Christian/Muslim ThreadsQuestions regarding the Quran and Islam generallyoh, it's back then!!!.... so you say that the quran is dependant on time... so practiclly everything in it, even the 5 pillars could be subject to that time, no need to follow that now! first of all 1x1x1 equalls 1... and this use of math too describe the divine corporealbility is first used by muslims to try and give flawed logic were there isn't any. So what Muhammed did, was first create a problem that didn't excist "3 Gods" and then give a self made solution to a self made problem. You're only confucing yourself if you believe that Muhammed clarified something other then his own fallacies. What if it's not clear? Quran's not a clear book as muhammed claims, he always ranting on how you need to be of knowledge to understand it... and he's inserting 'nuclear physics' and 'difficult astronomy' in the book wich can only be explained 1400 years after it. Plus if the book is really certain of himself. Why doesn't it allow being questioned.... that's like a politician who says "vote for me", "but don't ask me anything about politics". How do you know when you understood it? you say yourself that all those terrorists don't understand the quran... yet they claim they do. And both you and the terrorists claim it's a clear book. Are you not understanding them, or they not understanding you? cause someone is missunderstanding the book, i guess you SHOULD raise questions, even when you claim understanding. the quran is not the hadith... yet we all know that Muhammed didn't have 9 wives prior to his revelations... so he had his wives DURING revelation, and at the time of his quran revelation (wich is known) he didn't had 9 wives yet. Neither is it speculation, at the time of that revelation he was married to Aisha, Omm Salama, Hafsa and Zaynab (of Jash). Muhammed wasn't in need of a long time period as i have shown you... acctually in the time span of 620 to 630 he had married 9 wives! he married another one in 627 he married two in 628 and another one in 629 either his youg wives drop dead like flies... or muhammed his libido was out of control again. using occam's razor, muhammed's libido would be the most likely. He was only justifying his position at the time stop quoting me out of context, when i said of the hadith writer who didn't know the time of wich THAT QUOTE was revealed doesn't mean the entire timeline of Islam is lost in oblivion. here is my back up Jowayriyi of Hareth married in 627 AD Omm Habiba Ramla married in 628 AD Safiya of Huyyay married in 628 AD Maymuna of Hareth married in 629 AD i wasn't taking about sex, you trapped yourself in your own freudian mind with that comment. I was talking about a muslim loving all his wives equally... if muhammed divorced them he must of had reasons why he divorced 5 out 4. Must of been that he loved 4 women better then the 5 others. Unless he chose blind folded. Yet we both know divorcement of his harem never happend so it's no use to stick to this fictious reasoning. yes alot of women we're married for means of power, others for lust and others were forced to marry him like slave girls. i agree with them, but i don't glorify Muhammed's reasoning, he didn't marry out of love for the women just for power and sexual lust. Khadija and Aisha we're probably the only two women he really loved in his lifetime. Disgusting as it may sound considering the latter was a kid. and seen from a theological viewpoint Abraham's period was before the revelation of the law, as was Solomon punished for paganism (excluding God's laws alltogether) and David for adultary... Muhammed did not have such a situation or punishment. i never took the word 'sex' in my mouth, like i said, it's your freudian or should i say muslim mind that's going out of control when the word woman and wife are heard in one sentence... a woman is seen in islam is a concubine for life, a personal breeding and submissive machine wich no other man may even look at. that's the issue, if he wasn't divorcing his wives, then he was going against his own verse, when he exceeded the number of wives to marry... Muhammed was braking his own rules! making him a hypocrit AND a sinner! Because i, unlike muslim mullah's who somtimes unshamenly resort to lies in order to support Islamic beliefs, can back up what i say. Like i said, i am looking into it, and i found alot of information allready on the different women... wich you claimed two posts ago, that they were one and the same. Using Wikipedia only you can find 12 women of Muhammed allready. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mu ... companions that number isn't literrary in their, i only counted up, the wives, concubines and slaves of muhammed's harem... neither is it a definit number... and neither is it the issue either even if muhammed has 5 wives in his felloswhip, 6, 8, or 86 it doesn't matter, the issue still is that he exceeded the rule that he was only allowed to marry 4 wives by ALLAH !! whom he gladly disobeyed.
a concubine in my opinion is equal to sexual slavery... then again, that is what Islam teaches what a woman should be to her husband. As does it not matter wheter the number is 11, 9 or 24... we can come to 12 too 13 wives with certainty in wich at least 9 he was married too at the same time according to this hadith. The start of his 'revelation' happend when he was married to Khadija! he had one wife !! everone knows that... Muhammed had one wife prior to his visit of jibreel. As did you give the date of 4:3 to be 627 AD we know that at time he had allready married 6 women, two of wich that died Zayneb and Khadija. no it is not vague, it's rather a subject wich is rather ignored then discussed in muslim communities, this for obvious reasons. I do not care about what the other muslims did at that time, i can only say that with Muhammed receiving revelation, he had to set an example of Allah laws and not of Allah's sins, don't you think? Well it's the quran talking, so it's Allah speaking, not Muhammed... yet just like John Kerry... their is what Muhammed says, and their is what Muhammed does. the prophet was a hypocrit, don't you see... you can't ignore that he did marry 9 wives (or even more) in a timespan of ten years! A quran verse doesn't rule out known historical facts. Their's a difference here, since the matthew verse you quoted, Jesus was making an analogy with murder. Saying that even condemnations will be threated as harsh as if they were murder. The tonation of the Luke verse is not a condemnation of Jesus, a mom can call her kid foolish... but she wouldn't call her kid a fool. calling someone foolish is evaluating a certain situation of a state of mind. While calling someone a fool is a condemnation on someone's entire character... what Jesus did was not condemning, and was nothing more then an innocent remark for an opening apologetics. alot of other verses in the quran with slay, kill, slaughter, etc... you can practiclly take your pick... remember that you fought US untill we we're forced to go into your house and pay your rent... that rule of fighting the unbelievers extents the Dar-Al Islam. This verse does not concerns the prophets... what about the followers of Jesus and Moses? the blaspheming people? the old polytheists? doesn't that include us? the Isa and the Moses of Islam are alien to me, i don't care what those people in the quran believed in. We as christians and even (if i may speak for them) the jews don't believe that it's prophets we're muslims. Yet if you only think that submission to God is the core of islam... then Gandhi was a muslim too, and then their is no need for the prophet muhammed and the five pillars, sharia or the quran.... cause Gandhi can be a muslim without all that! And what about all those Jews who believe in God, but blaspheme Allah, Muhammed and his mosques on a dailly basis? will they see heaven too, for such nice comments to Allah's most beloved prophet? That verse speaks plainly, and you know it. Those "unknown Christians" who believed in the "uncorrupted injeel" is a known fabrication of Muhammed... their have always been the same gospel and the same christians and the same Jesus since the dawn of his birth too this very day. Again only muslims are saved, since Muhammed claims self righteousness that EVERYONE is wrong no matter what, except ME, Muhammed. No salvation for anyone except muslims. Including Sabbeans, Christians and Jews... Mullah's who claim otherwise are apparently lying according to you. I think their is alot of dispute concerning this, cause when i meet liberal muslims they say christians are saved and then use this verse to back themselves up. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame