fatuma:
Here is an answer to one of your questions:
karamah.org/docs/dakake_misappropriations.doc
Ok for another question, this is coming off the top of my head; the prophet (saw) did not marry his daughter-in-law. what happened was this , the prophet(saw) did not have any sons only daughters, the boy in question ( I forgot his name) was a salve in the house that the prophet(saw) grew up in. The prophet cared so much for the boy that he freed him and gave him the choice of staying with him and his family or going back home to his family. The boy loved the prophet’s household so much he decided to stay and live with them. So then the prophet adopted the boy as his own son. Islamicaly you are commanded to look after the orphaned and the widowed, they have a right to your financial and emotional support. in Islam a married woman does not take her husband last name because she is her own person, likewise for the orphans, they do not receive the last name of the family they live with(the family acts in no way different to the orphan then their own children but the orphan has their own family name and identity). To prove this point, the boy who is a man now and his wife could no longer get along and in the end it was best that they divorce
I believe, in Islam a man can not marry his daughter-in-law, to prove the point that despite having to look after the orphan with kindness, they are not legal member of your family because they have their own family, the prophet married the girl.
I find more answers to the rest of your question.
Wa salam
I read the link, thank you for posting it. 5:51 is clarified for me, although I still have trouble with it even if it says guardians, as in English, that makes little sense. Also, it makes me wonder why the Muslims in the time of the prophet had so many enemies, since the area around Medina seemed to have tribal qualities. Christians were persecuted because it was viewed as a threat to Judaism, and in Rome in became atheism, since it wasn’t part of the state religion.
Also, this source seems to be academic, but there is no citation as to where the author is getting his translation information. For all I know, he could have made it up (I don’t pretend to be an expert in Arabic, but usually when somebody makes claims such as his, they have academic sources backing their claims up.)
Also, verse 9:5 in the Koran, I don’t have a problem with who it advocates killing, as the author claims that it doesn’t claim to kill Jews or Christians. That does not bother me, not who, but the fact that it actually advocates killing. That bothers me, as it violates the natural law.
As for marrying the orphan son’s ex-wife, we Catholics believe that “in the beginning it was not so,” i.e. divorce is against God’s commands. Doesn’t it seem fishy to you that Muhammad had so much temporal authority? Also, if he was truly a man of God, why would he have a concubine? Wouldn’t he forego the luxuries of this world to be truly holy?
To me, this is why Christ is so convincing. He could have been a warlord, He could have had as many women as there are stars, he could have been rich, powerful, and take everything this world has to offer. If that were the case with Him, I would not believe His divinity, for then He would be as weak as the rest of us. But He was unblemished, and the promises of this world did not appeal to Him. He had no sin. He live poorly. He died a torturous death. (In fact there were others in Jerusalem at the time, can’t remember the name, who claimed to be the Messiah and started an insurrection that Rome put down. Again, too worldly to be Messianic.)
Don’t you find Muhammad’s behavior a bit temporal for him to be divinely inspired? He seemed to be too infatuated with this world to be a man of God. Don’t get me wrong, I think Muhammad taught some truth, but from what I’ve read it doesn’t seem that he lived it. As the aphorism goes, “the devil will give you an ocean of truth, if he can give you one drop that’s a lie.”
Also, how does the story of creation go for Muslims? Is it the same as our book of Genesis?
PLEASE STOP INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE! HA, HA, HA, HA!
); however, Catholic priests at least are not allowed by law to dress in public as priests - or weren’t in 1992; thanks to the avowedly secular character of the state, I presume: Kemal Ataturk - who is immensely revered in Turkey - had that idea.
