Read the bold in my quote, if I were to tell you you are not allowed to enter a mosque since you are a not a muslim, and it is in my holy book to be recited what on earth does it mean? it is not really a law or a ruling, or it is not really a ruling, muslims can still be muslims if they don't obey that ruling so it's not really a ruling we can ignore it, I have to say this or else what I said about sura 5 being the sura in which the religion was perfected goes out the window so I shall perform semantic, theological and political acrobatics to ensure the koran doesn't contradict islam
Whatever man. I told you that the verse that says that this day the religion has been completed marks the end of Shariah law i.e. divine law. The Surahs revealed afterwards don't contain anything that became part of Shariah. Go ask if you don't believe me, but don't sit there and complain bitterly that pushing people out of Mosques is Shariah law.
Read your hadiths words are missing verses are missing verses have been altered, if you want to claim those are weak hadiths and the isnad and matn is a fabrication what you have to ask yourself is what do the liars have to gain these are practicing muslims what do they have to gain by lying about their holy scriptures and it became enshrined in Bukhari hadiths.
Who even mentioned fabrication? Your interpretation of the hadith is that the word "large" is being used as opposed to "small". And I'm telling you that "large" is being used to emphasize how devastating it would be that so many memorizers would die before being referenced in its transmission.
The hadith could have been "I fear a small portion of the Qur'an would be lost" and that would have had the SAME effect. The reason "large" is used is because when memorizers die, the Qur'an would have been lost in "large" chunks, because you need many people in its transmission. (On the hadith scale, the Qur'an has the highest ranking of authenticity because of the number of memorizers).
Links I suspect you have not read this is obvious when they contradict what you purport they say you become embarassed when I post the entire contents of those links to show that you haven't even read them and the amazing thing is instead of saying sorry won't happen again I will try and read the links the next time or better yet I will extract the relevant material from the links since I have lost your confidence in relating reliable links to you, you just continue as usual, find your formula and stick next to it because you know you cannot dissect your links logically with what the koran and the hadiths say, I suspect you were secretly hoping I do not read those links since you can then claim well at least he didn't read them I don't have to answer any questions, but when I post the entire contents of those links and show you your logical fallacies you claim "well I agree with the team that wrote that website" " I didn't really say that" " I agree with what the website says ( even though it contradicts what you initially said it said)
Actually I never said "I didn't really say that". I complete admitted that the understanding-team is correct. I assume it was mass slaughtering and torture, but it wasn't, and was very clear about that. So it's not exactly a victory to show that my personal opinion was wrong as long as an authority on Islam is correct, which is what I should have gone with in the beginning. I'm also going to continue to post links if you want to keep pasting the relevant parts in the thread.
I suspect when I ask you a question you type "islamic-awareness" and the question in a search engine and paste the links or something close.
I don't do that because I know it is passing the buck, it is dishonest, it is intellectual laziness, suppose you see something in the links and you want to ask me a question on? did I write it is it my point of view? can you discuss it with me? do I understand it? take it up with the author because I cannot be bothered to read it and express it to my audience.
Haha intellectual laziness. Bro you haven't come up with a single unique thing on here. I post links whereas you copy and paste in large chunks from websites. How do I know? You don't even paraphrase. Someone can copy and paste some passages into google and find the websites you've been reading that day. Also, I LIKE to post reliable links because:
"Ask those who recall if you know not" (Qur’an 16:43)
Nice choice of words, now suppose a woman was married a few hours ago but you decapitated the head of her husband (father, uncle and relatives too and you took off her maids and sisters to be raped by your mujaheddins ( guess the writers knew they would be pushing it with a sura to condone that one ...ooh my mistake it's covered by the same sura!!)) to the mentality of the people who wrote that sura, since you have killed the married woman's husband she is now no longer married and she is not pregnant (you know this because?), you can now rape her with allah's blessing (forget that you are suppose to wait 3 months before you have sex with a widow according to the law of iddah)
Try not to be low, rape is punishable by death in Islam. Also, I love how you glorify the poor widow's husband, who was decapitated for waging war against Islam. And you are correct, there is a waiting period for widowed women.
Btw you are still contradicting that sura and your explanation of that sura.
Spare me your humanistic hopskotch approach to the moral wickedness in your koran focus on your explanation and on that sura "all married women are forbidden unto you to sleep with except women you have caught"
Is your question about the ruling on a married woman who's husband had died in combat? She would be a widow. Or is your question on a woman whose husband was still alive but had fought against Islam. I'm going to actually ask about that and get back to you tomorrow, it should be interesting!
The hadith pls
It's called the entire Prophetic Seerah, thanks. It's not in Bukhari/Muslim.
Why are you beating around the bush you showed me a link that was obvious you hadn't read, that contradicted everything you said it said the understanding islam team specifically said the starvation and mass murder was a lie and you had the nerve to refer them as your advocate that the muslims were being starved and killed en mass. Do you realise how ridiculous it makes you look, now you are trying to switch the topic that "yeah I concede to a more knowledgeable party" you therefore concede that you try to deceive and didn't even read your advocate source.
Actually the team said the boycott wasn't in effect so that all Muslims would suffer its brunt, not that Muslims weren't tortured or killed, they just weren't genocided. And yes, I don't have a problem AT ALL with being proven wrong by an authority on Islam, haha. I was wrong and they were right, bro.
Do not insult your audience if hadiths like these can make it into the hundreds of thousands of Bukhari hadith:
"Bukhari volume 54: Book 4/Number 54/ Number 537 "... If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease."
This must be religious right?
Why not ONE hadith showing the killings, starvations of muslims, I reiterate the hadith pls?.
What do you think the Seerah is? You know those volumes that usually come in pairs? Like this:
http://www.ymofmd.com/books/aram/index.htm
What do you think it is? One could make jurisprudence using it, because its account doesn't necessarily relate back to the words of the Prophet so it couldn't be used for issuing religious rulings, but it's basically a biographical "hadith".
Read above; on a side note maybe you can show us all the jurisprudence behind dipping flies in your soup.
It CAN be used, should someone ever ask that in an Islam Q&A. E.g. should I throw away food if it hits the ground. What should I do if a fly lands in my food.
Keep on passing the buck if you were being honest with yourself you would read every line of that Tafsir and what I commented and logically discuss it.
There's nothing to discuss. You have the tafsir, and in between you have brackets with things like
"oh yeah right, as if this could be true, do you actually believe that! Wow you're so gullible! He meant SLAVE right here! That's the secret!"
Nice discussion, that's not called discussing, that's called disbelief, which is fine.
Pls read again what you have just said in light of the tafsir the tafsir specifically speaks of a literal taste of honey and allah admonished the prophet for his oath that "he would not drink honey", at no point in the entire tafsir does it mention sexual immorality or even Maria or sleeping with another wife, at least you are seeing the real reason that he had been with another woman. Did you not try and pass off a literal "taste of honey" as the true reason as opposed to being with another woman (sexualised one) in an earlier post?. Let me remind you of what you said:
Take a deep breath bro. Yes, the two wives were jealous because they had smelled the honey and knew that he had been offered honey at the house of the wife they were jealous of.
Your tafsir link (your advocate source) talks about a literal taste of honey:
Al-Bukhari also recorded this Hadith in the Book of Divorce; then he said, "Al-Maghafir is a type of sap, and in Ar-Rimth (a type of citrus) its taste is sweet...'' Al-Jawhari said, "The `Urfut is a tree of the shrub variety, which secretes Maghfur
" `I smell Maghafir on you. Have you eaten Maghafir' When he entered upon one of us, she said that to him. He replied (to her),
(No, but I drank honey in the house of Zaynab bint Jahsh, and I will never drink it again.)'' "
You are now contradicting your advocate source by what you now say.
You really are amazing.
Excuse me? I'm the one who's been talking about the literalness of the honey and YOU'RE the one who's sexualizing it.
Think about this for a second Mohammed was a polygamist he had lots of wives, what possible reason would his wives be jealous/angry that he had been with one of his other wives? please think about this it is a small logical point but the implications reveal what you are desperately trying to hide Mariah was not one of his wives.
Just because someone is a polygamist doesn't mean that wives don't get jealous of other wives. In fact that would probably be the most common problem in polygamous marriages.
This little incident should send alarm bells through your conscience how can this man be of God when he acts like this, this is the behaviour of a cheat, a fornicator, an adulterer, and his followers tried to cover it up thats makes them just as culpable.
The incident where his wives get jealous and laughingly make him swear an oath over not eating something which God has made lawful?
Don't feel sorry for me feel sorry for the 1.2 billion souls, most are completely unaware of the intricacies surrounding that sura and many more like it.
Haha, no bro, I still feel sorry for you because you furiously squirm trying to look for sexualized double narratives of the Prophets' life.
If you want to discuss it let us discuss what the transliteration is of the arabic of deceive and plot.
another translation also says "the unbelievers deceive, and allah also deceives, but the best of deceivers is allah"
If you want to discuss it let us discuss what the transliteration is of the arabic of deceive and plot.
Haha, ok bro, whip out your Arabic dictionary.
Who is talking about a secret in the exegesis?, the explanation is a lie and you know it. The oath " I promise never to drink honey again" you indicate is not really a literal oath to do with honey but to do with sleeping with a woman, now you are telling me to take it up with a mosque because it's my right??? am I a muslim? or is it because you couldn't find a tafsir that would cover the charade well enough.
Ummm, wow. I NEVER indicated that the oath was not literally to do with honey! The WHOLE exegesis describes how the Prophet took an oath about forbidding for himself what God had made lawful. Now you're just lying.
In this quote here:
I don't see how you take the tafsir that seems more "logical" (sexualized) over the one that is true.
I was being sarcastic, notice how for you the "logical" explanation is the sexualized one.
There's some serious reading comprehension problems on your part. Take a look at your deduction skills here:
I said
Didn't you read the tafsir, the wives weren't angry because they smelled honey, they were jealous that he had been with another wife and the honey was the indication
Which is true. They weren't emotional because the honey STINKS, they were jealous that the Prophet had been offered honey by his other wife.
Then you excitedly write
Pls read again what you have just said in light of the tafsir the tafsir specifically speaks of a literal taste of honey and allah admonished the prophet for his oath that "he would not drink honey", at no point in the entire tafsir does it mention sexual immorality or even Maria or sleeping with another wife, at least you are seeing the real reason that he had been with another woman. Did you not try and pass off a literal "taste of honey" as the true reason as opposed to being with another woman (sexualised one) in an earlier post?.
Yes, the honey IS literal and God DOES admonish the Prophet for taking an oath about the honey. And you're right, the tafsir doesn't mention sexual immorality, and yes OF COURSE the wives' jealousy stemmed from the Prophet's having eaten honey with the other wife.
You're so confused you're thinking that the honey is a metaphor. No. There was literally honey eaten with the other wife. The wives knew that the other wife offers him honey so they knew he had been with her. I love your deductive skills man, brilliant.
And yes, you SHOULD go to a mosque since your own exegesis is basically entrapping you in a cocoon of sexualized Prophet stories. You should get married or something, man.
Okay man, but WHAT people did Adam convey the Message of God too??
Children.
Eating something isn't a sin, human legalism has corrupted your mind.
Jesus purified the Law from this stupidity.
Disobeying God is the sin, not eating things. And human legalism makes you think that 21 is a sinless age of marriage but 20.5 years is sinful.
God NEVER said not to eat it, just warned the ancient Isarelites it was unclean for THEM. THem, they libed 1200 BC! We live in 2004 AD! Pig is NO LONGER unclean.
It's not about how clean you scrub the pig, it's about God forbidding it.
You're cool too.
Thanks bro
Unclean in 1200 BC, okay. Not so today.
Forbidden then, forbidden now.
Exactly! Secular historians kept the Illiad well preserved, why not religious scribes preserving the writings of thr Prophets and eye-witnessed accounts of Christ?
See, here we see a logical fallacy in your argument.
Haha, so your proof is "well THEY preserved THAT stupid book, so MY Book which is so much more important MUST have been preserved". Is this what you're telling me?
Does not every Muslims scholar have that ardent zeal to preserve the Quran? Yeah man! What's it going to be?
The proof is in the existance of early Jewish communities that diverged when Moses was alive, and when the Prophets were alive. They OT scriptures ARE PRESERVED, NOT CORRUPT.
Oh yeah? The Entire OT of today was preserved since before Moses (pbuh) died. What parts of the OT were written by Moses (pbuh) by the way?
I'm cheap!
But I'd spend a second to read a paragraph.
Haha, we're all broke man. Imagine the paragraph that would summarize Christian history, wow. "Tell me about Christian History in 1 paragraph please, I don't have a lot of time"
The NT doesn't contradicts the OT considering the entire OT is in Christian scriptures. Also, there are people that are both fully Jewish and fully Christian!
Haha bro, you should really study the faiths more:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/original.htm
Not only does the NT trace itse;f to Jesus, but well before Jesus in the writings of the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Law itself.
Oh ok! And all this time I thought that the NT was written years after Jesus (pbuh) had ascended to Heaven.
That's twisted man! In a marriage, all money the spouses make goes into one big account. The two become one, that means the money is used to benefit both spouses.
It can, except the wife isn't obligated to do so but the husband must.
Too much fanatism, needs to be sedated with some secularism. Our world is just very imbalanced.
All I know is if islam was a true religion, Muslims wouldn't be so misguided.
Nah, I think it needs more people ADHERING to Islam.
Islam as you know it will morph into a progressively regressive degenerate isolationsim religion. Hey, we're seeing this today. Bin Ladenism, you may call it. What ever it is, it's gaining tens of millions of Muslims everyday.
Haha, oh no, where's the Bin Ladenism meter at today? Have we hit 30 million yet?
Science doesn't support people magically appearing from dirt when they have homninids body parts in them and stuff.
I'm telling you, evolution IS science!
Then find something on the site and disprove it. At least enjoy the great graphics.
Okay, that was just sad.
What don't you understand about that statement? We're mammals but that doesn't mean we evolved from other mammals.
Not directly from dirt. Obviously the first of life came from chemicals that God Himself forged together. I believe God did created Life from the dirt in a literal sense. We derived ultimately from dirt, but not spontaeously. Our huamn bodies came from hominids, and go back 4000000000 years and POOF, we came from dirt. Well, a billion years is a second to God, right.
Do you understand what I believe? It's really good, answers all the tough questions.
All you've done is said "I believe in evolution of man, but I believe that God MADE evolution work". That's a cop-out answer because it denies that Adam and Eve were created from nothing and then populated the Earth.
Oh and guys, can we please be more civil, the level of conversation is deteriorating and we're trying to go for the record of "longest thread at jesus-christ-forums.com"
Peace bro.