem to think I'm saying. I'm saying that EVEN IF the quoran was written to mean only defensive wars, it is not DEFINITIVLY written to say so, thus if it is the word of God, then one would think it would be, and also leaves doubt to your interpretation of the Quroan, since MANY Islamic scholars disagree with you.

I watched the first video, and parts of the second one, but i'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You point out he doesn't quote from book 9. Are you saying then that because OBL doesn't quote book 9 here that he (or other terrorists) never did? How does having no mention of non-offensive violence in two videos have anything to do with whether or not the Quoran or hadiths are violent?

So, yes, bin laden does speak in terms of Muslims being attacked and persecuted, but that in no way means the Quoran and Hadiths do not command violence. I notice Bin laden quotes in the second video Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6983, saying muslims will slaughter Jews in the last days. He also uses Isreal as justification when Isreal has every right to exist (as much as Jordan and other arab states) and it was muslims who initiated war against THEM (and in fact, it was muslims who allied with Hitler, so they were also part of the cause of jews needing a homeland!), and it is the Muslims not the Jews who preach genocidal hatred against the other group (Arabs enjoy equal rights in Isreal). For more information see: www.palwatch.org and www.wall-of-truth.com

But these two videos are widely beside the point. I can show that mohmmad was violent from the Quoran and Hadiths (the life of Mohmmad as you told me to look). Mohammad led raids against other groups and DID attack offenseively:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-badr.htm
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-self-defense.htm

He also approved of killing people for the "crime" of saying they would never be muslim: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-murder.htm (See the Shepard in (al-Tabari 1440, 1441)

He had people kiled for critisizing him as well (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/059-sbt.php#005.059.369)!

John Bob said...

Foolster thanks for the two websites I've subscribed to the news feeds!

Foolster41 said...

And speaking of context, look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHmsL0p6jnI

Foolster41 said...

And my point about 9:29 still stands. You hav to bring up verses 17 verses earlier. If it was about being defensive, then why not say so in the verse itself when it defines who should be fought against? The verse says "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah". let's look at how the verse might look if it was CLEARLY written to say what you says it means:

"Fight against such of those who have attacked you and do no desist until they stop fighting you" - Quoran 9:29 WMV (Western Muslim Version)

Hmm. that's very different than what 9:29 actually says as written isn't it?

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

Yes they are "anti-Muslim" websites in that they are non-Muslim websites (as is this site), but they all quote from your sources. If they are using verses out of context, or misrepresenting a story, then you should be able to point out how they are doing so. (i.e. the battle of Badr, the story about the murdered Shepard etc.)

The video is from THIS SITE (did you watch it?), and again it uses YOUR sources of your scholars, the Qauoran and Hadiths. Again, it shouldn't matter WHO says it, if it's untrue you should be able to disprove it. I'm a non-muslim, so how is it any different than just me saying it? It's not desperation at all. (In fact, YOU are the one who sounds desperate in your tryingt o brush away what I say without having to answer them!) You're welcome to use anti-Christian sites and scholars such as www.answering-Christianity (though it has been frequently been debunked here). This is another fallacy, called ad honim. Instead of attacking the sources, tell me why they are wrong! I find it interesating that I'm willing to look at your websites and watch your videos, but you don't seem willing to to the same. Why is that?

But 9:24 doesn't say anything DIRECTLY about defensive war the way one woulde expect a passage that is CLEAR to. You are making the ASSUMPTION that because it talks about leaving that it must mean only defensive wars, and that when I say "perpetually" I must mean contenously, and consequitively!

If Mohammad waged offensive wars, it was most likely in spaces of time, with time where they returned home, thus it makes perfect sense as a verse commanding his men to leave their homes FOR A TIME for raids and this verse does NOTHING to disprove offensive warfare as it apears to be commanded in 9:29. Come on now!

"And even if you had to go 17 verses before, that's the whole point. The context of some confusing ayas are explained sometimes whole chapter's apart."
Then I still contend that Quoran is not written clearly then, since one should write what they mean. If a verse gives conditions for warefare (kill, subjugate or convert non-believers because they are non-believers), but really means only defensively, but that last part is found as far back as 17 verses, or another chapter then there is no clarity. But the Quoran also claims to be from God, and perfectly clear!

But there is another huge problem with Islam, that is Jesus cannot be a prophet of Islam, as the Quoran claims. Jesus's teachings which we have copies of dating to about 500 years before Mohammad was born contradict much of what Mohammad taught. I've yet to see any historical documents dating from before Mohammad's time of Christian doctrine (the "true" version) dating from before Mohammad's time that would match with Mohammad's teachings. Either Mohammad made it all up, There was a major conspiracy to change Christianity from the Islamic version leaving absolutely no trace, or Christians are time travelers who went back in time to change things. Which is it?

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

How about you read this one first, about a shepard who was killd.
It quotes from Al-tabiri. (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-murder.htm)
(I'll link it so I don't need to copy+paste it.).

What would I have done? I don't know, but I know Jesus would not have in turned commanded a raiding party! This is why I believe Jesus to be the superior moral example over Mohammad! When Mohammad was expelled he made alliances with Medina, and wasn't being furthered hassled by Mecca (There is absolutely no records of any attacks by Mecca before 623, when Mohammad attacked). There was no reason to attack Mecca, nor does any justification of attacking merchants of Mecca make any sense. He could have moved on (and indeed would have been more like his supposed predisessor, Christ), but he did not!

I notice you never commented about the hadith about rocks and trees calling out for the death of Jews. Notice, it says "Jews" and not "enemies", again, why the unclearity by using a word that is misleading? Why not just say "enemy" if that is what is meant?

It has nothing to do with bias, but as I said, I do in fact read the Quoran ("cover to cover" is what I said), and reading it that way, the way it's written plainly is troubling. You have to jump many many verses to explain away what apears to be to very violent commands that could easily be dispelled if the language was more clearly restricted in the verses themselves (see, my version of 9:29).

"Lol look at you. If this and if that. Most likely this and that. Can you please provide me hard evidence? You keep assuming. That’s desperation bro. You know I can probably refute every claim of yours with verses of the Quran:"
Hard evidence? Again, you're not underwtanding what I'm saying (or intentionally misrepresenting me) No, I'm saying you're the one making the assumptions. It has nothing to do with presenting hard evidence, there is nothing to show hard evidence of, it's already there. I'm sayig YOU are the one ASSUMING that when I say Mohammad gives license to wage war "perpetually" this must mean I'm saying contenously and consequitively. If I meant that, then yes, this verse wouldn't make any sense for what I'm saying, but I'm not saying this, thus this verse cannot be used as defense. THIS IS BASIC LOGIC. If you can't understand this, then I really don't think I'm interested in contenoung.

Your last paragraph is nonsense. So the Ebionites would be the ones teaching the "real" version of Christianity (but then, why isn't their version in the bible?) closer to the Quoran, except you're not willing to even say it definitly? It's disputed and debated? Which scholar? Which sects of Christianity accept the teachings of Ebionites? Which reject the teachings of Paul? Here, I'll help you. It's recorded in our scriptures that the original desciples ACCEPTED Paul (See: Acts, which was written by Luke)! (yet you say *I* know nothing!) We have scriptures form around 200 years BEFORE MOHAMMAD was born and a VAST MAJORITY accept this version, and include Paul's teachings as IN LINE with that of Christs, and not the Ebionite version, so thus logically it would make FAR more sense to see this as the original doctrines. Hardly any Christians view Paul as some sort of reformer or changer of the gospel. You are now making things up and clinging to heretical sources about Christianity in order to defend your beliefs! I hope that sinks in. No honest person should need to do that. (but will you acknowledge this?)
(Cont'd)

Foolster41 said...

(Part 2)

What does the OT have anything to do with it? (another red herring argument). The Quoran wasn't revealed between the OT NT, but AFTER THE GOSPEL. I notice you're not willing to say there is no contradiction between the bible and the Quoran (because of course, there is!), so that should be a problem! Islam claims Jesus as a prophet and, and so what he taught (recorded by his followers, again 200 YEARS BEFORE MOHAMMAD) should match what the Quoran teaches. It clearly does not. Then you say *I* know nothing! Ha!

If you're going to keep making silly dishonest arguments like this, I'm really not interested in contenueing.

"Lol look at you. If this and if that. Most likely this and that. Can you please provide me hard evidence? You keep assuming. That’s desperation bro. You know I can probably refute every claim of yours with verses of the Quran:"
Hard evidence? Again, you're not underwtanding what I'm saying (or intentionally misrepresenting me) No, I'm saying you're the one making the assumptions. It has nothing to do with presenting hard evidence, there is nothing to show hard evidence of, it's already there. I'm sayig YOU are the one ASSUMING that when I say Mohammad gives license to wage war "perpetually" this must mean I'm saying contenously and consequitively. If I meant that, then yes, this verse wouldn't make any sense for what I'm saying, but I'm not saying this, thus this verse cannot be used as defense. THIS IS BASIC LOGIC. If you can't understand this, then I really don't think I'm interested in contenoung.

Your last paragraph is nonsense. So the Ebionites would be the ones teaching the "real" version of Christianity (but then, why isn't their version in the bible?) closer to the Quoran, except you're not willing to even say it definitly? It's disputed and debated? Which scholar? Which sects of Christianity accept the teachings of Ebionites? Which reject the teachings of Paul? Here, I'll help you. It's recorded in our scriptures that the original desciples ACCEPTED Paul! (yet you say *I* know nothing!) We have scriptures form around 200 years BEFORE MOHAMMAD was born and a VAST MAJORITY accept this version, and include Paul's teachings as IN LINE with that of Christs, and not the Ebionite version, so thus logically it would make FAR more sense to see this as the original doctrines. You are now making things up about Christianity in order to defend your beliefs! I hope that sinks in.

What does the OT have anything to do with it? (another red herring argument). The Quoran wasn't revealed between the OT NT, but AFTER THE GOSPEL. I notice you're not willing to say there is no contradiction between the bible and the Quoran (because of course, there is!), so that should be a problem! Islam claims Jesus as a prophet and, and so what he taught (recorded by his followers, again 200 YEARS BEFORE MOHAMMAD) should match what the Quoran teaches. It clearly does not. Then you say *I* know nothing! Ha! So it's wrong when I misrepresent the Quoran, but is it alright when you do it to the Bible? Also, telling me *I* am biased (and "diseased") when you misrepresent Christianity is all the more hypocritical!

If you're going to keep making silly dishonest arguments like this, I'm really not interested in continuing.

Foolster41 said...

Also, if Islam is so peaceful, then maybe instead of telling US, you should tell your muslims brothers. There was a startling study on US mosques that shows that:

"A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshiper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises." the only reason there are "Islamaphobes" like Robert Spencer, Pamella Geller, David Woods etc. is because of concern of the actions by YOUR CO-religionists who are killing and subjegating in the name of Allah, quoting the Quoran and Hadiths. it is not just because of some blind hatred or ignorance, but because of a genuine concern of the actions by your co-coreligionists that are too many (over 11,000 attacks in the last 11 years) and destructive (100,000+ dead in the last 11 years) to merely dismiss! If they are wrong, then you should show THEM! You probably will be able to find at least one radical mosque in your area. There are a few on the East seaboard that are pretty well known, if you live around there (I could even look up the names for you if you do). I also highly recommend the book "Muslim Mafia" by Chris Gaubatz who went undercover in the unindicted co-conspirator in the holy land foundation and brotherhood linked origination CAIR.

I genuinely wish you success in this endeavor. Tell us all how it goes!

Foolster41 said...

(Sorry, I think i accidently copied over the same text in two posts.)

Also your example from Mark 9 is ridiculous. Of course the verse talks about at worst maiming oneself (rather than ever a command to harm another, which Jesus never did*). There is no way this verse taking this out of context of allogories and parables compares to the verses that are supposed to be taken out of context by Mohamamd who said to convert, subdue with a tax or kill the non-beleiver whereever they are found (Q 9:29). This is my point. Any supposed words Jesus used that sound violent can be easily dismissed by the IMMEDIATE context before and after. There are no ambiguous cases of Jesus talking of slaying non-believers, and then 17 verses later or earlier saying that it should only be in self-defense. So, saying you can do the same thing with the words of Christ is wrong.

*No, don't even bother quoting Luke 19:27, because the IMMEDIATE context (i.e. the verses DIRECTLY before show it is the words of a king in a parable)

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Foolster41 said...

So now Tabiri and Ibn Ishaq are not good schoalrs? So then, which sources would you accept?

"You make it look like I'm talking silly ". Well, you ARE talking silly. I've pointed out a few times when you've made factually faulty logicaly statements (attacking what we "would have said", outright making thing up about Christianity, attacking sources because they are "anti-muslim" (i.e. non-muslim), etc.) And the fact that not ONCE have you admited you made any mistake (you even talked about talking about Mary "solo" as if there is anything left to talk about without actual solid evidence she was 12, which you do not present).

Your reasoning for Mohammad raiding the Meccans isn't convincing. If they were just trying to get their stuff back, then how does that justify killing, as Mohammad did? Is there any refrences in the Quoran or hadiths to Mohammad taking back what is his, or saying something about reclaiming stolen property? If so, where?

Your talk of what Jesus WOULD have done is nothing but speculation. What sources about Jesus do you have that indicate he would have done so? Is there a story in the bible where he says to take back property? It seems you are projecting Mohammad's weakness onto Jesus to me. Are you saying Jesus' teachings to "turn the other cheek" are to only go so far? How is this explained in scripture? Again, it looks like you're making things up.

RE: "pass away". You're taking this verse out of context! Jesus summerized the law perfectly: "Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind". He wasn't talking about the old tesatiment laws that were given to the nation of Isreal at the time, but primarily the 10 commandments. You're taking what I'm saying too literally (though maybe I wasn't clear). I never said it had to be the only the verse right before or after, but my point was the quoranic verse lists who should be killed, converted or subjegated (the non-beleiver) and there is no near by verse that explains that it is only the ATTACKING non-believer. You're not going to find anything like this in the New Testiment, because it is written CLEARLY. Surely you see the THREE verses you have to read to explain this verse is very different than the 17 you have to go back to explain 9:29 (since, I've already explained why 9:24 is not really a good explination).

RE: Luke 19:27. That's good. Some less scruppulous Muslim apollogists have.

What did Jesus teach that Mohammad didn't?! Name just one?! Wow. (And you wonder why I'm acting like you're silly!) How about Jesus taught to love one's enemies and pray for them? Here are more: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Jesus-Muhammad.htm

So could you provide the clearifying hadith that shows that the Jews will be the ones who will attack Muslims?

"Trying" is the operative word. You still havn't shown how early Chrisitanity was in line with Islam. You didn't present A SHRED OF PROOF! You made a weak refrence (which even you don't sound convinced) to the Ebionites, but don't show how this could be, or explain how the scriptures that we USE TODAY which (AGAIN) predate Mohammad by 200 years could be any different than the one he has. You threw out a weak statement about whether or not Paul was accepted by the early Christians or a major reformer. The eye witnesses of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all claim Jesus rose from the dead, and claimed the power to forgive sins, so to say Paul made this up, or "deified" Christ, or "made up" salvation is nonsense! Unless you're saying Paul doctored the accoiunts, but they STILL PREDATE MOHAMAMD, so it's still a problem, since the Chrisitans at Mohammad's time would have accepted these documents! .... Look, this is why I think you're talking nonsense. I'm just pointing out how you don't provide any proof for what you are saying.

Foolster41 said...

(Cont'd)

You don't show how Paul's teacing is any different than the gospels, nor do you tell me how many of the early Chrisitans (including, most importantly, the disciples) were Ebionites, nor do you show which shcoalrs are "disputing" this teaching! You just expect me to accept that somehow Christianity today (which existed 200 years before Mohammad - gee,this is getitng tiring saying it!) is somehow different than in Mohammad's time, and there is some major force in Christianity that disputes Paul!

Then you have the GALL to tell me *I* know nothing! And act like this is perfectly Normal to do... Except you chide me for using the wrong scholars in the Quoran! You can't see how HYPOCRITICAL this is?!
Seriously, this is getting annoying, and I'm just about ready to say let's leave it at this. You seriously need to examine whart you say and present FACTS to back up what you say!


Ok, that's nice, but you're just brushing aside what I said. Then why not explain to them why they are wrong? I was only pointing out, the only reason I'm an "Islamaphobe" is because of the concern of radical muslims (even some in the US!) who want to kill me, or take away my freedoms. If they were no longer "misunderstanding" Islam (as you say), then there would be no problem! are you saying you are unwilling to do this? Why?

Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jamal Hassan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bob said...

The Law and the Prophets

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind [Deuteronomy 6:5].'
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself [Leviticus 19:18].'

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Mat 22:36-40

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Mat 7:12

The problem with the Koran is that it has bits and pieces of the Law and the Gospel mixed together in confusion.

It has things plagiarized from the Old Testament which were specifically related to the old covenant between God and Israel only, and had nothing to do with Gentiles.
The old covenant was replaced with the new covenant when Christ died and was resurrected. The new covenant is for all people as confirmed by Jesus (God was manifested in the flesh. 1Tim 3:16) in the above verses in Mathew.
Obeying these commands Mathew is the fullfilment of the Law and the Prophets.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 309   Newer› Newest»