Slave-girls as sexual property in the Quran

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

my quoting of this verse was more in response to your claim that islam doesn’t teach muslims to treat others as they wished to be treated. and this claim of yours is false.

Prove to me that my claim is false from Sahih Bukhari and/or the Quran. Prove to me that brother includes non-Muslims. Clearly, it brother means fellow Muslims, see the following verse from the Quran

[Yusufali 49:10] The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.
[Pickthal 49:10] The believers are naught else than brothers. Therefore make peace between your brethren and observe your duty to Allah that haply ye may obtain mercy.

Sahih Muslim:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection.” Volume 3, Book 43, Number 622

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim. So he should neither oppress him nor hand him over to an oppressor. And whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs.”
Volume 9, Book 85, Number 83

r.gonzales:

neighbour means neighbour, those who live around you - and the terms “close” and “distant” in the verses are with regards to ties of kinship or relations. so it refers to those you know and those you don’t know, whether muslim or non-muslim.

Prove to me that neighbour includes non-Muslims from Sahih Bukhari and/or the Quran.

 

[discipleofJesus]

See also,
muhammadanism.org/Islam/Islam_Brotherhood.htm

faithfreedom.org/Announcement/MuslimGuidelines.htm

"**The following is excerpted from 'Answers to common questions to new Muslims’ (Published 1993 by the Islamic Assembly of North America):

Mixing with non-Muslims Removes One’ s Religious Pride and Jealousy

Question**: I live in an area in which most of the residents are from our brethren Christians. We eat and drink with some of them. Is my prayer not valid and my living with them not allowed?

Answer: Before responding to the question, I would like to comment on something that I hope you said unintentionally. This is your statement, “Our brethren Christians”.** There is never any brotherhood between Muslims and Christians**. Brotherhood must be based on faith. As Allah says: “Verily the believers are but a brotherhood” (al-Hujurat 49:10). If blood relationships come to an end because of differences in religion, how can brotherhood be confirmed for people of different religions and no blood relations?

Allah says about Noah and his son: “[Noah said,] 'O my Lord, verily my son is of my family! And certainly your promise is true, and You are the Most Just Of the judges.’ He [Allah] said, 'O Noah! Surely he is not of your family, his work is unrighteous”’ (Hud 11 :45-46) There is never brotherhood between a believer and a disbeliever. In fact, it is obligatory upon the believer not to take a disbeliever as his close friend and ally. Allah says in the Quran, “O believers! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the Truth” (al-Mumtahana 60:1).

Who are those enemies of Allah? The enemies of Allah are the disbelievers. Allah says, “Whoever is an enemy to Allah, His Angels, His Messengers, Gabriel and Michael, then verily, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers” (al-Baqara 2:98). Allah also says, “O Believers! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends and helpers. They are but friends to one another. And if any among you takes them as friends and allies, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah does not guide the wrongdoers” (al-Maida 5:51). **Therefore, it is not permissible for a Muslim to describe any disbeliever as a brother ** - whatever type of disbeliever he is, be he Christian, Jew, Magian or atheist. Be aware, dear brother, of making such a statement.

Now as for the response to your question, I state : You should try to remain away from mixing with non-Muslims because mixing with them removes your religious zealousness and pride from your heart and may lead you to having love and compassion in your heart for them. Allah has stated, “You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kin. For such He has written faith in their hearts and strengthened them with proofs from Himself And We will admit them to gardens through which rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the party of Allah, Verily, it is the party of Allah that will be the successful.” (al-Mujadalah 58:22)."

A Disbeliever is not a Muslim’ s Brother

Question: I live with a Christian who calls me his brother and we are like brethren, we eat and drink together. Is this kind of deed permissible?

Answer: A disbeliever is not a Muslim’s brother. Allah has said, “Verily the believers are but brethren” (al-Hujurat 49:10). The Prophet (peace be upon him) also said, “A Muslim is a brother to a Muslim”. A disbeliever, whether he be Jew, Christian, Magian, Socialist or whatever, is not a brother to a Muslim. It is not allowed to take him as a companion and close friend. However, if one eats with him sometime, without taking him as a companion, due to a general invitation or specific gathering, there is no harm in that. But to take him as a companion, close friend and dining associate, this is not allowed. Allah has cut off such ties of love, loyalty and friendship between Muslims and disbelievers. Allah says in His Noble Book, “Indeed, there is an excellent example for you in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, **hostility and hatred forever ** - until you believe in Allah alone’” (al-Mumtahana 60:4)."
Excerpted from faithfreedom.org/Announcement/MuslimGuidelines.htm

 

[discipleofJesus]

“The Qur’an states that Muslims worldwide are a united Brotherhood (Ummah) of believers. Within the Ummah, believers are to seek peace and reconciliation with one another. It says that Allah has placed this mutual affection into the hearts of the members of the Islamic Brotherhood. Their love is not instructed to extend outside the Ummah. Muslims are not told to love their enemies as the Lord Jesus told his disciples.”
Excerpted from muhammadanism.org/Islam/Islam_Brotherhood.htm

 

[discipleofJesus]

"**NEIGHBOURS. **

Arabic jar , pl. jiran. The Sunnis hold that neighbours are those who worship in the same mosque, but Shi’ah doctors say that a neighbour is anyone whose house is within forty cubits. while others maintain that the term extends to all the occupants of forty houses on either side. (Baillie’s Digest, Sunni Code, p. 579 Im. Code p. 216.)

…"
answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Hughes/n.htm
A DICTIONARY OF ISLAM
BY
THOMAS PATRICK HUGHES, B.D., M.R.A.S.
(bold and underline emphasis mine)

 

[r.gonzales]

footy:

Mukminun…

what the heck is a mukminun?

 

[r.gonzales]

Prove to me that my claim is false from Sahih Bukhari and/or the Quran. Prove to me that brother includes non-Muslims. Clearly, it brother means fellow Muslims, see the following verse from the Quran

try reading and understanding that statement you just quoted from me. firstly, you made the following claim at the end of your post:

There is also no verse/s in the Quran that teach Muslims “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)"

this is why that hadeeth was quoted. i never said that brothers includes non-muslims. the hadeeth i quoted shows that there are teachings in islam that tell muslims to treat others as they want themselves to be treated.

Prove to me that neighbour includes non-Muslims from Sahih Bukhari and/or the Quran.

things are to be taken according to their apparent meanings unless there is an indication that something else may be intended by the term used - and there is no such indication in this instance. in the arabic language, al-jaar refers to the neighbour.

and in the various books of Quranic exegesis the following is mentioned:

tafseer al-jalaalain

“al-jaar dhil-qurbaa (the close neighbour)”: the one close to you in neighbourhood/proximity or lineage. and “al-jaar al-junub (the distant neighbour)”: the one far from you in neighbourhood/proximity or lineage.

tafseer as-sa’dee

“al-jaar dhil-qurbaa (the close neighbour)”: meaning the close neighbour, the one who has two rights: the right of neighbourhood/proximity nd the right of kinship. so he has over his neighbour a right and charitable conduct referring to the custom. and likewise, “al-jaar al-junub (the distant neighbour)”: meaning the one who does not have kinship. and each of them, the neighbour who is closer with respect to door (i.e., lives closer) is more emphasized with respect to right (i.e., those who closer to you have more right than those who don’t). so it is befitting for the neighbour that he ? his neighbour with gifts, charity, invitation and graciousness in statements and actions, and the absence of harming him in statement and action.

tafseer ibn katheer

[regarding] His statement, “the close neighbour and the distant neighbour”: alee bin abee talhah said, from ibn abbaas, “‘the close neighbour’ means the one who between you and between him is kinship. and ‘the distant neighbour’ is the one who kinship is not between you and between him.” and likewise, it was narrated from ikrimah, mujaahid, maimoon bin mahraan, ad-dahhaak, zaid bin aslam, muqaatil bin hayyaan and qataadah.

aboo ishaaq said, from nawf al-bakaalee regarding His statement, “the close neighbour” means the muslim, “and the distant neighbour” means the jew and the christian. ibn jareer (at-tabaree) and ibn abee haatim narrated it.

jaabir al-ju’fee said, from ash-sha’bee, from alee (bin abee taalib) and ibn mas’ood: “the close neighbour” means the woman. and mujaahid also said regarding regarding His statement, “the distant neighbour” means the friend during travel (i.e., the travel companion).

[ibn katheer then goes on to mention nine hadeeths concerning charitable conduct towards the neighbour and the importance of it.]

tafseer al-baghawee:

His statement, exalted is He, “the close neighbour” meaning, possessor of kinship. “and the distant neighbour” meaning, the one far who kinship is not between you and between him.

[al-baghawee then goes on to mention a few hadeeths regarding charitable conduct towards the neighbour and the importance of it.]

do you want anymore proof regarding what the term “neighbour” means in this verse, or do these suffice you?

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

this is why that hadeeth was quoted. i never said that brothers includes non-muslims. the hadeeth i quoted shows that there are teachings in islam that tell muslims to treat others as they want themselves to be treated.

Well who cares if Muslims treat each other the way they want themselves to be treated. This is not the same as what Jesus said in Matthew 7:12, which isn’t restricted to Christians only.

r.gonzales:

things are to be taken according to their apparent meanings unless there is an indication that something else may be intended by the term used - and there is no such indication in this instance. in the arabic language, al-jaar refers to the neighbour.

and in the various books of Quranic exegesis the following is mentioned:

tafseer al-jalaalain

tafseer as-sa’dee

tafseer ibn katheer

tafseer al-baghawee:

do you want anymore proof regarding what the term “neighbour” means in this verse, or do these suffice you?

Oh so now you use a group of scholars to prove your case? Recall what you stated earlier

r.gonzales:

to say that a particular verse has been abrogated requires proof, whether from the Quran itself or from authentic hadeeths. just because a particular scholar or group of scholars say that the verse is abrogated doesn’t necessitate that this is truly the case. the evidence is what is to be followed.

Why the double standards?
If that’s the case why don’t you accept that Sura 60:8 was abrogated?

Anyway, yes I do want more proof regarding what the term ‘neighbour’ means in the Quran and Sahih Bukhari.
If you quote the word neighbour from the Quran and/or Sahih Bukhari then I expect an explantion of it in the Quran and/or Sahih Bukhari (or at least in Sahih Muslim if not in the Quran or Sahih Bukhari).

For example,

“26"What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27He answered: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus,** “And who is my neighbor?” **
30In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

**36"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" **

**37The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” **
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”’
(Luke 10:26-37)

See, the Bible teaches us to ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ but it also explains what is meant by ‘neighbor’.

 

[r.gonzales]

discipleofJesus:

Why the double standards?

double standards? let’s look at the two cases, shall we?

1. the case of abrogation of verses by others. requires proof from either the Quran or sunnah to indicate such.
2. the case of a meaning and context of a particular arabic word used in a Quranic verse, meanings and contexts defined by the language these verses are found in; arabic

one involves the cancellation or application of rulings derived from a verse, whereas the other involves the meanings of a word found in the arabic language. no double standards here. different cases that can’t be compared in the manner you’re comparing them.

discipleofJesus:

If that’s the case why don’t you accept that Sura 60:8 was abrogated?

bring the names of the muslim scholars who state explicitly that this verse was abrogated.

btw, of those names listed in the quotes i provided: ibn abbaas, ibn mas’ood, alee bin abee taalib were all companions of prophet muhammad who learned directly from him. others like ikrimah, qataadah, mujaahid, ad-dahhaak and others were from the second and third generations from the muslims, they were the students of the prophet’s companions - they weren’t just mere “scholars”.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

bring the names of the muslim scholars who state explicitly that this verse was abrogated.

click on the link to the article by Sam Shamoun that I quoted in my post above.

 

[r.gonzales]

discipleofJesus:

click on the link to the article by Sam Shamoun that I quoted.

no thanks, i’d rather not read the pseudo-scholarship from a person who’s been exposed for his deceptive methods discussing islamic topics.

 

[raceland]

I didn’t go off topic, you were off topic from the start you brought forth websites that are quoting a verse and a half from the Qur’an and trying to show that Islam encourages adultery and slavery. Then you started talking about the teachings of Jesus peace be upon him.

If you (Catholics) are true followers of Jesus’ true teachings there won’t be this significant number of catholic priests that abuse children. And just that you know, it’s not only the priests that are committing these heinous acts.

anyway, the Qur'an explains the issue of the captives from women (or what the right hand possess) if you read the verses in context instead of relying on anti-islamic websites, we wouldn't be having this discussion in this manner:

Sura 4:22-28

22 And marry not women whom your fathers married, except what has already passed; indeed it was shameful and most hateful, and an evil way.

23 Forbidden to you (for marriage) are: your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your father’s sisters, your mother’s sisters, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your foster mother who gave you suck, your foster milk suckling sisters, your wives’ mothers, your step daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom you have gone in - but there is no sin on you if you have not gone in them (to marry their daughters), - the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins, and two sisters in wedlock at the same time, except for what has already passed; verily, Allâh is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.

24 Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allâh ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek (them in marriage) with Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) from your property, desiring chastity, not committing illegal sexual intercourse, so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed; but if after a Mahr is prescribed, you agree mutually (to give more), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allâh is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise.

25 And whoever of you have not the means wherewith to wed free, believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess, and Allâh has full knowledge about your Faith, you are one from another. Wed them with the permission of their own folk (guardians, Auliyâ’ or masters) and give them their Mahr according to what is reasonable; they (the above said captive and slave-girls) should be chaste, not adulterous, nor taking boy-friends. And after they have been taken in wedlock, if they commit illegal sexual intercourse, their punishment is half that for free (unmarried women.] This is for him among you who is afraid of being harmed in his religion or in his body; but it is better for you that you practise selfrestraint, and Allâh is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.

26 Allâh wishes to make clear (what is lawful and what is unlawful) to you, and to show you the ways of those before you, and accept your repentance, and Allâh is AllKnower, AllWise.

27 Allâh wishes to accept your repentance, but those who follow their lusts, wish that you (believers) should deviate tremendously away from the Right Path.

28 Allâh wishes to lighten (the burden) for you; and man was created weak.

Even a non-muslim can understand this, the captives have rights, and by the way, if a captive woman gives birth she becomes automatically free.

 

[r.gonzales]

nice little tidbit i just came across regarding abrogation and how the early muslim scholars from the first three generations understood it…

ibn katheer states in his exegesis of 60:10-11:

and according to this narration, this verse is a specifier for the sunnah, and this is from the best of examples of that and according to the way of some of the predecessors (salaf) is an ‘abrogator’.

what ibn katheer states at the end of this quote is explained by the following:

the salaf and the term naskh

it should be pointed out that the salaf did not use the term ‘naskh’ to refer exclusively to abrogation. they also used the term to apply to specification (takhsees) and initiation (badaa’ah). the first person to limit the meaning of the word naskh to apply to abrogation only was imaam ash-shaafi’ee (d.204 a.h.), in his famous treatise on usool al-fiqh entitled ar-risaalah.

therefore, when coming across statements from the scholars of the first three generations that claim that a particular verse was ‘abrogated’ (nasakha) by another verse, this cannot be immediately taken as an example of naskh. it is this exact factor which has been one of the greatest causes of confusion with regards to the number of naasikh/mansookh verses in the Qur’aan (as shall be elaborated upon shortly). for example, ibn abbaas stated that the verse “do not enter any houses, except your own, without permission…” (24:27) was ‘abrogated’ by the verse, “and there is no sin on you if ou enter uninhabited houses that are of benefit to you (without permission).” (24:29) this is not an example of naskh (in its later definition) in the least, for the second verse specifies that the ‘houses’ mentioned in the first verse only applies to occupied houses. in other words, this is an example of takhsees, and not naskh. in the terminology of ibn abbaas and the salaf, naskh also meant what is referred today as takhsees.

source: an introduction to the sciences of the Qur’aan, by yasir qadhi, pg. 234.

so when the scholars of islam say that the verse of the sword ‘abrogates’ what came before it in terms of encouragements for tolerance and charitable conduct to non-muslims it is to be understood in this light, not according to the definition of “abrogation” used by the later scholars (i.e., cancellation or complete removal or abolishment of a particular verse’s implication).

 

[footy]

Will the calling’ Al Mu’minun" will be better for you, Gonzaleees?
Since you didn’t quote them, let us quote the 5-6 for the criteria of Mu’minun (believer):

23: 5 Who abstain from sex,

23:6 Except with those joined them in the marriage bond, OR (the captives) whom their right hands possess, - for (in their case) they are free from blame.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

no thanks, i’d rather not read the pseudo-scholarship from a person who’s been exposed for his deceptive methods discussing islamic topics.

nice ad hominem there. Shamoun has refuted many Muslims, popular Muslim apologist, Zakir Naik won’t even debate him. Another popular Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally, won’t debate him on the prophethood of Muhammad. I wonder, who is deceptive and who writes pseudo-scholarship?

“Just like Ali Sina, we regularly receive challenges from Muslims that we should debate with Zakir Naik. We are ready, we have said so to Zakir Naik and his team. It is Zakir Naik who refuses to face our debate representative Sam Shamoun.”
answering-islam.org/Responses/Naik/index.htm

"OPEN CHALLENGE TO SHABIR ALLY
Recently I was contacted by a Christian regarding the possibility of debating Shabir Ally. The Christian informed me that the Islamic Society has scheduled a debate to be held in the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth and were looking for a Christian candidate.

I accepted the challenge to debate Shabir Ally on the topic Is Muhammad a Prophet? Thus far, Shabir has shown an unwillingness to debate this topic, choosing to debate other “Christian” topics such as the Deity of Christ, etc.

Seeing that Shabir has yet to debate the credibility of his prophet, we challenge him to do so for this particular debate in Dartmouth that is scheduled for March 27, 2002. His unwillingness to debate this topic only reinforces our suspicions that Shabir is aware that he cannot win such a debate. I have requested such a debate many times in personal communication with him. He always finds ways to avoid it.

Therefore, I am issuing a public challenge to Shabir Ally.

Debate me on the credibility of your prophet.
If Shabir refuses to debate this topic, then I kindly ask the Islamic Society to find any other Muslim speaker who is willing to debate whether Muhammad is a prophet or not.

It seems that Muslim apologists are quick to debate issues such as the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus, the authenticity of the Holy Bible etc. but refuse to debate the credentials of their prophet. Perhaps Shabir will prove to be the exception to this norm and accept our public challenge.

We will inform our readers if Shabir accepts the challenge or chooses to back down.

Until then, this challenge will remain posted on the Answering Islam web site.

Sam Shamoun
November 25, 2001"
answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/challenge.htm

besides, i didn’t tell you to read the whole article, you asked for quotes from Muslim scholars (such as Ibn Kathir) and they are quoted in the article. It’s up to you if you want to read them or not.

People, Shamoun’s article contains many helpful quotes from Muslim scholars (such as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Jalalayn, as-Suyuti on sura 9:1, sura 9:5, sura 9:29). Check out the article and read what these scholars have to say, they are way too long to quote here.

 

[discipleofJesus]

raceland:

Even a non-muslim can understand this, the captives have rights

Your quote doesn’t prove that slaves/cptives have rights, but the the slaves that become your **wives ** have rights. What if the Muslim keeps his slave to have sex with her or to rape her and doesn’t want to marry her?

Also, we are not discussing whether they have rights or not but how wrong it is to be allowed to have an unlimited number of slaves/captives who not only can you have sex with in addition to your 4 wives (clearly adultery) but you can also rape them!

raceland:

and by the way, if a captive woman gives birth she becomes automatically free.

oh, you mean if the Muslim who rapes his slave unintentionally impregnates her by not having enough self control to do coitus interruptus[which they are allowed to do, see Adultery: Do it! Do it! Do it! ]
she becomes free. Is that supposed to be good?!

Regarding your comments about priests and Christians doing abusive, wrong things, I already answered that in one of my above posts.

 

[cute2904]

raceland:

How about we discuss this:

These are your fruits…

Survey:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a survey of Roman Catholic church records of abusive clergy, to be completed by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The survey is one component of the Dallas Charter, a plan developed by the bishops in 2002 to respond to allegations of widespread child abuse by priests, and of extensive cover-ups by the church. CNN.com obtained a draft copy of the report and posted a summary on their web site on 2004-FEB-17. 1 The final version was released on 2004-FEB-27.
Some of the raw data contained in the report:

Years covered: 1950 to 2002.

Percentage of bishops who provided information: 97% 3

Total number of allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests: 11,000.

Number substantiated: 6,700 (61%).

Number unsubstantiated: 1,000 (9.1%).

Number which were not investigated because the allegations were made after the priest’s death: 3,300.

Number of priests who served during the interval: 110,000.

Number of priests alleged to have abused children: 4,450.

Percentage of abusive priests: 4.0%

Number of priests who are currently serving: 44,000

Number of cases of abuse per priest:

Most priests were accused of a single event

1,112 priests (25.0%) had two or three allegations

578 priests (13%) had four to nine allegations.

133 priests (2.9%) had ten or more allegations.

Age of the victims:

Almost 6% were 7 years of age or younger.

16% were 8,9 or 10 years old.

78% were 11 to 17 years old.

Factors contributing to the abuse problem, as stated by the report:

Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.

Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.

Use of unqualified treatment centers.

Misguided willingness to forgive.

Insufficient accountability.

That’s in the U.S. alone; God knows what’s going on in the rest of the world. :tsktsk:
cuttingedge.org/news/n1614.cfm

Hey… this is typical Edris. Are you the same guy? Love being tu quoque and off topic as usual

 

[Cyber_Knight]

I think Koran gives a very strange influence, like Raceland…she becomes Out of Topic…

I sometimes wonder with muslims. They try to compare what we are discussing with other topic, just to show… “hey… we are not alone… you did the same thing…” by comparing their prophet attitude with current community although Christian community confirm those are sin and big wrongdoings in society.

 

[r.gonzales]

discipleofJesus:

nice ad hominem there. Shamoun has refuted many Muslims, popular Muslim apologist, Zakir Naik won’t even debate him. Another popular Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally, won’t debate him on the prophethood of Muhammad. I wonder, who is deceptive and who writes pseudo-scholarship?

how’s this for ad hominem? both zakir naik and shabir ally aren’t even close to being considered muslim scholars in the least. not only do both follow ideologies and methodologies contrary to those from correct islamic teachings, but they have very little knowledge of islam and its various branches of knowledge. and while some of their material is useful in debates with christians and adherents to other faiths, i wouldn’t rely on anything they bring to the table. your mentioning them here does nothing to change the fact that shamoun is a deceiver and one who is ignorant actual meanings and significance of the material he quotes from the islamic source books.

discipleofJesus:

besides, i didn’t tell you to read the whole article, you asked for quotes from Muslim scholars (such as Ibn Kathir) and they are quoted in the article. It’s up to you if you want to read them or not.

thanks, but i’d rather refer to the originals of the tafseers by ibn katheer, as-suyootee and others rather than second-hand quotes from person like shamoun. and btw, tafseer al-jalaalain wasn’t written by a scholar named jalaalain, it’s a combination of the tafseers of two scholars, both who had the monikers “jalaal ad-deen”, hence the name “al-jalaalain” meaning “the two jalaals”. these scholars were jalaal ad-deen as-suyootee and jalaal ad-deen al-muhallaa.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

and here i thought lying was a sin .

and here I thought lying and bearing false witness is a sin.
oh wait… Islam allows Muslims to lie… oops!

answering-islam.org/Index/T/taqiya.html

answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch16_understanding_dishonesty.htm

 

[raceland]

Disciple,
You ignored the verse “Wed them with the permission of their own folk (guardians, Auliyâ’ or masters) and give them their Mahr according to what is reasonable; they (the above said captive and slave-girls) should be chaste, not adulterous, nor taking boy-friends. And after they have been taken in wedlock, if they commit illegal sexual intercourse, their punishment is half that for free (unmarried women).”

And where does it say rape, this only in your head , hmm……!!! on you

Cute and footy, you are tu quoque and off topic. Point the finger the other way round.