HT: David Wood at www.answeringMuslims.com. Others are embedding this also, I have noticed. It seemed good to me also to spread the word here.
Since by God's Providence this seems to be "Islam week"; here is another post on Islam, an excellent presentation by a former Muslim.
A good example of communication with Muslims from within their own worldview.
"Istaqfr'allah" استغفر الله = "I seek the forgiveness of God"; Iranians use it to say, "God forbid!" or "May God forgive you!"
In the first videos, notice the difference between "lafz" لفظ (word) and "Ma'ani" معنی (meaning). We have the Arabic word "lafz" لفظ in Farsi also, which indicates the "word" or text (متن = matn) has not been changed. And we have the word "ma'ani" معنی also in Farsi which means "meaning". Some Christians and Jews changed the "meanings" of the text/word, by their wrong oral interpretations ("with their tongues" - Qur'an 3:78) but the text has not been changed or corrupted or lost.
He uses the exact same main verses that I would use to show that the Qur'an does not say that the text of the Bible was corrupted. (Surah Al Ma'ida 5:47; 5:68; Yunus 10:94; 10:64 - "There is not changing the words of Allah")
Here he quotes a lot of famous and early Muslims, to confirm this truth. Ibn Abbas, the cousin and one of the companions of Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, Imam Al Razi, Al Tabari (the historian of Islam), even Ibn Taymiyya. He says that the idea that the Bible was corrupt was started by Ibn Khazem (died in 1064 AD), which is way after the foundational period of Islam.
Posts
224 comments:
1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»all these claims have already been ably refuted:
Refuting The Argument Regarding The Qur'an Being A Confirmation Of The Bible
by
Bassam Zawadi
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_being_a_confirmation_of_the_bible
Does Islam Endorse The Bible?
masses of evidence to endorse the Muslim view here:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
The Bible Confirms the Quran
By Sami Zaatari
http://muslim-responses.com/The_Bible_Confirms_the_Quran/The_Bible_Confirms_the_Quran_
I have read all three of those articles before and they do not refute the fact that the Qur'an confirms the Bible.
But thanks for the links so others can read and see the failure of the arguments of Muslims.
Hmm...
thats very odd Ken, you have confessed before that you do not understand Arabic yet you claim to have read all these articles many of which contain quotes in Arabic!
There aren't "three articles" as you claim but three *links*, & one of them is a link to 22 articles! There is no such article entitled 'Does Islam Endorse The Bible?' - its the heading for the 22 articles!
Caught you out there Ken! You are telling lies!
And i thought you had some integrity...
Time to be honest don't you think?
Ken, all of Zawadi's lies and distortions of the facts have been thoroughly refuted and exposed in the following articles and rebuttals:
How does Islam view the Bible? (http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/index.html)
he incorruptibility of Allah’s words and the charge of Biblical corruption
(http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/word_incorruptible.html)
The Point Still Remains – The Quran Affirms That God’s Revealed Words Cannot Be Changed! (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/gods_words_unchangable.html)
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/gods_words_unchangable_r1.html
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/gods_words_unchangable_r2.html
The Quran’s View of the Holy Bible Revisited Pt. 1 (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/quran_on_bible1.html)
The Quran’s View of the Holy Bible Revisited Pt. 2 (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/quran_on_bible2.html)
Muhammad and His Prophethood Part 2 (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mo-false2.html)
The fact that Williams is posting material that has been thoroughly refuted further tells me he is not interested in the truth.
Hi Ken,
Interesting videos; the video quality is exceptional, and the content quite stimulating. I went to the website that uploadeded the videos (http://www.unchangingword.com/), and found a wealth of information. I particularly found the articles on crucifixion of Jesus to be very useful:
Did Jesus Die on the Cross?
Professor Faouzi Arzouni in the articles linked to above (and the related YouTube videos) affirms what I have been saying for years now, namely, that the Qur'an does not deny Jesus' crucifixion and death.
I find it more than a bit interesting that you rejected my conclusion on this matter, and numerous assessments from others (see links listed at the end of this post), that I have provided on this issue, and I am now wondering if you did so because it came from me, or on the objective evidence?
QUESTION: DO you think Dr. Arzouni has 'got it wrong' too?
Grace and peace,
David
Links to threads on the crucifixion and death of Jesus:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/recent-interest-in-surah-4157.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/dr-todd-lawsons-stimulating-lecture.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-quran-deny-crucifixion-and.html
Sam, are you not remotely interested in the fact that your 'brother' has been caught out in a lie? In fact, two lies? Does this not concern you?
This is to Paul. First, I don't know what you could be referring to. Secondly, are you equally concerned with all the lies and distortions which I have caught your ikhwaan like Zawadi and Zaatari? For the details, check these out:
Exposing Zawadi’s Deliberate Lies and Deception (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_of_meccans.html)
Postscript To Zawadi's Lies And Deception (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_of_meccans_ps.html)
More of Zawadi’s Inconsistency and Dishonesty Exposed (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/pulliam.html)
Allah - More Human Than Divine! (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_shakhs.html)
Muhammad and His Prophethood Part 3 (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mo-false3.html)
Sorry Paul,
I did not look at the second link of 22 articles, because I thought it was the another link that is within the first article by Basam Zawadi (those 2, I did read before; as well as Sami Zaatari's article.)
and I admit I don't read the Arabic included within the articles, (most is transliterated, if I recall) but I do recognize whatever words there are that we have in Farsi. (Farsi has about 40 % of it from Arabic and is in the same basic script, with some minor changes to be letters representing sounds that Arabic does not have, for example, "P" sound has three dots on bottom. (like a "B" in Arabic with 2 more dots.)
I confess I have not read all of the ones at the 22 article resource. (the middle one you sent)
I sincerely thought that the second link a was this article (that admittedly, also does include lots of other links) - no, I have not read all of those.
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures
I apologize for not looking at them carefully; but I did not mean to lie.
I was sloppy and hurried and did not look at your second link carefully and I did not bother to click on it or go to it; and that was indeed a mistake on my part.
Sincere apologies!
Thanks David Waltz,
I have not had time yet to view those on the crucifixion, and when I do; I can then speak intelligently to that issue.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Ken
apology accepted.
Ken, you seem to be a decent sort of chap - so here is a friendly warning, your new friend Sam is well known in Christian and muslim circles for his acute mental instability and foul mouth. He has lost many good friends because of this. For your own sake be very careful who you hook up with. As the Bible says: Bad Company Corrupts Good Morals.
This warning is not intended to be a partisan jibe, but a sincere bit of advise.
In the first article by Bassam Zawadi, after this statement,
He also says elsewhere in another article...
Is a large white square with nothing it it. Apparently it is Arabic and does not come out on my commuter screen for some reason.
The other Arabic in the articles is a bunch of symbols.
I confess I am not that good at computer issues, and need to do some kind of "unicode" thing, in order to get the Arabic to come out.
But, when I can see the Arabic, I can tell the words that we have in Farsi; and there are also some other words that I recognize because of the similarity to Hebrew, which I did take one year of in seminary.
Like "min" من which means "from", similar to the Hebrew מנ
You see Ken what happens when these Muslim can't refute you? They start lying and slandering your character and whine when you give them a taste of their own medicine! Here is an article where I post the emails of some of Paul Williams' partners in crime, using the filthiest language and even threatening to physical harm their fellow Muslims:
Setting the Record Straight: Who is guilty of insulting whom? (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm)
Now since Williams couldn't resist exposing his true colors, let me quote the words of his prophet and the companions who used some of the nastiest language imaginable:
"Ubayy b. Ka‘b told that he heard God’s messenger say, 'If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, TELL HIM TO BITE HIS FATHER'S PENIS, AND DO NOT USE A EUPHEMISM.' It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna." (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV – General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021; bold and capital emphasis ours)
{Sidenote: Sarah is a misspelling for Sharh, so that it should have read Sharh as-sunna.}.
And:
... Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “GO SUCK THE CLITORIS OF AL-LAT!” – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship – “Would we flee and leave him?” … (The History of al-Tabari – The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76)
Finally:
And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to 'Urwah: "Suck Al-Lat's clitoris!"[2] – there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: "Bite your father's penis!"[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma'ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383: http://books.google.com/books?id=8JRzr6mC55IC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false; words within brackets ours)
[3] Narrated by Ahmad, on the authority of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b. (Ibid.)
So now Williams, do you condemn Muhammad for telling people to suck their father's penises and also Abu Bakr for telling someone to suck the clit of al-Lat?
My advise to you Paul, practice what you preach and stay away from Muhammad and his followers since they are the same folks who have soiled your name by accusing you and your roommate of having the sinful proclivities of ahlul Lut.
I understand Ken, but with respect it does not make you competent to evaluate a translation of the Quran. For example, I recognise certain words in Spanish - they resemble some French words and the alphabet is the same, but I could not translate the Spanish Bible into French (or English).
Furthermore a lot depends on ones translation methodology: literal; paraphrase; or general meaning. We see this sort of thing with the Bible, from very wooden literal translations such as the KJV through paraphrases like the NLT to an attempt to convey the meaning in such versions as The Message.
So when we evaluate an English version of the Quran the first question we need to ask is: which methodology is the translator adopting in his work?
Correction. "to suck their father's penises" should have been "to bite their father's penises."
Paul, you have been making my case for me all day long, and all year long to be quite frank. Now instead of avoiding my arguments, why don't YOU lie down, mediate on Muhammad' filthy, vulgar mouth, and all the emails I posted showing where your brothers are using f bombs on each other, and threatening to physically maim each other, and tell yourself why you are still following such a wicked religion. Why are you not an agnostic?
Your inconsistency is becoming repulsive to be quite honest. But that is to be expected in light of who you follow.
Now step wasting our time and do something more productive with your time.
I have learned Farsi fluently, and all the meanings I have learned from Farsi, so far, have the same meaning in Arabic, that I have researched, with some different nuances in a few cases. But the spiritual Islamic words mean the same thing.
Of course, I don't profess to know Arabic syntax etc.
But I do have a Qur'an in Arabic and Farsi like the Arabic English ones, and I can read it and understand it.
I think that Muhammad Asad took liberties with Surah 5:47 and gave a theological interpretation rather than a translation.
Sorry for all the typos. Not intentional.
Sam, your last posts make my case for me.
Why don't you lie down and have a rest for a while?
Hahahaha! That's all you can say in response to your and your fellow ikhwaan's blatant inconsistencies and lies? Ok Paul, whatever you say. You have made believers out of us.
Anyway, back to finishing my rebuttals to your arguments.
'I think that Muhammad Asad took liberties with Surah 5:47 and gave a theological interpretation rather than a translation"
Ken, I have asked Arabic speakers if Asad's text is a faithful interpretation of the Quranic Arabic and they say it is. Personally I would not trust Sam's views - they are so infused with hatred and foul language (as his posts on this page demonstrate) that I would want to consult more moderate and educated folk first.
Ken, Asad took great liberties with Q. 5:48. I have documented from classical Muslim scholars what saddaqa and muhaimin mean, especially in its immediate context.
Personally, I wouldn't trust anything that Williams is trying to sell you since he is clearly an Islamic fundamentlist blinded by his devotion to his particular beliefs. However, since he is trying to sell Asad to you, does that mean Williams also accepts Asad's statements that the Quran contains myths and legends?
BTW Ken, Nabeel Qureshi did a beautiful job in his debate with Williams since he took Williams to task for applying the results of his critical scholars inconsistently. Nabeel did a masterful job of highlighting the fact that if Williams were to consistently and honestly apply the very same criteria to Islam which he applied to Christianity he would end up destroying the credibility of Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrLOTf3-IYU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDwpQCEprSk
Like I said, you need to be careful with accepting whatever Williams has to sell you since we have seen that he is grossly inconsistent and who has no shame in hypocritically following a prophet who told people to go and bite their fathers' penis, and whose companions told the polytheists to "suck the clitoris" of one of their goddesses, even though he tried to dissuade you from listening to me by false accusing me of being foul mouth.
Anyway Ken, i am back to finishing some rebuttals to Williams and his brethren. Lord willing, I will be sending you the quotes from James Barr in a day or two.
Lord bless you brother.
Sami your foul mouth and hateful comments betray the true nature of your heart. Though I strongly disagree with Ken much of the time, he is able to express his views without descending into the gutter. You could learn much from his language & conduct when he posts.
Paul,
It is not just Sam's view of Surah 5:47, but all the other English translations that I cited also show this. (against Asad's "translation")
And Sam makes a good point about the comments in Asad's translation and notes that constantly talk about myths, legends, parabolic meaning, etc.
Ken you need to know what the translation methodology for Asad is. Just comparing it to other translations is not definitive. Also one must know Arabic. Sam is too adversarial to be an objective witness here as i'm sure you have noticed.
Do you have any arabic speaking friends who could help? It might be best to avoid speaking to guys who have an ideological ax to grind though!
As I said, the arabic speaking folk I have spoken to do not see there is a problem at all...
Paul, stop with your pathetic attempt of appealing to emotion since IT AIN'T WORKING. You are doing nothing more than lying through your teeth since I have been nothing but kind to you... until now because of your attack on my person. It is you who have been attacking me, thereby exposing your true motives. I can't say I blame you since you can't be any better than your prophet who didn't hesitate to curse and abuse people, even those close to him.
So now stop with your silly, childish games, and try to at least pretend to be somewhat consistent.
To end this discussion, let me repeat the point that you conveniently evaded to address. I will even post it in caps.
DO YOU CONDEMN MUHAMMAD WHO TOLD PEOPLE TO BITE THE PENIS OF THEIR FATHERS'? DO YOU ALSO CONDEMN ABU BAKR FOR TELLING A DISBELIEVER TO SUCK THE CLITORIS OF AL-LAT? IF NOT THEN WHY NOT?
Brother Ken,
As you can see Williams is desperately trying to discredit me because he knows he can;'t refute my arguments and therefore has chosen to poison the well, since that is all he can do. Maybe you can encourage him to focus on the real issues instead of attacking me personally since it only exposes the venom and fear in his heart.
Thank you brother.
Sams arguments have been decisively refuted many times. So there is no need for me to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.
Here are some of the rebuttals for readers who may be interested:
'Refuting Sam Shamoun'
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_sam_shamoun
There he goes again. Here are the links to the rebuttals which directly respond to and refute Zawadi's deceptions and distortions:
Rebuttals to Bassam Zawadi (http://answering-islam.org/rebuttals/zawadi.html)
Responses to Bassam Zawadi (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/index.htm#zawadi)
Williams, instead of pretending that your sources haven't been refuted over and over again, it is time for you to come to grips with reality and accept the fact that there is no good evidence for Islam, and that all the evidence (including your own criteria which you use to attack Christianity), decisively proves that Muhammad was a false prophet.
Time for you to wake up to the truth.
Notice Ken, that Williams once again failed to condemn his prophet and the sahaba for using filthy, vile, abusive language. Williams' inconsistency is truly amazing, as well as disturbing.
I am happy to let the readers of this page (if there are any!) decide who is more credible.
"filthy, vile, abusive language. Williams' inconsistency is truly amazing, as well as disturbing."
pots and kettles my dear man...
Paul, are you deliberately doing this? Or are you so affected by your Islamic fundamentalism that you really can't see that I am using YOUR OWN WORDS AND CRITERION against your own sources? Do I need to repost your slander and insults of my person? Do I need to quote you accusing me of being foul-mouthed? I guess I do:
Ken, you seem to be a decent sort of chap - so here is a friendly warning, your new friend Sam is well known in Christian and muslim circles for his acute MENTAL INSTABILITY AND FOUL MOUTH. He has lost many good friends because of this. For your own sake be very careful who you hook up with. As the Bible says: Bad Company Corrupts Good Morals.
This warning is not intended to be a partisan jibe, but a sincere bit of advise.
4:20 PM, January 25, 2012
In light of this, what can be more foul-mothed and filthy than a so-called prophet telling people to go and bite their fathers' penises? What can be more filthy than a so-called rightly guided caliph telling someone to suck the clit of a goddess?
Now to expose your lies name the good friends that I lost for acting like your prophet.
I have to say, you are every bit as repulsive as the other Muslims you associate with. But I am glad that your truly colors have come out since couldn't hide your venom and hate of Christianity for too long.
Yes, let the readers to see just how inconsistent and dishonest you really are.
Sam, you are obsessed with penises and women's private parts.
Seeing there is no point in replying any longer to you Sam, as it just feeds into whatever psychological neurosis you obviously suffer from,
I just wish you good mental health!
Paul
Ken, I think you may need to consider banning Paul for his lies and slander since he is getting to be quite ridiculous. Notice how he just condemned me for quoting what his prophet and Abu Bakr said to people. Yet in condemning me for quoting his own sources Williams has basically condemned Muhammad and his followers and indirectly accused them of being fascinated with penises and women's private parts and of being unstable!
So thank Williams for implicitly admitting that the foul language used by his prophet and the first caliph proves that they are mentally unstable!
Now this is my challenge to Williams. Instead of running your mouth off here, are up to debating me on the following topics?
Was Muhammad a true Prophet?
Is Jesus Christ God Incarnate According to the Gospels?
If yes, I will have the Center For Religious Debate (http://www.thecenterforreligiousdebate.com/) contact you so we can arrange something for the near future.
No Sam. I can't think I would ever want to debate you. We at MDI expect certain standards of etiquette and scholarly discourse. I fear you do not qualify to be on one of our platforms.
Additionally, I would not wish to your exacerbate your mental health issues: it would not be a kind or appropriate thing to do.
sorry
Paul
Wow, Paul Williams, the most well spoken man in apologetics a 'blind fundamentalist'?!?! That's news to us in England. Hold the presses boys!
I think everything you have said Paul is perfectly cogent and in line with classical Islam, much as missionaries may dislike it. Please stay true to your worthy etiquettes and rise above their petty insults.
Also, why is this 'Sam' guy so obsessed with penises? He keeps going on about them!
Are you like some kind of schoolboy who goes through Shakespeare looking for the dirty bits?
Cold shower perhaps?
Hmmm...banning, censorship, not a very open way to discuss things Sam dear.
Oh, by the way, you mistranslated that penis hadith thing (giggle!) but let's keep that between us.
Also, your kind 'correction', but still mistranslated:
"to suck their father's penises" should have been "to bite their father's penises.".
Was that a 'Freudian slip'Sam?
But my advice is don't get too fixated on sucking penises and stuff, I heard it's bad for your oral hygiene. A dentist told me.
Here we go with the taqiyyists. First, those are not my translations but the translations by Muslims. I understand you have a hard time reading what is written before your eyes, but let's try it again, this time putting it in caps so you don't miss it:
And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to 'Urwah: "Suck Al-Lat's clitoris!"[2] – THERE IS A PERMISSIBILITY OF SPEAKING PLAINLY THE NAME OF PRIVATE PARTS IF THERE IS SOME BENEFIT TO BE GAINED THEREBY, AS HE [Muhammad] PERMITTED A PLAIN RESPINSE TO THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIMS OF THE JAHILIYYAH (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), BY SAYING: "BITE TO YOUR FATHER'S PENIS!"[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma'ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383: http://books.google.com/books?id=8JRzr6mC55IC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false; words within brackets ours)
And the only slip is that which is caused by reading this filth which you call sacred. But hey, let's try to hide this garbage in order to mislead non-Muslims into thinking Muhammad was a holy example for all to follow. :-)
And since you have a problem with censorship then surely you must have a problem with your prophet censoring poets who wrote poetry exposing his evil by having them murdered:
Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society The assassinations of satirical poets in early Islam (http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm)
The Death of Asma and Abu Afak Examining the Historical Basis for these Murders (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/asma_afak1.htm)
The Death of Asma and Abu Afak: Does the Quran Prohibit the Killing of Mockers? (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/asma_afak2.htm)
Oops, there goes another slip on my part which exposes just how merciful and compassionate Muhammad truly was. Now weren't we supposed to hide Muhammad's murder sprees in order to silence his critics from unsuspecting Westerners?
And I do want to thank you for helping Williams in exposing and condemning your prophet since your arguments and claims can be used more forcefully against Muhammad and his not so rightly guided caliphs.
Anyway, back to writing more articles exposing Islam and the followers of Muhammad.
Williams, no ne is buying your lame excuse for not debating me. if your standards at MDI were really that high then neither you nor Zaatari would be part of the team since you guys are disgraceful. Should I post some of the emails from your colleague for all to read? Face it, you know better than to debate me since you know I won't let you get away with your lies and inconsistencies.
Moreover, since you won't bother debating me then that means you bother posting any more replies to me. After all, if I am worth the effort to write written responses to then surely that means I am also worth the effort to engage in public debate. So I really hope you do come out with a written reply so I can take your words hear and expose more of your lies and excuses for not debating me.
Anyway, keep attacking me personally while pretending to be of sound mind and health. That's what delusional people are known to do. And I really don't like to attack mentally disturbed people so I will leave you to your lies and fantasies.
Brother Ken, I apologize that these Muslims have come here doing what they do best, namely, assassinate people's characters in the name that it is morally wrong for people like me to assassinate people's characters, even though I didn't attack anyone but simply gave Williams a taste of his own medicine, which he didn't like too much.
I don't need to warn you about being careful of these dawagandists since you know to whom they belong and are therefore aware of the schemes and hate that lies within their unregenerate hearts.
Lord bless you brother.
Surah 4:157
Sahih International
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
David Waltz -
I finally got some time to look at the videos on the crucifixion and the article you pointed to.
I remain unconvinced. The part that is clear is "they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him" and at the end it is repeated, "for certain, they did not kill him".
To make the argument that the Qur'an does not deny the crucifixion based the fact that the Jews didn't do the physical nailing of his hands, and feet, rather the Romans did; seems really playing with the text.
Especially when the Bible clearly says several times that the Jews did crucify Jesus - meaning their plots and demanding and manipulating Pontius Pilate to command the deed - the Jewish leaders of that day are held responsible by the Scriptures.
Acts 2:22 - 23
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
Acts 2:36
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
I Thessalonians 2:14-16
For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!
Granted, Surah 4:157 seems to contradict Surah 19:33 and 3:55.
If the emphasis in 4:157 was that the Jews didn't kill Jesus, but the Romans actually did = the text would have said something to that fact. The emphasis is not on the fact that Jews didn't carry out the nailing etc. but they he was not killed nor crucified at all, but it appeared to them ( Shabehe lahom شبه لهم ) as if they did crucify him and Allah took him to himself.
that it was God's plan was also obvious Biblically (see Acts 2:22-23 again) , but I just don't by this method of playing with the text by finding another verse that says something about God really doing the deed that men think they are doing.
So, Dr. Arzouni was right about the Qur'an confirming and affirming the Bible, but I think he is wrong about the crucifixion and the Qur'an. All of the videos about what the Bible says about the crucifixion were excellent; but the one about what the Qur'an says and means is just seems to be wishful thinking and lots of effort to try and "save" the Qur'an from embarrassment over the fact that it really does deny true and real and evidential history.
David,
By the way, what you have been saying for years about Surah 4:157 is not new to me as if you were the only one with the Lawson and other scholars you cited.
Lots of "C-5" contextualization- missions types/ "Insider's Movement" / common ground teachers have been saying the same thing for a long time. I first heard the argument you are making back in 1986, a long time before internet and long time before interacting with you at your blog.
Just Google C-5 contextualization and "insider's Movement" and you should get up to speed on that, if you want.
Also, if 4:157 was meant to be taken the way you and others are trying to take it; it would have said something like,
"The Jews didn't actually physically drive the nails into Jesus' hands and feet, but the Romans did do that by the instigation of the Jews, and Jesus Al Masih really was crucified and He truly died.
Rather than, "they did not kill him nor crucify him . . . for sure they did not kill him.
The contradiction with 3:55 and 19:33 just proves the Qur'an is not inspired by God; it was a purely human book, cobbled together without context or flow or logic of order. The verses are randomly connected or disconnected.
http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/23_3_PDFs/Tennent.pdf
This is one of the best articles that demonstrates why the C-5 level of contextualization or also called "Insider's Movement" is wrong and unbiblical.
by Professor Timothy Tennent
http://notalwaysacting.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/parshall_going_too_far.pdf
Phil Parshall also has a good article here as to why the C-5 level of contextualization is wrong.
He is a veteran missionary who has ministered to Muslims for many years.
"John Travis" was the one who came up with the C-1 to C-6 scale as a tool to describe different levels of contextualized ministry.
The book (that has those two very shocking and dirty quotes from Muhammad and Abu Bakr, and written and published from Muslims) that Sam linked to
- do Muslims accept those things as true?
Are they Sahih صحیح (correct/sound) or Hasan حسن (good) or Zaif / Daif ضعیف (weak) Hadith?
The emails that Sam recorded from Sami Zaatari and Osama Abdullah and Jalall Abual Rub and Nadir Ahmad - well, all of that just does not speak well of them.
I am honestly not interested in that "dirty stuff" and anger and the personal history between you guys; because re-hashing that stuff will just get the other side more angry and walls up and nothing is accomplished positive for the kingdom of God by focusing on this kind of stuff.
I agree with Dr. White that too much focus on issues like Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was 9 is honestly not a really worth-while argument to go after against Islam and Muslims. It just inflames passions and good evangelism doesn't take place.
So, lets stop talking about that sexual and dirty stuff and get back to the subject of the post.
I appreciate Paul's apologies (re; racist and lying) and other positive statements, and that, it seems to me, he usually does stick to the subject with me.
Although I don't appreciate Paul's attitude of superiority that scholars like Ehrman and Dunn and E. P. Sanders are the real scholars, but conservative scholars like D. A. Carson, Darrell Bock, James White, Dan Wallace, Andreas Kostenberger are not real scholars, in his opinion.
I have found in 27 years of ministry with Muslims one on one and in groups eating food with them and interacting with them, that when I get angry (and I have become angry before); and then when I genuinely apologize and ask for forgiveness for my anger or impatience or arrogance; everything goes much smoother and it is a good testimony and God uses that to soften them to the truth of the gospel.
In these 27 years, I have seen many Iranians turn from Islam to Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord and one Tunisian man and met other Kurds, Turks, and other Arabs who have turned to Christ from Islam. (that came to Christ not through my ministry but by others).
They all testify of the power of the Holy Spirit when there was Christian love shown in action and Christian humility and confession of mistakes and sins when we make them.
I agree wholeheartedly Ken, which is why I said that Williams needs to stop with his personal mud slinging at me since, if you go back and reread the posts, he started the attacks by accusing me of being mentally unstable and foul mouthed. I guess he couldn't control his rage after he saw all the links to articles which I posted which refuted the ones which he was trying to sell.
Hopefully, the Muslims here will stick to the topic and avoid the ad hominems and genetic fallacies since this only exposes how weak their position is, and says a lot more about their mental states than anything else.
Ken, to answer your question, those quotes are found in a book by by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, the foremost student of Ibn Taymiyyah, and summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi.
As such, these quotes must have met their approval since they are using it to show that there is a time in which Muslims can use very vulgar and direct language in order to make a point.
Moreover, the statement from Abu Bakr telling the polytheist to suck al-Lat’s nipples is found in the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq, p. 503:
In his narrative al-Zuhri said: Then they sent 'Urwa b. Mas'ud al-Thaqafi to the apostle and he said: 'You men of Quraysh, I have seen the harshness and rude words with which you have received those you sent to Muhammad when they returned to you. You know that you are the father and I am the son—for 'Urwa was the son of Subay'a d. 'Abdu Shams—I heard of what befell you and I collected those of my people who obeyed me; then I came to you to help you.' They agreed and said that they did not suspect him. So he came to the apostle and sat before him and said : 'Muhammad, have you collected a mixed people together and then brought them to your own people to destroy them ? Quraysh have come out with their milch-camels2 clad in leopard skins swearing that you shall never enter Mecca by force. By God I think I see you deserted by these people (here) tomorrow.' Now Abu Bakr was sitting behind the apostle and he said, 'Suck al-Lat's nipples! Should we desert him?' He asked who had spoken, and when he heard it was Ibn Abu Quhafa he said, 'By Allah, did I not owe you a favour I would pay you back for that, but now we are quits.' Then he began to take hold of the apostle's beard as he talked to him. Al-Mughira b. Shu'ba was standing by the apostle's head clad in mail and he began to hit his hand as he held the apostle's beard saying, 'Take your hand away from the apostle's face before you lose it.' 'Urwa said, 'Confound you, how rough and rude you are!' The apostle smiled and when 'Urwa asked who the man was he told him that it was his brother's son, al-Mughira b. Shu'ba and he said, 'O wretch, it was only yesterday that I washed your dirty parts!'
It is also cited by al-Tabari by with a different word, namely, instead of telling the man to suck the goddess’ nipples, al-Tabari cites a version where Abu Bakr says clitoris instead.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that all of these authorities would cite these traditions if they didn't think that they were sound. And if we apply the principle/criterion of embarrassment then this makes it all the more likely that these traditions were deemed to be authentic since who could imagine Muslims making up such speeches and putting them in the mouth of their prophet and the first so-called rightly guided caliph.
I hope this helps.
Wow.
I guess "Rambo John" and "Rehan Ullah" (Muslim commentors over at Paul B. Williams blog) are students of Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, the foremost student of Ibn Taymiyyah.
Hmmm...great deal of mutual back slapping by both Ken and Sam. Also a great deal of assumption about the historicity of the crucifixion accounts and Biblical inerrency. Not very scholarly I must say.
James White as a foremost Bible scholar?!?! I hope you don't mean THE James White of Alpha and Omega ministries?
I see Sam is still obsessed with clitorises (or is it clitorii?) and male private parts, but has failed to provide the original Arabic text or scholarly reference for his Hadith 'scholarship'. Just saying you got it from 'Muslims' does not exonerate of the need for serious research. Tut tut.
As for Asma Afak, she was inciting murder, so she was punished accordingly. Such is life and the law. Your joke is a bit off regarding the 'Dead Poets Society'. Perhaps you haven't seen the film.
I think this is probably why Williams does not want to debate you Sam, your knowledge and scholarship of Islam AND Christianity is very weak. You also seem to do most of your 'research' from tertiary and translated sources.
Oh, I almost forgot! You mentioned Muhammad's 'murder spree'. Maybe he was inspired by the Biblical 'Jesus'' own 'murder sessions' in the OT and Revelations. Or was Jesus not in the Trinity when all those women are being murdered and raped in the OT? Did he join later when a position opened up?
Raskolnikov -
Yes, I think James White of Alpha and Omega is a very good scholar, someone whom I have greatly benefitted from and been challenged to learn more.
I wish that I had had him for my Professor for textual critical issues and apologetics when I was in seminary.
Raskolnikov -
Abdullah Kunde even agrees and I noticed he listens respectfully and has been in the chat channel being very respectful and asking questions as Dr. White is responding to Wajdi Akkari on the Dividing Line web cast. (Radio Free Damascus) recently.
Sam wrote:
Nabeel Qureshi did a beautiful job in his debate with Williams since he took Williams to task for applying the results of his critical scholars inconsistently. Nabeel did a masterful job of highlighting the fact that if Williams were to consistently and honestly apply the very same criteria to Islam which he applied to Christianity he would end up destroying the credibility of Islam:
Yes, I watched that a couple of years ago (?); but I don't remember everything; so I am trying to watch it again.
I wish that the you tube videos were broken up into smaller segments - like 30 minutes each. As I recall, my internet connection had trouble getting through the entire debate and then I gave up out of frustration at looking at the "re-buffering" spinning thing so much.
But I always thoroughly enjoy Nabil Qureshi's presentations and his spirit and the way he conducts himself - he is a good model; and he was really good in Dearborn and handled well the obnoxious other Muslims who cursed and said nasty words at him (they are also students of Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah; it seems.
Raskolnikov said...
I will let it slide this time, but I do not allow any bashing of James White on this blog.
The bashing of our mutual friend Dr. White is one thing, but Raskolnikov's accusations of murder against God amount to blasphemy.
-TurretinFan
I finally had time to watch and listen to the "converts debate" again, between Nabil Qureshi and Paul Bilal Williams. (that Sam linked to above)
The sound quality was not great, but I got most of it; I think.
Yes, I thought Nabil Qureshi did an excellent job, and he pointed out a lot of the ad hominem arrogant attitude that Paul W. has that if one has not deeply mastered half liberal scholars like James D. G. Dunn and Raymond Brown (who he called "conservative" - but most orthodox RCs call him liberal.); then we are just inferior or simpletons, etc.
The bottom line, it seems to me is that Paul says the reason why he went to Islam is because it is simple and easy to understand.
That shows me that Islam is a man-made religion.
C. S. Lewis famously wrote:
“If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple is he has no facts to bother about.”
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 145. (MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc. New York, 1943, 1945, 1952. (Originally in Beyond Personality: The Christian Idea of God, 1944, p. 19)
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/08/man-made-religion-tries-to-make-god.html
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for responding; you posted:
==By the way, what you have been saying for years about Surah 4:157 is not new to me as if you were the only one with the Lawson and other scholars you cited.
Lots of "C-5" contextualization- missions types/ "Insider's Movement" / common ground teachers have been saying the same thing for a long time. I first heard the argument you are making back in 1986, a long time before internet and long time before interacting with you at your blog.
Just Google C-5 contextualization and "insider's Movement" and you should get up to speed on that, if you want.==
Me: As a subscriber to Christianity Today for almost 30 years now, I have had some exposure to "C-5 contextualization" and the "insider's Movement" (see the following link for some CT articles - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/search.html?query=C-5).
I personally have never met a "C_5" believer so I have never been privy to someone from that camp arguing for the same position I take on Surah 4.157. Further, I am 99% sure that NONE of the sources I have made reference to are "C_5" believers. But, even if some "C_5" believers have adopted my take on Surah 4.157, it is factually wrong to suggest that the view originated with them, for the view I take has had faithful Muslim defenders throughout the history of Islam, some being quite early.
== Also, if 4:157 was meant to be taken the way you and others are trying to take it; it would have said something like,
"The Jews didn't actually physically drive the nails into Jesus' hands and feet, but the Romans did do that by the instigation of the Jews, and Jesus Al Masih really was crucified and He truly died.
Rather than, "they did not kill him nor crucify him . . . for sure they did not kill him.
The contradiction with 3:55 and 19:33 just proves the Qur'an is not inspired by God; it was a purely human book, cobbled together without context or flow or logic of order. The verses are randomly connected or disconnected.==
Me: As I have noted to you before, I find it a very simple task to harmonize 4.157 with 3.55 and 19.33, and in doing so, I do not think I have done 'violence' to the texts at all.
I have also mentioned to you that atheists who approach the Bible as you do the Qur'an are able to find a number of "disconnected" verses. I am able to harmonize such verses, and I am quite sure that you are able to accomplish the same task; but with that said, I suspect that if you exerted 1/10 of the effort employed in the harmonization of Biblical verses to harmonizing Qur'anic passages, your results would be quite different.
For instance, our Lord in the Gospel of John on more than one occasion stated that those who embrace and believe in/on Him "would never die" (the Greek verb being used, ἀποθάνῃ, pertains to mortal, physical death), but we know for a fact that millions of individuals who have believed on our Lord did die (and will die).
Anyway, forgive me for believing that you are being very inconsistent in this matter.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
I didn't mean that C-5 contextualizers originated this view of Surah 4:157.
The similarity is to try to say that
they did not crucify him" means "they really did crucify him"
and
:'they did not kill him" really means "they did kill him" and
"for sure/certain" ( Yaqin = یقین ) they did not kill him"; really means "for sure they killed him"
It is the goofiest, most illogical bunch of mental gymnastics I have ever heard.
Also I don't mean that C-5 contextualizers teach all the same things that you or Lawson or others teach.
The common thing is to try to save the Qur'an from the embarrassment of having clear historical fact against it.
__________
since you think it is easy to harmonize 3:55 with 4:147, what does 3:54 mean, in context? The context of 3:54 and the deception of Allah to make the Jews think they crucified Jesus, but they really didn't, makes more sense with the traditional and orthodox Sunni and Shiite interpretation.
(52) When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah´s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
(53) "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."
(54) And (the unbelievers) schemed and deceived, and Allah too schemed/deceived/tricked, and the best of deceivers/tricksters is Allah.
[
الله خیر المکارین
مکارین from مکر = deception, trickery, ruse, scheme
خدا بهترین مکر کننده است.
(Farsi - "God is the very best deceiver/schemer/trickster."
مکر (Makr) is trickery, deception, ruse, cunning, trickery and is always used in a negative way. It is same word used in I Peter 2:22 of the Farsi translations that describes Jesus as having NO Deception or guile or trickery in his character and speach. Opposite of the character of Allah of Islam.]
(55) Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
Turretinfan said...
The bashing of our mutual friend Dr. White is one thing, but Raskolnikov's accusations of murder against God amount to blasphemy.
I haven't kept up with all the comments. Ken of course can delete whichever comments he wants to, especially anything blasphemous.
If there's a particular blasphemous comment you think should be stricken, please let me know, and I will most certainly remove it.
this is the statement by Raskolnikov:
"Oh, I almost forgot! You mentioned Muhammad's 'murder spree'. Maybe he was inspired by the Biblical 'Jesus'' own 'murder sessions' in the OT and Revelations. [sic. - he means the book of Revelation, especially chapter 19]} Or was Jesus not in the Trinity when all those women are being murdered and raped in the OT? Did he join later when a position opened up?"
He is basically saying that the God of the OT is too violent and did murder and genocide, [ and allowed rape to happen ] so it could not be the true God, according to him. Along with Revelation 19 when Jesus returns.
he is certainly mocking.
Piper answers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taYhbRm6pnU
Hmmm...
I notice that the protection of 'blasphemy' seems to be reserved for the Christians here. Somewhat convenient, but oh well...
James White is not regarded as an authority on the Bible outside of a narrow milieu of U.S Evangelicals, this does not constitute 'bashing' or a personal attack. James White himself never claimed to be an authority in the league of academic Biblical criticism, as is evidenced by his testimony in his debate with Bart Ehrman. Lets not hijack academia for our own purposes.
As for the 'answer' from Piper, that is irrelevant, for the issue was a comparison of Muhammad's alleged murders against Jesus'lack thereof, a lack not evident in the OT or Revelations, so that has not been addressed. Funny how the 'mocking' is only a problem when it comes from the non - Christian, bit like the 'blasphemy'.
'Ken of course can delete whichever comments he wants to...'
Hmmm...seems a bit arbitrary...
I notice Mr Sam does not seem to be interested in discussing Christian doctrine.
Funny, he had a lot to say to Paul Williams...
Raskolnikov -
It's the book of Revelation.
no s
Raskolnikov
well said.
Jesus, it would seem, commanded the mass slaughter of innocent woman children and even animals (!) in multiple incidents in the OT (see eg 1 Samuel 15).
And then in the book of Revelation (after a brief peaceful interlude in Galilee) Jesus is at it again - slaughtering his enemies!
And Christians have a problem with Islam! It would be funny if it were not so sick...
read all the disturbing biblical evidence here:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
Ken, as you can see Williams' can't help but expose his hate for Jesus and the Bible, even though as a Muhammadan, he is supposed to love Jesus. He is a typical Christophobe.
Here are two of my articles where I address the issue of 1 Samuel 15:
What about God commanding the annihilation of the Amalekites? (http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_amalekites.htm)
Revisiting God’s Command to Kill the Amalekites: Analyzing One Muslim’s Response (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm)
There you will also find how I use William's argument to prove that it is Williams' god and false prophet who justify the murder and annihilation of women and children. So enjoy!
How sick! Sam defends the killing of innocent women and children in 1 Samuel 15!
Then after a brief peaceful interlude in Galilee (!) Jesus is at it again - slaughtering his enemies!
Go on Sam read all the disturbing biblical evidence here:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
We can expect, of course, that you will try to justify all this mass slaughter by some insane logic.
I look forward to seeing how you justify this Sam...
Now Ken could you get Williams to answer the following questions.
According to the Quran, when Allah decides to destroy a people he makes sure that it is very painful:
Such is the seizing of thy Lord, when He seizes the cities that are evildoing; surely His seizing IS PAINFUL, TERRIBLE. S. 11:102 Arberry
Moreover, the Quran affirms that Allah destroyed many peoples, towns, villages etc., such as Sodom and Gomorrah which he destroyed by fire, or Noah's people which he wiped out by flood.
The Quran even mentions in Q. 17:5-8, Allah sent nations on two different occasions to punish the Israelites for their sins.
In light of this, could Williams be so kind as to tell us what happened to the women, infants and animals? Does he really expect us to believe that there were no women, infants, or animals when Allah wiped out Sodom by fire, or Noah's people by flood? Does he really think that we re so naive as to assume that when Allah ordered nations to punish Israel on at least two separate occasions that no woman or infant was brutally murdered?
More importantly, since he insulted Jesus for ordering "the mass slaughter of innocent women and children, and even animals," is he willing to condemn Allah as maniacal, bloodthristy tyrant who is guilty of brutally burning, drowning, and murdering innocent women, children, and even animals!
Let us see if Williams can prove to be honest and consistent for once. But don't hold your breath since for him to do so means he can no longer be a Muhammadan who blindly follows a false prophet and an evil, wicked mass-murder whom he calls god.
How sick! Williams because of his mental instability condones his god slaughtering innocent women, children, and EVEN ANIMALS! Now watch him employ some insane logic to justify what his god did by burning alive women, infants, and animals (Sodom), or drowning them in a deluge (Noah's flood), or sending armies to murder them by the sword!
Now let us see if Williams will practice what he preaches and condemn his god for making Hltler look mild by comparison.
Sam defends the killing of innocent women and children in 1 Samuel 15 and his only justification is to attack Islam!
Sam claims his religion is one of peace and when I prove he is wrong, wrong, wrong all he can do is.......
..... wait for it......
attack islam!
Sam is challenged to face the facts in the disturbing 'no more Mr Nice Guy Jesus' we read of in the book of Revelation and his response is.....
................ wait for it......
attack Islam!
Here's a story that illustrates Sam's approach to life:
He gets arrested for beating up a Muslim in the street, goes to court and he tells the judge in defense:
"But Muslims are evil scumbags just look at the sirah, the quran, the hadith....why am I been persecuted, the judge is a moooslim!"
The judge rebukes Sam because he is the one answering serious allegations of willful assault and battery, but Sam just keeps on ranting and raving about Muslims.
In the end the exasperated judge realises that Sam is insane and doctors take him away to be treated in a psychiatric hospital.
Notice Ken how Williams can't defend the atrocities of his god so he decides to focus on me.
So how does he defend the fact that his god makes Hitler look mild? Wait for it! ... By posting a reply which focuses on me.
If Williams were to manage to be honest for just one second he would see that it is lie that I defend what God did by attacking Islam SINCE I POSTED TWO ARTICLES WHERE I THOROUGHLY ADDRESS THIS ISSUE! Since Williams obviously missed it, let me repost the links again:
What about God commanding the annihilation of the Amalekites? (http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_amalekites.htm)
Revisiting God’s Command to Kill the Amalekites: Analyzing One Muslim’s Response (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm)
Sams disturbing apology for mass slaughter of innocent people speaks volumes about his religion of peace!
Note how obviously embarrassed he is about No More Mr Nice Guy
After a brief peaceful interlude in Galilee Jesus is at it again - slaughtering his enemies!
Go on Sam I dare you: read all the disturbing biblical evidence here:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
Sam is so embarrassed by this he can't even bring himself to mention the book of Revelation!
His reply: bash the Muslims!
yawn.....
Now let me turn Williams analogy against him:
Williams takes me to court for beating him up in the street. When we get to court he tells the judge in defense:
"Your honor, fundamentlists like Sam are evil scumbags who go around hurting people. Just look at what Jesus taught in the OT! Here I am, innocent little me, trying to live a peaceful life by following Muhammad and trying to go to Mecca so I can smooch on a black stone like my prophet did.'
the sirah, the quran, the hadith....why am I been persecuted, the judge is a moooslim!"
The judge rebukes Sam because he is the one answering serious allegations of willful assault and battery, but Sam just keeps on ranting and raving about Muslims.
However, when I actually tell the judge the whole story Williams' doesn't end up looking so good. I begin by informing the judge, "Your honor, Williams thinks that because he is a Muhammadan he has the right to go around bullying Christians, attacking their faith, criticizing their scriptures, and ridiculing their God. Because Islam teaches him that he is superior to the rest of us, since we are the worst of creatures, he thought he could criticize me without me saying anything in return.
"Yet when I refuted his lies and then turned his own arguments against him he lost all sanity for the moment and, forgetting the fact that he lives in a civilized society, he tried to to impose the command of Q. 9:29 and attacked me physically, hoping that I would be a good dhimmi and submit to his demands and start paying him jizya as I sign of my humiliation. Now I did what any sane human being would do and defended myself against his violence."
After hearing both sides of the story, the judge realizes that Williams has delusions of grandeur, and that his personality borders on megalomania. So the judge decided that Williams needed to be committed to psyche ward where he can play out the fantasy world of Islam which tells him that he is superior to the dhimmis who are nothing more than beasts created to serve and pay him. There he continues his discussions with Allah, as well as the rest of the mythical characters such as Alice, the wizard from oz, and the cowardly tin man.
Sam be careful, the men in white coats are coming to get you!
As the people can see, Williams cannot defend his faith so all he can do is assault the Bible and attack people's characters. It is time ti ignore Williams since his posts are just as boring as reading the Quran.
And yawn is an apt description of your posts. However, I guess you forgot that your prophet said yawning is from the devil which means that you must be an agent of Satan since only Satan would cause people to yawn at the truth.
Keep up the great work of exposing yourself and your religion.
just in case Sam is distracted by his need to slander and hate others, here is a little reminder:
Note how obviously embarrassed Sam is about No More Mr Nice Guy
After a brief peaceful interlude in Galilee Jesus is at it again - slaughtering his enemies!
Go on Sam I dare you: read all the disturbing biblical evidence here:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
Sam is so embarrassed by this he can't even bring himself to mention the book of Revelation!
Paul, you forget that according to your own sources two men in white came to your prophet. So what does that tell you of the origin of his revelations! :-)
Keep up the great work of providing ammunition for us to turn against you which in turn ends up exposing the true source of religion!
No wonder you won't debate me since you know I will have a field day using your arguments against you!
"It is time to ignore Williams since his posts are just as boring as reading the Quran."
So Sam is running away from the challenge, claiming to be "bored".
I think you are scared Sam and cannot handle the truth when Muslims point it out to you. So instead of running away, why not stay - read the following post and be a man (not a chicken)!
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
Go on Paul, I dare you to read my responses and I triple dare you to answer these questions Let me repost them:
According to the Quran, when Allah decides to destroy a people he makes sure that it is very painful:
Such is the seizing of thy Lord, when He seizes the cities that are evildoing; surely His seizing IS PAINFUL, TERRIBLE. S. 11:102 Arberry
Moreover, the Quran affirms that Allah destroyed many peoples, towns, villages etc., such as Sodom and Gomorrah which he destroyed by fire, or Noah's people which he wiped out by flood.
The Quran even mentions in Q. 17:5-8, Allah sent nations on two different occasions to punish the Israelites for their sins.
In light of this, could Williams be so kind as to tell us what happened to the women, infants and animals? Does he really expect us to believe that there were no women, infants, or animals when Allah wiped out Sodom by fire, or Noah's people by flood? Does he really think that we re so naive as to assume that when Allah ordered nations to punish Israel on at least two separate occasions that no woman or infant was brutally murdered?
More importantly, since he insulted Jesus for ordering "the mass slaughter of innocent women and children, and even animals," is he willing to condemn Allah as maniacal, bloodthristy tyrant who is guilty of brutally burning, drowning, and murdering innocent women, children, and even animals!
Let us see if Williams can prove to be honest and consistent for once. But don't hold your breath since for him to do so means he can no longer be a Muhammadan who blindly follows a false prophet and an evil, wicked mass-murder whom he calls god.
Go on and do it! Make our day! But you know you won't since you can't defend the atrocities of your own god.
Paul, this is called projecting, You project your own fears and shame on to others, in the hopes people won't notice how you have been tap dancing around my challenges to defend the mass atrocities of your god in murdering innocent women, infants and animals.
Like I said, keep deceiving yourself. And give my regards to Alice and the tin man. :-)
Ah more chicken than man it seems.
OK Sam I agree to debate you. I accept your challenge! In the UK or in the USA?
I just have one concern - you really think you ought to obtain a medical certificate from your doctor to prove that in their opinion you are mentally fit for such an event and are not suffering from Bipolar affective disorder or any other mental problem.
With that one small caveat in mind I am happy to demolish you in public debate.
Ah more chicken than man it seems.
Yep, you are projecting again. I think that shoe fits you much better than anyone else.
Anyway, continue to conduct yourself as a silly child and keep running your mouth off since the links and my questions have again exposed your dishonesty. To your dismay, they show that you have no interest (nor the ability) to defend your religion when the same arguments you raise and turned against you.
That's ok, since everytime you run your mouth I will be here to show everyone what happens when your own attackes are turned against the Quran.
So is that a "no" to a debate Sam?
I am VERY keen to debate with you in public Sam - just say 'yes' and I will happily debate you.
Please Sam - don't be shy!!
Oh, Sam don't forget:
read and learn:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
I am glad you accept my challenge. It will be in the USA. However, I will require from your psychiatric ward a certification saying that it is ok for you to live your miraj where you dine and have tea with the jinns, Alice, the wizard and enter into the world to engage in a serious, intellectual debate since that may cause to much stress on you.
Now give me your email so I can these debates set up.
We will see how pleased you will be when I actually do get you to do the debates. Like I said, keep running off your mouth for now. Watch what happens to your beliefs come debate time.
Now stop stalling and get me your email so I can contact the center. Boy I can't wait!
i am very pleased you accept my challenge Sam. now to honor your side of the agreement
just obtain a medical certificate from your doctor/psychiatrist to prove that in their opinion you are mentally fit for such an event and are not suffering from Bipolar affective disorder or any other mental problem.
I'm sure he/she will do that for you.
So when shall we debate...are you free in March? I just LOVEl Chicago, been there many times, can you suggest a venue?
in fact, since I want to demolish you so bad, and knowing that you are too much of a coward to post your email here, here is mine so we don't stall this: samshmn@yahoo.com
Now contact me A.S.A.P. since there is no Muhammadan that I want to demolish more than you. We will see how far you get with your lies and trash.
Time to put up little man.
you can contact me through oficial MDI channels
Typical of cowards. But hey, thanks for giving me a further opportunity to expose your bluff and your arguments.
Anyway Ken, as you can see everytime Williams comes on here it ends up degenrating in mud slinging and name calling. Since I don't want to play his games anymore, I will only post replies to his links and claims for your benefit and ignore him.
Brother Ken, I would encourage you to monitor these comments and prevent such childish antic from being carried on here.
I apologize for even stopping to Williams' level, but sometimes you have to give these people a taste of their own medicine.
Lord bless you bro.
No,
I want you to contact ME through official MDI channels. I will not be emailing you direct, that is not appropriate. And the psychologist certificate of mental heath is vital.
No certificate no debate Sam.
Sam don't forget:
read and learn:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
I suggest the following subject for debate:
'Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?'
Reading the comments from the Muslims in this combox has lowered my IQ substantially. Mohammed would be proud.
Rhology, that is my point brother. Everytime Williams comes on and I respond to his distortions he right away proceeds to ad hominems. He can't help himself.
I suggest brother that maybe you can enforce some rules here so as to not allow Muslims to come here and make personal insults or hurl blasphemies agains Jesus Christ, our God and theirs?
What do you think?
Unfortunately, brother Sam, only the admin (James Swan) and the author of the given blogpost (in this case, Ken) can delete comments.
I can tell you one thing. Given the nature of this combox, if it were me, I would inform Paul Williams that he must deal only with issues in any further comment here. If he even writes one long comment and includes one tiny insult, the comment is deleted.
Even if he feels he was insulted, he would have the obligation to do what Mohammed didn't and turn the other cheek, and not respond in kind, thus demonstrating by his meekness and humility the evil tongues of his opponents.
That's what I would do, given his ridiculous conduct here.
banning me from here would make absolutely no difference to me Sam. I have plenty of other places to post my comments and articles.
Anyway I am looking forward to our little debate, are you?
remember:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
Rhology, who rattled your cage?
Perfectly put, brother Rhology. But do you really expect Muslims to be better than Muhammad when the Quran presents him as a model for Muslim to emulate? See. Quran 33:21 and 68:4.
Sam I am still waiting for your reply to
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
Notice Rhology how Williams again cowers away from my debate challenges. I challenged him to debate me on the following:
Was Muhammad a True Prophet?
Is Jesus God Incarnate according to the Gospels?
Did you notice that Williams only wants to debate topics related to Christianity?
However, here are the debates we MUST have if Williams is going to be honest and consistent, which we know he can't:
Was Muhammad a True Prophet?
Is Jesus God Incarnate according to the Gospels?
Is Islam A Religion of Peace?
Is Christianity A Religion of Peace?
Now watch him make excuses for cowering away from putting the reputation of his god and prophet on the line.
well, I was hoping we could argue points without the ad hominem.
Paul,
John Piper answered all the issues you bring up, as Sam's articles also do even more. ( I have read so many, but not all of his; that I cannot remember at this point.)
The problem with Islam is that Muhammad did those kinds of things, and Muslims still have been doing those kinds of warfare practices ever since then.
Yes, God has the right to kill. The OT was God's justice and using Israel at that time.
But Jesus clearly took the kingdom away from Israel (Matthew 21:43-45) and there is no more theocracy and no one has the right to do any kind of "holy war" as in the OT Theocracy did. Jesus judged Israel in 70 AD and there is no more Biblical Israel theocracy.
The modern state of Israel is not the same as the OT Israel, because they do not even believe in their own God - the Messiah Jesus, and reject Him and so they are also still not following the Abrahamic covenant. (However, they do have the right to defend themselves against Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.)
The church has no right to wage war; but Islam within it's own doctrines, does and has been a massive negative on humanity since 622 AD, because of its doctrines of Jihad, Qatal, Harb, and the "Dar Al Harb vs. Dar Al Islam", etc.
Revelation 19-22 - Jesus has the right when He returns to judge, yes.
But Islam claims that right now in this world, and too many Muslims (Not all; but many do) carry it out a lot through honor killings and Islamic terrorism.
Paul,
Your embarrassing conduct "rattled my cage".
Once again Rhology, notice how Williams thinks I am his dhimmi and insists that I reply to his link and yet because he is a Muhammadan he thinks he can refuse to answer my questions concerning how (according to his logic) his god brutally murdered innocent women, infants, and animals!
You see he really believes the propaganda of the Quran which tells him that Muhammadans are a superior lot and that we disbelievers are the worst of creatures and dhimmis created to pay the Muslim Mafia to protect us from their tyranny and bloody murdering sprees!
Rhology, this is what Islam does to the mental states of its adherents.
I happily accept one of the subjects on your list Sam:
"Is Christianity A Religion of Peace?" (remarkably similar to my orIginal suggestion?!)
Great. So you accept the few terms and conditions for the debate Sam? I'm so pleased. Btw I will require the original psychiatrist certificate of mental competence to be mailed to me in the UK.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/jesus-loves-his-enemies-and-then-kills-them-all/
Brother Ken, I highly encourage you to put an end to all the personal insults since this will turn people away from coming here and commenting.
Williams need to start acting his age.
Paul,
You did indeed start the personal attacks against Sam here with your comments about mental instability, etc.
Sam sometimes responds in giving you a taste of your own medicine.
I employ both of you to stop. Just argue issues without the extra barbs.
I have been in church work for years and that never helps.
Proverbs 15:1
Sam,
Just answer points the way I am - I hope and pray that I am good model and let Paul's and other Muslims personal insults go (except the way I defended my self in his charges of racism, etc. - I did not turn it to also insulting him back - I hope - let them show their character. (like Rehan Ullah and Rambo John are there as evidence for all to see.
We don't need to do that, in my opinion.
You are en excellent model brother Ken, and for that I commend. Sometimes though, these Muslims do need a taste of their own medicine so they learn what it is like to ridicule and insult others and their beliefs. However, I plan on ignoring Williams' shots at me and simply provide answers and articles exposing his inconsistencies and arguments.
I will have to ask James Swan to cut off further comments from this thread, unless Paul stops with the personal charges of "mental instability".
Paul,
You should agree to a debate without that; come on.
I have seen other debates with Sam and other Muslims on You Tube and they are fine. He is strong; but I did not see anything objectionable in the debates.
OK Ken,
but Sam in my honest opinion (and many others who have spoken to me - one of them a mental heath professional) DOES have mental health issues which come out in his piggish behavior all over the internet.
He seems to be universally detested amongst Muslims for his extreme unpleasantness. Ken, surprisingly, you seem to be a touch naive about Sam.
But before I am accused of hating Christians - which I do not - I have several good friends who are Christian academics/pastors of churches and we get on very well indeed. Its just the extremist bigots who incarnate all that the world detests about fundamentalist Christianity that I have problems with.
So Ken, you are still on the side of the angels (I think) - do not be seduced to the dark side, embodied by the likes of Sam.
Sigh...
anyway that enough for now.
You see Ken, the venom that once again came out? The so-called medical professional he is referring to is Abdullah Kunde who also resorted to attacking me personally on Williams' blog without being reprimanded for it. We all see how unbiased his professional opinion is!
Moreover, if you review the history between Williams and me I went out of my way to be nice to Williams. I even told him that I actually like him and told him that I don't view him as being one of these Muslim trolls like some of the others.
I even warned Williams to be careful of his fellow Muslims since they went around bashing him to some of my Christian friends concerning his proclivities and preferences.
Yet in spite all this Williams couldn't control his hatred and started to attack me personally.
I still like Williams and actually enjoy reading his posts when he can prevent himself from insulting or blaspheming the Lord Jesus, since that kind of stuff I don't tolerate.
Hopefully, Williams will learn from this and start conducting himself in a more pleasant manner since I think he has the potential of being one of Islam's best spokespersons IF he manages to overcome his hate and insults/
Paul,
If you say "OK", then you shouldn't have added the other part.
Moreover, if you review the history between Williams and me I went out of my way to be nice to Williams. I even told him that I actually like him and told him that I don't view him as being one of these Muslim trolls like some of the others.
Yes, I do remember that. That was good.
you are too kind Sam
Paul, in light of all your insults, I don't know when you are being serious with me or you are pulling my leg.
As far as you have the potential of being a top Islamic spokesperson I meant that. I actually enjoy listening to you and you are considerably better than the rest of the apologists at MDI, and have the potential of being on the level of Shabir Ally.
Shabir is the King of apologists in my view - I note that you have debated him once or twice.
and yes the English have a very dry sense of humor (unlike Americans?) So yes i am pulling your leg sometimes, some times not...
That was perhaps the best debate I've ever seen between CHristian and Muslim, BTW. Loved it.
So were you pulling my leg when you said I was being too kind?
Rhology, which one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSrVjXQktDw
I watched this one a while back and now starting to watch it again between Shabir Ally and Sam Shamoun.
Sam does an excellent job of showing the context of the main verse that Muslims use to claim that the previous Scriptures were corrupt.
Surah 2:79, but they ignore the context in verse 78 - which is about uneducated and illiterate folk who don't know the Scriptures and just get their information from hearing about it.
That seems to me to fit the description of what Muhammad did -
he was illiterate, as even Muslims admit. 7:157
He just heard things from different "Christian" and Gnostic sects and apocryphal gospels and Jews in Medina and the whole thing got garbled up into what is today called the Qur'an.
So, it seems that Surah 2:78-79 apply to Muhammad, and the Qur'an; and not the Bible.
وَمِنْهُمْ أُمِّيُّونَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا أَمَانِيَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَظُنُّونَ (78)
And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(79) Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
Ken, don't forget that that was my first debate and, due to inexperience, let Shabir get away with some of his distortions. Yet it must have impacted him since he has refused to accept my challenge to debate Muhammad's prophethood for over ten years now: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/challenge.htm
That's ok - you did an excellent job.
We don't have to worry about our own mistakes, and forgetting etc.
The God of the Bible is the God of true justice and true love - both.
I am listening and watching again, but may have to come back to it all later.
Sam,
Yes, the one between you and Shabir.
It was so great b/c y'all brought up so many substantive issues and were obviously very passionate.
You also very clearly affected Shabir; I've never heard him before or since get so animated and really let the animal of some of his distaste for the Bible run free a bit.
Hahahahaha! Thanks Rhology. Everything good comes from our glorious Lord Jesus Christ so he gets all the praise for it. I believe that if Shabir would agree to debate me now it would be even worse for him due to God's grace which has enabled me to grow since then in my understanding of my faith and the teachings of Islam.
BTW Rhology, if you are interested in reading the rebuttals to Williams' arguments and see how those same arguments can be turned more forcefully against Islam then check out the articles that are listed here:
http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams.html
'...could Williams be so kind as to tell us what happened to the women, infants and animals? Does he really expect us to believe that there were no women, infants, or animals when Allah wiped out Sodom by fire, or Noah's people by flood?'
Hmmm...yes, of course the poor women and children!
I'll tell you what happened to them Sam...oh wait, no I won't because the Quraan ITSELF does not tell us what happened to the innocents, and Muslims have always assumed they were saved...
The Bible however makes it abundantly clear that 'Jesus' insisted on the 'disposal' of infants, virgins etc. etc.
Oh wait, back to the Quraan:
Verily, thy Sustainer alone is powerful, almighty! (11:67) And the blast [of God's punishment]
overtook those who had been bent on evildoing: and then they lay lifeless, in their very homes,
on the ground, (11:68)
'overtook those who had been bent on evildoing'. Oh dear, no mention of innocent women and children. Especially with Muslims having missed out on that whole Original Sin thing...
11:94 And so, when Our judgment came to pass, by Our grace We saved Shu'ayb and those who
shared his faith, whereas the blast [of Our punishment] overtook those who had been bent on
evildoing: and then they lay lifeless, in their very homes, on the ground,(11:95) as though
they had never lived there.
Ooops, only 'evildoers' killed again (i.e. not children according to Islam, but perhaps not Christianity...).
Hmmm...not believing in Original Sin seems to be giving us a bit of a get out clause. It's a bit unfair I know.
7:64 And yet they gave him the lie! And so We saved him and those who stood by him, in the ark,
the while We caused those who had given the lie to Our messages to drown: verily, they were
blind folk!
21:76 And [remember] Noah ...We succoured him against the people who had given the lie to
Our messages: verily, they were people lost in evil - and [so] We caused them all to drown.
Hmm, the only people who drowned were those 'lost in evil'. Why oh why aren't you mentioning children God?! Why are you so unhelpful?!
7; 71 Said [Hud]: "You are already beset by loathsome evils and by your Sustainer's
condemnation!...And so, by Our grace, We saved him and those who stood by him, the while We wiped out the last remnant of those who gave the lie to Our messages and would not believe.
Ah, finally there it is, wiped out the last remnant!..oops, sorry! Last remnant only of 'those who gave a lie to Our messages AND would not believe'. My bad.
Is this Sam guy THE Sam Shamoun? If so I must say that what I have heard of him being profoundly unacademic seems to sadly be true. What a shame, I expected better.
Hmmm...Sodom, killed by fire where have I heard that in the Quraan? In fact where have I read the word Sodom in the Quraan...can't seem to find it... why is it always in brackets? Oh wait, I'm still waiting for an accurate rendering of all that stuff about penises and clitorii...hmmm need more academic knowledge...
Surah. 11:102 merely mentions God's seizing is terrible. So what? Is that meant to be an argument? Did I miss something? In any case it doesn't seem as bad as what happens to you when Jesus gets a hold of you according to Ken
And as Muslims, we never said that God does not take lives, men, women, children, animals whatever. It was, I believe the Christians who were asserting most boastfully about Jesus gentle nature. Except when he's not, according to them.
And Williams a Christophobe?! From what I've seen of his very scholarly articles and debates, he never accuses Jesus of the acts attributed to him by Sam. I am afraid Sam is the 'Christophobe', accusing Jesus of inciting infanticide and rape. Williams as a Muslim could never hold such a degenerate view of Jesus. Allah forbid!
Hmm...Sam Shamoun, accuser of Christ, surely not...
I am afraid Sam is the 'Christophobe', accusing Jesus of inciting infanticide and rape
"Inciting"?
1) Where did the God of the Bible command anyone to rape anyone else?
2) Are you familiar with the several places in the OT where God explains why He wants those particular people groups eradicated?
3) Are you in a position to judge God, to stand over Him in moral authority? Does not God have the rights over His creation, to do with it as He pleases?
Oh dear, now where was it...Oh yes,
1) Numbers 31(KJV)
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males....
9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts....
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD...
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves....
25And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
26Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:
27And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:
28And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
29Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.
30And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.
31And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,
33And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
34And threescore and one thousand asses,
35And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.
36And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep...
40And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons.
41And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD'S heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses...
47Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.
...Of note, so I don't take it out of context:
31. And Moses and Eleazar did as the Lord commanded Moses
35. And thirty two thousand persons in all, of women who had not known a man by laying with him.
The Lord commands Moses to divide up the human spoils, most of whom are specified to be attestable virgins as well as the material spoils amongst the people and leave a portion (of virgins?) for God. It tells us again that the division was carried out as the Lord specified. The Lord continues to instruct Moses after the initial (genocide, massacre, misunderstanding?) but at no point censures any of his action, so the communication with the Lord seems to be ongoing and approving throughout.
(I wonder how the all male army determined the hymen status of the captured women before divvying them up on the command of the Lord? Lie detector test perhaps?)
Seems to me like the Lord is commanding the taking of virgins only. Perhaps your right though, and there was a non – violatory way of checking their status. In any case, I'm more worried about the Lord's tribute, what does HE need thirty two virgins for? At least those silly Muslims wait for their virgins till the afterlife. Now how many was it, 72...?
But maybe your right, maybe there was no rape, just 'distribution' of women. Stranger things have happened. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Would you do the same for our Muslim friends? After all, Williams and the Muslims assert that neither God, Jesus nor Moses act in this strange manner.
Also, I notice you keep mentioning God as opposed to Jesus in your question. I thought they were the same thing, no?
But according to you, 1) doesn't exist so 2) and 3) shouldn't follow, so I don't know why you asked me about those but...
Rhology, do you see just how truly pathetic the Muslim defenses are? the Quran clearly says that only a few people survived the destruction of the people of Noah, e.g. Noah and those who followed him, and of Sodom, i.e. Lot and his folk, and yet Rasko wants us to truly believe that THERE WASN'T A SINGLE WOMAN, INFANT OR ANIMAL IN THESE PLACES WHEN ALLAH DESTROYED THEM BY FLOOD OR FIRE!!!!!
He thinks by quoting a text which says that allah destroyed the evildoers somehow proves his case when in reality it establishes the fact that the women, infants and animals which Allah duly killed were also deemed to be evil which is why he had no problem in destroying them.
Here is what the Quran says about the destruction of Sodom since Rasko wnated to deny that Allah murdered the inhabitants by fire:
"And We rained on them a rain. And dreadful is the rain of those who have been warned. Lo! herein is indeed a portent, yet most of them are not believers. Then afterward We destroyed the others." S. 26:172-174 Pickthall
And We rained on them a rain; and EVIL indeed is the rain of them that are warned. S. 27:58 aRBERRY
Now let us see what kind of shower or rain this was according Rasko's scholars:
So when Our command, for their destruction, came to pass We made their uppermost, that is, their cities, the nethermost — when Gabriel raised them to the sky and dropped them upside down to the earth, and We rained upon them stones of baked clay, CLAYED BACKED IN FIRE, one after another, (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=82&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)
(MARKED WITH FIRE) lined with black, red and white; it is also said that they had inscribed on them the names of persons they were destined to kill (in the providence of your Lord) those stones of clay were from your Lord, O Muhammad. (And they) i.e. the stones (are never far from the wrong-doers) they did not miss them but rather hit them; it is also said that this means: these stones are never far from the wrong-doers, who emulate their practice, from among your nation. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=83&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)
So Allah pelted them with fiery stones, or stones that were lit on fire.
Even if you want to squirm out of this and deny that it was fire, you still are left with Allah destroying a place which included women, infants, and animals with stones.
Nice try though of excusing the behavior of your god.
I have some more nuggets for Rasko. This comes from my reply to another Muslim apologist:
Zaatari must have forgotten that there is a verse in the Quran which condoned the killing of an innocent young boy:
"So they journeyed on till when they met a young boy; he slew him. Moses said, ‘What! hast thou slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone! Surely, thou hast done a hideous thing’ ... ‘And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and we feared lest on growing up he should involve them into trouble through rebellion and disbelief;’" S. 18:74, 80 Sher Ali
Moses' companion justifies the killing of a young innocent boy on the grounds that the boy may have grown up to be a rebellious unbeliever. Hence, if Zaatari has issues with the Holy Bible he needs to take issue with his own book which condones the killing of a young boy who may have, or may have not, grown up to be a disbeliever. Since Allah had a man kill a boy, which obviously included some kind of violence and pain, would Zaatari now say that his god is cruel and a bloody murderer?
Furthermore, this text supports the point I had made in my paper. It confirms the principle that God can justifiably kill even children on the basis of how they would turn out in the future. God who perfectly knows all things, especially future events, knows that even children grow up to be rebel sinners who defy his commands and acts of mercy.
Moreover, noted Muslim historian al-Tabari stated that the so-called prophet Salih allegedly commanded certain persons of Thamud to kill the children so as to prevent one of them from growing up and killing the she-camel:
According to Hajjaj- Ibn Jurayj: When Salih told the eight evildoers that a boy would be born at whose hands they would be destroyed, they said, "What do you command us?" He said, "I command you to kill THEM" (that is their male children). SO THEY KILLED THEM except one... (The History of Al-Tabari: Prophets and Patriarchs, translated by William M. Brinner [State University of New York Press (SUNY), 1987], Volume II, p. 43; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Ouch!!!
Here is a reply to Rasko's appeal to Numbers 31 to prove that the God of the Bible is like his god: http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html
Now let us see what Allah and his messenger taught about the permissibility of raping and committing adultery with women they have taken captive:
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, - desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali
This perverse verse is permitting Muslim men (including Muhammad himself) to rape married women which they have taken captive. Tragically, this did not remain a mere abstraction but was readily put into practice by Muhammad’s blood thirsty jihadists:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri: O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger 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, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)
And:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah 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 Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)
Double Ouch!!!
Yet this is still the beginning. See next post.
Allah and his messenger also sanctioned prostitution, though they tried to pass it off as temporary marriages:
According to the Muslim expositors, the following passage:
O you who believe! Make not unlawful the Taiyibat (all that is good as regards foods, things, deeds, beliefs, persons, etc.) which Allah has made lawful to you, and transgress not. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors. S. 5:87 Hilali-Khan
Was “revealed” to condone the practice of marrying women for a short period of time:
Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139)
Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: -- ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)
Do notice that instead of teaching his men abstinence and self-control Muhammad is the one who is actually telling his band of murdering thugs to find women to have sex with!
Such a practice is nothing more than prostitution and it is an outright shame to label this as marriage.
Sadly, there were instances in which women actually got pregnant through such unions:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, "Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant by him." Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, "This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it!" (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.18.42)
Triple Ouch!!!
We are still not finished yet.
Allah also turns paradise into a brothel, a glorified whorehouse:
Reclining upon the couches lined with silk brocade, and the fruits of the two Gardens will be near at hand. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (HAS OPENED THEIR HYMENS WITH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) before them. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both (jinns and men) deny? (In beauty) they are like rubies and coral. S. 55:54-58 Hilali-Khan
And:
Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing. Therein they shall hear no idle talk, no cry of lies, for a recompense from thy Lord, a gift, a reckoning, S. 78:31-36 Arberry
Compare how the following English versions translate Q. 78:33:
And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; Hilali-Khan
maidens with pears-shaped breasts who are of equal age (to their spouses) Muhammad Sarwar
and girls with swelling breasts of the same age as themselves, Palmer
And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age, Rodwell
and [damsels] with swelling breasts, of equal age [with themselves], Sale
And here is how Muhammad and the Islamic expositors explained these verses:
meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid and others have said…
"This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 78:33; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Continued in the next part.
Continuing where I left off from the last post, here is what another famous commentator, ar-Razi, stated in his Tafsir (Volume 8, p. 311) about the breasts of these whore of paradise:
"The kawa`ib are the buxom girls (nawahid) whose breasts have become FULL (taka``abat) and ROUND (tafallakat).” (Bold and capital emphasis ours)
And here is what Ibn Kathir further wrote in regards to Q. 55:56:
chaste females, wives restraining their glances, desiring none except their husbands, seeing them as the most beautiful men in Paradise. This was said by Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn Zayd. It was reported that one of these wives will say to her husband, "By Allah! I neither see anything in Paradise more handsome than you nor more beloved to me than you. So praise be to Allah Who made you for me and made me for you.'' Allah said…
meaning they are delightful virgins of comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands. This is also a proof that the believers among the Jinns will enter Paradise. Artat bin Al-Mundhir said, "Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said, ‘Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans.’" Allah's statement…
Then Allah describes these women for the proposed…
Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Ibn Zayd and others said, "They are as pure as rubies and white as Marjan." So here they described Marjan as pearls… (Ibid.; bold and underline emphasis ours)
He also said the following concerning Q. 56:35-37:
... Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said…
Anas said, "I asked, 'O Allah's Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,
((He will be given the strength OF A HUNDRED (MEN).))
At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, "Sahih Gharib." Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?" He said…
((The man will be able to have sexual intercourse WITH A HUNDRED VIRGINS IN ONE DAY.))
Al-Hafiz Abu 'Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, “In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best.” (Ibid)
There's more!
My final post on Islamic paradise. This is what the Muslim commentators, the two Jalals, stated in reference to Q. 56:36,
and made them virgins, immaculate - every time their spouses enter them they find them virgins, nor is there any pain [of defloration] - (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=74&tsorano=56&tayahno=36&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2)
And this is what they said regarding Q. 36:55:
Indeed today the inhabitants of Paradise are busy (read fi shughlin or fi shughulin), [oblivious] to what the inhabitants of the Fire are suffering, [busy] delighting in pleasures such as deflowering virgins - not busy with anything wearisome, as there is no toil in Paradise - rejoicing, blissful (fakihuna is a second predicate of inna, the first being fi shugulin, 'busy'); (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=36&tAyahNo=55&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0)
It is a shame to call such a place heaven. This is nothing more than a glorified whorehouse.
Quadruple Ouch!!!
I am not through with Rasko yet. more in the next post
There is another vile and horrendous aspect of Islam which has caused untold physical harm and psychological damage to women, particularly young minors. The Quran actually sanctions and permits grown men to marry, sleep with and also divorce young immature girls who haven’t even had their periods!
And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair. S. 65:4 Shakir
The waiting period for divorced women who haven’t even menstruated is three months. This means that these women aren’t even women (they haven’t attained womanhood) but are in fact young minors who haven’t reached puberty!
Now women are expected to observe a waiting period only in cases where they have actually had sexual intercourse with their former spouses, since the Quran expressly teaches that there is no waiting period for marriages where the couple haven’t had sex:
O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. S. 33:49
This indicates that the waiting period only applies in cases where a prepubescent minor has actually slept with her husband!
So it is clear that Q. 65:4 assumes that young girls can be married, divorced and remarried before they reach puberty.
Continued in the next part.
Sam I seriously doubt any Muslims actually read your posts - they are so extreme and unscholarly people just switch off
Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant or, if she is, to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this further proves that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls are having sexual intercourse with them. To put it simply, the Quran is allowing men to sleep with minors.
Just in case Rasko wants to find a way out of having to admit that this is what his god is instructing his followers notice how some of Islam’s greatest expositors explained Q. 65:4
(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: "O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?" (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: "what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?" (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs: http://altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=73&tsorano=65&tayahno=4&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2)
And [as for] those of your women who (read alla'i or alla'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/tafasir.asp?tmadhno=0&ttafsirno=74&tsorano=65&tayahno=4&tdisplay=yes&userprofile=0&languageid=2)
The renowned Muslim exegete Abu-Ala’ Maududi, in his six volume commentary on the Quran, confirms this by stating the following:
*13 They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible. (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13: http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php)
I have still have more commentaries in the next post.
Paul, so you are saying that all your scholars and hadiths which I quoted are unscholarly? This basically means that you just condemned Allah, Muhammad, his companions, Bukhari, Muslim, Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn, ar-Razi, Maududi etc. as unscholarly. Excellent job Williams of condemning your religion! Like I said, keep up the great work of fighting against Islam and making our case for us.
Sam you are silly!
Now returning to Rasko, here is what Ibn Kathir says about Q. 65:4:
The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses
Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, WHO HAVE NOT REACHED THE YEARS OF MENSTRUATION. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying…
Supporting this view is what is reported from Ubay bin Ka`b that he said, "O Allah's Messenger! Some women were not mentioned in the Qur'an, THE YOUNG, the old and the pregnant."' Allah the Exalted and Most Honored sent down this Ayah…
Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka`b who said, "O Allah's Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose `Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur'an. There are THE YOUNG, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.' Later on, this Ayah was revealed …
" … (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)
What makes this even more despicable is that Muhammad set the precedence for his followers to have sex with minors by marrying a girl when she was 6 and then sleeping with her when she 9 while he was 54 years old!
XXXIX. A man giving his YOUNG CHILDREN in marriage
By the words of Allah, "that also applies to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4) and He made the 'idda of a girl BEFORE PUBERTY three months.
4840. It is related from 'A'isha that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, married her when she was six years old and consummated it when she was nine, and she was his wife for nine years. (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 70. Book of Marriage: http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari35.html)
Here is another version of this same section of al-Bukhari:
(39) CHAPTER. Giving one’s YOUNG CHILDREN in marriage (is permissible).
By virtue of the Statement of Allah: "…and for those who have no (monthly) courses (i.e. THEY ARE STILL IMMATURE) …" (v. 65:4)
And the ‘Idda for the girl BEFORE PUBERTY is three months (in the above Verse).
5133. Narrated ‘Aishah that the Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). (The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari, translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh – Saudi Arabia, July 1997], Volume 7, Ahadith 5063 to 5969, 67 – Book of An-Nikah (The Wedlock), p. 57)
More to come.
My final post on marrying minors, specifically the issue of a 54 year old Muhammad marrying and sleeping with a 9 year old girl still playing with dolls and on swings.
Nor was al-Bukhari the only hadith compiler to refer to Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha as an example of a man marrying a prepubescent minor:
Chapter 13. Marriage OF MINOR GIRLS Arranged By Their Fathers.
1876. It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old. Then we came to Al-Madinah and settled among Banu Harith bin Khazraj. I became ill and my hair fell out, then it grew back and became abundant. My mother Umm Ruman came to me while I was on an Urjuhah with some of my friends, and called for me. When I got my breath back, she took some water and wiped my face and head, and led me into the house. There were some of women of the Ansar inside the house, and they said: ‘With the blessings and good fortune (from Allah).’ (My mother) handed me over to them and they tidied me up. And suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah in the morning. And she handed me over to him, and I was at that time, nine years old." (Sahih)
Comments:
a. The marriage bond of a girl who is not yet adult (HAS NOT REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY) IS PERFECTLY VALID IN ISLAM.
b. Urjuhah refers to both, a swing and a seesaw; it is a long piece of wood, its middle is placed at a high place and the children sit on both ends, when its one side goes down the other side goes up; it is called seesaw in English. (Sunan Ibn Majah - Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 1783 to 2718, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair 'Ali Za'i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 3, The Chapters on Marriage, pp. 76-77; capital and underline emphasis ours)
To say that this is despicable and reprehensible would be a wild understatement!
Ouch to infinity!!!!
I now conclude with some advise to Rasko. You are the last person who should be throwing stones since your glass house has come crashing on your head.
This should teach you next time to think several times before you try and attack someone else's faith in light of all the evil and immoral teachings that are found in your religion.
The text of Numbers does not say anything about rape, etc. God never commands nor condones rape.
all it says is that the virgins are to be spared; - apparently later they can get married and have a new life.
Thank God the theocracy of Israel is no more (Matthew 21:43-45) and there is no more "holy wars", as it was in Numbers 31.
You need to get up to speed and live in the New Testament, the Injeel.
But Nabil Qureshi, in his debate with Williams, quoted a Hadith where Muhammad had sex with one of those captive female women right after her husband was killed.
Much worse that what the bare text of Numbers 31 actually says.
Now for the rest of you, if you are interested in looking up all these references which I posted then please read my following articles:
Quran Inconsistency: Does Allah permit lust or not? (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/permit_lust.html)
The Inconsistency of Bassam Zawadi Part 2: Islam’s Position and Rape, Adultery, Prostitution and Excessive Torture (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/inconsistent2.html)
Where does God command rape in the Bible?
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
God sanctions in the Bible that the rapist can continue to rape his victim for the rest of her life, just as long as he pays 50 pieces of silver to her dad and marries her.
But did any one think to ask the girl, perhaps she doesn't wants to be married to her rapist for the rest of her life?
Thank you Paul for the compliment. Coming from you means a lot.
Do yourself a favor, Paul. Take the time to seriously reflect and mediate on all the articles which I posted since I can almost guarantee you that if you are really honest with yourself you will no longer remain a Muslim.
Ken, Sham-Owned is another Christophobe who is mocking my name.
Sham-Owned has once again confused the Biblical teaching with the instructions of Allah and his messenger which permitted their jihadists to rape women they have taken captive, even those who are still married. Scroll up and read my posts for the verses and hadiths.
And now here is a link to my article which answers Islam-owned distortion of Deuteronomy 22:28-29: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
Like I said, the Muslims' glass house has come crashing down on them!
Ouch!!!!
To Islam-owned, did your god and his messenger bother to ask the captive women whether they want to be raped by the Muslim jihadists who just got through murdering their family member? did Allah tell the jihadists to ask the husbands of the women whom they had taken captive if it was ok for them to rape their wives?
Like I said, OUCH!!!! That is what you must be feeling now that your glass house has come crashing on your head.
Sam I have read through the excessively long and often off topic articles you have written. I made a mental commitment to be open to any new truth and any good arguments should you put them forward. But alas I found your knowledge of the Bible to be poor, superficial and unscholarly. I wish you were more knowledgeable and erudite Sam because I love debating knowledgeable Christians (knowledgeable about their own faith that is). But sadly you are not one of them.
So I am sorry to disappoint you - you are not a great apologist for your faith. I would give you 1/10.
Oh dear, Sam, waffle much?
I am afraid you did not even do us the dignity of actually writing this out.
Copy and pasting your old replies which have already been refuted is of no consequence. I think you need some new material...
I notice that you failed to defend any of the allegations against the Christian 'Jesus', and you failed to bring the references I asked for oh sooooooo long ago...
As for your rape in the Quran argument, you just failed to translate. I thought you could speak Arabic! I feel betrayed!
Dodgy hadith, tafsirs no one has heard of on and on and on...
You don't see me talking about Christian scholars or exegesis...I stick to the text. I thought you were a Christian. I can't believe you left Jesus undefended like that...got respect?
Hahahaha Paul! I am so shocked to hear you say that I am not scholarly or erudite enough for your tastes.
And I could care less whether I am a great apologist or not, since it is not about me or my glory. It is about the glory of the risen Lord Jesus, your God and mine. As long as he is glorified and his people are edified I am happy.
Like I said, IF you are honest and IF you have really read all these articles and verified the quotes which I culled from your own so-called authentic sources then it is only a matter of time before you abandon this false, wicked religion. No sane or moral person can continue to believe Islam in light of its perverse doctrines.
Rasko, I am going to call oput your bluff. I simply reposted material FROM MY ARTICLES AND REBUTTALS. Now if these replies are really old THEN PLEASE PROCEED TO REFUTE ALL THOSE QUOTES FROM YOUR OWN QURAN AND SO-CALLED AUTHENTIC SOURCES THAT I QUOTED. Please explain the morality behind permitting Muslims to rape married captive women, prostituting women in order to satisfy one's sexual desires and passing that off as marriage, physically sleeping with minors who are not emotionally or physiological mature enough, and turning paradise into a glorified whorehouse where men with erections will be busy deflowering swelling breasted maidens for all eternity.
GO AHEAD AND MAKE OUR DAY!
"It is about the glory of the risen Lord Jesus, your God and mine. "
Er, some news just in Sam, Jesus (allegedly) said in John 20"
Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.' (John 20: 17).
So Jesus said he had a God, your God and mine.
Rasko, I notice that you also can't help yourself from lying since I posted links which directly respond to all your lies against the Holy Bible. So please stop trying to deceive us about my failure to refute your nonsense since everyone here can vouch for the fact that I provided links which throughly refute your manhandling of God's Word.
Now instead of evading my arguments, make sure to spend the rest of your posts refuting all the quotations from your own sources which I posted to show how your own complaints about the Bible can be used more forcefully to destroy your manmade beliefs.
Me think the Round batty-boy does PROTEST to much!!
Paul, you really need to come out with some good arguments since rehashing the old anti-Trinitarian trash won't get you far. Here is your answer: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_having_a_god.htm
Moreover, thank you for quoting a verse which proves that Allah IS NOT GOD:
Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to THE FATHER; but go to my brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to MY FATHER and YOUR FATHER, and my God and your God.' (John 20: 17).
Notice that the God whom Jesus spoke of is the Father. And yet Muhammad said his god is a father to no one (cf. Q. 5:18; 9:30; 19:88-93).
This means that this verse proves that Muhammad is a false prophet since he contradicts what Jesus said about God relating to us as a Father.
So again I thank you for helping me prove that Muhammad's god is a false god.
And now let us turn the tables on your god. Here is an article which shows that your god actually prays and worships:
Examining Islam's Teaching that Allah Prays and Worships (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/allah_worships.html)
Now instead of evading my questions and challenges can you at least try and explain how your god can pray and worship anyone?
And this is what I have noticed about you that you never bother defending your religion even though I have literally bombarded with quote after quote exposing all the problems that you face as a Muslim. Are you really incapable of defending your beliefs? If you can;'t defend your faith then why in the world did you bother becoming a Muslim? More importantly, why are you still a Muslim when we have shown over and over again that Islam faces the same problems that you imagine Christianity does?
Let me conclude by quoting from the same Gospel which you distorted to your own destruction:
"Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord AND MY GOD!'" John 20:28
Like I said, it is all about glorifying Jesus Christ, YOUR God and mine.
Islam-owned, what does the hadith say about Sauda bint Zamaah's weight? Does it says she was old and fat? And what does the hadith say about Muhammad wanting to get rid of her? Are you saying that your round batty-mommy (Q. 33:6) also PROTESTED too much?
Anyway folks, I am off to teach a class on the true God. Will be bak later tonight to respond to any other Muslim who wants to run off his mouth and get himself in trouble.
One final note. Since you raised John 20:17 I will write an entire rebuttal in your honor, dedicated to you, where I will not only refute your point but uses Jesus' words here to further prove that the Allah whom Muhammad proclaimed is a false god. You can thank yourself for the article.
Like I said, OUCH!!!!
Probably gone off to buy some more food!:)
I wonder what Sha-moOO! would say if this was found in the Quran?
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Once again inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
Islam-owned must have not paid attention to the following link which I fully address Deuteronomy 20: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm
However, since the recitation of the Quran seems to have affected you let me quote a part of my article which shows what Muhammad thought of Deuteronomy 20
More importantly, Zaatari either is not aware or is trying to hide the fact that the Quran itself confirms the Divine approval for these OT wars, especially that of Saul and the Amalekites:
Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of God." He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of God, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But God Has full knowledge of those who do wrong. Their Prophet said to them: "God hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "God hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: God Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. God careth for all, and He knoweth all things." And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: "God will test you at the stream: if any drinks of its water, He goes not with my army: Only those who taste not of it go with me: A mere sip out of the hand is excused." but they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: "This day We cannot cope with Goliath and his forces." but those who were convinced that they must meet God, said: "How oft, by God's will, Hath a small force vanquished a big one? God is with those who steadfastly persevere. When they advanced to meet Goliath and his forces, they prayed: "Our Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against those that reject faith." By God's will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and God gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not God Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is full of bounty to all the worlds. S. 2:246-251 Y. Ali
The Quran recounts the story of the people of Israel asking the prophet Samuel for a king, Saul’s appointment as a king, Saul’s wars, and David killing Goliath (cf. 1 Samuel 8-17). What is interesting about all this is that even though the Quranic narration presupposes the biblical account of God’s commission to wipe out the Amalekites it nowhere condemns this Divine decree. It does not say that Saul killing women and children was an evil thing or that the Israelites tampered with the story since this isn’t how it happened; nor does it deny that these things did happen. Its very mention in the Quran without any qualification presupposes that the author of the Quran had absolutely no problem with these wars since he believed that God sanctioned them. So why does Zaatari go against the teachings of his own book (as false as it is) and attack the Bible for something with which the Quran implicitly attests?
More in the next post.
Continued from the previous post.
There is more. Note what this next report says regarding Muhammad’s view of the prophet Joshua’s battles against the enemies of God:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "A prophet amongst the prophets carried out a holy military expedition, so he said to his followers, 'Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage, and has not done so yet, should not accompany me; nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof; nor a man who has sheep or she camels and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.' So, the prophet carried out the expedition and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the 'Asr prayer, he said to the sun, 'O sun! You are under Allah's Order and I am under Allah's Order. O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.' It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said (to his men), 'Some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' (They did so and) the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet. Then that prophet said (to the man), 'The theft has been committed by your people. So all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet and he said, "You have committed the theft.' Then they brought a head of gold like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the booty. The Prophet added: Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 353)
Here Muhammad conflates several biblical stories, namely, Moses' instruction in Deuteronomy 20:1-9, Joshua’s expeditions against Ai and the king of Jerusalem (cf. Joshua 7 and 10). These are the very expeditions where God commanded Joshua and the Israelites to wipe out everything that breathes! Hence, if this hadith is to be accepted as reliable, and Sunnis like Zaatari do believe that it is authentic since it comes from the sahih collection of al-Bukhari, then this again shows that Muhammad had no problems with God’s orders to the Israelites to annihilate everything that breathes, including women, children and livestock. So why should Zaatari have a problem?
Once again, thank your helping us expose Muhammad since you Muslims seems to know better than him when it comes to these issues.
And you are correct. Your inconsistency is proof that your religion is a failure.
Oh dear oh dear.
Are you sure you are THE Sam Shamoun? He's supposed to have skills! For all your writing at length you failed to address any of my points. Really, perhaps you should leave the defence of Christian doctrine to someone better informed? Like Paul Williams perhaps?
You see, I did not resort to any esoteric exegeses of the Bible stories at all. I let them stand on their own. When you are embarrassed by your assertions about the 'deaths of innocents' in the Quraan you start talking about a rain of fire that is not mentioned in the Quraan (like the city of Sodom itself).
It seems a clear account of all of the 'massacres' in the Quraan from the text itself was provided in my post, perhaps people can see for themselves...
'Scholars'? ...'Hadiths?' Bah! Would you like me to bring up Christian thinkers and their opinions through history on the killing of women and children? Shall we talk Tertulian? Or Perhaps St Augustine and 'The City of God'. Or maybe we should look at the ideas of various members of the Papacy?
I don't think you want to go there...or maybe you would. Perhaps stick to scripture like a REAL Christian?
I don't know who this Zataari guy is but he rebuffed you in a most amusing manner on this 'Al Khidr' killing the boy thing! You see, you missed one important point: It was Al Khidr who killed the boy and not God. Or Jesus. Or Moses.
I don't see 'God' or 'Jesus' egging Al Khidr on like in Numbers(and who IS this Al Khidr guy anyway, hmmm...)...oh and that reminds me, 'numbers'! There is that, the issue of NUMBERS. After all, one boy, versus a WHOLE lot of women and children...
And you keep telling me about 'God's' right to kill. Why not Jesus' right to kill? I thought they were the same. I'm getting confused now...
Oh and you are worried about early the marriage of Aisha? Shame none of your Christian sources shared your concerns through the ages...anyway, how do you know she was nine? Based on a few selected and single chain narrations that Muslims do not adhere to? Perhaps you have her birth certificate Sam?
Also, what was the minimum age of the virgin girls which you claim 'Jesus' demanded be 'taken' in 'Numbers' (and it seems other places...). Are you sure they were all pubescent like Aisha...hmmm 'every woman that has not known a man'...oh dear, it does not seem to put ANY lower limit on it...surely not?!? Children? No!
Also, you seem very worried about slavery, unlike Jesus and Paul in the NT ;
Titus 2: 9 -10 “Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Saviour.”
Submissive...hmmm...that seems almost sexual, but it couldn't be could it Sam?
As for Islam, sex at least always has to be consensual concubines or not:
The Prophet (but not 'Jesus') said:
''If the man has had intercourse with the female slave forcibly then the slave is free...but if the slave had agreed to the act then she belongs to him''
Related By Salamah Ibn Muhabbaq.
Imam Malik and Ahmed agree. I think this kind of messes up your whole 'rape' argument. Sex has to be consensual, regardless of what 'God' (or should it be 'Jesus, you've got me doing it now!) in Numbers would have us believe...
Oh and as paradise being licentious(or a whorehouse as you put it, I wouldn't know, I've never had the opportunity to visit (giggle!)). You are right, it IS pretty randy. But you know how we Muslims are, we just LOVE the ladies! Bosoms and all that good stuff you mentioned. Can't help it I'm afraid! Although, as I think I mentioned, we prefer to wait for the AFTERLIFE before procuring our virgins...
As for the temporary marriage ...where was that in the Quraan again?...and was that not banned by the Prophet (SAW)...and Ali...and isn't it CONSENSUAL even if it wasn't...help me out here Sam.
The issue of consent in sex seems like a big stumbling block for you...
Also, you went on a lot about menstruation and stuff. I wouldn't know my friend, I'm only an ameture gynaecologist. Are you better qualified perhaps? You do like to talk about naughty things though! I must say it IS fun! You do have a VERY funny definition of puberty though! As for me, I can't remember that far back, it's been a while!
In any case, I don't think you thought things through before using tertiary Islamic sources to make your arguments whilst being unable to refute the Biblical sources I brought up. Also, all this business about girls age, and you still did not tell me what age the virgins 'God' demanded in Numbers were. Perhaps this will help...
Deuteronomy 20:10–14
... When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
'Enjoying ...CHILDREN'?
Ken, my friend, that is exactly what I am saying. I WANT to go to the NT, but why oh why did 'Jesus' do that stuff in the OT?
And why oh why does he not condemn it in his ministry in the NT?
And why does he go and do it AGAIN in Revelations?
I wanted Paul to help me but he said:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
'Instruction in righteousness'? Numbers?!
Are you sure Ken?
Ken, notice Rasko's justification of Islamic prostitution which Muslims call zawaj al-muta. Since both parties have consented to getting married for a short period of time with the intent of divorcing each other when the time agreed upon has transpired then this can't be prostitution!
Notice also how he has to throw his most reliable sources under the bus in order to deny that his 54 year old prophet slept with a 9 year old who was still playing with dolls and on swings. Yet in sing he has pretty much destroyed the entire foundation of his religion since without these sources he cannot make heads or tails about most of the information found in the Quran. Thus, if these Muslims can't be trusted to be able to tell Aisha's age then they definitely can't be trusted about anything else concerning Muhammad or the occasion of the composition of the Quran's verses.
Also notice how his assertion still fails to explain away the fact that Q. 65:4 sanctions marriages with girls who haven't even menstruated yet due to their young age.
Notice how he quotes a shaikh to prove you can't divorce your slave girl from having sex, but ignores the clear Quranic text (Q. 4:24) and hadiths that show Muslim men being permitted to sleep with married captive women. He really expects us to believe that women who have been taken captive and whose husbands are still alive want nothing more than the Muslim jihadists who murdered their families to have sex with them!
So notice, that he has no shame justifying the Quran's command to sleep with young minors who haven't even menstruated, nor does he have any shame to explain away Allah granting permission to rape captive women even in the case of married ones whose husbands had also been taken captive.
You see the mental sickness that Islam causes upon its adherents?
And notice again that all he can do is repeat the sale lame arguments, even though links were posted refuting his distortion of Biblical passages, but I guess i need to repost it since it is hard to comprehend things after having spent such considerable amount of time reciting and/or hearing the Quran:
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm
http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html
Anyway, it is obvious that Rasko has nothing of substance to say but simply repeats himself ad naseum hoping that if he repeats it a number of times that the jinns will then magically make his point true or valid.
Eeehh??
Where does it say in the Quran that God commanded the Israelites to target the women and children? where did Shamoon got the idea that this is presupposed in the Quranic narratives?
It's odd any thing that he shows in the Quran which he deems to be bad is 10 times worser in the Bible.
There goes Islam-owned showing the affects the Quran has on its adherents. Let me repost my response once again which shows the Quran and Muhammad appealing to and agreeing with the OT on these issues:
More importantly, Zaatari either is not aware or is trying to hide the fact that the Quran itself confirms the Divine approval for these OT wars, especially that of Saul and the Amalekites:
Hast thou not Turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel after (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (That was) among them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of God." He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the cause of God, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?" but when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a small band among them. But God Has full knowledge of those who do wrong. Their Prophet said to them: "God hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "God hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: God Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. God careth for all, and He knoweth all things." And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: "God will test you at the stream: if any drinks of its water, He goes not with my army: Only those who taste not of it go with me: A mere sip out of the hand is excused." but they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: "This day We cannot cope with Goliath and his forces." but those who were convinced that they must meet God, said: "How oft, by God's will, Hath a small force vanquished a big one? God is with those who steadfastly persevere. When they advanced to meet Goliath and his forces, they prayed: "Our Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against those that reject faith." By God's will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and God gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not God Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is full of bounty to all the worlds. S. 2:246-251 Y. Ali
The Quran recounts the story of the people of Israel asking the prophet Samuel for a king, Saul’s appointment as a king, Saul’s wars, and David killing Goliath (cf. 1 Samuel 8-17). What is interesting about all this is that even though the Quranic narration presupposes the biblical account of God’s commission to wipe out the Amalekites it nowhere condemns this Divine decree. It does not say that Saul killing women and children was an evil thing or that the Israelites tampered with the story since this isn’t how it happened; nor does it deny that these things did happen. Its very mention in the Quran without any qualification presupposes that the author of the Quran had absolutely no problem with these wars since he believed that God sanctioned them. So why does Zaatari go against the teachings of his own book (as false as it is) and attack the Bible for something with which the Quran implicitly attests?
Continued in the next post.
this is a continuation of the preceding post and is directed to Islam-owned.
There is more. Note what this next report says regarding Muhammad’s view of the prophet Joshua’s battles against the enemies of God:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "A prophet amongst the prophets carried out a holy military expedition, so he said to his followers, 'Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage, and has not done so yet, should not accompany me; nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof; nor a man who has sheep or she camels and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.' So, the prophet carried out the expedition and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the 'Asr prayer, he said to the sun, 'O sun! You are under Allah's Order and I am under Allah's Order. O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.' It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said (to his men), 'Some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' (They did so and) the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet. Then that prophet said (to the man), 'The theft has been committed by your people. So all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet and he said, "You have committed the theft.' Then they brought a head of gold like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the booty. The Prophet added: Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 353)
Here Muhammad conflates several biblical stories, namely, Moses' instruction in Deuteronomy 20:1-9, Joshua’s expeditions against Ai and the king of Jerusalem (cf. Joshua 7 and 10). These are the very expeditions where God commanded Joshua and the Israelites to wipe out everything that breathes! Hence, if this hadith is to be accepted as reliable, and Sunnis like Zaatari do believe that it is authentic since it comes from the sahih collection of al-Bukhari, then this again shows that Muhammad had no problems with God’s orders to the Israelites to annihilate everything that breathes, including women, children and livestock. So why should Zaatari have a problem?
Hopefully he will get it this time.
Anyway Brother Ken, I have said all I can say in reply to the Muslims. Time for me to return to writing more articles and rebuttals. Please use all those quotes and articles in your discussions. Lord bless you brother.
Thanks Sam,
Your extensive knowledge and documentation from the Ahadith and other Islamic sources is impressive.
Oh what a shame...
Sam Shamoun thrashed by a bunch of ametures. With only his friend ken to massage his ego...sad :(
And still you keep piling on the errors...
''Notice how he quotes a shaikh to prove you can't divorce your slave girl from having sex, but ignores the clear Quranic text (Q. 4:24) and hadiths that show Muslim men being permitted to sleep with married captive women.''
Well I suppose I DID quote a 'Shaikh'...however the 'Shaikh' in question was the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) so I guess that adds some weight.
The Quraan allowing sex with married slaves...hmmm...but all sex in Islam is with consent...hmmm, consent... still a big problem for Sam. I worry about what you got up to at senior prom...
Also, I don't recall taking a position on Aisha's age, merely humiliating you on your shoddy Hadith 'scholarship'.
Maybe because I felt no compulsion to defend the age of Aisha to a Christian who does not defend his God/'Jesus'/The Holy Spirits' alleged command to enjoy 'children' irrespective of age...or gender?!...surely I misunderstood! But Sam didn't clarify...
Oh and I see you did not address Pauls' instruction to slaves to;
“Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect...''
Hmmm...in 'every respect', irrespective of age or gender...so what if the master asks his slave for sex...I guess he/she would have to provide 'satisfaction'
''Time for me to return to writing more articles and rebuttals''
Hmmm...time for you to run away because you got punked more like.
I think the Holy Spirit let you down this time Sam...
And now to Paul Williams...
I must say, I am shocked to see you rolling in the mud with the likes of Sam. You even seem to have offered him a debate. What on Earth are you doing?
I must warn you that if people back in England hear of this kind of behaviour, your reputation, which you enjoy now will suffer immensely.
Frankly, I am rather disappointed in you Williams, I did not take you for one who likes to 'beat up' on people like Sam who don't have the ability to defend their beliefs properly. This is not the correct style of Islamic Dawah. You should know this already.
Does it make you feel good to bully Christians like that or something? Why not pick on someone in your own league instead of trying to score an easy win over these type of guys?
I'll just repeat my objection;
Where does it say in the Quran that God commanded the Israelites to target the women and children? where did Shamoon got the idea that this is presupposed in the Quranic narratives?
It's odd any thing that he shows in the Quran which he deems to be bad is 10 times worser in the Bible.
Shamoon really does give a bad name to religious debates. It's because of him people get put of from having sincere discussion over fundamental believes out of fear that they'll end up upsetting each other. Why can't we just have a civil discussion with out have to insult each others religions? Sham on you!
Brother Ken, let me leave you some hadiths which prove that Muhammad was a black slave owner and trader to silence these Muhammadans:
Sahih Muslim, Book 10, Number 3901:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle on migration; he (the Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle said: Sell him to me. And he bought him FOR TWO BLACK SLAVES, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).
Malik's Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.13.25:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili from Abu'l-Ghayth Salim, the mawla of ibn Muti that Abu Hurayra said, "We went out with the Messenger of Allah in the year of Khaybar. We did not capture any gold or silver except for personal effects, clothes, and baggage. Rifaa ibn Zayd presented A BLACK SLAVE BOY to the Messenger of Allah whose name was Midam. The Messenger of Allah made for Wadi'l-Qura, and when he arrived there, Midam was unsaddling the camel of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when a stray arrow struck and killed him. The people said, 'Good luck to him! The Garden!' The Messenger of Allah said, 'No! By He in whose hand my self is! The cloak which he took from the spoils on the Day of Khaybar before they were distributed will blaze with fire on him.' When the people heard that, a man brought a sandal-strap or two sandal-straps to the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah said, 'A sandal-strap or two sandal-straps of fire!' "
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 91, Number 368:
Narrated 'Umar:
I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, "(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter)." Then he admitted me. ... (cf. Bukhari Volume 3, Number 648; Volume 6, Number 435; Volume 7, Number 119)
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 182:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah's Apostle said, "Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!"
Finally, Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 103:
Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha:
On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching THE DISPLAY OF BLACK SLAVES in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'."
Now can you imagine what these Muslims would say if these same traditions were found in the Holy Bible?
Enjoy brother!
Raskolnikov wrote:
Ken, my friend, that is exactly what I am saying. I WANT to go to the NT, but why oh why did 'Jesus' do that stuff in the OT?
And why oh why does he not condemn it in his ministry in the NT?
And why does he go and do it AGAIN in Revelations?
Raskolnikov,
What part of the English language of "Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel in Matthew 21:43-45 do you not understand?
What part of "Biblical Israel ceased to exist in 70 AD onward" do you not understand?
What part of plain English of "passed away", "no longer applicable", fulfilled, - Hebrews 8:8 and 8:13 - do you not understand?
What part of "It is the Book of Revelation" - no s - don't you get?
As far as Revelation 19-20 is concerned, don't you believe in judgment day and that God has the right to judge and send unbelievers to hell ?
Ahhhh...Ken, finally my friend. So good to hear from you!
What part don't I get? (I'll let the xenophobic remark about the 'English' slide).
Well Ken I'm afraid I don't GET any of it, you'll have to help me...
''What part of "Biblical Israel ceased to exist in 70 AD onward" do you not understand?''
Biblical Israel ceased to exist? Indeed. But did Biblical Jesus cease to exist? That's the question my dear...
You were asking if I believe that God has the right to judge...yes, 'God', don't you mean 'Jesus'? Why this nomenaclature confusion? It seems when violence happens in the Bible it's by 'God', and not 'Jesus'. And here I was thinking they were supposed to be one and the same...
And Revelations isn't talking about 'Judgement Day'. When Jesus is throwing those people (children?) into a lake of Sulphur, we are still on Earth, not the end of time. So I guess you are right, he is 'sending' them to hell. By killing them first though.
Sam? I thought you had left! Make up your mind dear!
Ahhh, the slavery! Yes, black slaves! And other colours as well...do you think it's worse to have black slaves compared to others? Interesting idea...
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 103...hmmm...doesn't say anything about the Prophet (PBUH) owning them (I'll forgive the fact that you've translated 'Abyssinian Gymnasts/performers' as 'slaves' since it probably reflects your own stereotypes of black people).
Oh! But there are still the other two Hadiths...small problem of the mistranslations (AGAIN Sam?! I thought you were and ARAB - American?)...Oh and the fact that the Prophet(SAW) freed ALL of his slaves...Whoops. Good try though!
Oh, and unlike 'Jesus', he adopted a 'BLACK SLAVE' as his own son. And married him to his own cousin, a noblewoman of the Quraish...I don't remember 'Jesus' doing anything like that...Oh he did call that Samaritan woman a dog (you would probably translate calling a woman a dog as something a bit harsher if it had been Muhammad(PBUH)...).
That was a BIT xenophobic wasn't it? Just a little.
Oh I do remember this though:
Titus 2: 9- “Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect.”
When did 'Jesus' of Paul give slaves any kind of rights to consensual sex? They seem to have missed it out! Unlike Muhammad...
And you didn't get back to me about the whole 'enjoying children' thing in Deuteronomy either...
Maybe...Quit while you're behind Sam?
Raskolnikov, you are very very naughty - give Sam a break, its not his fault that his apologetics are unconvincing and based on crapy arguments.
Mmmm... that is a bad argument. It IS his responsibility!
It's amazing how the Muslims in here are so totally unable to defend the actions of their prophet.
All they can do is insult and defame Sam.
Insult? Defame? Me? I think you'll find the situation is the converse of what you seem to think. I use the term 'think' loosely here. Oh dear, you're right! That was an insult! Well, since you accused me, I might as well avail myself of the crime...
And I think that what you should find 'amazing' is how the Christians here are so totally unable to defend the actions of THEIR God.
At least they have stopped identifying 'God' with 'Jesus'. Especially when it comes to virgins and the OT and stuff...
Perhaps a conversion to Islamic monotheism is imminent boys?
And you're a fine one to talk Williams.
I can't believe you spend your time debating with incapable individuals such as these instead of pursuing serious scholarly Christian brothers.
Do you happen to beat up pensioners for fun as well?
"I can't believe you spend your time debating with incapable individuals such as these instead of pursuing serious scholarly Christian brothers."
I confess you are right. I really shouldn't be wasting my time here.
Thanks for the wake up call!
It's amazing how the Muslims in here are so totally unable to defend the actions of their prophet.
All they can do is insult and defame Sam
Brother Turrtetin, what do you expect from people who follow a man like Muhammad? Do you expect them to be better than him? Fact is they are perfectly imitating the hate and venom he spewed at others who dared to expose him for the antichrist that he truly was (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, 13-15; 1 John 2:22-23; Quran 5:18; 9:30; 19:88-93).
Oh dear Oh dear...
Is this REALLY the kind of behaviour your 'Holy Spirit' teaches you Sam?
Or is that Satan?
Or are they the same...
Ken and James, you can see that Rasko is a typical Muslim street thug who has no qualms about blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
This is now the second time that this lowlife insulted the Holy Spirit. I highly encourage that you brothers remove his blasphemies and ban him since he has no class or decency.
Rasko has confused the glorious Holy Spirit with his god Allah who boasts about being the best deceiver of them all, even making Satan look humble and honest in comparison:
Allah - The Greatest Deceiver of them All (http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.htm)
Allah as a Deceiver (http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.htm)
How sad :(
The mighty Sam Shamoun publicly grovelling to his 'Christian' brothers to ban the Muslims because he can't take them on?! Tut tut.
Such a powerless man...
Perhaps you should grant his wish, and put him out of his misery...
Oh, and I see you have 'no qualms' about introducing another mis-translation...Hmmm...'deceiver'....what was that in Arabic again...
Post a Comment