Muhammad (pbuh), the Last Prophet

[Khalfan]

Islam accepts no one as real people of the book since the claim is the books have been corrupted. Muhammad boxed the answer into a corner, as with many of his false claims.

No. Even at the time of Jesus (pbuh) there were people who believed in him as a messenger. There were many writings destroyed and burned by later church because it was not talking and match with teachings of Paul. In your term no ‘Canonicity’. Those books might have said about the real Jesus (pbuh). If Jesus was God, he would have lived so. he would have acted so. He would have talked so. Jesus (pbuh) wasn’t God. That is why we find quotes of him which doesn’t suit to a God, even in the living Bible.

Yes, like Kadijja’s uncle whose particular brand of Christian faith has long been rejected.

May be.

The Qur’an is the gospel according to Muhammad.

Does Quran say it anywhere?

This is where Islam makes it’s greatest mistake. Explained below.

Ooooh… really?

Are you so naive to think the various parchment, bone and wood fragments that the revelations were first written on over the life of Muhammad’s ministry never took a different form or wording? The very fact that the arrangement of the Koran takes the shape it does is due to editing. It is also why so many hadith are in dispute.

But the editing of Quran never created even TWO differnt Quran.

www.biblegateway.com itself gives 20 versions of Bible in English only. NIV doesn’t agree with many chapters, books and verses in KJV. KJV itslef has 3 version in that site.

You can compare the descripencies and subject to confirmations of gospels with Hadees. Because Hadees too have the same problem of narration of reporting and problems of human understandings. It may contain mistakes. But not with Quran.

Yea, I know. Pretty neat isn’t it? When the Word is translated from Greek into Latin, then to German, English, Chinese, Arabic… those minor inconsitancies remain because of the faithfullness of those who believe the Word as True. This proves to me the universality (catholic) of the NT.

You lost the real meaning of real writings long before my dear. For example, check 1 John 5:7 in KJV and NASB (New American Standard Bible). You don’t know what is truely written in the original and fight each other to imply what you want.

And at the end, you call it Universality/Catholicity?!!! Amazing. I call it something else. You must get a Nobel prize for that.

If the Koran was never printed in the time of the prophet how could he have authenticated it? Memorization is not uniqe to Islam, then or now.

If I say, who you think your father is not your father, whom you will go and ask for authenticity? Your father or your mother or a doctor with your DNA?

You have many source to know the truth of you. I have many source to know the truth of Quran. It was thousands of companians that had to approve the first copy of Quran they learned from the prophet (pbuh). And they did. If it was came from the mind of Prophet (pbuh) it would never critisize him on certain situations.

Not on the main points.

If the points are main or not is dippends on the person. Whatever claims you made about Quran, I can say none of that is imporatant in Islam. but did I say that? No. because I know, there isn’t any even minute problem with words of God. You did it many times about bible because you know, there are problems (that you say minor) with Bible.

Which is a convienent way to stiffle debate. Truth can withstand such scrutiny. Islam could not survive. Despite death threats, someone wil do it evetually.

May be. Islam will never support to crate image of any prophets (pbut) or God. that is guaranteed.

So what?

It gives you the habit of imagining shapes far different from the truth.

Yes, that is a shame to be honest. How many artists have been denied their vocation by growing up Islamic?

You know any?

Wow indeed.

Do that then.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Wonderful!!! How can you lie so open???

Your response to this hadith is sad and scary to say the least.

I did not lie. I simply disagree with the spousal beatings that Isalm and Muhammad allow. It is plainly evil to allow this. Disagreeing is not lying.

She said to prophet (pbuh) that Abdu-rahman is impotent. When Prophet saw his children, prophet knew he is not. That clearly proved to him that she lied. She said to prophet (pbuh) that Abdu-rahman is impotent. When Prophet saw his children

For a man you sure know very little about male impotency. The fact that he was able to father children years before does not mean that was potent at this time. It also does not mean that he was being sexually active with this particular wife. He had at least one more wife so he does not ‘need’ this one.

But before that Abdu-rahman gave the reason why she make wrong claim of beating, that she wanted to remarry Rifaa. On that prophet said,

You like the prophet, see a woman who is beaten so badly that Aisha is shocked… she has green bruses on her arms. No human should be beaten like this by your spouse. The husband is a brutal wife beater, but both you and Muhammad belief him over her, the victim of the abuse. This tells me that you have no respect for the word of a woman.

She never says that she wants to remarry Rifaa… Abdu-rahman says this. Abusive people always find ways to make themselves look good and to excuse their abuse. I would not blame her if she wanted to leave Abdu-rahman. She has the right to live in a safe home.

"IF

that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you"
Let’s assume for the case of argument that she did want to remarry Rifa. Do you blame her? What woman in her right mind wants to be married to a man who beats her? Why should she have to have sex with a man who abuses her and who she so obviously has grown to hate/

Because Islam doesn’t teach unjust with husband.

I beg to differ with you. This hadith and your seeing nothing wrong with it proves that Islam does indeed teach men to be unjust to their wives. As a man I can see why you think this is just wonderful. You get to scare the living daylights out of your wife… you can beat her is she displeases you. The laws should be changed. Muslim women need the right to beat their husbands… how would you like that?

This woman was married earlier to Rifaa. They had a life together. Due to some reason they couldn’t continue and divorced when they had all those steps and the period between three TALAQs to tackle the situation and rejoin. But they didn’t.

Again the woman never says that she wanted to remarry Rifaa. Her abusive husband used this story as an excuse to justify his abuse and his impotency.

Now, this Abdu-rahman married her and it is legal to have sex with her. But she made wrong allegation of impotence on him.

Again there is no proof that he is not impotent. His children were several years old. Since he is a cruel and abusive man it hardly find him trustworthy. He should have been punished for beating his wife. Instead she has no rights, has to put up with the abuse and has to have sex with him. The moment he put a hand on her to beat her he looses all marital rights. Why doesn’t she have the right in Islam to refuse sex to a brutal husband…I know why … becaseu she has no basic human rights to her own body once she is married.

(continued below)

 

[BelFarfalla]

(continued from above)

If she want to join Rifaa, Islam allows that but after fulfilling the right of Abdu-rahman as a husband.

You are really jumping to conclusions here. There is no indication that he has never had sex with her. The impotence is most likely a new thing. This is very usually with abusive men. They start out all love-y to get the woman to marry them. Then over some time (months or years) they become cold and brutal to the wife. That she is forced to sleep with this pig just to get away with him is beyond disgusting. This poor woman, and all the poor women through history how have had to live like this. I saw this stuff as a child… its horrible.

Now the question of beating and the GREEN mark, since she was lying about his impotence, how can we believe she was true about the beating?

You don’t like women much do you? Do you believe that women are basically liars? It sure sounds like it.

This woman had been beaten. Her husband NEVER ONCE denied beating her. It was obvious that he had beat her. Your justification of this story make me feel ill. That there are still men in this world how justify wife beating is bad enough. That there is an entire religion that not only justifies it but has laws saying that it is something men should do is unbelievable.

I doubt that you will find one non-Muslim here who will agree with your take on this.

 

[quantumDeus]

The whole thread is pointing to Islam’s weakness: it is not an adaptable religion. It is stuck in 7th century mentalities and has no mechanism for reform, unlike other religions do.

That a practice of spousal beating was acceptable in the 7th century – rightly or wrongly – just [does] not justify such behavior in the 21st. Unless, of course, Islam wants to maintain its five-year-old, pay-attention-to-me attitude forever.

 

[Khalfan]

Lay off with the cheap insults! How dare you say such things about Jesus! May God have mercy on you for the blasphemous things you’ve said!

Vickie

I am sorry. It wasn’t Lot but Judah.

Genesis 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.” “And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked. 17 “I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” he said. “Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?” she asked. 18 He said, “What pledge should I give you?” “Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again.

Genesis 38:27 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 28 As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, “This one came out first.” 29 But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, “So this is how you have broken out!” And he was named Perez. 30 Then his brother, who had the scarlet thread on his wrist, came out and he was given the name Zerah.

This incest son is mentioned in the geneology of Jesus.

Luke 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah.

blasphemous…nhaaaa. It is written in your Bible. And you have to believe it my dear, because you are a CHRISTIAN.

Shame on you guys.

First of all, you are talking about the geneology of someone who has no father.

Second, you are giving this incest geneology to your ‘God’.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I am sorry. It wasn’t Lot but Judah.

Genesis 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.” “And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked. 17 “I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” he said. “Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?” she asked. 18 He said, “What pledge should I give you?” “Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again.

Genesis 38:27 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 28 As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, “This one came out first.” 29 But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, “So this is how you have broken out!” And he was named Perez. 30 Then his brother, who had the scarlet thread on his wrist, came out and he was given the name Zerah.

This incest son is mentioned in the geneology of Jesus.

Luke 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah.

blasphemous…nhaaaa. It is written in your Bible. And you have to believe it my dear, because you are a CHRISTIAN.

Shame on you guys.

First of all, you are talking about the geneology of someone who has no father.

Second, you are giving this incest geneology to your ‘God’.

So now you condem a child and the child’s decendents for the acts of his biological parents?

The daughter-in-law was a widow. Her husband was dead. So it was not incest. It was illegal but not incest.

 

[Khalfan]

The Messenger (Muhammad SAW) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His messengers. They say, “We make no distinction between one another of His messengers” - and they say, “We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all).”
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #285)

Those messengers! We preferred some to others; to some of them Allah spoke (directly); others He raised to degrees (of honour); and to Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), We gave clear proofs and evidences, and supported him with Rooh-ul-Qudus (Jibrael (Gabriel)). If Allah had willed, succeeding generations would not have fought against each other, after clear Verses of Allah had come to them, but they differed - some of them believed and others disbelieved. If Allah had willed, they would not have fought against one another, but Allah does what He likes.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #253)

Contradiction?

As human beings Me, You, Bin Laden, Bush all are same. But politically we have different status in the society.

First verse says about the similarity as messengers. Second verse talkes about the differnce in status they have with God. Jesus (pbuh) is one of the five great messengers of Islam.

Not true. Again if we both saw a car accident we might very well describe it differnetly though we saw the same thing.

Any of us won’t two car were there in the accident. Any of us won’t say it was bus that accident happened to. If any of us say that, it is a lie. Isn’t it?

Because He said so, many times, in many ways.

But not even once that he is God.

Fact is fact. Why do you not see it?

Ha Ha I like that. I think you got puzzled in John 1:43 where it says then Jesus (pbuh) went to galilee, while you said both were the same place.

So answer please. Where did Muhammad get his information about Jesus?

From God through Quran.

 

[Khalfan]

*018.086 *
YUSUFALI: Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.”
PICKTHAL: Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu’l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.
SHAKIR: Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.

Vickie

A careful reading will do.

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun

(Sunset can be used for both time and place eg. Sun sets at 7 pm/ Sun sets in the west. Both meanings matches the verse),

he found it

(It is not sun is actually setting, but he found so, it appeared to him so)

set in a spring of murky water:

(Just like if we go to any west side beach, the sun will appear to us as drawning in the sea. Here it says about murky water. It can be a big lake or sea)

Near it he found a People:

(the people living near to that lake or sea)

We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.”

 

[Khalfan]

YOU are the one who is blind to the facts. It does not matter is she was weak and helpless. What matters is that he hit her and hurt her. Do you really think this was the only time? A man who hits his wife is a beast and does it over and over. Generally it escalates for time if he gets away with it.

If a husband hits a wife ONCE, she should leave him because it is all down hill from there. Sure there will be good times inbetween, but the hitting will increase with time.

With your attitude I feel very sorry for your wife.

If I shake hand with Arnold, it may hurt my hand my dear because hand is not as strong as Swachneggar. But will you say Arnold hurted me?

Rest of conversation says prophet (pbuh) was not intentionally hurting her. He didn’t hit her but struck her. Struck doesn’t necesserily mean hitting only.

Did prophet (pbuh) hit her again and again? Well you can make stroies but not history.

My attitude? My wife beats me more than I beat her.

 

[BelFarfalla]

If I shake hand with Arnold, it may hurt my hand my dear because hand is not as strong as Swachneggar. But will you say Arnold hurted me?

Rest of conversation says prophet (pbuh) was not intentionally hurting her. He didn’t hit her but struck her. Struck doesn’t necesserily mean hitting only.

Did prophet (pbuh) hit her again and again? Well you can make stroies but not history.

This response is pathetic.

This is exactly why we must protect our country from every having Shri’ah law.

IMy attitude? My wife beats me more than I beat her.

Is this supposed to be some sort of joke? Not funny is a serious conversation about spousal abuse. Neither of you should ever beat the other.

IF the two of you like abusing each other, that is your problem. Kill each other for all I care. But to have a law that sates a man can beat is wife is horrible. That means that all the women who do not want to be beaten have no protection.
Unbelievable.

 

[Khalfan]

Nope, sorry. That’s not what the text says.

“Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word.” - John 8:43

"The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.” John 10:33

Check the context.

John 8:52 At this the Jews exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?” 54Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

 

[Khalfan]

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
16But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like to children sitting in the markets, and calling to their fellows, 17And saying, We have piped to you, and ye have not danced; We have mourned to you, and ye have not lamented. 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon. 19The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified by her children. - Matthew 11

Shame… oops sorry, Same to you.

 

[eleonardo]

But I have say the truth. Beating a women without reason, beating a women with intention to hurt, is a serious sin in Islam. Islam doesn’t allow that.

Good.

Can I ask you a question, why the loving merciful God giving painful diseases to some people? God indeed have some good intention behind that. In the same way, husbands are allowed to beat their wifes only with a good intention, not to hurt her. Wife too can beat the husband with or without good intention even if it is not said in the Quran.

No, no, no and no! Please stop trying to justify beating a women.
It’s just wrong.

The claim that rape victims require four witnesses to seek justice for their case is untrue and a false lie propagated by those who either do not have any knowledge in Islamic law or want to “prove” a so-called weakness in the hadd laws.

I’m not an expert on hadd laws, so I’ll have to take your word for it. But it does happen, sadly enough.

Do you want me name some bad Christians like Hitler?

Sounds like a tu quoque to me?
What does Hitler have to do with this discussion?

Since it need explanation, I would request you to check the link below. Your question is answered in detail.

understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=100

Thanks for the link. I read it (long read for a quick question). I find it far fetched TBH. That whole story about some element of sperm coming from the area under the ribs and the whole blood thing.
I’ve also heard other explanations given for this, like “in arabic it’s different. You’d have to know the language to really get it”.

 

[quantumDeus]

In reading through the responses, it becomes evident that Muslims are just as confused as ever about Judaism and Christianity and what they are.

Typically, as any who uses a particular verse to prove a point, Muslims do it as well. (Learned behavior from anti-Catholics, perhaps? Sorry, couldn’t resist the dig.)

To understand Judaic or Christian Scripture, you have to read all of it in context. You also have to have a deep aprpeciation for various literary styles then in use, as well as allegory, metaphor, parables and allusion. To take all of Scripture as strictly literal leads to fallacies of human deduction (like God creating the heavens and the earth in seven days).

Studying the Qur’an is not so straightforward: the text is non-linear, but based on the length of the Sura. A chronologic look at the Qur’an is far more fruitful (even among many Islamic scholars) for it places things in historical context, as well as gives a greater appreciation of abrogation of previous events by a later one.

Which begs a question: if the Qur’an is inerrant and passed directly to Muhammed by Allah, why would any of it need abrogation?

Several remarks made also raise the eyebrow of the discerning, but I will leave those to another thread. But among them of relevence here is the contention that the Qur’an has remained unchanged.

Historical record of Uthman’s doings in the third caliphate dispute that. It is actually hinted at in various hadith that records Muhammed’s reaction to two versions or “schools of teaching” extant during his lifetime (at the time the Qur’an being an oral tradition).

Archaeological evidence disputes it too, as recent finds (Syria being one of them) show conclusively that the Qur’an has changed.

Scrutiny of Islam has led me to conclude that Muhammed’s first impression was the right one: it was a demon in that cave.

 

[Khalfan]

Your response to this hadith is sad and scary to say the least.

I did not lie. I simply disagree with the spousal beatings that Isalm and Muhammad allow. It is plainly evil to allow this. Disagreeing is not lying.

There wasn’t any beating. She was lying about the beating. That assumption can be made since she was clearly lying about abdu-rahman’s impotence. Prophet (pbuh) could understand her lie. Even I can understand that lie. But not you.

For a man you sure know very little about male impotency. The fact that he was able to father children years before does not mean that was potent at this time. It also does not mean that he was being sexually active with this particular wife. He had at least one more wife so he does not ‘need’ this one.

The decision could be made upon the claims and evidence. He said he ‘need’ her. Prophet (pbuh) was not allowed to go to their bedroom.

You like the prophet, see a woman who is beaten so badly that Aisha is shocked… she has green bruses on her arms. No human should be beaten like this by your spouse. The husband is a brutal wife beater, but both you and Muhammad belief him over her, the victim of the abuse. This tells me that you have no respect for the word of a woman.

A mark can be made of some ink. I respect my mother 3 times more than I respect my father. But I can’t support her if she lie.

She never says that she wants to remarry Rifaa… Abdu-rahman says this. Abusive people always find ways to make themselves look good and to excuse their abuse. I would not blame her if she wanted to leave Abdu-rahman. She has the right to live in a safe home.

That is why Prophet (pbuh) said, “‘IF’ that is your intention…” if it was not her intention, she was not supposed make the claim of impotence. Only the reason of beating could win her divorce.

Let’s assume for the case of argument that she did want to remarry Rifa. Do you blame her? What woman in her right mind wants to be married to a man who beats her? Why should she have to have sex with a man who abuses her and who she so obviously has grown to hate

I gave the reasons already. read it again.

I beg to differ with you. This hadith and your seeing nothing wrong with it proves that Islam does indeed teach men to be unjust to their wives. As a man I can see why you think this is just wonderful. You get to scare the living daylights out of your wife… you can beat her is she displeases you. The laws should be changed. Muslim women need the right to beat their husbands… how would you like that?

They already have that. My wife beats me even after I never beat her. Because I know, it is out of love and affection. You wont understand that.

Again the woman never says that she wanted to remarry Rifaa. Her abusive husband used this story as an excuse to justify his abuse and his impotency.

Were you there?

Again there is no proof that he is not impotent. His children were several years old. Since he is a cruel and abusive man it hardly find him trustworthy. He should have been punished for beating his wife. Instead she has no rights, has to put up with the abuse and has to have sex with him. The moment he put a hand on her to beat her he looses all marital rights. Why doesn’t she have the right in Islam to refuse sex to a brutal husband…I know why … becaseu she has no basic human rights to her own body once she is married.

Where did you get the exact old of those children? Why would prophet (pbuh) ask “is that your children?” prophet (pbuh) wanted to know if he is really impotent as she said. He had another wife too.

(continued below)

 

[Khalfan]

(continued from above)

You are really jumping to conclusions here. There is no indication that he has never had sex with her. The impotence is most likely a new thing. This is very usually with abusive men. They start out all love-y to get the woman to marry them. Then over some time (months or years) they become cold and brutal to the wife. That she is forced to sleep with this pig just to get away with him is beyond disgusting. This poor woman, and all the poor women through history how have had to live like this. I saw this stuff as a child… its horrible.

Prophet (pbuh) knew both of them and how long they were been married.

You don’t like women much do you? Do you believe that women are basically liars? It sure sounds like it.

I love my Mom. I have two sisters. I love my wife. And I have two daughters. I think you need their comment on me.

This woman had been beaten. Her husband NEVER ONCE denied beating her. It was obvious that he had beat her. Your justification of this story make me feel ill. That there are still men in this world how justify wife beating is bad enough. That there is an entire religion that not only justifies it but has laws saying that it is something men should do is unbelievable.

He gave the actual cause why she wanted to divorce him.

The truth is, you went to wrong hadees to prove your allegation. There are many other instance where prophet (pbuh) favoured woman for their cause. You may find that in the same hadees books.

I doubt that you will find one non-Muslim here who will agree with your take on this.

There are many who understand the truth and come to Islam.

I recommend the below video to watch.

youtube.com/watch?v=wbl3S-j48pI

 

[quantumDeus]

There are many who understand the truth and come to Islam.

There are also many who are leaving Islam. The numbers leaving Islam (mostly for Christianity, and usually Catholicism) in Africa alone are staggering.

Many leave other faiths disillusioned and turn to Islam, lured by the intentionally misleading prosletyzing done. Unlike Christian faiths, you can’t just leave Islam without the perpetual death sentence of apostacy laid on your head.

Annd whose view of Islam are they to turn to? Shii’a or Sunni? Or perhaps one of the lesser known divisions. Wahabi?

Islam is not as unified as Muslims would have everyone outside of Islam believe.

 

[Khalfan]

The whole thread is pointing to Islam’s weakness: it is not an adaptable religion. It is stuck in 7th century mentalities and has no mechanism for reform, unlike other religions do.

That a practice of spousal beating was acceptable in the 7th century – rightly or wrongly – just [does] not justify such behavior in the 21st. Unless, of course, Islam wants to maintain its five-year-old, pay-attention-to-me attitude forever.

You are your own my dear. Make your own religion, if you want any. It is your choice. It is my choice to accept taht ‘7th century religion’.

 

[quantumDeus]

You are your own my dear. Make your own religion, if you want any. It is your choice. It is my choice to accept taht ‘7th century religion’.

Precisely. We don’t accept that 7th century religion. From the viewpoint of the 21st century we understand how our interpretation of Christian Scripture was at times errant. Note that the Scripture was not errant and was not changed, it was our view of them.

Feel free to remain in the 7th century, my friend. Don’t be surprised as the rest of the world passes you by. Adults do generally exclude children from adult matters. Except when the child is overly petulant and needs punishing.

 

[Khalfan]

So now you condem a child and the child’s decendents for the acts of his biological parents?

Isa/Jesus (pbuh) was not born through incest. You can’t put that shame to my beloved prophet because it is written by someone no one knows.

The daughter-in-law was a widow. Her husband was dead. So it was not incest. It was illegal but not incest.

Check the meaning of incest.