Question on Islam -- round 4

[seraphime2008]

Christo…
unfortunately u have made this thread very slow at least in my computer due to your adding images too big which is not necessary…

 

[Christos]

Read ur self that incest and rape is unacceptable by the Torah, u keep repeating it was not punished. Then indeed u don’t know how to understand and make conclusion from a complete story and can’t make a good message from it. U’re the one who needs to go studying!

Please could you show me where in Genesis 19 did the daughters of Lot, or Lot himself get punished. Please show me where in Genesis 35 did Reuben or Bilha get punished. Please show me where in Genesis 38 was Judas or his daughter-in-law punished. When Judas called his daughet-in-law to be punished she showed him his signet, his bracelet and staff, and after that he dared not do anything to her.

Please show me where in II Samuels 13 and 16 were the two sons of David punished for one raping his sister and the other his fathers concubines. One brother (Amnon) was murderd by the other Absalom two years after the event. That too after Absalom himself had commited incest so who was he to kill another?

Ur Koran indeed was thinking that problems in marriage only about sex. ANd why that only the husband be given the “right” to divorce? Isn’t that unjust? And why assuming that a woman must find another man to marry and have sex with him if the marriage problem was the previous husband, say he was not having enough income but then later on he could bring more? There’s always possibility that the woman doens’t need another man to solve her marriage problems…and this mandate given by God had put women inferior because it seems that the marriage problems must have arise from the women.

No the Quran does not say anywhere that the problems in marriage is just sex. If any problem arose that it should be resolved. Yes, a woman may believe she does not need another man to solve her problems, but if a man was willing to divorce her three times, with or without a second thought, then it means that he is not worthy of her. Therfore, she culd get married again if she likes. If by chance this marriage too fails, then she is once again single. Obviously, it is assumed that a certain lengthy time has passed, possible a few months maybe years. At this point the man has a chance to rethink everything and if he then believes that he will be able to treat her in a respetful manner and is willing to accept her, and the same for the woman, then it is permissible for them to get married. If you’ve ever had a girlfriend, or have been married, then you may understand me when i mention this.

Perchance, I had a girlfriend. We had lots of problems between us and we broke up. I will ignore her, or may still talk to her, but things will more or less be two seperate paths between us. (I’m speaking of complete breakup. Minor break up from fights could be considered the first divorce, a lenghtier breakup or time to ourselves from a large fight, and a complete breakup when we’ve had enough.) However, as soon as she begins to go out with someone else, which she should be allowed, it would cause me to have these regrets, remorse, and other feelings arise within me, and will bring me to new light and hope that if in the future we got back together, I would do things differnetly. Im not saying that this is certain to happen, these feelings of regret, but they are morelikely to happen after she has been with someone else.

Note: This is just a comparison. Doesn’t mean that everything in this story is allowed in Islam (example bf/gf, premarriage relations)

 

[Christos]

Christo…
unfortunately u have made this thread very slow at least in my computer due to your adding images too big which is not necessary…

I humbly apologize as i have apologized before. Those pictures were my proof as to that verse being in the KJV Bible i currently own.

 

[dzheremi]

Just a thought, “The meek shall inherit the earth”.
Define meek: adj. meek·er, meek·est

Showing patience and humility; gentle.
Easily imposed on; submissive.

Define Muslim: one who submits, submissive.

Just saying.

This has nothing to do with anything, since the passage under consideration was not written in English or Arabic. The word used in Hebrew is anaw or anav, depending on dialect, which is pretty clearly unrelated to any cognate of “Muslim” or “Islam”. From what I can gather without learning Hebrew just to respond to your post, anav is something like “humility” (I don’t know this word in Arabic, but I looked it up and it’s apparently التواضع…also transparently unrelated to “Muslim” or “Islam”!)

 

[Christos]

Furthermore, on the issue of Divorce

Divorce as a last option:

Although divorce being allowed in Islam is a sign of the lenience and practical nature of the Islamic legal system, keeping the unity of the family is considered a priority for the sake of the children. For this reason, divorce is always a last choice, after exhausting all possible means of reconciliation. For example, Allah addresses men asking them to try hard to keep the marriage, even if they dislike their wives:

… live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.
Surah 4 Verse 19

Also the following verse is addressed to women asking them the same thing:

If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; …
Surah 4 Verse 128

Again, the following verse is addressed to the family or the society for the same purpose of rescuing this bond, which God did not make easy to break:

If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, God will cause their reconciliation: For God hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.
Surah 4 Verse 35

But, if after exhausting all methods of reconciliation, the hatred between the husband and wife is still greater than tolerance, then divorce becomes inevitable. Here comes the genius of the Islamic law, which holds practical, rather than unrealistic approaches, towards real situations. The ultimate aims of marriage, as well as any other aspect of human life, are to achieve happiness and virtue. So, when people are denied their right to end an unhappy marriage, these two aims are seriously violated. This is, as the couple will live in suffering, which may lead them to marital infidelity. Thus divorce in this case - if weighed up to the disaster of family disintegration - will be less disastrous.

Methods of divorce:

Men have the right to divorce. If a man dislikes keeping his marriage for any reason, he divorces his wife and compensates her financially by paying her what is termed mut’a payment. This is in addition to the regular financial sustenance for her living, in case she has the custody of their children.

Divorce becomes in effect once the husband utters or writes down any of the legal formulae of divorce such as: ‘I divorce you’ or ‘you are divorced’…etc. The husband can do these either by himself or through a messenger.

In case it is the woman’s desire to end the marriage, the situation becomes different. Her reasons might be that she has received ill treatment, the husband is unable to sustain her financially or he is sexually impotent. She can prove these defects in front of the judge, then the judge grants her divorce with a full access to all her financial rights.

Also, if the husband was good to her but she does not want to keep on for an emotional reason, then she asks for what is termed khul’. This means to be granted divorce but without any access for financial rights, plus paying back the husband the dowry that he already paid on marrying her.

Categories of divorce:

Divorce is of three categories: raj’i (returnable), baynounah soghra (minor separation) or baynouna kobra (major separation).

In case divorce happens through the husband, he can take his wife back within three months. This is without any legal procedures, if they decide it - like they regret their rushing in divorce. In this case, the divorce is termed as raj’i or returnable divorce.

But in case of khul’, which is the second category, the husband can’t remarry his divorcée till all the legal procedures are done, all over again, and the husband pays new dowry for her.

Divorce happens three times in the couple’s lifetime. The third divorce falls in the third category, because they cannot go back to one another, till after the wife ‘happens’ to marry someone else, then ‘happens’ to get divorced by him. In this case, she can go back to her first husband. Such a tough rule was made as a punishment and a way of preventing people from misusing this tolerant ruling of permitting divorce. The word ‘happens’ is parenthesized because the woman’s new marriage and divorce should come naturally without planning, as many people might do to legalize her return to the first husband!

When does divorce become invalid?

In some cases, uttering the words of divorce become invalid. Among these cases is when the husband is:

drunk

forced to utter them by someone else

in a complete loss of temper to the extent that he is unaware of what he is saying

in an abnormal state of mind, such as temporary madness, epilepsy or in a coma,

In such cases, divorce is null and void.

Post divorce procedures:

After divorce, it is obligatory for the woman not to get married to another man, except after three complete mentruation cycles, if she is not pregnant. If she is, then she has to wait till she gives birth, so that the paternity of the child is not confused. This period of time is termed as 'iddah. However, even if the woman no longer has menstruations (e.g. after menopause), she should still wait for three months. So there is more to the 'iddah than just the issue of paternity.

 

[Christos]

This has nothing to do with anything, since the passage under consideration was not written in English or Arabic. The word used in Hebrew is anaw or anav, depending on dialect, which is pretty clearly unrelated to any cognate of “Muslim” or “Islam”. From what I can gather without learning Hebrew just to respond to your post, anav is something like “humility” (I don’t know this word in Arabic, but I looked it up and it’s apparently التواضع…also transparently unrelated to “Muslim” or “Islam”!)

My brother, i was expecting a refutation, i was just mentioning a thought that crossed my mind. I did not expect it to stand to scrutiny.

 

[dzheremi]

I know that. I’m not trying to pick on you, only saying that this does not work as a point for Islamic apologetics. We have had whole threads on this subject started by people unwilling to give up on the idea of this type of supposed "connection, so at least you confined it to one post! Thank you.

 

[jakasaki]

Well, page #69 is totally useless - I need a 5 foot computer screen to read the postings.

CAF should not allow these enormous digital pictures to post - there should be a size limit.

 

[sedonaman]

Reply to post #1007

The reason we need Muhammad was the exactly the same reason we believe that the Christians needed Jesus. The Jews were in a habbit of going astray from the path of God, and thus God continuously sent them a prophet. Finally, God sent Jesus, to rectify the mistakes of the Jews, not die for their sins or the sins of the world, but to rectify their mistakes. Similarly, Muhammad came to a barabarric reagion of the world, where mostly all of the people had become ignorrent.

 

[sedonaman]

Reply to post #1008

You are placing these absurdities as the teachings of Muhammad stating he was the greatest failure.

 

[sedonaman]

You forget that allah has made Muhammad as the most given “prophet” on earth to deserve and allowed everything he wanted.

Hey, wait a minnit. In post # 1007, page 68, Christos said, “Islam does not make any differences amongts the Prophets (La nufariku bayna ahadim minhum, We make no distinction between any of them,)”

Now you are saying Mohammed was the most “given”? What made him different?

 

[sedonaman]

Earlier, poster samaan in another thread wrote,

“The basic point is this – Allah’s nature can only be understood of his will. However, Allah’s will is what he wills it. Therefore, not only is allah a god of will, but also his will is subject to what he wills it to be.

This explains a lot. God [of the Bible] is Love … That is the nature of God in as concrete human terms as we can understand. Whereas Allah can be merciful or spiteful [or hateful], but only if he wills, God cannot do anything that is contrary to his nature, while Allah’s nature is whatever he wants it to be at a particular moment. It sounds like Allah’s nature is brought around to conform to whatever his will is, contrary to God’s will conforming to his nature. This also lends credence to the idea that the spirit in the cave was not the angel Gabriel but Satan because the fall by Satan was a result of a contest of wills between him and God. It would be only natural that Satan would present himself as a god of will. The Koran adamantly denies that Jesus was crucified to atone for men’s sins and that he rose from the dead three days later.The idea that Jesus was not crucified also lends credibility to the spirit being Satan because one of Satan’s goals is to get people away from Jesus and his redemptive sacrifice.

 

[elwill]

What the heck are you talking about? Nowhere in that passage does Jesus accuse the Jews of corrupting the scripture. How do you get “you corrupted the scripture” from “And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (NASB)? You’re just reading whatever you want into the passage. An honest (non-Islamic) reading could not possibly conclude what you have concluded, because it’s simply not there. It’s not written there, nor even implied. Look at what comes immediately before it as part of the very same exchange:

did you read Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.?

25 that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26 “Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you. 27 “For I know your rebellion and your stubbornness; behold, while I am still alive with you today, you have been rebellious against the LORD; how much more, then, after my death? 28 “Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to witness against them. 29 “For I know that after my death you will act corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands.”
The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

“`How can you say, “We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

 

[elwill]

As Margarete Thatcher once said: no, no, no. Do not begin quoting a book which you just stated the Christians and Jews corrupted. You confirm what I argued before, which is that Islamic apologetics is full of double standards and circular logic. The Bible is only “corrupted” when it contradicts what the Koran and Mohammad says. But suddenly if it can be of use, you cite it to prove your point, never seemingly realizing how inconsistent that is.

just curious to know , which proofs will you accept from us , will you accept our proofs from quran ?

actually , the only way to convince you is to give you the proofs from your own holy book ( regardless of our own beliefs )

after all , corruption of the bible to us means that it contain some of the additions and some of errors and some of alteration , and it still contain some of the truth
but you believe that the bible as whole is the truth , so that we use the common parts where both of us agree with
seems to me logic and fair argument

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

did you read Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.?

25 that Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26 “Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may remain there as a witness against you. 27 “For I know your rebellion and your stubbornness; behold, while I am still alive with you today, you have been rebellious against the LORD; how much more, then, after my death? 28 “Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to witness against them. 29 “For I know that after my death you will act corruptly and turn from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands.”

This argument has been used before, and it is just as faulty when used again for two reasons.

First, nowhere does Moses say that the scripture will be corrupted beyond recognition - he is merely saying that they will start acting in a corrupt fashion after he goes. This does not denote that the scripture will be tarnished, but that the actions of people will. The scripture will remain the same, but people will not listen to it.

Second, Mohammad made the same prediction about Muslims.

Narrated Zahdam bin Mudrab:
I heard Imran bin Husain saying, “The Prophet said, 'The best people are those living in my generation, then those coming after them, and then those coming after (the second generation).” Imran said “I do not know whether the Prophet mentioned two or three generations after your present generation. The Prophet added, 'There will be some people after you, who will be dishonest and will not be trustworthy and will give witness (evidences) without being asked to give witness, and will vow but will not fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them.” Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 819]

So according to the logic used here, the Koran is corrupt too, because Mohammad claimed that Muslims would become corrupt.

The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

“`How can you say, “We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?’ (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

Again, that doesn’t say the scripture will be corrupted, let alone that all of scripture will be corrupted. Jeremiah is doing what other prophets before and after him did, which was accuse the leadership of corruption. The scribes were teachers, and hence Jeremiah is attacking the corrupt teachers in Israel at that time (and who would still be there around Christ’s time). So it does confirm Moses’s prediction, but not any prediction of corrupt scripture, but rather that the Jewish culture would become corrupt and not obey the laws of God.

Keep in mind Islamic apologists claim all the books of scripture were tarnished - why then would whoever did the tarnishing leave these bits in? Wouldn’t it make sense to remove such warnings? The entire argument is of itself conspiratorial in nature.

But as I stated before, nowhere in the New Testament did Christ or any apostle ever argue with, “Well you Jews corrupted your scripture.” They used what came before to verify who they were and what they were doing. The only time you hear someone claim that what came before was tarnished in any way, or encourage people to ignore what came before and listen to what comes now, is at the advent of different groups such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals…and Muslims.

 

[Christos]

The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information.

In this short piece I’ll attempt to show blatant similarities with regard to two of the most important Biblical narratives: the Genesis story and the character of Jesus Christ. The Book of Genesis’s Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier

Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:

1.God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
2.God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
3.God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
4.The ark would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
5.A great rain covered the land with water.
6.The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
7.The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
8.The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
9.The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.
Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It’s not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon – hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.

Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story? And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible?

Many original and distinct sources exist over a 2,000 year timeframe, but only the oldest and those from a late period have yielded significant enough finds to enable a coherent intro-translation. Therefore, the old Sumerian version, and a later Akkadian version, which is now referred to as the standard edition, are the most frequently referenced.

The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third Dynasty of Ur (2150-2000 BCE) (Dalley 1989: 41-42). The earliest Akkadian versions are dated to the early second millennium (Dalley 1989: 45). The “standard” Akkadian version, consisting of twelve tablets, was edited by Sin-liqe-unninni sometime between 1300 and 1000 BCE and was found in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh.

 

[Christos]

Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.

1.Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.
2.Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, “Don’t cry, I’m going to heaven.” when he died. As he passed he said, “It is finished.”
3.Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.
4.Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.
5.Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross.
6.Mithra’s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.
7.Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.
8.Buddha’s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.
9.Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.
The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did.

 

[dzheremi]

Ugh. I hate this kind of garbage. God bless me, I know it’s a sin to hate, but I really can’t stand it. What kind of a Muslim is it that does not believe that Jesus EXISTED, even if they don’t believe Christian claims about Him? You’ve only been here for a short time, but if you only knew how often such things are posted…you wouldn’t want to add to it. Or maybe you would. Plenty of Muslims here seem content to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Or rather, to spite ours. It’s pathetic and sad.

 

[sedonaman]

…
The Book of Genesis’s Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier …

Since the stories are similar, have you ever considered that the story of the flood of the Bible was borrowed to be used as a metaphor for a great upheaval of an existing order? If we look at that as a possibility, “floods” occur all the time. For example, the Great Depression would be an economic “flood”. World War II would be one of the greatest “floods” of all time. So I laugh at all those shows about the search for Noah’s Ark.

 

[sedonaman]

…
9.Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.
The problem, of course, is that these previous narratives existed hundreds to thousands of years before Jesus did.

Then why does Mohammed have to pick on Jesus? Why doesn’t he claim to be the successor to Apollonius? People would then have more difficulty questioning Mohammed’s claims.