Christian/Muslim ThreadsIslam is for Kool-Aid DrinkersLiberate wrote:Sources pls, nowhere is 'ayat' used for the scriptures of the people of the book, jews or christians but the 'verses' of the koran.
Well. I must say that you’re a confident bugger.
Stooping to name calling shows you are ill equipped to defend your religion (Your abomination of a religion is indefensible insulting me by calling me a homosexual does not change this). Are you the same girl that calls me the "liberatchi faggot" on the other board?
Answering your question, the word ayat has been used for all the scriptures that have been sent down to previous nations, including the scriptures of the people of the Book. As Allah confirms:
'O ye children of Adam! Whenever there come to you apostles from amongst you, rehearsing My Ayats unto you - those who are righteous and mend (their lives) - on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve' (7:35).
Yusuf Ali 7:35: O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you apostles from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- those who are righteous and mend (their lives),- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.
Sher Ali 7:35 O children of Adam, If Messengers come to you from among yourselves, rehearsing MY Signs unto you, then whoso shall fear God and do good deeds, on them shall come no fear nor shall they grieve.
Shakir 7:35 O children of Adam! if there come to you apostles from among you relating to you My communications, then whoever shall guard (against evil) and act aright -- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.
Pickthall 7:35 O Children of Adam! When messengers of your own come unto you who narrate unto you My revelations, then whosoever refraineth from evil and amendeth - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
Khalifa 7:35 O children of Adam, when messengers come to you from among you, and recite My revelations to you, those who take heed and lead a righteous life, will have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
Which translation are you using that utilises the word 'ayat'? ( If H2O sent you that translation he should know I am still awaiting his qualifications as an arabic scholar, until he proves why he is in a position to dismiss the work of reknowned scholars as foolishness I will take his translations for precisely what they are his and his alone a desperate exercise in apologetic linguistics) This does not negate the issue that it no where refers to the scriptures of the people of the book. The previous verses makes it clear who were the subject.
Khalifa 7:31 O children of Adam, you shall be clean and dress nicely when you go to the masjid. And eat and drink moderately; Surely, He does not love the gluttons.
You think this is referring to the people of the book? or to muslims?. If you think it really refers to the people of the book, then you have to assume that their prophets came rehearsing their scripture rather like Mohammed, or the alternative is Mohammed was confused over that area too and thought every prophet of the jews and christians came about rolling on the floor, complaining of ringing bells, sweating profusely and frothing at the mouth in an epileptic fit just like he did, which he deemed "divine revelation", any jew or christian would laugh you to scorn if you suggest this is how God sent messages to the prophets. Mohammed was a sick man (spiritually too) I am amazed how you cannot see this.
This verse quite clearly refers to the substitution and elimination of texts
of the Qur'an itself, it does not say that Allah replaces one kitab (book) (the Tawraat or the Injil, for example) with another, but rather that he
substitutes one ayah for another ayah.
The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:
a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.
b- The substitution of one verse or law within a Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture
Where are you getting this? Is this from your own interpretation of islam? are you fit to interpret islam? or aren't you suppose to follow the teachings of a mullah.
a- The first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:
"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48
Here, the words "superseding them." confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.
Yusuf Ali 5:48: To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety...
Pickthall: 5:48 And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.
Shakir:5:48: And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it
Sher Ali 5:48: And WE have revealed unto thee the Book comprising the truth and fulfilling that which was revealed before it in the Book, and as a guardian over it.
Why does Sher Ali, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir all agree that there is no mention of superceding with the previous scriptures mentioned in that ayat, yet you chose a translation and twist the meaning to mean what is not implied.
Furthermore if you honestly believe that the previous scriptures are superceded by the koran why does it say in the previous verse:
5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
You should have quoted sura 5:48 in it's proper context:
To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it [in what way does it confirm the scriptures that came before it?], and guarding it in safety [What does it mean when it says guarding it in safety? don't you believe it's corrupt? why do you conflict with your scripture on interpretation?]: so judge between them by what God hath revealed[What do you think it means here?], and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way [What do you think it means here?to each of you.. an open way?]. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
Need I remind you that sura 5 was one of the last suras revealed in chronological order and it is stating that laws have been revealed to the people of the book, no where does it suggest that their laws are now null and void.
b- The second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.
Again I ask where you are getting this from, is this your own perception of islam as a western apologetic to make it palatable rather than the legalised nonsense it really is.
As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.
Somehow you know when it comes to sex allah/jibreel/Mohammed will rush to create a revelation to justify it. Each time I see this sura I really find it hard to believe anybody is gullible to believe this charlatan speaks for God:
33:50 O prophet, we made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their due dowry, or what you already have, as granted to you by GOD. Also lawful for you in marriage are the daughters of your father's brothers [incest], the daughters of your father's sisters [incest], the daughters of your mother's brothers[incest], the daughters of your mother's sisters[incest], who have emigrated with you [This is how koran interpretators got round to handling the immoral nature of Mohammed in the koran, they simply incorporate events in the life of Mohammed to justify koranic passages no matter how immoral, they are aware that Mohammed slept with all the above so they simply interpolate it into the koran and claim allah revealed it regardless of how sickening it is, incest is a sin in both christianity and judaism, and the subject was taboo in Mohammed's day too hence the furore over his marriage with zaynab]. Also, if a believing woman gave herself to the prophet - by forfeiting the dowry - the prophet may marry her without a dowry[ofcourse to excuse the prophet sleeping with several women and not paying them their dowry, why would a believing woman forfeit her dowry so she can have sex with the prophetor isn't the other way round the prophet wants to have sex with her and doesn't want to pay her anything? pls apply some logic to this], if he so wishes. However, her forfeiting of the dowry applies only to the prophet, and not to the other believers [Of course]. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses or what they already have. This is to spare you any embarrassment . GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.[The relevance?]
We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.
Something you should be aware of, Yusuf Ali mistranslated that verse to bring it closer to the doctrine in the torah, the arabic transliterated word is thufur and means claws as in human nails and claws, Shakir and Sher Ali correctly translated it as claws but then again here we have another problem because animals with claws are not forbidden in the torah, all the translators added animal which is not found in the arabic I guess allah needed help here? the full verse is just plain ridiculous it says the jews were given dietary laws as a punishment, no such thing is mentioned in the bible. Maybe at that point the torah got corrupted yes?
Shakir 6:146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones: this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
Sher Ali 6:146: And to those who are Jews WE forbade all animals having claws; and of the oxen and the sheep and goats did WE forbid them their fats, save that which their backs bear or the entrails or that which is mixed with the bones. With that did WE recompense them for their rebellion. And most surely WE are truthful.
Yusuf Ali: 6:146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances).
This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.
The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):
The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:
"........they say, 'You made this up"
Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up"? And why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him:
"You have made it up"................it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran............
What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself! If this accusation is from the Jews and Christians we must then ask, are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book............. they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another! However, and if their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.
These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between two scripture.
As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48
Source: http://www.quran-islam.org/160.html
Your reasoning is not rational at all, I am coming from you from your scriptures and you are coming to me from your own theories, western apologetic theories, the jews were laughing at Mohammed, many believe Mohammed was paying the jews for access to their scriptures to formulate his religion and the jews taught the early muslims how to read and write, the pagans knew where Mohammed got this stories from and they laughed at him too (the koran even has them say "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." 6:25" they knew where he got his stories from hence the vitriol targeted at these two groups in the entire koran because they laughed at allah's prodigy.
5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
If their scriptures have been "abrogated" why are they being asked to judge by their scriptures?
Simple because that they are Christians or Jews. Forget following the laws of the Quran, they do not follow their own laws. As Muslims [Are you following yours by killing pagans and hiding in wait for them and making jews and christians pay the jizyah in submission?, I suggest you take out the 2 by 4 from your eyes before you judge others the jews, and the christians especially think your religion is the epitoime of legalism, you can practice legaslism to the point that you forget the notion behind the law now it is how many suckling makes a marriage lawful how many wives makes it haram, how many times must I bow down to the east before it becomes haram, tell me the difference between islam and an obsessive compulsive disorder?], we believe that the Bible contains it’s truths along with falsehood. I have stressed this point many times [this does not make it true or in the slightest believable]. The Quran being the scripture that distinguishes where lays the falsehood. In the Sirah of the Prophet, a Jewish woman committed adultery and was brought before the prophet for her punishment. The Prophet in return called the Rabbis and asked them what their own books said in regard to adultery. They didn’t give the punishment of death, so the former Rabbi Abdullah bin Salam revealed that indeed their books called for an adulterer to be put to death. The verses is highlighting that people of the book neglect their own laws
I read that hadith too, I also read other illogical hadiths like a 'jew' calling the jews "a wicked and evil people" and that the prophet should give him a house, and another jew asking Mohammed three things that only a prophet would know (then how does he know? is he a prophet too, doesn't that contradict islam?)
I hope you are aware that the koran was not written in a book format for several years (150+ yrs after the death of Mohammed many believe) after this alledged 'revelation' does it make sense to tell the jews and the christians that their scriptures have been abrogated when the replacement has not even been thought of yet?
And I hope that you’re aware that the Quran was revealed and instructed by the Prophet the order of the chapters and verses. Whether it was in a book format doesn’t change the fact that the Quran was present in its whole.
You are either purposely missing the whole point, or the significance is lost on you,you cannot abrogate another 'book' unless you have a 'book' to replace it with when the hadiths clearly state that Zaid was horrified at the thought of collecting the koran into a book the idea was not thought upon during the time of Mohammed, it throws the notion of the koran abrogating the scriptures of the people of the book out of the window.
Says who?
Sources pls?
Whose tafsir are you following?
Many scholars of Islam! To name a few:
Ibn Kathir, At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and the list goes on…
The tafisr of Ibn Kathir does not agree with what you alledge, he believes that ayat pertains to the revelations of the koran and believes that the koran contains missing verses which were abrogated. Al Tabari does not believe the people of the book corrupted their scriptures.
sura 3:3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
Far from abrogating the previous scriptures of the jews and christians as modern muslims such as yourselves would have us believe (to justify the koran's existence) it does the very opposite it confirms it.
Yes. It confirms that Jesus existed. That Moses came with the Torah. That the Prophets that the Bible mentions all existed. And so on… These are the conformations. However, the Quran also is the Criterion. It confirms the truth in the Bible and condemns the falsehood.
Criterion for what? What makes you think the koran is not modelled after christian, and jewish religious books and apocrypha the koran cannot stand on it's own, stories don't make sense, people cannot be placed there is no timeline, God is a God of order and not choas, the koran is nothing but chaos with good works and the promise of eternal wine and fornication in a brothel, it is an insult to God to believe what He declares as sin in this world He will tolerate in His doorstep, you need to throw logic out of the window to even start accepting the unbelieveable nonsense in the koran, every doctrine in the koran can be traced to the zoroastrians, persians, jewish and christian sects in the arabian peninsula, the koran is not even in chronological order, it is a miss mash of stupidity with marks given for memorising it even though you are unaware the demonic chant you have memorised means.
I am amazed each time I hear this, does this really sound like God, in a 22yr period God would abrogate things repeatedly? How come in the 3,000+ yrs of judaism and chrisitanity there was no abrogation but suddenly within a 22 year span there are numerous abrogations, Why should a God who changeth not according to the two previous revelations create such confusion within a 22 year span (If your god is omnipotent surely he would know what the outcome is going to be and realise he needs to say something only once, if he knows the future), and what exactly were the abrogations? How to rape captured women without paying them dowry or marrying them, how to lie in wait for pagan businessmen and capture their booty which also meant raping their womenfolk... how to slay pagans when you are now numerous in number as opposed to "to you your religion to me mine" when your numbers do not exceed 15 in number, it now reads "to me my religion to you mine too or I kill you."
Then you are left with a myriad of islamic jurispundence, Osama and his like can use the abrogations to kill at will, the ahmadiyya can use the abrogations to claim Mohammed is not the last prophet, the sufis can use the abrogations to claim everything is metaphorical, you can get whatever you want to see and claim you are right, completely absurd.
"The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. NOTHING SHALL ABROGATE HIS WORDS." 6:115
then how do you reconcile "none of our revelations we cause to be forgotten but replace it with something better or similar" in lieu of the above ayat?
Ah yes Mohammed also did the same trick when he wanted to rape captured women, "all women are forbidden unto you except women whom your right hand posseses"
It does not take an imam to realise MOhammed was making things up precisely for his benefit, did not Aisha say "your god rushes to fulfill your wishes" or something similar.
Muhammad did tricks eh? What is this a magic show?
Nevertheless, if you’re going to make such an accusation that my Prophet raped women, please present you’re evidence for it.
From a previous post:
"Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaibar. "Why?" asked the Prophet. "I was afraid for you on account of the Jews who still happened to be near at Khaibar!"
The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of the 57-year-old Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking and moral character. However as for the rest of the story we are not sure whether it is true or was fabricated by Muslim historians to wipe the impression of rape. But this is all we have and to find the truth we have to rely on these biased documents written by Muslim historians. The story goes on to say that Abu Ayyub was concerned for the safety of the prophet because he (Muhammad) had killed Safiyah's father, husband and many of her relatives. This is logical. It is foolish to sleep with a woman after killing her loved ones. But Safiyah’s excuse for rejecting Muhammad’s advances towards her seems unreasonable. When Muhammad took this young girl into his tent, he had already killed many Jews and was winning the war. If there were any Jews left, they probably were more worried for their own lives than Safiyah’s chastity. Also she was already in the tent alone with Muhammad, how the Jews would have known if they were engaged in sex or not? I wonder what other excuse could she make to a man who was the murderer of her father, husband and many of her relatives to let her alone at least that night?"
The next day a Walima (wedding-feast) was arranged on behalf of the Prophet
Note that the historian is saying that the wedding took place one day after the prophet got private with Safiyah and made his moves to have sex with her. This presented no problem for the prophet as he had his Allah reveal a verse saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in war without marrying them even if they are married. Do you honestly think he was asking her " are your menses over?" " are your menses over?", so in one day after the battle of Khaiber the prophet suddenly knew her menses were over, or she happily told him "yes my menses are over" she was so eager to have sex with the man who a few hrs earlier had killed her family.
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess (Q. 4:24 )
The above verse shows that the holy prophet did not believe that slaves have any right. You could be a happily married woman living your own life, but if Muhammad and his devout followers attacked your town and captured you, you would lose all your rights, and while your husband was being killed or enslaved you would be given to a Muslim Mujahadeen who would rape you all with Allah’s blessings.
The other wives of the Prophet showed their jealousy by making slights upon her Jewish origin. But the Prophet always defended her. Once Safiyah was vexed to the extreme by the taunts of all the Arab wives of the Prophet. She took the complaint to the Prophet, who felt great compassion for her. He consoled her. He encouraged her. He equipped her with logic. He said: "Safiyah, take courage and be bold. They are in no way superior to you. Tell them: I am a daughter of the Prophet Harun, a niece of the Prophet Musa, and a wife of the Prophet Muhammad.
When she was brought along with other prisoners-of-war, the Prophet said to her, "Safiyah, your father always maintained enmity with me until Allah made the final decision." She said, "But Allah does not catch one for the sins of another.
This of course contradicts Muhammad’s own behavior who annihilated the entire Bani Qainuqa with the pretext that few of them had killed a Muslim in retaliation. That is despite the verse that says "Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (Q. 53:38) Also it was not Allah who made the final decision. Safiyah's father was killed by Muhammad's men not by Allah. This would be the same as Hitler claiming that God killed all the Jews in the holocaust. If God wanted to kill all those people that Muhammad and his army killed He could have done it on his own. God needs no mercenaries to do his will.
The Prophet then gave her the choice of joining her people after freedom or accepting Islam and coming into a matrimonial relationship with him
We have to remember that Muhammad killed most of her people and banished the rest of them. So giving the choice to join her people is not much of a choice.
She was very intelligent and gentle and said, O Allah's Messenger, I had hoped for Islam, and I confirmed you before your invitation. Now when I have the honour to be in your presence, I am given a choice between kufr and Islam I swear by Allah, that Allah and His Messenger is dearer to me than my own freedom and my joining with my people. (Tabaqat)
Was this confession, if true, sincere? Was she safe to speak out her mind? She was enslaved by a man who had exterminated her family and could do with her the same. See the reference made to her "freedom". This shows clearly that she was not free. In fact she must have been very intelligent to fabricate those lies to save her own life.
Also in the hadiths of Abu Dawod:
When Safiyah was married, she was very young, and according to one report she was hardly seventeen years old and was extremely beautiful. Once A'isha said a few sentences about her short stature, at which the Prophet said, "You have said a thing that if it were left in the sea, it would mix with it (and make its water dirty). " (Abu Dawud). She not only deeply loved the Prophet but also greatly respected him as Allah's Messenger, for she heard the conversations of her father and uncle after they went to Medinah. When the Prophet migrated to Medinah, they came to see him and find out whether he was the true Messenger of Allah spoken of in the Scriptures. When they got back and talked together that night, Safiyah was in her bed listening to them. One of them said, "What do you think about him?" He replied, "He is the same Prophet foretold by our Scriptures." Then the other said, "What is to be done?" The reply came that they must oppose him with all their
Is this story, narrated by Abu Dawud, credible? How can two Jews recognize Muhammad as the prophet foretold by their scriptures and decide to oppose him with all their might? It defies all logic. It takes a "deficient in intelligence" to believe in this nonsense. It is not clear whether Safiyah lied to conform and make her self accepted among her enemies or it is another fabrication of a zealot believer. Why would someone decide to oppose with all his might the one who he has found out to be the promised one of his own scriptures? But this is not all! Where in the bible it says anything about Muhammad? How come Safiyah’s father and uncle could decipher their scriptures and find about Muhammad while for 1400 years all Muslim scholars have been unable to do it?
So Safiyah was convinced of the truth of the Prophet. She spared no pain to look after him, care for him and provide every comfort that she could think of. This is evident since she came into his presence after the fall of Khaibar.
See how the writer contradicts himself in one page? Just a few lines above we read that she was captured and was taken to Muhammad as a prisoner. She didn’t come on her own. She was taken to the prophet because she was young and the prettiest of other women captured.
Bukhari also had some hadiths about safiyah:
Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . (Sahih Bukhari vol 1 no 367)
Mahr or dowry is a money that a bride receives from her husband when he marries her. Muhammad did not pay Safiyah her Mahr because he had to pay it to himself for manumitting her. I don't have to comment on what this implies I am giving you a lot of credit to decipher the con for yourself if you are able to scrutinise christianity to the extent you seem to do no one needs to point you out the "forced consent" and stupidty of a coverup that has been done here.
Ishaq:517 When the Apostle took Safiyah on his way out of town, she was beautified and combed, putting her in a fitting state for the Messenger. The Apostle passed the night with her in his tent. Abu Ayyub, girt with his sword, guarded the Apostle, going round the tent until he saw him emerge in the morning. Abu said, ‘I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people.
Tabari IX:137 Allah granted Rayhanah of the [Jewish] Qurayza to His Messenger as booty [but only after she had been forced to watch him decapitate her father and brother, seen her mother hauled off to be raped, and her sisters sold into slavery].
Muhammad once said to his followers: you will see, Allah will soon give you their land, their property and their women to sleep with (Ibn Hisham, vol.II, p.182).
Tabari 39:194 "He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property."
This is the reason why Hafsah and Aisha came against the prophet in sura 66 and Mohammed conveniently had a revelation from allah to threaten them with doom, imagine using God to justify your extra marital affairs.!!
What new laws? How to run around the ka'ba clothed as opposed to running around naked?
The prohibition of alcohol. But of course you would have known that if you took the time to actually read my post before responding. :roll:
I also gave you the example when Mohammed wanted to rape without paying dowry, it was married believing women, then marry women from the people of the book, then "all women are forbidden unto you except those whom your right hands possess" but for him alone we get an unbelievable exception clause in sura 33:50
You honestly think God would care so much for man's thoughts that He would allow some sin, he would back down to man's desire to allow sin?
I’m sorry. You’re not making sense. Please re-phrase that. Thanks
Is a muslim allowed to drink alcohol? yes or no?
Will he have alcohol in paradise? yes or no?
Why would God prohibit something on earth and allow it in heaven?
You think God would be so worried about what men would think that He would say"have a little alcohol...now have a little less... now no more alcohol". Do you honestly believe this is from God or what the mind of a man who is worried of a revolt would say until his numbers and influence became large?
"Carrying the child, (Jesus), she (Mary) came to her people, who said to her: "Mary, this is indeed a strange thing! Sister of Aaron, your father was never a whore-monger, nor was your mother a harlot."" sura 19:27-28
In Sahih Muslim 25 #5326, says: "When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: "The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them."" [Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Siddiqi].
In here your koran is attributing the words the jews said to Mary (the mother of Jesus) as "O sister of Aaron"., when Mohammed was confronted that Aaron was not the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus according to the hadiths he told a further lie that the people of the old age called themselves after pious persons that had gone before them, if he is correct there should be examples of Jews calling themselves "sister of Aaron" "Brother of Moses" even though they were not real life contemporary siblings. I would like you to show me in the whole of Judaism, where someone was called "sister of Aaron" or a sister of someone that was not their real life sister? This is the idiom the koran says is the speech of the jews, either the jews called people things like "sister of so and so" or you are looking at a contradiction, error and blatant lie in your koran and hadith.
Before you get ahead of yourself Lib, show me where you found a contradiction. You claim that the Quran is lying. Fine, but the verse specifically said contradictions. What is truth? We are adamant that Jesus never claimed divinity, you say otherwise. If the Quran says that those people called themselves after pious people (as we Muslims do) then that’s that. Do you have documents from that era to prove the Quran otherwise? Is it a statement that sounds impossible to be true? It’s a normal human thing to do. You do not need to be a Jew or a Muslim to want to name you’re child after a pious person. My goodness...
Do you know what an idiom is?
Do you know what it means for a book alledgedly from God to claim that this is the idiom of the jews?
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |