What exactly have you been doing with all my posts to you so far? Are you not here as an apologetic to "explain away"/"teach us"/ the embarassing hadiths that give body and context to your religion?
No.when i joined here... i was interested in knowing more about christianity only. If i wish to learn more of Islam i would go to a muslim site... reading islamic info from a christian site... well what can i say... its stupid.
Tell me something all the koranic ayats, tafsirs, and hadiths I have given you did I make them up? Did I pluck them from muslim hating orientalists? Did they not come from the early muslims, as to how they interpreted the prophet's example? Are these muslims idiots for believing hadiths, are they gullible? Are they stupid? If you need to hack off parts of your religion, dismiss others, say you don't know to the rest and just accept it so that it becomes palatable, then you will never be free to examine your religion with the objective state of mind you are trying to trick us into believing you already do. Did I not go to muslim sources for the ayats, the hadiths, the translations and summaries?
Everything I have showed you about islam is blatant from the ayats, the hadiths and the tafsirs, you really have nothing to stand on by insulting me for doing just that. If a muslim cannot even question his own faith at the pain of death I can understand where you are coming from.
But when i see people like you bringing "documentary proof" of diabolical origins etc of Islam... i believe it is my right and duty to clear this misconception up...
Did I make those ayats, hadiths, and tafsirs up?
What misconception, what exactly have you cleared up? "I don't know" "it is fabricated" "the scholars are idiots..." "there I cleaned it all up...next"
When you tell me the hadiths are wrong, being taken out of context, contradict the koran, "and this is the proper context", I would like to see what hadiths you are using to base your evidence, and where it contradicts the koran, quoting me apologetic material written in the 20th century by westernized muslims to make islam seem mild to the west will do you no good, was your religion created in the 20th century?
Tell me ... would you accept catholic references proving christianity or greek orthodox books or something that you do not believe in but is considered to be christian???
I am afraid your analogy is completely off the chart, do you or do you not accept hadiths of Bukhari, Muslim,e.t.c? Ofcourse you can always reject them all like you are rejecting the hadith of that donkey to save face.
Simply telling me I reject this hadith because the hadiths are not infallible proves what exactly? That your decision supercedes eminent imams and early muslim scholars who interpreted your religion? Are you an authority on islam? Do you realise all you have done so far is give your word alone that the hadiths are not infallible.?
No. I do not reject hadiths just because..... i read them.. cross ref them judge them based on the Quran and common sense and logic... and if it fails the test... its a fabricated hadith. so once again (i think this is the 3rd or 4th time i am repeating it) hadith books are not infallable. they can and do contain mistakes.
No doubt when the hadith makes sense and can be used for your own gain you will readily accept it? But if it is a stone running away with Moses's clothes it has to be rejected because it doesn't make any sense to you, the funny thing is the stone running away with Moses's clothes is just a tip of an iceberg that proliferates the reasons for entire quranic verses.
What kind of double standards is this? If it contradicts what you deem to be common sense you reject it? You are basically telling us the early muslims had no common sense, am I to believe your shia imams will accept this from you? That you are rejecting the founders of the religious way of life? Where exactly is your shia doctrine to selectively pick and choose what you want to believe?
not just sunni but shia as well. the question is which ones are right and which ones are not .... thats where common sense and logic steps in...
This is how you make your own religion, this is how you create sects, pick and chose just like a pizza topping...designer islam to make it valid for the 20th century mindset.
Altho i am not an authority on Islam...
Obviously you feel you are an authority to reject what the founders of your religion said, do you know how many muslims have told me that the stone running away with Moses's clothes was a miracle?
i do have a brain. i call it as i see it...
This is precisely what I would like you to do, you would see the majority of koranic ayats to be just as ridiculous as the stone running away with Moses's clothes.
even if the entire world's muslim priests disagreed with me... i will not step back
Couldn't the Ayatollah just issue a fatwa and have you dealt with?
. after all they too are mere humans capable of making mistakes...
You said you are a shia? How do you view the ayatollah is he capable of making mistakes?
Now you play the politician's game you have been playing all along, do not answer a straight forward question, simply reverse the question, you are asking me to give you a document that says the hadiths do not contain any mistakes? Am I a muslim? did I write the hadiths? Were the hadiths not written by muslims, as an example of how a muslim was to model himself?
call it whatever you like... your opinions are of no consequence of me. It is you who is equating the hadiths with infallibility... you do not need to be a muslim ... you just have to use a lil' intelligence.. people here are telling you that all hadiths are not 100% true...
Then if they are not true, what is the basis for those ayats?
Those koranic ayats have no context, you are biting the hand that feeds you, it is like hacking off the old and new testament and going it alone.
yet you wish to ignore these people
These people have not proven themselves to be authorities on the koran, they are unaware of simple koranic ayats, am I to take it someone who is an authority on islam would respond several times with "I don't know" when you ask them simple questions? Would you believe the individual to be an authority on the koran?
and still act ignorant to this fact..
I am afraid your word is not good enough, show me the hadiths and the tafsirs like I have done, then we can move on. (muslims who normally refuse to show me hadiths and tafsirs usually do so because they are in a catch 22 situation) you can scream all you want, I would like to see your religious scriptures as to where you are getting your interpretation for those ayats if the ones I am showing you are lies.
and post the same story again and again. Dude.. get over it. the hadiths you post are false!!!!!!!!!!! So what if they were written by muslims??? are muslims error-free? NO..
Says who? Are you an authority? Those hadiths are narrated through rigorously tested chains to be from the prophet, if you are telling me they had no common sense and/or are liars then by default your proohet has no common sense and/or is a liar because he told these people all these things, the people who told us this also laid out the shariah based on this, an idealogical islamic ruling system, there is no separation between islam and the state, this marriage is only possible because of these hadiths, thousands of them, are you telling me the early muslims were such efficient liars??? If this is the case
are you telling me liars wrote the koran? that islamic law embodied in the shariah is full of lies?
Unfortunately/fortunately (whichever way you want to look at it) since I do not have the muslim mindset I can't just gloss it over and claim "allah is great" in the process. If you are truly comfortable with your religion you will be prepared to let the world see it in all its beauty, telling me something is false when you are not even prepared to give an alternative as to what you believe is typical of someone who does not know and does not want to be bothered, which I am afraid to say has been your attitude throughout.
Who are you to say it is no longer incumbent on you to follow it? Which school of thought are you following to give such a reason for rejecting hadiths? Without the hadiths your koran has no context whatsoever, you have a religion made up of 114 utterings that no one can place or say why an ayat was said, making an argument out of silence does not really help you.
I am a person who has a brain.. has intelligence.. is able to differentiate between right and wrong... can see which is fact and which is fiction based on logic as the first step.
If you are really using logic you would realise these are nothing short of stupidity:
Quran 38:17 We endued Our slave David with power. It was We who subdued the hills to sing Our praises with him at nightfall. And the birds were assembled, all obedient to him?
Qur an 91:11 Thamud rejected (their prophet) through inordinate wrong-doing. Behold, the most-wicked wretch among them broke forth but the Messenger said? Be cautious. It is a She-camel of Allah! And bar her not from having her drink? But they rejected him as a false prophet and hamstrung her? So Allah on account of their crime, obliterated their traces, doomed them, desolated their dwellings, leveling them to the ground for their sin.
Quran 27:18 At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it....
You do not have to be an imbecile to realise the above is nonsense yet it is in the koran, in the same manner as the other rubbish in the hadiths Yet you sit there and tell us you are being logical, the koran is correct and the infallible word of allah and the hadith is fabricated when they both back each other up, tell me how do you interpret the above verses? which tafsirs will you use to interpret them? "I don't know" or will you just turn the question so you don't have to perjure yourself?
In other words I have to displace common sense and never ask questions as to why Mohammed was giving freedom to commit incest? (Your response of "I don't know" just about sums up your whole discussion so far)
Its funny when a christian says use common sense.... anyways.. read this..
Gen 11:27 ¶ Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah fathered
This is becoming embarassing, you forget the bible is written in chronological order unlike the koran, why don't you read the marriage laws of Leviticus 18 well after Abraham
"None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the LORD. 7The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness. 9The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover. 10The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness. 11The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father--she is your sister--you shall not uncover her nakedness. 12You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is near of kin to your father. 13You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is near of kin to your mother. 14You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother. You shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law--she is your son's wife--you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near of kin to her. It is wickedness. 18Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.
If we are to follow your argument to it's logical conclusion since you are arguing that "look there's incest in your book Mohammed is justified", why didn''t you include this part of the bible too?
You are stooping to absurdity to justify koranic ayats, who do you think Adam's children married? ...yes their brothers and sisters, was it taboo to marry your brothers and sisters at a period when the earth was scarce of inhabitants? no the Lord allowed it, there was nobody else to marry, and was discontinued in the later times for a very good reason, our genes degenerate marrying close knit relatives increases the likelihoods that our children will be deformed, this is partly the reason incest is taboo, the 'sick sexual predator' that was Mohammed was ignorant of this, and contradicted this in his very own selfish utterings in the koran.
Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran fathered Lot.
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his birth, in Ur of the Chaldeans.
29 And Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai. And the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran
What are you trying to prove with this 'exercise' that "look it is in your book too so there"??? Only a trapped animal attacks. I am curious what exactly have you proved or are trying to prove?
Why his petty squabbles and adultery are profilerated in the koran and memorised for all time to be chanted for all time and why a copy in heaven would contain such information for all time?
Gen 19:30 ¶ And Lot went up out of Zoar, and lived in the mountain, and his two daughters with him. For he feared to live in Zoar, and he and his two daughters lived in a cave.
If you have an answer to this "disgusting anti-christian" behaviour.. that answer will be the answer you seek.
I hope you are aware that the bible contains the acknowledgement and sins of the people and the civilisations it mentions, the bible is not mentioned to contain a copy of it in heaven to be chanted for all time. The bible contains deep significant spiritual messages not words to be memorised and chanted wether you understand it or not in some brain washed belief that you get to heaven acting out an obsessive compulsive disorders.
Why someone calling himself a prophet has no prophecy or miracle to his name to deem him the office of prophethood.?
Miracle = The Quran
Prophecy from the Bible : Deu 18:18
Prophethood established.
Deuteronomy 18
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Taking your comments to it's logical conclusion when it says in verse 1 and 2
"among their brethren":
Deuteronomy 18
1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.
The priests and the levites really mean Mohammed?
Why nobody can vouch for this man that they heard from God that he really is a prophet, he is not prophecied in any of the two previous revelations and looks to be making it up at best and demonic possesed at worst?
No one vouched for Jesus.
Considering you are unaware of sources for your own religion, it is expecting too much for you to know the prophecies Jesus fulfilled.
Who made him Prophet? meaning does a person have to second a person who claims Prophethood???
Let me refresh what I have been saying to you in at least umpteen posts now which you have purposely chosen to ignore as to the criteria of a prophet:
"If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”
You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death."
Deuteronomy 18:19-22, 13:1-5
Matthew 7
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Who vouched for Moses? Aaron?? Joshua?? were they in direct communication with God???
Didn't the entire nation see for themselves who was vouching for Moses?, Aaron, and Joshua? Which miracle or prophecy did Mohammed perform? since you are a hadith rejecter which one will you chose?
Did they recieve revelations?? did they encounter the burning bush? Meaning... vouching for someone doesnt make that person a Prophet... I can vouch for another person... does it make him a prophet??? Meaning... this is an irrevelent criteria for prophethood.
You are only saying this because at least you are fully aware nobody vouched for Mohammed, noone alive or dead heard a dream a premonition anything whatsoever from God, and yet the man has no miracles, no prophecies, a book he never wrote, he never saw one word of is paraded as his greated miracle (like he had any), yet the hadiths are full of his immoral lifestyle, a false prophet like no other has not walked the planet as Mohammed.
By your logic any tom dick or harry who just suddenly claims he is a prophet is automatically a prophet, he doesn't have to have a prophecy, perform miracles, do anything, just proclaim he is a prophet do some good works and ask for booty and viola
"To hear is to obey"
Why I have to get four witnesses if I catch someone in the middle of adultery.?
Ever heard of the phrase "false testamony"??? You need to get 4 just and righteous persons who are known to be non-liars.
It seems my point was lost on you. Let me elaborate on the stupidity of the context:
024.001 “(This is) a surah which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful. For the woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah. And let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”
Interesting sura what exactly is the historical reference for this sura called the criterion, did allah suddenly manifest it for mohammed to utter after one of his many epileptic seizures or did he just make it up based on the current events happening in his neighorhood of the arabian peninsula, let us see what the sunnah has to say about the creation of this sura:
Tabari VIII:58/Ishaq:494 “Aisha said, ‘When the raid [thats right you heard it right raid not self defence not persecution from the pagans just a simple raid committed by thieves] on the Mustaliq took place, Muhammad had his wives draw lots as he used to do to see who would accompany him. My lot came out over theirs, and he took me along. Women in those days used to eat only enough to stay alive; they were not bloated with meat so as to become heavy. While my camel was being saddled, I would sit in my litter; then the men who were to bind my litter onto my camel would come and place my howdah on the camel. They would take hold of the camel and walk alongside.”
This provides an interesting insight into Muhammad’s priorities. Setting off on a terrorist raid he used men and a camel to carry a girl so that he might not be deprived of 'intimacy'. As such, believing that this man was a prophet speaking on behalf of God requires one to be deprived of a brain.
Ishaq:494 “When the people had mounted, I went out to attend to a need of mine (to relieve myself). I had a necklace with onyx beads. When I was finished it came undone without my noticing. I retraced my steps to the place where I had gone looking until I found it. But while I was away, the men who saddled the camel for me assumed that I was in the litter and lifted it up. When I returned to the camp, not a soul was there. I wrapped myself in my jilbab and lay down in the place where I had gone. I thought they would return.”
Tabari VIII:58/Ishaq:494 “I had just lain down when Safwan al-Sulami passed by. He had lagged behind attending to a need of his. He had not spent the night with the troops. When he saw my form, he approached me and stood over me. He used to look at me before the veil and hijab was imposed on us. When he saw me, he exclaimed in astonishment, ‘The Apostle’s wife!’ He asked why I was alone, but I did not speak. Then he brought his camel near and said, ‘Mount! I mounted and he came. He took hold of the camel’s head and set out with me, hastening in pursuit of the party. He told me to ride it while he kept behind. So I rode it.”
Tabari VIII:60 “The story reached the Prophet and I missed the attention he once showed me.… He would come to see me while my mother was nursing me, and say ‘How is she?’ and nothing more. We were Arab folk. We did not have these privies in our houses that the foreigners have; we loathed such things. Instead, we would go out into the fields of Medina. One day while I was out with the girls. One said, ‘Daughter, take it lightly. Whenever a beautiful woman married to a man has rival wives, they always gossip about her, and people do the same.’ I showed my astonishment.”
So the prophet's child bride was being suspected of sleeping with someone else, considering Mohammed had added Juwariyah to his harem (stolen from a raid I may add but thats another story) and Aisha was already jealous of her this was well founded so what did Mohammed do with rumors abounding that his child bride had slept around coming from not one, not two but three people.
Tabari VIII:62/Ishaq:496 “Ali [Muhammad’s adopted son, son-in-law, future Caliph, and Shi’ite saint] said, ‘Prophet, women are plentiful. You can get a replacement, easily changing one for another.’”
“Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.’ So the Apostle called Burayra [one of the witnesses to Aisha's adultery?] to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first [you understand that the truth was no what was expected but whatever they wanted to hear?], saying, ‘Tell the Apostle the truth. [ofcourse]’”
Caught between a misogynist and a sadist, the slave was of no value to either man. Ali couldn’t force her to speak badly of Aisha and Muhammad chose not to listen. All we know is that the founders of Islam captured and owned slaves, and they beat them without remorse.
Tabari VIII:63/Ishaq:496 “When Muhammad came into my room, my parents were with me. I was crying. I waited for my mother and father to reply to the Apostle, but they did not speak. I asked my parents why they were afraid to defend me, but they said nothing. My weeping broke out afresh. I swear, I considered myself too lowly and unimportant for Allah to reveal a Qur’an about me to be recited in mosques and used in worship. But I was hoping that the Prophet would see something in a dream from Allah which would clear me of this.”
Guess what happened next? yes you guessed it allah/mohammed conducted aforementioned sura
Tabari VIII:63/Ishaq:497 “Before Allah’s Messenger left the place where he was sitting, there came over him from Allah what used to come over him [this dayu and age it would be called an epileptic fit]. They covered him with his garment and set a leather cushion under his head [which other prophet needed this type of treatment after receiving a revelation from God?]. Then he recovered and sat up; drops of sweat fell from him like silver beads [typical epileptic symptoms]. He began wiping the perspiration from his brow and said, ‘Good news, Aisha! Allah has sent down word about your innocence [doesn't he mean Ali's slave he had beaten has spoken ?].’ I said, ‘To Allah’s praise and your blame!’ Then he went out to the people and preached to them. He recited the Qur’an Allah had revealed concerning me and gave orders concerning Mistah, Hassan, and Hamnah who were the most explicit in their slander. They received their prescribed flogging of eighty lashes. They were beaten to the boundary of death for their crime against the religion of Islam.”
Hmmm interesting offending the prophet is now a crime against the religion of islam. Coincidentally have muslims ever wondered why 4 witnesses are required to convict someone of adultery or fornication? this is the test case because the witnesses against Aisha were three Mohammed just propped the witness conviction programme to 4 so Aisha escapes and the witnesses get eightly lashes.
024.004 “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors.”
This is the criterion in all it's vulgarity:
024.001 “(This is) a surah which We have revealed and made obligatory and in which We have revealed clear communications that you may be mindful. For the woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah. And let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”
For Muhammad to avoid having the lash applied to him, he had to have his god condone polygamy (which is adultery in all sane religions and societies), as well as pedophilia (which is what is being approved here), incest (approved earlier in the 33rd surah), unwed intimacy with concubines (which is fornication) and intimacy with slaves (which is rape). In other words, Muhammad was a hypocrite—the embodiment of the condition he condemned.
024.006 “And for those who launch a charge against their wives, accusing them, but have no witnesses or evidence, except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing four times) by Allah that he is the one speaking the truth. And the fifth (oath) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie.”
That pretty much sums up the plight of Islamic women. If their husbands say that they are bad four times, they are as good as dead. Men don’t need evidence. In the Islamic world, women can’t speak or even leave home without their husbands’ permission. So this next verse is rendered moot.
024.008 “But it would avert the punishment from the wife (of being stoned to death), if she bears witness four times by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth.”
Returning to Muhammad’s predicament, we find another series of verses that are senseless without the context of the Hadith. And within their context, they are petty and vengeful, focused on the desires of the Qur’an’s author. The sheer volume of these verses should tell you all you need to know about his priorities.
024.011 “Those who brought forward the lie are a body among you: but think it not an evil to you; on the contrary, it is good for you: to every man among them (will come the punishment) of the sin he earned, and for him who took the lead in the slander, his will be an awful doom. Why did not the believers, when you heard of the affair, put the best construction on it in their minds and say, ‘This is an obvious lie?’ Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? Since they produce not witnesses, they are liars in the sight of Allah. Were it not for His mercy a grievous penalty would have seized you in that you rushed glibly into this affair. You received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which you had no knowledge; and you thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of Allah, a grave offense. And why did you not, when you heard it, say? ‘It is not right of us to speak of this: this is a most serious slander, an awful calumny!’ Allah does admonish you, that you may never repeat such, if you are Believers. And Allah makes clear the communications. Allah is the Knower, Wise. Those who love scandal to be broadcast among the Believers will have a painful punishment in this life and the hereafter.”
How is it possible that a book allegedly written before the world began could focus so intently on a child accused of fornication/adultery and yet say nothing about the indiscretion that prompted the infidelity? Aisha was upset because Muhammad purchased—with money he “earned” selling children into slavery —intimacy with an alluring slave. It’s obvious Ibn Ishaq, the prophet’s earliest and most trusted biographer, and Tabari, the first Islamic historian, were bothered too. And that’s why they said:
Ishaq:493 “According to a man I do not suspect, and others who contributed parts of the story, a report has been assembled for you based upon what people have told me in regards to the account of Aisha’s story about herself, when the authors of the lie said about her what they said.” In other words, the same sources who have brought us the Hadith and Qur’an were witnesses against Aisha and thus witnesses against Muhammad and the Qur’an.
I sum up with this verse from sura 24, already confirming with what I surmised from the Hadith. When enslaved women were given to Muhammad’s militants as booty, they were forced into prostitution.
024.034 “Force not your slave-girls to whoredom (prostitution) if they desire chastity, that you may seek enjoyment of this life. [And here’s the freedom-to-pimp card from the last messegner and the religion for all mankind for all eternity read and weep:] But if anyone forces them, then after such compulsion, Allah is oft-forgiving.” These guys weren’t qualified to open a brothel, much less start a religion.
Malik Book 36, Number 36.19.17:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Suhayl ibn Abi Salih as-Samman from his father from Abu Hurayra that Sad ibn Ubada said to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "What do you think if I find a man with my wife? Shall I grant him a respite until I bring four witnesses?" The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied, "Yes."
Would you care to show me the proper hadiths and interpretation of the 4 witnesses now? since obviously my sources are lies? Or will you just say "those are lies" and leave it at that? If you ask me about the trinity and say 3 can't go into one or Jesus is talking to Himself and is the Father... and I simply tell you, no you are wrong and leave it at that, have I answered your questions? This is in essence what you do.
I could be hauled up on blasphemy charges/fatwa/death threat/sentence/ if I start asking some moral questions about this 'holy' prophet, regardless of wether I am in the western hemisphere or the heart of islam? Does God need to threaten believers to keep them in the religion?
Mat 23:33 Serpents! Offspring of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
39 For I say to you, You shall not see Me from now on until you say, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."
Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him sitting on it was Death, and Hell followed with him. And authority was given to them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with the sword and with hunger and with death and by the beasts of the earth.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire.
hmm... Threatening one to be in religion you say huh?? hmm...
This is what will happen on judgement day, a prophetic statement nothing to do with threatening one to accept the religion, you will notice you didn't answer my question again but simply reversed it, am I to take it you are unable or unwilling to answer a question, or you see yourself as unquestionable?
Is this what God cares about?
Ok.. i'll bite.. what does God care about?
It was a question.
Islam is nothing short of cultural legalism.
Is that why paul abolished the law??? called it a curse??? We dont need laws... we are good christians.. good deeds will automatically come from us... hmm.. maybe thats why the civilised christian world has be fighting with anyone and everyone and themselves for the past 2000 yrs.
If you believe using odd pieces of toilet tissue will get you to an eternal licensed brothel where the women are chained to their rooms and have regenerative hymens good luck, or maybe this is a fabricated belief too?
Ok show me the correct incidents
regarding the stone running away... i posted the relevent info
The info being "this hadith is a lie". I need a little bit more to go on than this.
Pooya/Ali Commentary 28:80]
After Firawn and his people had been drowned in the Nile, Musa delegated the authority to Harun. This caused envy in Qarun towards Musa and Harun. To degrade Musa he employed a woman, bribing her with two purses of gold, and told her to say before public that Musa had committed adultery with her.
Do you see that there are 3 persons here??? i know you mention this later on in your post... so i wont deal with it then... but just to emphises my point that you do not read the entire info.. just waht suits your purpose. plz be a lil more open minded...
My apologies, I did an extensive search in the available bukhari muslim abu dawod and malik hadiths at the usc site did not see the story anywhere, which hadith is this story from? ( I am well aware it is shia hadith where is it from?)
About Mary... that too was deal with ... i assume you just skipped it since it left no doubt ...
About the honey incident... also answered...
Tell me something, give me a simple reply here:
which do you see as the more logical explanation for a wife to come against her husband:
"Bukhari vol 3 648 "...The Prophet did not go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to 'Aisha, and he said that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Maria"
Or a later hadith about your husband smelling of honey so much you and the other wives would come up against him, you smell of hoeny to the xtent that your wives have to make a furore over it?
please for the love of God you claim to serve, be objective regarding this which is the more believable story?
whatelse?? have i missed out anything??? oh yea the lump part... also answered. it is a false info... there was no lump... fabricated hadith.
Brilliant, so when you ask me about the trinity I can just say "uhm you don't understand it...next" would you accept an explanation like that?
sura 17:1 Most glorified is the One who summoned His servant (Muhammad) during the night, from the Sacred Masjid (of Mecca) to the farthest place of prostration [If this verse is coming from God why would God be talking to Himself in the third person, and greeting Himself??]
tell me how do you know how to greet / glorify God??? did you make it up yourself?? did your pastor / parents tell you?? does the Bible say so?? My understanding here of the initial words is it shows man how to greet God.. How to glorify Him... etc... i dont see anything wrong with this...
Please answer the question which is more logical God talking to Himself in the third person, or some possessed human being claiming God is talking to him, why would God be talking to Himself in the third person? where in your koran do you get the idea that this place of prostration is Jerusalem?
Sura 33:53:
but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but God is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth [ Is this really what God cares about?]
first of all.. when a person visits another... he shouldnt sit and make nonsensical talk... meaninless pointless chat.. if some guy came to my place and sat for hours saying mindless gossip or absurd chitchat.. i would be pissed.. and i might even throw him out... now consider doing this with a person who is God-sent??? another thing which you seem to have avoided to copy is the initial part of this verse... let me do it for you..
Which other prophet needed divine revelation asking people to leave his house?
on reading this verse it automatically creates an image that some of the companions of the Prophet has a serious problem with manners... barging in the door... endless gossip... vain talk..etc.. does such behaviour infront of a God-sent Prophet seem ok to you? Or will you argue that i dont need a book to teach me manners!!!!! point is there were some who had no manners... and there still are some... this verse is relevent to them... and to others as a guideline to a decent society...
I see only parts of the koran is relevant?
Where are you gettting this teaching from?
Is there a shia source where I can verify that this is what your shia sect believe? or are you a lone pariah?
I get the feeling you are making it up as you go along.
And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy God's Apostle, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in God's sight an enormity.[/color] [This sounds just like any other jealous old man with young wives who he wants to die in the knowledge that they never sleep with anybody else]
First off are these your comments??? or you copied them?? i ask this because i would like to know if your mind is already made up about his character?? anyways... here is the commentary for 66:1-2
The [] are my comments.
Now you might want to say ... "Honey?????" why would a woman get mad about honey... but you need to know that these 2 women had issues with the Prophet... so much so.. that he was authorised by God .. that if he so desired he could divorce them... on hearing this these 2 women temporarily reformed / repented...
I am afriad the above needs me to abdicate common sense to believe a word of it, considering there is an earlier logical hadith
RELATING TO THE SAME INCIDENT.
sura 66:...If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, [Would you care to explain who the two should turn in repentance towards? it looks like they are to turn in repentance to Mohammed]
Sometimes it helps to read different translations... here i am providing 2 more translations for your doubts
Fabrication
"I don't know"
"Look at this in the bible"
Translation error.
...
sura 66:..It may be, if he divorced you (all), that God will give him in exchange consorts better than you, [Would you care care to explain how God would have an indecisive conjunctive phrase like "maybe...if"]
this part is a lil complicated...
??? You are giving more credit and intelligence than the context deserves.
These are not from anti-islamic orientalists but from your koran
I agree.. these are all from the Quran ... what i was talking about were the comments you add... yours or what?
don't know what you are talking about, the early muslims were unable to read or write, the earliest koran
what???? you are the first person i have ever heard say such a thing... early muslims didnt know how to read and write... you are joking right?? if not... then you seriously need to stop reading all that anti-islamic literature... arabs then knew how to read and write... why do you think literature and poetry were prevelent back then??? coz they were ill-literate??? c'mon dude...
Ok now you have something you are certain of, pls show us the hadiths of the early muslims at the time of Mohammed showing they were literate?
and where did you get the 150 years number???
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm
The language revealed in was arabic... under the quraish dialect... the quraish didnt need the extra marks for reading... they knew exactly what was what... It was Imam Ali who introduced these dialectric marks... also knows as kufic script
The archaelogical evidence from Gerard Puin disagrees with you.
Telling me people who were unable to read or write would produce perfect written copies of a language that was still being developed is pure fantasy on your part.
well tell ing me they couldnt read and write is pure fantasy on your part. because it is a proven fact that even the oldest Quran dates back to the uthmanic Quran.
and he died like 10-15 years after Prophet Muhammed.
Again the archaelogical evidence disagrees with you, the earliest koran can only be traced to 150 yrs after the death of Mohammed, and it has no diacritical marks to distinguish vowels, or b's, t's and h's.
Avoiding the question and arguing from silence again,
Dude??? for the love of God.. read what i am writing and try to understand it... i said stones dont move... they have no life... the word inanimate says it all... which part of stones are inanimate do you not understand??? if you think that this is the basis for 33:69.. then you are sadly mistaken... i have already posted the relevent info on this topic... a few paragraphs above... God!!!!
Your say so you understand is insufficient, I am coming from islamic doctrine you could at least show me the same courtesy.
then do you believe Ishmael was the son Abraham took to the mount? Your koran doesn't mention it, and it doesn't even mention Ishmael's mother "the mother of the arabs", do you believe muslims have a claim to Jerusalem because your koran doesn't mention it, do you believe you have to slice your foreheads once a year to commemorate Ali, or follow your 12 imams because your koran doesn't mention it , do you believe you have to wear white clothes and run up and down marwa and sarfa and cut your hair after circumnavigating the black stone, kissing it and throwing stones at the devil? Since your koran doesn't mention it why do you do it?
and your point is???? wat are you trying to say?? i dont understand...
If it is not in the koran you won't accept it? yes?
Why do you do all the above they are not in the koran?
41:11] Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
its a metaphore... the sky n all are not speaking back or replying etc...
The tafsir verifies the context above and it still states they come willingly they have a mind to not come or not to come, again you are giving more intelligence and credit than the context suggests.
the donkey hadith....
dude.. its false. i sid this before... and what exactly are you trying to prove by providing a anti-shia sunni point of view??? I am telling you myself .. Shia books of hadiths are not infalliable... they do contain errors.. fabrications etc... plz lets move on....
Yes indeed lets sweep it under the carpet why don't we, this is the blinkers islam is forcing you to wear.
I am afraid the 12 apostles had a lot to go on than "divine revelations"
ok.. what did they have??? Jesus' words??? a few feats of magic?
The prophecies Jesus fulfilled, the thousands of healings they personally witnessed, what about Mohammed? No prophecy to his name, no miracle, nothing but a war lord searching for booty and women to be raped, which his followers did their utmost to make him look religious by falsifying accounts and threaten death to anyone who confronts his behaviour. This reminds me of people trying to make pets out of squirrels, no matter how cute it looks on the outside it is still a wild animal.
i ahve already proven to you that excorsism and sticks to snakes can be from the devil...
Did you?
Let me remind you of what my criteria is:
"If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”
You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death."
Deuteronomy 18:19-22, 13:1-5
Matthew 7
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
so we are back to square one... how did the 12 disciples know Jesus was who he claimed to be?
Prophecy
Did they get divine revelations???
No need they could see the miracles and the fulfilled prophecy for themselves, what about Mohammed? Do you have anything to vouch for his prophethood?
This is how your argument sounds like me : "
Hitler was a really sound guy, he didn't exterminate all those jews those are lies fabricated by anti hitler oriientalists there were no authenticated documents to say he killed all those jews show me where in mein kamp it says he is going to kill 6 million jews, if you don't show it to me I am not going to believe it, he made germany into a great country with low employment whilst their neighors were living in poverty, he made germany into a super power in terms of military might, all the early stories about him being a demneted lunatic are false what I am telling you is true because I say so"
The choice is either some illness or demonic possession such symptoms have never been seen in any prophet of God.
How did the other Prophets recieve their divine messages???
Here is the criteria again:
"If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”
You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death."
Deuteronomy 18:19-22, 13:1-5
Matthew 7
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
There is no mention of rolling on the floor, complaining of heart palpitations and ringing bells, this is synomynouis with the occult, you heard of american indians going to caves to meet their spirit guides? this is similar to the way the spirit that possessed Mohammed got hold of him.
It seems this is your trademark reply. I have to wonder if you are even prepared to question your faith? are you truly free to question it? if you swallow every doctrine every ayat no matter how immoral without question.
no. it was an honest answer. I dont know
It is commendable you are willing to admit you don't know, since you don't know why are you defending the indefensible?
surely you do not need revelation from God Almighty just to make people leave your home?
Now who is answering a question with another question??? or are you trying to say all men on earth past present and future have impeccable manners??? have you heard of peeping toms??? voyouers??
Again the question is not answered.
I could show you the hadiths but I suspect you will just claim they are lies. So I take it unless you see the word 'stole' from the hadiths written by muslims for muslims you will never believe it?? Why don't you be objective and read between the lines, which son is happy to have his father marry his wife, that is just plain weird.
is an adopted son the same as biological son? what is it that sets relationships??? blood line or paper??? or is your argument based on western ethics only???
Time to argue in terms of semantics, the incident caused an uproar among the quraish and the early muslims, it was regarded as incest, Mohammed always had a get out of jail free card, just claim allah did it.
Do you need to blackmail people to listen to you by claiming God told you to tell them? How about the simple logical alternative since you have something to gain by all these revelations, people to leave you alone, not to ask you questions, to give you 5% of booty, that you are simply making it up for you own good.
and you call this reading betw the lines??? i call this wilful character assasination...
Uhm if Paul, or any of the apostles, had written that 5% of booty was theirs, and captured women were for them to sleep with, and people should leave their houses without talking after having their meal, and sanctioning incest for themselves, any rational individual would scrutinize why why why the selfish SINFUL utterings and claim it is from a God who is no respecter of persons.
005.101 “Believers, ask not questions about things which if made plain to you may cause you trouble when the Qur’an is revealed. Some people before you asked questions, and on that account lost their faith.”
answer this question... can God make a square circle?
can God create a rock He cant lift? does man really have free will if God has already ordained everything?
You are giving too much spiritual significance than the context suggests.
I do not see any relationship with predestination, I see a man who is confronted like a trapped animal and wants a get out of jail clause.
I ask again are you free to question your faith?
Yes i am.
It seems getting an answer from you on anything is like getting blood from a stone, it is either, it is a forgery, "I don't know" or this role reversal... Have you even read Matt 16:22 in it's context?
In light of what you have just said what exactly have you proved? that Peter loved Jesus? and?
No ... my point is disbelief in Jesus by Peter... Peter disagreed with Jesus.. and not only that he rebuked Jesus.. what is the meaning of rebuke??
Jesus told Peter and the rest of the disciples He would be taken captive and suffer, Peter said no we will not let this happen, Jesus rebuked Peter by telling him this must happen.
rebuke —v. (-king) express sharp disapproval to (a person) for a
fault; censure. —n. rebuking or being rebuked. [Anglo-French]
If the man had a revelation from allah that allah said I should divorce my wife and give her to him, and he has no prophecy to his name he is not a prophet,
which brings us to sqare 1 again.. how or waht are the requirements for Prophethood??? and may i add... what makes one a false prophet as well??
Ah here it is again with the requirements and designation of a false prophet:
"If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”
You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death."
Deuteronomy 18:19-22, 13:1-5
Matthew 7
15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
You are making the argument that Mohammed is a prophet because he said so?
Do you understand my question at all?
Who (which other individual other than Mohammed) did God or angel Gabriel say to (this separate third party individual other than Mohammed) that "Mohammed is a prophet of God"?
Maybe i didnt understand.. ok.. answer is no. no one else... atleast from a general islamic view...
If no one vouched for him, from God and he made no prophecies, did no miracles, how is he a prophet?
Didn't God speak to Joshua?
Didn't God speak to Miriam?
when???
1 After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD, the LORD spoke to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' assistant, saying, 2"My servant Moses is dead. Now proceed to cross the Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the Israelites.
Numbers 12
4Suddenly the LORD said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, "Come out, you three, to the tabernacle of meeting!" So the three came out.
You not