Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Accountancy Jobs in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Office jobs in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

Does Muhammad, pbuh, meet Biblical test of Prophethood?


Flying Dutchman What about miracles? I am not sure about this, but at least most prophets of the OT and Jesus of course performed miracles. As far as I know Mohammed didnīt.
shafique In the Quran/Biblical Integrity thread:

My answer is that Muhammad, pbuh, does need to meet the 'basic criteria for what makes a true prophet'.
My contention is that he does meet all the criteria. But as freza raised this, I will let her state the criteria and why she states that Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet these.
I have suggested we take the Bible as a common frame of reference for these criteria - for there are verses which prophecise the coming of future prophets and also how to recognise them. We also have the narratives of what 'true prophets' said and did. Therefore we have both the criteria and the examples to refer to.
I think it would be more orderly to look at one criterion at a time, but I'm happy to let freza decide whether to address a number at a time or singly.
Cheers,
Shafique freza ah, interesting! I just have some basic questions to start.. When Mohammad first had his other-worldy visions, why did he doubt that it was God who was speaking to him? Why did he need reassurance of his wife to convince him that he was dealing with the divine? Who were the witnesses of Mohammad's status as God's messenger? Saying he has a message from God is one thing, but proving it? How? What did he do that proved he wasn't just a regular person with a vivid imagination? shafique
Simply a natural human reaction. What would you do if an unseen voice talks to you and asks you to recite/read!?
You must also realise that prior to being called to prophethood Muhammad, pbuh, was a shy, modest person who chose solitude/meditation rather than more mundane passtimes. He showed no political or social aspirations - choosing to give away wealth rather than amass it.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Can you perhaps give me an example from say the life of Moses or Jesus when you say 'witness' or 'prove'.
How did Moses prove himself to be a prophet to Pharaoh, or how did Jesus prove he was the Messiah to the Pharisees and Priests?
I guess we will come to what Muhammad, pbuh, did do when you list what a true prophet should do and we examine whether he did that or not. The Bible is pretty clear on how to recognise a true prophet and distinguish from a person with a vivid imagination or one who is just ill/has epilepsy.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics another case where common sense prevails i wouldnt accept a womaniser as a prophet, regardless of who says what. ebonics
jesus raised dead shafique
he was raised from the dead
jesus' body isnt on this earth, muhammads is... what else proof do you want? shafique Thanks ebonics. Did all the Jewish people accept Jesus after he raised Lazarus from the dead? How about the Romans? Ebonics - I uncovered in the other thread that the Coptic Bible has some extra books in the New Testament - as you were a Coptic Christian, do you know which books these are (being lazy here, but I'm hoping you can save me looking this up). As for the 'womaniser' comment - I take it that anyone who has more than one wife cannot be a prophet in your eyes. Fair enough - but that would rule out Abraham as a prophet for one (and not to mention Solomon and David). Do you really believe these weren't prophets? Oh, and also you seem to be confusing the fact that I do believe Jesus was a prophet of God and was asking for criteria to judge a true prophet. Being bodily transported to heaven isn't generally a criterion for prophethood - for only Elijah and Jesus (according to the Bible) would qualify. Do you believe Elijah will come down bodily? Cheers, Shafique shafique
Sure - miracles are certainly a feature of prophets, but I'm not sure they are a criterion. However they are typically not seen as miracles by the opponents of prophets, and to my knowledge performing of miracles is not a Biblical criterion for the truthfulness of a prophet.
But, for the record, Muhammad, pbuh, is recorded as performing miracles. One is where a bowl of milk was shared via a large number of people.
Another interesting one is where he pointed to the moon and it appeared to split into two. I read that this phenomenon was also recorded in India by a ruler of the time, so there is some corroborating evidence that this is the case. Prior to this, the records relied on the fact that the opponents of Islam did not dispute that this account was false.
That said, I do not view miracles as a definitive sign of prophethood.
Most Muslims will say that the biggest miracle is the Quran.
A quick Google came up with this list (I don't vouch for it as I'm not sure who they are, but a quick glance down shows the miracles that I'm aware of - and one's I wasn't aware of, eg curing a blind person. Some of the hadith are questionable, but I give you the list to make your own mind up).
Cheers,
Shafique freza I would ask: who are you???!!!Yes he was shy and modest, but was it because that's what he wanted or because that was his condition in that particular phase of his life? I disagree about your statements of his lack of aspirations. I think that sometimes his aspirations were very significant motivations, his first such aspiration might very well have been his marriage to Khadija - a rich widow.
If none other but God makes contact with a human prophet-to-be, would he leave any doubt that he was God?
That Mohammad questioned that it was God is very significant. Other prophets have questioned "why did you choose lowly, insignifcant me God?" but to question the ultimate divine presence...hhhmm shafique freza - thanks for your comments. Do you have the criteria for us to judge a true prophet by? I'll start you off with two. One I would say, is to declare they are a prophet of God. Another is to make prophecies in the name of God and have them come true. Both these are fulfilled by Muhammad, pbuh. My understanding of the Bible is that a false prophet cannot make a prophecy in the name of God and have it come true. Do you agree? Cheers, Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique
This 'phase' of his life was age 40, married to a rich lady for 15 years and given away much of the wealth and set all the slaves free.

Actions speak louder than conjecture.

Well, it wasn't God who made contact with the Prophet, pbuh - so I'm not sure what your statement is based on.

:) So your criticism is that he had doubts. Ok - fair enough (but he would be right to doubt that it wasn't God, because it wasn't God :) )
Cheers,
Shafique freza Right, it was God who told the angel Gabriel to contact Mohammad. this makes his doubts perfectly OK! silly me! :-) I thought Mohammad was 25 years old when he married the rich widow. Can you clarify this. can you also reference to writings - outside of the Quran - that state that he had absolutely no political and social aspirations. ebonics
the only prophets in the true sense that i believe in are jesus & moses, everyone else is just another human being. some more spiritual than others. but not prophets. shafique
Yes, he was 25 when he married his first wife. (40-25 = 15)

All accounts of Muhammad's, pbuh, early life are outside of the Quran, so not sure what you are asking for. There are many biographies out there.
Interesting that you don't consider Abraham etc prophets. You are the first Christian I have debated with that does not consider the Biblical prophets to be prophets. (BTW - Moses married twice as well according to Biblical scholars, the second wife being an black Eithiopian, but that's a different discussion).
Anyway, do you agree that only true prophets make prophecies in the name of God and have them come true?
Cheers,
Shafique freza My mistake: I misread your statement about the phase of his life I thought you meant that Mohammad was 40 years old when he married the rich widow.
However, this is an interesting observation because it seems that after Khadeejah died, his personal life was very...fast paced..so to speak. He married a bunch of women and had concubines some of them extremely young. How many wives did Mohammad have after Khadeejah's death?
What is the opinion of Islamic scholars about slavery, concubines and war captives?
This is another thing that strikes me when you compare other prophets with Mohammad. Other prophets fell out of favor with God over sins, sometimes forgiven sometimes not. The prophet Mohammad who has a place of such high esteem in Islam - shouldn't he have led a less reproachable life? If the Quran itself states his weaknesses, we can only imagine what was not said.
This glaring contradiction begs the question - why ask something of his devotees that he didn't comply with himself? How can you even begin to justify this..?
Is this a multiply of the quantity of the milk miracle? You mean like the Jesus miracles of the wine at Cana and the multiplying of bread and fish? I wonder how many Muslims know of this Mohammad miracle as opposed to those that know of Moses parting of the sea miracle? Miracles are not small things - word of them spreads. This miracle tidbit seems very very odd. shafique I note that you are still refusing to give us the criteria by which to judge Muhammad, pbuh, and show where in the Bible the criteria come from.
I'll however put this down to selective reading, and indulge your question.

Not really. He married divorced and widowed women, and was married Aisha when she was a young girl, but the marriage was not consummated until her maturity.

God's opinion is clearly stated in the Quran - what are you confused about?

I believe all prophets are sinless - but that is another matter. Sinless in that they don't knowingly break God's law.

We do hold Muhammad, pbuh, to a high level and yes he must lead a less reproachable life than other prophets.
I'm not sure what weakness you are referring to - if you could give me the reference that would be good.

You will have to point out the 'glaring contradiction' before I can justify it. Can't see the contradiction yet.

Ok - so let us see, how many Romans converted because Jesus walked on water or fed the multitudes? Why did the High Priests not convert? Is that fact not 'very very odd' if 'miracles are not small things' and 'word of them spreads'?
As I stated before, I don't consider miracles to be a criterion - but if you do, please state how you consider Muhammad, pbuh, to have not fulfilled them (is it because splitting the moon is less than walking on water, or that he did not feed many people with the milk?).
So, let us see - so far we have established:
1. Muhammad, pbuh, declared himself a prophet of God
2. Muhammad, pbuh, made prophecies in the name of God
3. Said prophecies came true.
4. Muhammad, pbuh, performed miracles
1, 2 and 3 are my criteria which I took from the Bible - but you still haven't stated which criteria you are using. Quoting from the 'I Spy' book of Islam bashing is not quite what I was expecting. Disapointed, but not surprised.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique double post
Edit, let me just remind everyone why this thread was set up

freza - can we have the 'basic criteria' and where these criteria come from.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
so far you have established the above, we havent established squat.
he declared himself a prophet, with no specific grounding really....
he made ludacris hadiths in the process (not sure what prophecies you're talking about)
and no documented case of widely accepted miracles are known about him, other than your niche example, that was hardly ever announced by anyone before... as for that, a small ern of wine fits an entire congregation at communion... so what you're saying isnt exactly far fetched, enough to call a MIRACLE
miracles:
raising dead
instantly healing sick
opening eyes with a touch
beating death and rising from it.
splitting the red sea
big difference. freza I'm following your example, I was hoping you would feel flattered.
actually you decided this theme: compare/contrast.
about the criteria, I'll get to that. First let me get the basics out of the way:
Obvious question which you did not address. WHY? Why marry so many? How many? Why marry a child even if the marriage was not consummated? How do you know it wasn't? How old was Aisha when the marriage was consummated?
OK, I'm confused I admit. Concubines and se x slaves are acceptable or not?
whaaaat??? so if Mohammad didn't "know" that women are not commodities - he didn't sin?
shafique
Why did he marry other women after his first wife died and chose to marry divorcees and widows? Can you prove that the marriage to Aisha was not consummated after her maturity? We have all her hadith and they paint a picture of a happy, loving marriage that puts mine to shame (the prophet, pbuh did all the housework!).
Why not marry? Is it un-prophetlike to marry?

The Quran is quite clear on this - s. e. x outside of marriage is a sin.

Huh? Like I said, you should not rely on the 'I spy' book for facts! :)
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
yes they are,
the quran clearly says "and whatever their right hand posesses"
in arabic, "wa malakat aymanohom."
one of the most debated verses, within the muslim community, mainly from women against clerics... ebonics
shafique, explain "whatever their right hand posses" or "wa ma malakat aymanohom" ebonics personally, IF you believe that the quran is the literal word of god, do you believe that god would say such a thing? logic says no .... shafique says yes .... i chose logic. shafique
It means what it says - those whom you have control over - it can refer to slaves or prisoners of war.
The Quran says it is legal for Muslim men to marry these women - but they cannot be forced into marriage:
24:33
Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them).

4:24
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
etc.
The Quran acknowledges the presence of slaves and ordains how they should be set free and their treatment. In times of war, prisoners of war also become captives and their treatment is governed by the same rules.
Where it is impractical to keep POW in camps, the usual treatment in history is that they are all put to death. Tellingly though, there are no commandments in the Quran specifying when it is acceptable to take slaves.
There is no equivalent teaching in the Bible, to my knowledge, and many slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery (wrongly, in my opinion).
But, again, I can't see this as a criterion of prophethood - sure we can discuss Islam's teachings vis-a-vis slaves (and I'm happy to do so).
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
I do believe - and others are free to believe in what they wish.

:)
How is your 'disecting' of the Quran coming along?
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics my disecting of the quran is yielding that aisha, admitted on several occasions, that the quran's been re-worded... it took me hard streneous research to find out such information, bounded by the censorship of etisalat.. when i air it out here, you'll do what you did with the hadith that sparked my "disecting" of your quran, dismiss it as unauthentic...... like groundhog day you're becoming more and more predictable shafique. shafique
Wow - I'm now being criticised for a discussion that hasn't taken place yet! :)
I'll wait for you to post before I address it.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
i can only judge you on your past merits
equation went like this:
hadith was mentioned by me and questions
azhar confirmed hadith is correct
several others confirmed hadith is correct
international muslim clerics in international press confirmed hadith is correct
shafique dismissed it as rubbish made by none muslims to make islam look bad..... with no credible research i may add.
past record speaks for itself. shafique :lol: freza Don't be silly Shafique, I am obviously not asking why did he get married, I am asking why with so many women? For charity? Was this the only way to show charity towards a widow? At least one of his wives widowed because her husband was killed by Mohammad's army. So she was a war captive turned wife.
Was Aisha really that happy in the marriage? Aren't there accounts that state that there was some serious discord between the wives due to an increasing household? That Aisha was unhappy and resentful at times and even plotted against Mohammad? Btw, do you think that a nine year old girl has reached maturity? She was nine when Mohammad was in his 50s and the marriage was consummated, right? shafique
To show there is no stigma in marrying divorcees and widows. Some marriages - such as with Safiyyah, from a Jewish tribe, were political. However they were all marriages - where the women consented.

No, it was not the only charity - but to make a widow the wife of the leader of a religion and empire is not without its merits. Same goes for the wife who was a widow as a result of war (which one were you thinking of?)

To my knowledge, yes. It was a normal marriage with some touchingly normal sides - the Prophet used to mend his own clothes and do the chores. He used to have a race with Aisha each year (running race) - he won in the early years, but later on she beat him. He used to ask permission from her to spend the night in prayers - she used to admonish him for praying too hard.

Yes, there are these reports. Bear in mind that certain sects of Islam see Aisha as a hate figure. However, it is also instructive to read that even the best marriages have their ups and downs and isn't a fairy tale.

Yes, there was a big age difference. Aisha was the daughter of his best friend and later his first successor. The marriage was consumated when Aisha was mature and not when she was 9.
The facts do not support the accusation that the Prophet, pbuh, was a s.e. xual predator or paedophile. He was faithful to one wife during the prime of his life - when he achieved power he did not marry nubile young women, but divorcees and widows. He did marry the daughter of his closest friend and she was his closest companion after marriage. Yes she was young, but by all accounts it was a public marriage and one full of love.
If you want, I'll get some quotes from historians for you - but I think the facts speak for themselves.
Can we perhaps now move on to the criteria for prophethood?
Cheers,
Shafique freza So instead of just SAYING that one should not stigmatize widows and divorcees Mohammad marries many of them...to set an example. hhmmm. You previously said that he didn't have any social or political aspirations, I stated that I think he did and marrying a rich widow (Khadeejah) was his first such aspiration, you disagreed, here you state that he married Safiyyah for political reasons. So I guess he did have political/social aspirations, can we agree on this?
If at least two of Mohammad's marriages were to war captives, how does war captive marriage = consent?
marry me or end up as loot for my soldiers or flogged and made slave, your choice.
ok, I'll marry you.
this type of consent?
right. the women that were "made" the wives of an influential self-proclaimed prophet should have been grateful of their new found status. As a result of war, yes, what war was this?
so it is perfectly normal for a 50-something year old man to marry a 9 year old child? Mohammad mended his own clothes and prayed a lot - wonderful, these are good traits yes I agree, BUT you seem to say these things as if it makes the whole old man marrying a child excusable.
yeah, I imagine that a marriage involving 11+ wives to an older man could have its up and downs.
What do you consider mature? do you think that a girl who has started menstruating is mature no matter what her age? Re: Aisha's age. The most trustworthy Hadiths state the same thing - Aisha was 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. The most respected Islamic old-school scholars (Ibn Hanbal, Tabari etc.) state the same thing. Encyclopedia Britannica states that she was 18 years old when the prophet died. She remained with him 9 years until his death, that would make her 9 when he married her. So...what exactly are you disagreeing with? shafique
Yes.

When he was a political leader, he did political things. I said that before his call to prophethood he had no political and social aspirations. The facts speak for themselves.
I don't see anything wrong in politically motivated marriages - goes on today.

No - once he was a political leader, he had to act like a political leader. As Jesus said, when I was a child, I acted like a child..

No - it goes like this 'will you marry me - the choice is yours'. The Quran is clear on this point - you can't force women into marriage. The choice is therefore to be a widow of a defeated army, or to become a wife. It is a choice.
Safiyyah, for example, proposed to the Prophet after she had a dream.
And remember that women in Islam have full rights of divorce, so marriage is not seen as making a woman the property of the husband (and Christians used to criticise Islam for being too liberal for this very point - and it took over 1000 years for Europe to catch up and give women these same rights).

Please look up the word 'choose' and contrast it with 'made'. You seem to have a dim view of the institution of marriage. Marrying someone is not the same as having a girlfriend - but sometimes we lose sight of this fact.

You seem to characterise this a paedophillia. It was common practice for royalty and high class people to marry/bethrow their children very young. It is not a common or even a recommended practice. In this case it was a loving relationship and I see nothing wrong with how it turned out.

Indeed. But hardly shows he isn't a prophet - if you recall this is the purpose of this thread :)

She was past puberty when the marriage was consumated. Some reports have her as young as 6 when she married, some say 9. There aren't clear reports as to the age when the marriage was consumated - but extensive hadith by Aisha herself about the marriage.
I'm disagreeing with the characterisation that Muhammad, pbuh, was a s.e.xual predator for marrying the daughter of his best friend when he was in his 50s and the ruler of the whole of Arabia and by Arab tradition could have any woman he wished.
And as luck would have it, the one relationship that detractors of Islam will focus on, is the one relationship where we have the words of the lady herself. She was no shrinking violet - she led an army against the 4th Khalifa, so she did not hold her tongue - and therefore we can judge the Prophet's (pbuh) and her marriage from her perspective.
Perhaps I am wrong for trusting the word of the lady herself?
So, can we now have a criterion for prophethood that Muhammad did not meet (and show that the criterion comes from former scripture).
Cheers,
Shafique freza your replies are jaw-dropping unfreakinbelievably disturbing...
We've established (well you've only admitted this half-way) the common sense things: Mohammad had political motivations, sure. Nothing wrong with marrying a rich widow which would die before he did and would leave him a fortune upping any future political aspirations. Common sense here. He was a political leader - some of this motivations might have more to do with politics than religion.
wow....I'm sure it's supported by the Quran or a Hadith, right? So if she would have dreamt of stabbing Mohammad in the heart while he slept, it would have been ok? We are also to understand that Mohammad first "had a dream" of marrying Aisha when she was practically a baby. And he justified this by saying it was Allah's will. Why would God ever tell a dirty old man to think of marrying a little girl? Why? Can you find a plausible explanation? I can. God never advised him such an ugly thing. But when a self-proclaimed prophet needs to get away with something which is despicable to many..God is convenient. Otherwise, why even come up with an explanation?
You also leave out the reports that Aisha's own father was not too happy about Mohammad's request for his daughter, even though he was friends with Mohammad, the best of friends from what I understand. This to me indicates that this child marriage was not as acceptable back then as you want to make it out to be. Sure it happened, but it wasn't considered a wonderful thing by everyone.ooohhhhhh. that's how it goes. So what would be her fate if she said: "no"? Please tell. If women had so many choices, did she have a choice not to have her family killed by Mohammad's soldiers making her a widow in the first place?
MOST Islamic and Quranic sources CONFIRM that Aisha was a child when Mohammad married her. Just accept it dude, your vagueness doesn't cut it in this case. You are saying that this is fine. We shouldn't think of Mohammad as a pedophile. Amazing. But it's not recommended now a days. OK, do as Mohammad, err, God tells you, not as Mohammad does. Got it. Other do as I say not as I do:
You can only have up to four wives according to the Quran but Mohammad had 11+.
According to the Quran: marrying your daughter in law is a no-no. but Mohammad not only desired his adopted-son's wife, he married her. But conveniently Mohammad received this little message by way of that famous divine revelation saying that he can in fact marry his adopted son's wife, because why? because his son was adopted and not biological? why exactly?
You see, Shafique, anyone with common sense would deduct that there is a serious disconnect in the ways of Mohammad. Can you see it without accusing them of being anti-Quranic or anti-Islamic? Can you understand what is so obviously lacking about Mohammad's basic human character just within this context here?
You can't, you won't, why do I even bother. shafique
I love you too. :)

Not before he was a prophet, and even then some years after he was called to the prophethood.

You seem to be ignoring the facts here. She proposed to him. He gave away her fortune.

He became a political leader and acted like one - no question about this. The point I made early on was that prior to being told to proclaim his prophethood he eschewed the material trappings and stayed away from politics.

Do you have a different source of information?

I'm not sure what you are objecting to - is it wrong for a woman to propose?

Ok - we get you are disgusted.

Is there another sort of prophet? Has there ever been a prophet who hasn't declared himself a prophet?

Yes - this is a problem shared by many Biblical prophets, including Moses. In the Bible he is portrayed as a murderer/manslaughterer and fugitive from justices and condoning the killing of innocent Egyptian boys by God, as well as leading his people for 40 years around the desert. His sister-in-law chastises him for marrying an Eithiopian lady. His armies commit slaughter of innocents - yet he is a true prophet according to you.

Really? I did mention she is a hate figure to some. There are some very unsavoury 'hadith' about her - but the question really should be what did she say about the marriage.

You are entitled to your view and you have made it well.

What do you think their fate would be if they said no? It would be the same fate as the other widows who weren't proposed to.

Yes - I have not denied she was a child when they were married. The marriage was only consumated after puberty.

No - I think you are free to consider Muhammad, pbuh, as whatever you want. I'll just state the facts as I know them.

Yes.

Because he was adopted, you are right.

I'm still waiting for the 'basic criteria' - so far we haven't had any but just some re-hashed accusations about who he married and why.

You'll have to help me understand what was lacking in his conduct as a groom and a husband.

I wonder why you bother as well with these old accusations- you stated that Muhammad, pbuh, failed 'basic criteria' for prophets. To date you have not given me one criterion that Muhammad, pbuh, failed that other prophets passed.
The Bible clearly states how we can judge whether a prophet is true or not. My contention is that Muhammad, pbuh, meets these criteria (re-read the title of this thread).
You have consistently deferred discussion on the point you yourself raised.
I'm not angry, I'm not disappointed and I'm not surprised. The religion he brought you call 'beautiful', you accept he had a happy relationship with Aisha but you think it despicable he married someone so young. If this is your only criterion for rejecting him, fair enough, come out and say so - but this isn't a 'basic criteria' according to the Bible.
You also seem to have a problem with women choosing to marry and become Queens of an empire. This somehow is to you a punishment or a way of a man satisfying his carnal desires. You discount the responsibilities that go with a marriage and equate it with servitude (which it was in Europe until relatively recently).
Anyway - can we now move to some criteria?
Cheers,
Shafique freza I hear an echo. :D Seriously Shafique, didn't you feel a little weird writing this line?
OK, so to run down the factoids.
Aisha was a tiny child when the old man started desiring her and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. You excuse this act because they led a happy marriage according to you and because it was not entirely unusual for old men to marry kids back then. This is like sooo convincing - that kids like to be with old men, Aisha's happiness is palpable through-out the Hadiths, isn't it? So s e x with children is ok as long as the girl has started menstruating and as long as it was a long time ago and as long as he made up a nifty though ridiculous excuse. Got it. Makes perfect sense!
Moses was a man who did great things but also committed offenses against men and against God. God punished him - do you forget these things? Have I ever said that Moses was a white dove? I've never said this of him. I actually find some of the things he did quite disturbing and I'm not blind to reality even if it's reality which I'm fond of. What is pretty clear is that he erred, he admitted his offenses, he eventually admitted his short-comings. I'm not excusing him in any way, why should I? but I'm saying that this guy actually took some level of responsibility towards his actions. Mohammad never did.
I never said it is wrong for a woman to propose, don't start with your silliness Shafique. And I don't hold any dim view of marriage - ridiculous assumption on your part. Marriage is a very good thing -I may sound like a lil bastard but I'm actually a product of a wonderful marriage - shocking I know! :P
Marriage to widows is an even better thing apparently. Have you ever considered practicing extreme charity Mohammad-style by marrying a bunch of widows? (serious question). I wonder why this "example" didn't take off in the Muslim world...
speaking of.., well a hypothetical question:
Just to go on the "logic" of this example. Let's say Mohammad would have decreed that homosexuals should not be stigmatized by society. What example do you think he would give to get his point across? OH. I guess he didn't actually have to illustrate examples did he? yikes.
But it's pretty clear that Mohammad preached what he didn't practice starting in his marriages and his preoccupation with plural marriages and perfumes when he should have been preoccupied with winning wars and spreading the religion of peace around. *cough* :D Seriously though, prophet of a great religion - concentrate on the religion. Makes sense. How on earth did he have the time...unless...
I haven't differed any question. I wanted to start off by seeing the true nature of Mohammad. Which as been established. You're the one that came up with this topic, remember?
A flawed prophet - entirely normal. An immoral and hypocritical one - God wouldn't have chosen him or God would not have let him go further.
Strike 1 against his prophethood: voices in his head were just that, voices in his head. His dreams were soaked but not with spirituality. Strike 2: he was way too flawed and he was quite hypocritical.
now please continue. why don't you list his prophet-like qualities.
(I will be back next week, inshallah) shafique I listed 3 criteria in a previous post: 1. Declare yourself a prophet of God. 2. Make prophecies in the name of God. 3. Prophecies come true. According to my reading of the Bible, only true prophets of God can fulfil these 3 criteria together. Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils these. Cheers, Shafique shafique
Totally agree with you that the nature of Prophet should be moral and unhypocritical.
The facts as I see them is that Muhammad, pbuh, meets these criteria.
It is interesting that you believe prophets can be flawed - Muslims believe prophets are sin-less, but can and do make mistakes.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
i couldnt have worded it better myself. 10 points
shafique, the fact that you believe all your defences, which like freza said 9/10th of them are assumptions, especially in the marriage forcing part - is very amusing.
FYI:
the "ma malakat aymanohom" aya caused a muslim muhajaba woman to question this in public on TV, clerics failed to explain what was "God's wisdom" in that aya
of course with the pretence of saying crap like "well it is the literal word of god, so it must be true"
she took the liberty in saying OPENLY "people do not believe, and need the proof that it is the literal word of god, i for one, do not believe it"
after that TV show
she took off the hijab, and denounced islam - now a christian.
but it doesnt stop there
they planted a bomb, in her car, which successfully exploded, sending her a chilling message that she's not welcome in her own country anymore, now she's left and gone into hiding fearing for her life. over 3 words in the quran........ imagine all the other things she doubted in it.
so what you dismiss as "normal aya, they can marry whoever they wish with consent" - if far from that, muslim women question that aya on a daily basis, and frankly, no god would EVER say that - thats logically speaking.
but i still understand you are completely blind with faith. i dont know if its a good or a bad thing really, bit of both. shafique Thanks ebonics. As I said in my first post, this thread is about whether Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria of prophethood contained in the Bible. The answer is yes. If you (or freza) disagree, please post the relevant criteria from the Bible and show why Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet these. I understand both of you do not like Muhammad, pbuh, and you are free to do so and give your reasons, but this is not a 'Do I like Muhammad, pbuh', thread. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
ill correct you again, the answer is yes to you, and no to me and freza...... refer to the blind by faith comment. shafique
I thought that you didn't believe in following the Bible (and in any case the Coptic Bible has more books than the one freza uses).
It is quite instructive though that neither you nor freza has once referred to the Bible in this thread in terms of a criterion. Now, what was that about 'blind' faith? :)
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
you're correct in me following no bible,
you're compltely incorrect in assuming that muhammad has prophet like qualities - he's far from it, as i already said in the start of the thread, regardless of who says what.... because yet again, common sense prevails. shafique
So, whilst Muhammad, pbuh, meets Biblical criteria for being a prophet, he does not meet common sense criteria (in your view).
Therefore the Bible is not compatible with common sense according to you. Is this why you don't follow the Bible?
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
you're an expert in creating your own logic - whimsical logic.
i dont believe muhammad meets the biblical criteria of being a prophet.. nor does he meet mine.
muhammad declared himself a prophet of god
anyone can do that
his teaching after that are corrupt, and justify his personal agenda - i dont see how that in any way is "foreseeing the future" and "these claims came true"
on the contrary, i find the quran full of contradictions, even though you seem to think otherwise, full of things that are completely against logic, and full of things placed by him, to justify his actions.
"we ma malakat aymanohom" prime example.
so please, do not place words into my mouth, using your strange logic.. ebonics my nets freaking out shafique ebonics, Sorry, I didn't see a quote from the Bible in your post. So do you agree that the Bible isn't compatible with your view of 'common sense'? Cheers, Shafique ebonics
and sorry i dont see the point that you're trying to make to yourself, that makes 0 sense...
you're making claims that the bible says muhammad passes the test of prophethood, when it doesnt do such a thing by a long shot.
where you're heading with this argument of yours, other than to validate your own argument to your own brain, im not entirely sure? shafique I don't see how you can argue Muhammad, pbuh, does not meet Biblical criteria without referring to the Bible. Is there a flaw in my logic? Why the reluctance to quote from the Bible? Cheers, Shafique ebonics
ill let you answer your own question..... freza Shafique, why do you insist on having us state comparisons between prophets of the Bible to Mohammad when you will undoubtedly end up doing what you have been doing up to now, completely ignoring some of the blatant facts of the Quran while slicing away with your little wooden knife at the Bible. When I state these things about Mohammad it's not that I'm making them up, or that I hate him. What I and other state is what he really was. What you're making up are excuses that shouldn't fit an intelligent but very biased grown man who brings out every conceivable and inconceivable judgment against other religions but buries his head in the sand when it comes to his own.
2 Peter 1:19-21 states: " Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. "
Prophecies are meant not for the prophet. No, they're NOT self-serving they're not for the prophets own human impulses but rather for spiritual revelations. A prophet is a vessel in which God communicates to humans. But unless the prophet is enlightened - he can Not enlighten his message to mankind. Makes sense, doesn't it?
How did Mohammad's wet dreams-via God benefit mankind? They didn't benefit anyone but himself. Furthermore some of his actions are not considered acceptable per Islamic practices and were not even considered acceptable per his own "moral code" back when he lived. Without sin and perfect? Hardly and doesn't even make sense when applying it TO A WHOLLY HUMAN PROPHET.
Men/women are by their very nature flawed! (((hello))) Or are Muslims perhaps implying that Mohammad was a divine being? Only divine beings are "sinless". Shafique, get with it. When choosing prophets God didn't necessarily choose the most perfect, virtuous and accomplished people. But he also didn't choose morally destitute people.
1John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. hhmmm Flying Dutchman I donot have any quotes from the Bible, just some remarks, notes and personal thoughts. Yes, I also do have problems with the way Mohammed behaved and his relationships with many women. I donot think even one Muslim is completely 100% comfortable with the relationship with Aisha. Sure, they can talk around it or make excuses. Hey, I have a daughter now who is almost six years. I just might loose my temper when a guy knocks on my door and says he wants to marry her, but will wait with consuming it after menstruation, puberty or whatever. Last week I read a article about a new world record. In KSA two cousins around 10 years old married, and it was all according to the Sharia. I am not a Christian or Mulsim (obviously) (I am one freza doesnīt like), but I do identify much more with the teaching of Jesus. He was non-violent, lived by his own code, never denied himself and even died for his convictions. Didnīt Mohammed agree during the Hudaibiya treaty to change his signature from "Mohammed, Messenger of God" to "Mohammed , son of Abdullah". Isnīt that denying himself? Didnīt Mohammed break the peace treaty? Thereby coming back from a previous oath? Would a prophet do that? Anyways, I have a theory (and itīs just a theory). I stated before that I think that self-confident people donot resort to violence. Why is it then, that as soon somebody comes closes to Mohammed (with pictures and negative storied about him) Muslims resort to death threats and violence? I think itīs because they are uncomfortable... shafique freza - you fail to address the simple fact that according to the Bible only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God will have their prophecies fulfilled. I am not asking for a comparison with other prophets, but criteria from the Bible stating how to recognise a prophet. I direct you to Deuteronomy 18 - do you agree with the criteria laid out there or not? As for 2 Peter 1:19-21 it does not say that there will be no true prophets in the future. My contention is that Muhammad's revelations (which constitute a beautiful religion in your opinion) weren't just from his imagination. The reason I make this statement is that the Bible (and the Quran) says that only God has knowledge of the future and that only true prophets can make prophecies in the name of God that come true (the crux being that the prophecies are claimed to be from God). Your criteria of only accepting a prophet if he is 'enlightened' is not one I have read in the Bible - but surely a beautiful religion is a sign of enlightenment? If a person committing manslaughter and war crimes is 'enlightened' - what is an un-enlightened person? Let me turn it round - can a false prophet claim to be from God, make prophecies in the name of God and these prophecies come true? If you say yes - then please confirm that you disagree with what is written in Deut 18. FD - yes, I have no issue with people questioning Muhammad's (pbuh) conduct - be it his marriages, wars, revelations etc. However, this thread was started when a statement said he failed the basic criteria of prophethood. Given that Biblical prophets are recorded as committing adultery and even sleeping with their own daughters (David, Lot respectively) - I was curious as to what criteria Muhammad, pbuh, was accused of not meeting. I too would balk at my young daughters being married off. I am also horrified at the stats of my home country, the UK, as to the age of teen and even pre-teen pregnancies. In the 6th century and for many centuries onwards, it was not uncommon to marry off royals very early. This took place in Europe and Asia alike. So, why it is unthinkable today - I say we need to look at the marriage holistically. However distasteful the multiple marriages were, I cannot see how a believing Christian would point to this as a reason to reject a claim of prophethood. It certainly will not be because of the Bible. That said, freza has said she does not consider Abraham, David, Solomon, Lot etc as prophets - so that is another part of the Bible she does not take literally. Cheers, Shafique shafique FD - I totally agree with you last comment about death threats coming from people who are not totally self confident. Remember though that these mobs get disproportionately more coverage. I refer you to the press statement I posted recently which addressed the cartoons. Also recently the Deobandi school of Islam issued a clear edict signed by all its scholars which denounced terrorism. The ultimate irony is that the Prophet, pbuh, was insulted to his face - knew the hypocrites around him, and yet did not punish anyone for just insulting him or having a belief contrary to Islam. Religion has always been misused for ulterior means - the cartoons issue was one that was artificially stoked (it was a number of months before any uproar occured, and that was only after leaflets including invented cartoons that weren't published were distributed). Cheers, Shafique spoonman
Is Freza a she? Flying Dutchman
I know, couldnīt help myslef to give my two cents... shafique
No probs - we haven't talked about the basic criteria from the Bible in the thread so far, so why not look at other questions? :)
spoonman - I've always thought freza was a 'she', can't remember why though.
Cheers,
Shafique Galactico
Yeh Freza is a "she" even though she discusses like a guy... :lol: freza FD, I hope you didn't take all of what I said about disliking certain people that seriously!
Shafique, get this in your head and make sure it stays there. I did not say that Islam is beautiful because of Mohammad. I said I find it beautiful in a mostly superficial way ("it photographs well"), it's visually stunning. and not too superficially in this way: I find that some of what it has become does stand for good things. So I find it beautiful in spite of Mohammad and the faulty Quran which as I have said before I believe to be a combination of inventions, stories: truthful and not, things that were added to it along the years but I do not think it was inspired nor original. I see it as based on Jewish and Christian influences. (I actually think its more Jewish than Christian.) mkay, got it? So next time you want to quote my "beautiful" reference, make sure you actually know what I meant.
A prophet must be enlightened to the message of God in order to pass them on to people. What messages did Moses get from God that he kept for his own benefit? And why don't you tell us why God saw fit to punish some of the Hebrew prophets? Repeat after me: Because they committed offenses. David actually said "“I have sinned against the Lord!”" He admitted his sins and repented sincerely (it took him a year but he finally did). God forgave him BUT he didn't go unpunished. God punished Moses on more than one occasion and sometimes for what can be considered a very small offense (for what amounted to losing his temper). Mohammad never admitted his sins! So we're to believe that towards Mohammad God was completely different - not only didn't God point out Mohammad's sins, he didn't punish him but actually encouraged and found excuses for his sins. Yeah, right.
say whaaaaat? lol! WHERE DID I STATE THIS? Lot - I don't consider a prophet but the rest I do of course! Please show me where I stated these things so I can reprimand myself! Unless you seriously took my words out of context...again.
Matthew 7, 12 " In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets. Did Mohammad treat everyone the way he wanted to be treated himself?
You ignore what really counts against Mohammad's prophethood: 1 John 2:18-19 Says that that there will be wanna-be prophets who will take things from the Bible and make them their own, who will not accept Jesus as the true Messiah. This applies to Mohammad! I mean, how much more clearer do you want things to get?
The Bible also states that the Prophets know the Law. Mohammad bungled the OT and didn't even know enough of the NT. He got Mary and the Holy Spirit confused!! Mohammad who claimed to be of Abrahamic descent should have known the laws. And should have known that they had been fulfilled in the NT. shafique
I don't see it as such - he didn't deny he was a prophet of God but agreed to not use the term as the opponents objected. Had he agreed to write 'Muhammad, not Messenger of God' that would be a denial.

Yes, had he personally broken an oath that would be against the conduct of a prophet of God. However the treaty was broken when a tribe from among the muslims fought with a tribe allied with the Quraish. The Quraish were offered 3 alternatives and chose to agree that the treaty was dissolved.
I don't think Muhammad, pbuh, ordered the fighting to break the truce. The analogy I would draw is of the disobedience of the tribes of Israel against Moses when they made a cow of gold to worship - they went against a prophet's will.
Tellingly, there was no bloodshed in the conquest of Mecca - largely because Islam had spread so much in the two years of ceasefire that where he had to accept the terms of the Quraish at Hudaibiyya with a few hundred supporters, two years later he had an army 10,000 strong.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Islam is a religion. It was brought by Muhammad, pbuh.
You stated that you had no problem with people following Islam and asked 'why would I?'.
Therefore I took you at your words that you found the teachings of Islam as beautiful. If you meant 'Islamic architecture' or 'Islamic Men' or 'Islamic Women' as something beautiful, then you should have said so.

Methinks the lady protests too much.
You said Islam is beautiful - I agree with you.
You don't believe in the Quran and look down on Muhammad, pbuh. You have the right to hold those opinions. I don't share those and am willing to put my case.

Agreed. Muhammad, pbuh, passes this test.

I have respect for all prophets of God - even the ones you consider are not real prophets (such as Abraham, Lot, David and Solomon).

This is one aspect where the Quran differs from the Bible - it exonerates Prophets what Muslims consider as slander. This is one reason why your assertion that the Quran copied the Bible rings hollow.

You really should get off the high horse some time.
We don't believe any prophets committed sins. It seems hypocritical to me to criticise Muhammad, pbuh, for alleged lapses which are much less than what is attributed to Biblical prophets (eg. Lot slept with his daughters allegedly, Solomon had a thousand wives etc)

My fault - apologies for this mistake. It was ebonics who said that he only considered Jesus and Moses to be true prophets. Sorry, I should have checked more carefully (it was in this thread he said this a few pages back).
We at least agree that Prophets in the Bible include OT prophets, such as Lot, David, Solomon and Abraham.

Yes.

He accepted Jesus as the Messiah. As do I. He and I both rejected the teachings of Paul though.

Which Bible are you referring to?
You have argued until you were blue in the face that the Bible needs interpretation and that 'hear' can mean 'understand' to resolve a contradiction. The Quran is internally consistent and corrects many a mistake in the Bible - eg that Lot's wife chose to stay behind rather than turning into a pillar of salt.
He was not a Jew and was not subject to Judaic laws - or did that fact escape you?
Anyway, I'm glad you raised some Biblical criteria that Muhammad, pbuh, passed with flying colours.
However, I note with interest you ignored my direct question:
According to Deut 18 - can a false prophet make a prophecy in the name of God and have that prophecy come true?
If a Prophet claims to be from God, makes prophecies in the name of God and that prophecy comes true, according to Deut 18 do we not have to accept him as a true prophet?
I'll keep asking the question until you answer.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
so if someone came up to you and went:
behold shafique, for i am a prophet from God
i prophecise that you will sleep tonight and you will rise, go to the mosque and pray with your fellow men.
tommorrow that person maybe a prophet, if those prophecies came true.... according to your logic of again, taking the bible how you want to take it.
here you go shafique, in answer to your question.


to liken muhammad to moses is rather laughable in my opinion... God talked to moses directly, and when moses asked to see God, God revealed himself to moses..... muhammad had "dreams"...... validated or not, is personal debatable opinion, as freza already outlined.
id say nostradamus is on a far higher level of prophet than muhammad, even though he wasnt a prophet of God, he was a prophet all the same. shafique ebonics - nostradamus didn't claim to be a prophet of God. According to Deut 18 - only true prophets who make prophecies in the name of God have the prophecies come true. I know you don't believe in the Bible, but that is what it says. As for Moses and Muhammad, pbuh - in two important aspects they were similar. Both brought new laws and both fought wars. Cheers, Shafique shafique
I stated earlier that I did not think Muhammad, pbuh, ordered the raid that broke the treaty.
I went and refreshed my memory of the situation and I quote from the book:
Muhammad, A Biography of the Prophet by Karen Armstrong
pg 240-241
"At the end of the year, the Meccans broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyah and were newly vulnerable. The tribe of Bakr had remained confederates of the Quraysh but they had for decades been the sworn enemy of the Khuza'ah, which joined Muhammad's confederacy. In November 629 one of the clans of Bakr had attacked the Khuza'ah by night in their own territory in a surprise attack and it appears that some of the Quraysh had aided and abetted this assault: they had given weapons to Bakr and it is said that Safwan had even taken part in the fighting. Khuza'ah promptly retaliated and there was even fighting between the two tribes in the Meccaan Sanctuary, so the Khuza'ah appealed to Muhammad and he agreed to come to their aid.
Immediately some of the Quraysh had second thoughts when they realised that they had handed Muhammad a perfect excuse to attack Mecca. Safwan and Ikrimah remained hawkish and defiant, but even Suhayl, whose mother had been a member of Khuza'ah, was for disowning Bakr. ....
..shortly after the breach of the armistice, Abu Sufyan arrived in Medina to ask for peace - an event that would have been unthinkable two years earlier.'
So, the above account shows it was the Meccans and not the Muslims who broke the treaty of Hudaybiyah.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
To say that the Quranic words mean 's.e.x' when it does not is a lie.
Please show me where the word in classical Arabic, fursa, means s.e.x and not marriage.
To argue that in Misri or lebanese dialect a word means 's.e.x' and therefore the Quran changed the meaning is a jaw-droppingly naive/stupid comment as it says that the dialects are purer than fursa.
Please show in a lexicon what you assert, and I will take back my comment.
Cheers,
Shafique freza huh?? he passes the test of an imaginative and opportunistic man. does that count as "passing a test"?
Once I get on it, it's kinda hard to get off, you must know. Shaf why did God treat Mohammad so incredibly different from the other prophets? Wait. Did Mohammad actually admit to transgressions against Allah? What do Islamic scholars say about this? Do any Hadiths say anything about Mohammad's sins? How about you answer these questions instead?
First of all you are talking about prophets that did not start a religion. These were prophets, some of them did bad things, sure! but they got PUNISHED. What part of this do you not get? OK, again, maybe this time it will sink in:
God did NOT advise them to be sinful , they were sinful all on their own and they admitted it! If God didn't mind that some of the prophets sinned, why did he punish them? There IS a pattern here. You can't be that blind to it. Can we imagine God's angel saying: "hey prophet, so you find your son's wife sexy? ok, I give you permission to marry her. just tell your people I said it's ok, we'll amend some laws or something." ugh, NO! He Never Advised sin to prophets. EXCEPT to Mohammad(!)
Nope. that wasn't God's messenger speaking to Mohammad...
((((COMMON SENSE WHERE ARE YOU? SHAFIQUE NEEDS YOU))))
but:Deuteronomy 18 refers to the lineage of Hebrew Prophets. How does Mohammad factor in here? Not a Jew, not applicable. Do you base all of your assumptions of Mohammad's prophethood on Deut. 18:18. ? And what are the prophecies in the Quran that have been fulfilled again? :bounce: ebonics
i stilll consider nastrodamus a prophet, on a personal level. shafique
Yes, I have no problem with that.
Nostradamus got more wrong than he got right, and never claimed to have divine revelations.
I can make predictions - I do it all the time. My latest one is that John McCain will be the next President of the USA.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
God didn't. I started the thread about Biblical criteria so that we could compare and contrast. Muhammad, pbuh, was treated as a Prophet and behaved as previous Prophets.

Yes the hadith record how he spent the nights praying asking for forgiveness.

How was Lot punished? And Solomon and David? That is the part I don't get. And Moses - how was he punished? How are these punishments different from what Muhammad, pbuh, suffered?

I keep telling you that I don't believe any prophets were sinful. Why do you keep asking me to justify sins that I don't believe they committed?

What sin did Muhammad, pbuh, commit? Even if we take your contention that he had a concubine - how is this different from the Biblical account of Abraham having a concubine (Hagar)? Which law of God did Muhammad, pbuh, break?

:) Common sense tells me that a man's imagination cannot fulfil prophecies in the Bible in such a spectacular and literal way (eg making Arabs into a great nation, fulfilling the prophecies of literal revelations of scripture, bringing a new law and leading armies like Moses etc etc).

Nope - Deut 18.20 onwards talks about how to recognise any prophet of God, it does not say that God only sends Prophets to Jews.
It clearly states how to recognise a true prophet from a false one.
Why do you reject these words of God? Is it because Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils these criteria?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique freza - you asked what prophecies are contained in the Quran that were fulfilled.
According to the Bible, only true prophets of God can make prophecies in the name of God and they come true. So just one prophecy coming true - if made in the name of God by a claimant of prophethood - should be enough for a believer in the Bible.
This is explicit in Deuteronomy 18:

20But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

v21and 22 tells how recognise a true prophet from a false claimant - if they make a prophecy in the name of God and it does not come true, they are false.
v20 - says that any prophet who prophecises in the name of God or any other God and is false - that prophet will be killed (in conjunction with v22, it is not saying that men should kill the prophet - but can only mean that God will cause the false prophet to die an un-natural death.)
For me it is clear that Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria in the Bible - however, just as Jews continue to reject Jesus and state that he does not meet Biblical prophecies, I recognise that Christians also use the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh. Jews are entitled to their opinions, and so are Christians - I am stating my opinion.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics shafique, i believe muslims around the world regard muhammad as a great leader and they like to mirror his life, thats where the term "sunna" comes from, mirroring muhammad's life..
would you agree that mirroring his life, coupled with severe under education would be the cause of this:
happening today?
for those who cant be bothered opening the link




this is congruent to the prophet's way of marrying women at an early age, and is also congruent in how muslims are allowed to marry "wa ma malakat aymanohom" - what you argued is CONSENTED marriage, clearly isnt in this case, and clearly wasnt in the cases of prisoner of war during the islamic wars - but you seem to believe otherwise, and you seem to believe otherwise when it comes to islam spreading by the sword, again i commend you on your blind faith.
you may raise the point, that islam isnt blamed on this article once, to which i reply, the source is al jazeera, of course they will not blame islam.
now back to this:

you're trying to tell me, that this right here, is the literal word of God? shafique, i ask you to just stop and think about what you are saying - would this be considered ok today? in all honesty.... and is God THAT incompetant to issue something that is only valid for a certain period of time?
i also raise the point:

the english translation says "marry"
do you knwo what the arabic version says shafique? "ENKAHOO" is the word used, which literarly, means f.u.c.k...... again i question God's wisdom in using such a word. shafique ebonics - yes Muhammad, pbuh, is considered a model for all Muslims. No, the examples you showed are of people not following Islam. I'm surprised at your last argument that Islam condones s.e.x outside of marriage. I think you have some valid arguments, but when you post arguments like this it discredits you and shows that you just have a burning hatred of Islam. Do you really think that Muslims think it is ok to go around raping or sleeping with women outside of marriage? Can you also give us a link to an Arabic dictionary or lexicon that backs up your assertion. The verse in question says 'fankihoo' - please show that in classical arabic this does not mean marry as all the translations show. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
well explain the congruency between the marriage of young women, forcing them into marriage, and muhammad's history?
and regarding the word, unfortunatly i dont have arabic here to search such a thing on my computer, nor do i have an arabic keyboard, invest some time in personal research.
i know the language, and it does not say marry.
however, the above does not condone sex outside of marriage, because another aya says you can only ENKAH who you marry (jawaz).... which further prove that they are 2 different words - but the moral of the above is that the word ENKAH is used in several verses in the quran - and it isnt the best of words to be using....... especially if its coming from god. shafique You will excuse me if I choose to believe all the translations of the verse which all say 'marry'. I'm happy to look at any evidence you can show - perhaps now the word used in the Quran has a different colloquial meaning - I don't know as I don't speak Arabic. Islam is pretty clear about the sanctity of marriage, so your arguments seem very odd to me. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
again shafique, you dismiss what you chose to dismiss, with personal choice, with no research
strike 2. shafique ebonics - as you are an Arabic speaker, I trusted you knew what you were saying.
Ankihoo/Ankiho or f'ankihu/f'ankihoo is invariably translated as 'marry' in all English translations. You say it actually means 'f....k'.
However, I find that:
The first word of this verse begins with "ankihu" (Marry!) which is an imperative form of the word nikah.
Nikah is the marriage ceremony (a noun) - i.e. the wedding, the imperative form is ankihu - i.e. Marry!.
Please clarify the apparent discrepancy between this explanation and your one.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
:lol: It's a good thing I did some research and found that ankihoo means 'Marry!' and is the imperative form of 'Nikah', marriage.
So, I rejected your interpretation because of all the translations and also because of a specific translation of the word used.
I await your response.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics right,

this highlights what i say - the quran made the word Nekah mean marriage by tafseer.... but the literal meaning is the act of having s.e.x - and since it is illegal to have s.e.x outside of marriage,therefore it is now accepted that nekah means marriage. but that does not mean that it is the literal meaning of the word. shafique Good try ebonics - but you have been caught in a lie. The only question now is whether it was an intentional lie or just a schoolboy mistake due to lack of research. Nikah means marriage, the words in the Quran all say 'marry' - the imperative form of the noun Nkh. If you are saying that Nkh was only made to mean marriage by 'tafseer' then you are making a pretty big assertion that the Arabic meaning has changed. You should be able to back this up by a lexicon - Lane is an authoritative one and I'm downloading the relevant part right now. You are grasping at straws in your last quote - 'estebza' is not the word in question - the word is nkh and whether it means marriage or 'f..k' in Arabic. The quote you gave does not say that nikah means anything other than marriage. What was it you said about research again? Cheers, Shafique ebonics i actually take offence to calling me a liar,
ask any arabic speaker what does "neek", "neyaka" , "nak" - which is used heavily in egyptian, lebanese dialects, all mean.... they all derive from the same word, that i repeat, the LITERAL meaning thereof is the act of s.e.x...
the fact that the quran then changed what the literal meaning of that word is, does not change its literal meaning.
without having the means to actually search in arabic, im having to resort to english ways of explaining it, which is no mean conclusive... but thats all im capable of.

neek - derived from nekah shafique Here is the entry from Lane, fully referenced: Nun-Kaf-Ha = to tie, make a knot, contract, to marry, marriage. nakaha vb. (1) perf. act. 4:22, 33:49 impf. act. 2:221, 2:230, 2:232, 4:22, 4:25, 4:127, 24:3, 24:3, 33:53, 60:10 impv. 4:3, 4:25 n.vb. 2:235, 2:237, 4:6, 24:33, 24:60 ankaha vb. (4) impf. act. 2:221, 28:27 impv. 24:32 istankaha vb. (10) impf. act. 33:50 Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages: 101, 102 For a scan of the page, including the discussion: The primary meaning is marriage. Cheers, Shafique ebonics the primary meaning according to quran, is marriage.... prior to that, was not. shafique for a none arabic speaker you're arguing for the sake of argueing now. it literarly means to sleep with, in the quran it means to marry and have marital affairs with - but as a word, it is considered a dirty word - i understand if you cannot accept that... your link is about "study quran" - so of course it will say marriage... neek is to sleep with and thats directly derived from nekah the fact that the quran uses that word to refer to marriage, does not make the word any better than what it is. thank you. shafique
:)

Absolute rubbish. Lane is an Arabic lexicon and says what the word literally means - it means marriage.
It does not support your assertion that it 'literally means to sleep with'. It does not say it is a dirty word.
Therefore you are not telling the truth.

The book is Lane's lexicon - did you look at it?

But the word used in the Quran is the imperative of nikah, and means 'Marry!', and is not a dirty word.

Your contention is that 'ankihoo' which is translated as 'Marry' is considered a dirty word by Arabic speakers.
This can be either true or false. If Arabic speakers tell us that 'ankihoo' means 'marry' and is not a dirty word, then what you have written is a lie.
Do you want to take back your statement, or do you want me to gather more evidence.
I am surprised that you persist in saying that the Quran uses coarse and vulgar language, when the Lexicon contradicts you. But you are casting an aspersion against a scripture and it is not an accusation I will let go (especially as you had the cheek to say I had not done my research!).
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics do you want to explain to me why a christian priest is not allowed to use that same word if spoken about the quran? instead he just uses silence when reading it out? if you want an example thereof, i will endevour to find you one. i stand my ground that its not a socially accepted word, and its not a word that you would use to describe a marriage with someone. instead the word that is used is ZAWAG - which literarly means to couple... again, literarly means to make into two, but the meaning its used for is marriage the same as the other word, literarly meaning to sleep with, but used for its context is marriage. you can "not let it go" all you want, doesnt change the fact that its the truth. if it isnt the truth shafique, why isnt it used now? but instead its specifically used in nearly ALL dialects to refer to the act of sleeping with someone? actions speak louder than words shafique - im sorry if you cannot accept that. shafique ebonics - I quoted from a lexicon, you have given no other proof. I await the comments of other Arabic speakers as to whether they think 'ankihoo' is a dirty word or not. Nikah is not a dirty word - it is what all Muslims call the marriage ceremony. I can't see how the imperative form of this word can be dirty. You have not explained this simple fact away and have therefore been caught out. Sad really - but did you think I'd accept your word that the Quran uses coarse language? Cheers, Shafique ebonics shafique after having to go through other people to acutally type the word for me in arabic so i can search it in arabic &task=view&Itemid=0&catid=350&id=4000 here you go... this is a question, from a muslim, asking if he can "yenkah yadoho" or "ENKAH" his hand, during ramadan - meaning mast ur bation... ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO TELL ME HE IS GOING TO MARRY HIS HAND???? conclusive evidence... THIS IS WHAT THE WORD IS USED FOR SHAFIQUE, get your arabic speaker from the general forum, to come and read the above link. i do not lie shafique, do not accuse me of such a thing, i hate liars. for the record, the answer from the imam is no he cannot yenkah yadoho, or he cannot masturbate during ramadan...... and i believe he isnt refering to marrying his hand. ebonics i hope this conversation is over, because im getting tired speaking to a none native arabic speaker about my own native language. i will repeat that im not accusing the quran of refering to the word as s.e.x out of marriage, and i DO ADMIT it is referring to marriage. but prior to the quran, that exact same word, is used for the act of s.e.x - and it is, to this date, considered vulgur.. the link above asserts what im saying, from a muslim website, when a man wants to "have s.e.x" with his hand..... that was the word used. ebonics another using the same word this one now referring to animals.. the ruling on beastiality.... i also believe no one is going to MARRY an animal.. or do you think otherwise shafique? ebonics another, talking about a hadith, where muhammad said, if you masturbate, its like you "nakah't omak" - or "had s.e.x with your mum" then it goes and discusses if this hadith is accurate or not... and the ruling is there was no hadith saying so.. i dont think anyone would refer to someone marrying his own mother... ebonics
in closing, im sorry that that was what you're led to believe all this time, but is as far disconnected from fact as possible.
or else, arabic speaking muslims would not use that word to refer to masturbation, or having s.e.x with an animal - in the questions that they asked muslim imams in the above websites for guidance on their behalf.
your lexicon, explains the word with referance to the quran. but the fact still remains, it is a dirty word.
so yes, the quran when it comes to that word, is in fault, and that is exactly why, when these verses are spoken about by a christian abouna or bishop, they skip over it in silence, because they would not speak such a word out of their mouth - for that in its own would be sin, to them. shafique ebonics - you say you do not lie and hate liars. Do you honestly tell me that you believe that all the Arabs who read or listened to the Quranic verse you quoted did not understand Allah to be saying 'Marry!', but understood it to mean 'have s.e.x with'? Lane is a lexicon of Arabic - it is not confined to the Quran. Cheers, Shafique shafique ebonics, it appears to me that you have not opened up the link I gave you to the entry for nkH. Did you have a look at it? It explains the meaning in classical Arabic of the word and all its forms, and gives many examples. I think I now understand your error and misunderstanding. 'ankihoo' and the other forms of the word used in the Quran can only be understood to mean 'marry', 'marriage' etc. It is a specific word and separate from the zwj family of words for spouse. As you yourself say a few messages back, in the Quran the word means 'marry and have marital relations', so coitus is understood. I also understand that many Christians view s.e.x as sinful, shameful and dirty. This is not a trait shared by Judaism and Islam. Nikah - means marriage. Other derivatives are used as slang and offensive slang. However, the form and use in the Quran is not offensive (except to those who think s.e.x is shameful) and always with the meaning of marriage. There are other words used to denote fornication and adultery in the Quran, so the word does not exclusively mean 's.e.x' - but means marriage and all that goes with a marriage. Now, given that the usage in the Quran is pure and unambiguous (for you say all the usages mean 'marry') - I think where we disagree is where you try and link the slang uses of DERIVATIVE words back to the Quranic use of the the imperative 'Marry!'. Arabic has specific words for fornication. Just as in English, a diplomatic way of saying s.e.x is to say 'marital relations' - now if over time 'marital relations' becomes an offensive slang word (rather than a diplomatic term), then this does not mean that 'marry' also becomes an ugly term. My understanding of Arabic as a language is that Fursa'a is the purest and oldest form of the language. Dialects are all derivations of Fursa'a - therefore if in Egyptian and other dialects 'nkH' has become a swear word then this does not mean that it was necessarily so in Fursa'a. Also, it may be that Christians find marital relations shameful and are imparting a sensibility on a word that is not shameful to native Arab speakers. Nikah is not a dirty word - for it means to marry when used in context of a man and a woman. It also means to 'make love' / 'have s.e.x' when used in the context of a man and his wife. So, Islam can be accused of not seeing s.e.x as shameful, as Christian priests see s.e.x - but the Quran cannot be accused of using a dirty word - the word is unambiguous in the contexts used in the Quran - and always mean marriage. Had the Quran used the words in different contexts or used the derivations ebonics listed, then it would be guilty of being crude. However it does not. Perhaps it is because of Christian background of ebonics that he finds s.e.x shameful and the word nikah distasteful? Cheers, Shafique shafique Silly me - rather than spending time going to Lexicons and doing the research from first principles, I should have been more diligent with my Google search. This web page tackles the ebonics accusation head on, and gives some interesting links at the end of the article: Anyway, as ebonics' post was the first time I had heard this accusation, I did not think to check whether it had been addressed by others. Cheers, Shafique freza whoooahh! too much going on here :P
Shafique, before I reply to your post..I read it twice and was a bit incredulous at your replies so I'm wondering 'what's the point, if this isn't really a debate'. About the Hebrew prophets, I'm not getting you. You know their stories I assume, you know that they were HUMAN (hence no human is perfect no matter what) so I don't understand what you mean when you say they didn't sin. All humans sin, it's human nature to sin. Now degrees of sin, that's another thing, lying is perhaps the most common, murder the worst (with exceptions perhaps, like justified war, self-defense, etc.). But anyway, even those spiritually privileged offended God and were punished. David lost his son, Moses didn't get to see his promised land. And the striking of the rock was an extremely symbolic gesture instead of "talking" to it, he struck it - God said, hey I've forgiven you before but you continue to sin, you see how you are. Miriam got punished for questioning the motives of Moses and possibly for being prejudiced against a black women - Miriam's got a skin disease for 7 days! The point is: God did not tolerate offenses. Where do you get that he did? Or perhaps, it's something that your faith doesn't acknowledge ? because then the logical question would be, why wasn't Mohammad punished? So it's best not to acknowledge that God punished....that's what it seems.
Don't you think the Jews would be better at writing about their lineage of prophets much better than any other group that came much after them?
:)
Re: deuteronomy, I just can't fathom how anyone can extract an Islamic prophet from the book of Deuteronomy - the "Children of Israel" book. :scratch: Is the entire book - it's history and its translation taken into account by Muslims? If so, is Moses' reference to Jesus and the tribes of Israel completely ignored?
EDIT: off the subject a bit, but I just read: is it true? :D shafique freza - your confusion will be ended if you go over to the other thread which has details of which Biblical prophecies Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils. In brief though - the Bible has God promising to make the progeny of Ishmael into a great nation. This is a promise to non-Jews. Deut 18 talks about a prophet that will be raised like Moses, and from the Bretheren of the Jews (God could have said there, from 'amongst you' but said 'from amongst your bretheren'). Now Christians argue 'bretheren' excludes the non-Jews, but as the Arabs are cousins of the Jews, I think they count as 'bretheren'. Also, the very fact that no Prophet that meets the criterion 'like Moses' is found before Muhammad, pbuh, this is a clear indication that he fulfils this prophecy. He is 'like Moses' in that he brings a new Book and also fought wars (to name only two aspects). Muhammad, pbuh, also fulfils the prophecy that he will speak God's words directly (speak only what he hears and not from himself), in respect of the Quran. These are my views. Just as Jews will quote the Bible and reject Jesus for not meeting their interpretations (see other thread on the subject), so Christians employ exactly the same tactics to reject Muhammad, pbuh. Jews and Christians are entitled to interpret the Bible as they see fit. I just believe both are wrong to reject Jesus and Muhammad, pbuh (Christians do believe in Jesus though, obviously). Cheers, Shafique freza Shafique, please be focused enough to answer the specific issues I raised about the prophets. shafique
This thread is about whether Muhammad, pbuh, meets the Biblical criteria for prophethood. He does.
I repeat, I do not believe that prophets committed sins and therefore do not believe they were punished. Muhammad, pbuh, fulfils all the criteria from the Bible. What you call sins and punishments of Biblical prophets, I compare with the descriptions of the same prophets in the Quran.
I do agree prophets make mistakes, but these aren't sins. The Quran clears up the accusations against prophets found in the Bible.
Anyway, good to see that you don't really have answers to my direct questions concerning why Muhammad does not meet the clear prophecy of Deut 18.20,21 and 22 - for example.
It will not have escaped your notice that I had to start a new thread with Biblical prophecies.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics shafique i cited 3 examples of practical use of the word 1 to have s.e.x. with your hand 2 to have s.e.x. with an animal 3 to have s.e.x. with your mother none of them the word marry would be suitable. - so the literal meaning is the act of having s.e.x. but could referred to as marrying a women, and obviously having marital relations. it does not work in reverse - you cant marry your hand, you cannot marry an animal, you cannot marry your mother. the quran could have used to word tazawagoo, couple with, or marry in that specific instance. but it chose to say, but you can sleep with. Nakh, enkahoo, enkah, all the same word derived from the same word, of the same meaning, to sleep with. you'll never accept, because you're shafique... and yes i looked at the link, it had nearly every instance of the word and they all said marry...... do you want to tell me why is it that the wisdom of the quran chose to use that word in that instance and chose a derivitive of "zawag" in other instance? zawag is socially acceptable, nekah isnt. if you're going to "have s.e.x. with something" you will enkah it, given in the examples i have shown im restricted on actually searching "the meaning of the word nekah" because all i have is 3 charachters in arabic that i search for yielding PRACTICAL USE of the word. that same practical use is what that specific word was used for, before the quran. so in short, that aya reads LITERARLY: sleep with, two, three or four women but if you cannot do them justice, then just one. ebonics
according to the link no... ebonics lane's lexicon shafique is a compiled book, made by the british, in 1842... the credibility of that in my eyes, is ZILCH it compiled or should i say plagarised other books into one - ill let you assess the accuracy of that book based on that information, yourself. to me reading that page does show me that it is translated in context with the quran... but other than the quran, no one that i know of, would use that word instead of "zawag" - to couple, ie to marry. and no one would say it on a dinner table. %3bjsessionid=bc30ad2df9c93a143156?do=e-services-dictionaries-word_translate1&direction=1&status=translate&lang1=23&lang2=ar&source=marry outlines every possible use to use the word marry - in a socially acceptable sense, in many literal meanings.... nekah isnt one of them. shafique ebonics - thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I have now seen that the allegation is baseless and have posted links to other sites showing the meanings of the word in question. Islam does not view coitus as shameful like many Christian churches do, so perhaps there is the source of your confusion. To say that no one will say Nikah (marriage) in normal social circumstances is something that all can check with their Muslim and Arabic speaking friends - it will show whether what you are saying is true or false. You have made your point very clearly. I am not 100% sure you are convinced by your own arguments - but I have nothing more to add on the subject. Cheers, Shafique ebonics so far you established that "nekah" is used in the marital sense primarily, and can be used referring to marital relations, when speaking about non marital matters. i established the complete opposite, it is the act of having s.e.x. and can be used when referred to marital relations so far you have not showed me any practical examples to debunk what i established.... but i have shown you 3 examples, where any sort of marital relations within the meaning of the word does not apply (you cannot marry your hand, animal, mother)..... hence what you established, is false. and i can bring up another 20,000 examples if you like. one word cannot have its primary meaning dismissed in certain examples, the primary meaning prevails (the act of having s.e.x) - and any other meanings thereof can apply after that (marital relations) shafique ebonics - you have made your points well, but I am not convinced. An arabic dictionary contradicts your statements, and unless you can produce some verifiable evidence, there is nothing more to add. Can we focus on freza's answers to my questions now? Cheers, Shafique ebonics im still waiting for the appology re: accusing me of lying. in all the disagreements of points of view that we have had, not once did i accuse you of blatently lying to get your point across. shafique ebonics, according the dictionary/lexicon I quoted, you were lying. I have not seen any evidence to make me change my mind. The lexicon says that nkH can be used to indicate 's.e.x' in certain usages, but it's main meaning is 'marriage'. Lane is a dictionary of Classical Arabic and therefore explains words used in the Quran. You have yet to present evidence that contradicts this, and even have said (subsequent to the initial allegation) that in the Quran the primary meaning of the word is marriage! I am now repeating myself - so please, I'll only respond when you add something new. Otherwise the evidence speaks for itself. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
shafique Your examples are the exceptions. Please quote from a dictionary, otherwise you are still lying. Cheers, Shafique ebonics my examples are the exceptions? i already said i can list another 20,000 -do i really have to for you to admit you're wrong? what sort of logic are you using? i quoted you from the dictionary when i searched in english the word marry - NEKAH did not come up in the results %3bjsessionid=bc30ad2df9c93a143156?do=e-services-dictionaries-word_translate1&direction=1&status=translate&lang1=23&lang2=ar&source=marry here is the link again, get your arabic speaker to read the results for you results are: TAZAWAG, WAHAD, SAHAR, NASAB, ZAWAG no Nakah, Nekah, Nakh there unfortunatly. shafique ebonics, just show us the dictionary entry for Nikah. That will end the discussion.
I have shown one respected dictionary and this contradicts you.
From the Arabic forum:
&file=article&sid=318
and
The word "Nikaah" (Nikaa7) is the noun for the verb Nakaha (Naka7a) which means he married, thus Nikaah means marriage. Prophet Shu'aib said to Prophet Moses, may the peace & blessings of Allah be on both: (I want to (Unkihaka) one of these two daughters of mine), as in the Holy Qur'an, which means I want to give you in marriage one of my two daughters. But if this guy is ignorant in Arabic, then there's nothing you can do about it. Subhanallah.
Cheers,
Shafique spoonman There is a famous hadith by Muhammad which says (alnekaho sonati - Marriage is my tradition) I dont think he meant s.e.x by that. ebonics i wonder if this is actually going to display or not: فتجده فى سورة النسوان يقول “إنكحوا ما طاب لكم من نساء مثنى و ثلاث و رباع …و ما ملكت ايمانكم ” فيلاحظ الفعل الامر “إنكحوا “ فكتاب القرآن لم يقل ان فلانا كان ينكح ما طاب له من النسوان مثنى و ثلاث و رباع و كان ينكح ايضا ما ملكت ايمانه من المسبيات و المخطوفات و الموظفقات لديه و العاملات لديه و خادمات المنزل فلو كان كتاب القرآن يقول هذا فهو لم يأمر احدا بممارسة تلك الفواحش النجسة بل انه فقط يسجل حادث ارتكاب احد البشر الانجاس تلك الفواحش النجسة spoonman, a famous hadith also says: god cursed Nake7 yadaho - or god cursed the masturbator - (which is different from the other one i quoted earlier to do with the mother) - but is accurate... i dont think he meant marriage of the hand by that. العادة السرية أو الاستمناء أو ناكح يده حرام عند جمهور العلماء لقوله تعالى {وَٱلَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ is its tafseer which reads: the secret doing, or self pleasure, or NAKE7 yadaho (s.e.x.i.n.g one's hand), is haram to people then it goes through and cites a verse that i only copied about 4 words from. ebonics shafique, the same way not every dictionary contains the word "f.u.c.k" in english - is the same way this word is treated, and without an arabic keyboard, and an arabic version of windows installed on my system, i unfortunatly cannot search a dictionary entry as easily as you think i can. i can only search the actual word through google and site practical examples of the word, as used by muslims. shafique Thanks for admitting you can't come up with a dictionary which backs up your claim and contradicts the dictionary I quoted. case closed. Cheers, Shafique ebonics i cannot do so on the net, but believe me once i can get a scan of one it will be uploaded within the minute. case far from closed my friend, the only case closed here is you not admitting to any sort of common sense on the matter.. the primary meaning of the word CANNOT be dismissed in certain cases - that is the bottom line. spoonman is the best (in comparison with other crappy ones) arabic to english dictionary I found and there is no entry for words:
النکاح
نکح
نکاح
الناکح
and so on, weird. ebonics
yes spoonman, because as i already said, it is not easy to just pick up a dictionary and find the word "f.u.c.k" in it, not all dictionaries contain it, as it is socially unacceptable and it is a rude word to be using.... thank you for proving my point.
shafique, we can stop talking about this when you retract your accusation of me lying regarding the topic of this word. and we can agree to disagree from there, just like we agree to disagree on everything else.
but from the above, there's enough proof, that im definatly not lying when it comes to this word. Nucleus I think you will find F word in all common english dictionaries; for example, you can find F word on
Perhaps not in school dictionaries or childrens dictionaries.
ebonics
not all dictionaries have it, of course some do, i havent picked up a printed dictionary in over 10 years, and i just use the online resource whenever i want something.
for things like f.u.c.k i just go straight to the urban dictionary. ebonics
can you explain to me exactly, how this article is of any worth? im guessing you didnt read it.......

again explaining the word in context of the quran - brilliant. shafique ebonics - the article is in Arabic, so no I didn't understand it. What does it say? It seems to me that we have come to an impasse. You say that Nikah is a dirty word, and all I can reply with is the dictionary entry from nikah and the knowledge that all Muslims call the marriage ceremony 'nikah'. The Arabic lexicon does say that in some derivations and contexts Nikah also means having s.e.x - and so I have guessed that some Christians who find s.e.x shameful think that the word Nikah is shameful because it is understood as (as you say) 'to marry and have marital relationships'. I fully concede that you have more knowledge of arabic swear words than I have, and I fully concede that I can't dispute that 'neeke' etc are swear words today in many dialects. However, to say that a word which the dictionary describes as meaning 'marriage' is dirty because derivative words are used in slang is putting the cart before the horse. Your initial assertion was that the Quran uses coarse language and wondered whether God would use such words, yet you quickly conceded that the context of the Quranic usage is always understood to mean 'marriage' as the primary meaning. When the dictionary exposed this assertion as false, I pointed this fact out to you and gave you the option to recant. You continue to refuse. Nikah = marriage and not 'f....k' - that is what I am calling you a liar on. If you did not mean to say this, then I will apologise when you clarify. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
your most diplomatic answer yet, and i agree with most of the above.
till the arabic speakers of the forum, please explain the word nekah as quoted by spoonman in the arabic forum, i guess we're still in disagreeance.
the article basically adds nothing to the conversation, it states that it means marriage, in the context of the quran - but it is written very poorly, with nothing substantial in its contents, on the contrary its very weak, he should take a page or two out of your books.
please do invite habib, that accused me of ignorance in arabic to explain the instances of the word nekah when it comes to hands and beastiality. and to explain all the material i pasted prior.
and please do invite habib to pose an explaination on why the above 2 examples now of a dictionary (mine and spoonmans) fail to mention that word in its ranks to describe marriage...
if it literarly meant marriage, wouldnt it just be there, right along with zawag? food for thought. shafique ebonics - Nikah in some contexts means s.e.x. Lane makes this clear. However, in the context used in the Quran it has the meaning marriage - and Lane lists this as its primary meaning. In the contexts where it does not mean marriage, but s.e.x, it takes on this meaning only because 'marriage' would not be possible or make sense. The examples Lane gives are between a man and his wife (where it would mean sleep with) as opposed to man and woman (where it would mean marry). With this explanation in mind, if the word is used in context of a hand, animal etc - then the secondary meaning comes into play. The secondary meaning though is just a derivatory meaning and means 'marital relations' - i.e. another way of saying 'sleep with'. Now, if someone uses 'marital relations' in a derogatory way - that does not necessarily change the original word's meaning or it's acceptability. In the way that using 'wicked' in slang to mean 'good' does not change the literal meaning of 'wicked', but gives it a different contextual meaning. Nikah is a word used by billions to signify the marriage ceremony. It is the noun derived from the verb 'to marry'. As such, I cannot concede that this is a dirty word because some other words derived from this word are swear words. But I'm not saying that this is an article of faith, but because the dictionary definition I looked up and posted here says clearly what Nikah means. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
i have taken all the above points above that, on board...
you're still failing to explain to me why 2 sources do not list that word as a meaning of marry, if you are argueing that it is a normally used term.
in the other post of yours - you said
nekah means to marry between a man and a women
then in the line right under it
nekah means to sleep with between a man and his wife
isnt that what i have been sayign all along? in the instance of that aya, it literarly means, to sleep with, but since you are not allowed to committ zina and you ahve to be married to someone to sleep with them, then in the context of that aya it means marriage? shafique ebonics - Habib has addressed your question in the Arabic Speakers forum. Cheers, Shafique shafique ebonics - you may want to go back re-read what I wrote. Lane says Nikah has a primary meaning which is 'marry and have marital relations'. In a context where marriage does not make sense or is impossible, then it is understood as the secondary meaning which is 'have marital relations'. The examples you gave show instances of the secondary/derivative meaning of the word. Can I ask, did you have a look at the page in Lane I linked to? He 'married' his hands, is the equivalent of the English phrase 'He made love to himself' or 'He pleasured himself' or 'He is married to his hand' or even 'He had marital relations with his hand' Context matters, and in the Quran the context is clear and non-dirty. It is used in the imperative verb form to say 'marry!' and is not understood by any reader/listener to be 'f...k' as you said. Cheers, Shafique ebonics and i have read his explaination, and it is as piss weak as it comes.

so the literal meaning would be
"the ruling of having a marital relation with your hand" according to him - with the allusion that it is the same sort of relief, of having an actual marital relation
if that makes sense to you - sorry shafique no dice here....
if it is an acceptable word, you STILL fail to reply to my question, why isnt it included in the 2 web dictionaries above? like any other acceptable word in the entire arabic language?
shafique, you will always believe what you want to believe, and im not going to change that with anything i say, we both know that.
habib's explaination is very flawed, and makes sense to only someone that wants to make sense out of it....
this is of course dismissing the fact that habib is also a muslim, and would never admit to something that will go against his faith. ebonics would be interesting to hear spoonman's feedback after habib's reply.. or flying dutchman's, or freza's on the matter. spoonman I went back and read the post it started from. to be honest I cant deny Habib's explanation becuase I dont have the knowlege in that area. In farsi ezdevaj (from zevaj) is used for marriage and when moslims are getting married, the cleric reads the anekaho sonati which I guess means marriage in that sentence. but it may also mean the act of having s.ex as I guess Naakeh (which is an adjective reffering to a person as Fa'el- similar to 'er' in english at the end of a word) is a person who is having s.ex, not a married person. Then again, I cant aruge if the quran meant marrige or s.ex by that ayah. shafique
No, I'm happy to address any issues you want - I'm just not sure whether we'll add any light on the specific interpretations of Biblical prophecies that were fulfilled by Muhammad, pbuh.
I'm happy to give you my interpretations and why I believe them.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Well, we know that the Bible is not the literal word of God. So when the Bible records a prophet as saying that they have sinned, or slept with their daughters etc and the Quran says that these are not true (in that prophets are sinless), then I interpret the accusations of sin in the Bible as later additions by those writing the Bible.
I'm sure you will not agree, but you asked a question and that is my view.

A mistake is an unintentional act. A sin is to deliberately do something you know is against the law of God. Moses killing a man is an example - the Quran is clear that it was unintentional - i.e. manslaughter as opposed to murder.
Prophets do make mistakes (eg Noah in the Quran thought that God had promised to save all his family, when God actually excluded his son) - and they do pray for forgiveness for mistakes. However, they do not intentionally go against what they know to be the rules of God.

Questioning God is not a sin - it is acting against what God has commanded that is a sin. (I'm taking questioning to mean a request for clarity, not doubting God and acting against God. But even doubting God is not a sin - for people are worried sometimes.)
Adultery, incest are sins. Masturbation and slave ownership are not sins. Lusting for wives of relatives is a sin. Having concubines (outside of marriage) is a sin. Wars of conquest is not a sin (see Moses for examples). Paedophillia - is a sin as is all sin outside of marriage.

The Quran is clear as to what constitutes incest or not. Marrying cousins or a niece/nephew is not considered incest by Islam or any other political body, to my knowledge.

rafa means to raise up - either in status or physically. Is this in connection with the Quranic verses about Elijah and Jesus? Or is this another word that you want to raise? (No, the word hasn't come up)
Cheers,
Shafique Nucleus Try the word marriage, it shows nikah.
%3bjsessionid=bc30443749957f246f13?do=e-services-dictionaries-word_translate1&direction=1&status=translate&lang1=23&lang2=ar&source=marriage

freza sawy.:? I don't agree to just disagree in this case because then that means you won't address the issue, questions and contradictions that have been brought up and which I think do deserve some pondering... shafique freza, As I stated before, you are free to interpret the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh, as you have done above. For me the verses are clearly in favour of Muhammad, pbuh, for you they are not. I think if roles were reversed and I was a Jew and quoting Rabbis about why Jesus does not fulfil the Biblical requirements of the Messiah, I too would be quoting the Bible like you have done. I think we can agree that we have different interpretations of the Bible, and Jews will have a different interpretation from both of us (as they will reject Jesus and John the Baptist whilst we will both accept them). The best we can do is give our respective interpretations and respect the fact that we have different interpretations. Eg - for me bretheren includes cousins, for you it excludes. For you and me, Elijah's second coming was fulfilled metaphorically in John the Baptist, but for a Jew they insist he wasn't Elijah, because the Bible says Elijah went bodily up into heaven and he needs to return bodily. So, let us agree to disagree. Cheers, Shafique freza mmm...actually I'm confused by your confusion.
the fact remains: brethren = brother, it does not = cousin. Moses was a Hebrew as was Jesus. Mohammad not a Hebrew, not belonged to the Israelite tribes, not part of the brethren.
Deu 18:15 " The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you – from your fellow Israelites . " This is quite clear.
It is clear the Deuteronomy is of an Israelite theme, that is its central basis. Check secular sources - Encyclopedia Britannica for example - what does it say about Deuteronomy? Where (outside of Islam) do you find a reference to Mohammad in Deu?
God didn't even talk to him directly, but he will speak God's words directly, though they were spoken to him indirectly. :-) ok now...
Shafique, ascertaining something with little to prove and saying it over and over again does not make that something correct. What you have here is very shaky grounds for proving the prophethood of Mohammad and you're doing so while sweeping factoids under the rug.
accusations? when a prophet says "I have sinned" what does this tell you? They acknowledged their wrong doings. God acknowledged them too. Are you implying that God was accusing them? OK tell us the difference between a mistake and a sin. And please give us examples, specific ones. actually I'll list some of them, which ones are mistake and which ones are sins , ok?
A prophet Questioning God, mistake or sin? Going against God's Laws. Adultery. Incest. Masturbation. Owning Slaves (doesn't matter how well they're treated). Lust for the wives of relatives. Having concubines. Wars of conquest. Pedophilia.
{note: a friend who has been observing these debates questions: "As to the issue of incest being a sin vis a vis Lot, why Muhammad married his daughter, Fatima, to Ali."} Good question.
Re: the s.ex vs fck discussion, have you touched on the word: alrafathu as found in the Quran? Flying Dutchman From: Dictionary of the Quranic phrases and its meaning; Sheik Mousa Ben Mohammed Al Kaleeby, Cairo, Maktabat Al Adab, 2002

From: Kitab (Book of) Al Nikah. Commentary of Imam Ahmed Ben Ali Ben Hagar Al Askalani, Beirut, Dar Al Balagha, 1986

Btw, there are more native Arabic speakers who claim nihak literally means to f***. What is meant in the Quran I donot know, but I wouldnīt call ebonics a liar. shafique Flying Dutchman,
Your quotes look remarkably similar to what was written on an anti-Islam website:
For me the crux of the matter is what the dictionary says the meaning of Nikah is. That said, I have no problem in accepting that Nikah is understood to also include s.e.x within the marriage - it was the accusation that the word was coarse and filthy and would not be used by civilised people.
Words derived from this root may be coarse and insulting, but to accuse the Quranic usage as coarse is what I have called ebonics up on.

Then a few posts along ebonics informs us that :

Then a whole page of explanations:
Now, for me the original claim that 'enkahoo' does not literally mean marriage has not been proven.

is also at odds with the dictionary - which has it the other way round, it literally means to marry when used in context of a man and a woman.
But ebonics is right that in the Quran 'it means to marry'.
ebonics further says that words derived from Nikah mean 'f..k' (as a swear word/derogatory term):

However, note that this is not what was originally accused. These words are derived and are not the words used in the Quran. In the context of the Quran they are not considered vulgar, but accurately descriptive - and invariably have been translated as 'Marry' by all translators.
For me, but may be not for others, the accusation that 'enkahoo' literally means 'f...k' has not been proven but was clearly refuted by the dictionary.
But I am a non-Arabic speaker - I suggest we do a straw poll amongst Arab speakers we know and ask whether the word "Nikah" for marriage and "enkahoo" for 'Marry' as used in the Quran are vulgar or understood to mean 'f..k' or not. If they tell me that they do mean 'f..k' then I will take back my accusation of ebonics being a liar and will apologise.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique One other point, also it is not clear from ebonics points whether the vulgar swear words are applicable in classical Arabic or not, or are just in the dialects. I would dispute the line of argument that a latter day swear word derived from a root word in Arabic means that the root word is coarse and vulgar. I have been taught that words in dialects are different from the classical Arabic meanings - and that Classical Arabic is what people go back to for literal meanings. The quotes from ebonics all seem to say that in popular usage the terms 'neek' etc are swear words. So (a) it is popular usage and (b) the words are all derived words, not the ones used in the Quran. Finally, as this contentious issue was new to me, I am grateful it has been brought up - I have learnt from the discussion. It has distracted a bit from the thread's intention - but I'm sure freza is keeping up with her discussion with me :) Cheers, Shafique Flying Dutchman Thatīs right, this website was the only one showing interpretations from Islamic scolars. If you have other sources, as you know I will be very happy to read them. It is amazing however that for you a modern dictionary takes precedence over what Islamic scolars have to say about it. According to them you are wrong, but again if there are other interpretations by scolars please let me know. And yes, I ask around, many Arabs are uncomfortable with the word nikah (also Muslims). I personally doubt it very much whether in the Quran it means to fxxx and I donot believe this. But to call ebonics a liar on this, I donot agree. It is not claim without any backing. I think he is interpreting things his way (but arenīt we all doing that in here). shafique Flying Dutchman, I'd just like to see the quotes in full and not just in extracts on a website that is anti-Islamic in tone. The dictionary of Lane documents what classical arabic words means and is neutral on this issue (it can't be considered pro or anti-Islam). As I said, the original accusation was that the word used in the Quran is coarse - the extracts you quote don't say it is coarse but that Nikah also means 'have s.e.x with' - which is also what Lane says. For me the word 'f..k' in English is very vulgar, and this is what ebonics explicitly said the Quran was using the equivalent of and questioned whether God would use this language. Saying 'make love' or 'sleep with' has a different connotation than 'f..k' - the former are acceptable in civil society and are descriptive, the latter is a swear word but is also descriptive. The proof will be whether 'enkahoo' is considered vulgar or just a normal word for 'marry' by Arabic speakers. I haven't asked many arabic speakers this, but will do so. Given that the derivative words are vulgar is certainly a good point raised by ebonics, but let me ask Arabic speakers. I have Maronite Christian friends who can give me the point of view of non-Muslim Arabic speakers. Cheers, Shafique ebonics shafique, i did aknowledge that the quran in this instance, means marriage, i only questioned the wisdom in using that word over another "zawag" which i think - is warrented.. but of course we can agree to disagree... but im still not happy with you accusing me of lying, when i havent. Flying Dutchman
Iīll try my best, although I cannot find them anywhere, probably have to buy. These two quotes appear on several sites, and nowhere is somebody accusing the writers of misqouting, so that also says something to me. Do you have scolarly interpretations that support your view? And what will you say if the qoutes are accurate (which I think they are)?

No, not also, they say the primary and literal meaning is penetrating. Refering to s.e.x. as penetrating, is offensive to me at least. See how a woman reacts if you say "let me penetrate you?"
All I am saying is that the interpretation of nikah isnīt that clear and according to me is open for discussion. shafique
Ok - let us say we disagree on whether the word is vulgar or not, and we agree that in the Quran it means 'marry' in this verse.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique ebonics - I think we can draw a line under this with this post.
I came across a commentary on the verse in question (4.3) and an explanation of the word:
Fainkihoo: then marry/ then have legal s.ex
Note: Fa means then or therefore or so. INKIHOO is derived from the root N-K-Ha and it means the having of s.ex between a male and female in a legal manner and it takes the meaning of the marriage and the marriage contract in a sense. INKIHOO is an order or a demand to a group of people. It means: marry.
Therefore, you are right that the literal meaning of the root word is to have 's.e.x.ua.l intercourse' and you are right that in the context of the Quranic verse here it means marriage.
Therefore, my only issue was that you used the word 'f.u.c.k' and said this what the literal meaning was - and as you questioned the choice of word, I took this to mean that it was a dirty word.
You have since clarified that the swear word equivalent is 'neek' etc, but that in the context of the Quran the words used mean 'marriage'/'marry'.
Had you not said 'f.u.c.k', but said 'se.xu.al intercourse' then I would not have objected - for it is true that the root meaning is this but in contexts also means marriage or legal s.e.x. (this is what Lane says as well, but puts the marriage meaning first)
Islam does not see s.ex as shameful, so an indirect reference to s.ex is not seen as a bad word (and in this case, the contextual meaning is marriage).
The derivative words you listed are not used in the Quran, but it does use a word which implies 's.ex within marriage', but is understood and translated as simply 'marriage'/'marry'.
I apologise for calling you a liar, as I thought you were saying the Quran used a vulgar word (and this was reinforced when you said Christian, Arabic speaking priests would not say the word fainkihoo). Now we agree that the word means 'marry' in the Quran and is therefore not a vulgar word, there is no disagreement.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics i still maintain its not a socially acceptable word you'd use over a dinner table today - and yes it is vulgur in todays context, maybe not in the context of the quran because it refers to a completely different meaning, other than the root of the word, but it is at the end of the day in social terms today, vulgur. i only just question the wisdom (of God for a muslim) in using that word, over another word like zawag.... my speculation is that whoever recited it, may have had something to do with it, but that is just speculation. however thank you for retracting calling me a liar shafique, maybe habib will stop accusing me of being ignorant in arabic when i translate things from now on. ebonics
i need to see this in arabic, as i cant make out what it is in english freza No. we all know that not everything in the Bible is the word of God, BUT the Bible Does contain the words of God in some passages. Why should anyone believe the Qurans deletions of the Bible (a book which is NOT theirs) which was written many hundreds of years after the history of the prophets was written? This is the height of arrogance and nothing more. Also, so ironic, that you refuse to acknowledge the full history of the prophets per the OT BUT you use the OT to (erroneously) support the idea that Mohammad is the last prophet. :D The height of arrogance and the height of irony! Can't you see it??
:shock: owning slaves is not a sin??? So the world's modern day slave trade, not sinful??? So Mohammad was in fact a sinner. You've finally confirmed it! ebonics
shafique in my "nekah" travels of trying to find you a literal meaning, i came across countless islamic resources that said masturbation is a very big sin, and that god curses every masturbator.
hadith (378/4) by the "bayhaky) - also confirmed by the asbahany, and mentioned in his book page 206
another hadith said by ismael al basry (633/2) confirms this and says literarly "God destroys whoever plays with his (male) genitals)"
HOWEVER and this is the funny bit,
the tafseer goes through and mentions, that it is ok to masturbate, in 2 occasions: (even though it just said god destroys a masturbator)
1. if the hand is "haleela" - im not entirely sure what they mean by this word in that context, im guessing it is your wife's hand, which is "mohalala" or permitted to be used on you.
2. if it is going to stop you from committing adultry.................. seriously i dont understand how these people's mind work... isnt the whole point abstaining from having s.e.xual thoughts about someone that isnt yours, and if you're thinking of committing adultry, you're meant to be a strong person and not do that, OR masturbate..... how is this ok??
.بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وبعد :
أولاً : لا يصح في هذا الباب شيء ومما ورد في هذا :
1 / حديث ( سبعة لا ينظر الله عز وجل إليهم يوم القيامة ولا يزكيهم ويقول ادخلوا النار مع الداخلين الفاعل والمفعول به والناكح يده وناكح البهيمة وناكح المرأة في دبرها وجامع بين المرأة وابنتها والزاني بحليلة جاره ) أخرجه البيهقي في شعب الإيمان ( 4 / 378 ) من طريق مسلمة بن جعفر عن حسان بن حميد عن أنس بن مالك : عن النبي به ، وإسناده ضعيف مسلمة وحسان مجهولان كما قالالحافظ ابن حجر وذكر عن الأزدي أنه ضعف مسلمة قال الحافظ في لسان الميزان ( 6 / 33 ) : ( مسلمة بن جعفر البجلي الأحمسي عن حسان بن حميد عن أنس رضي الله عنه في سب الناكح يده يجهل هو وشيخه وقال الأزدي ضعيف انتهى وفي الثقات لابن حبان مسلمة بن جعفر البجلي الأحمسي من أهل الكوفة روى عن عمرو بن قيس والركين بن الربيع روى عنه عمرو بن محمد العنقزي وأبو غسان النهدي فيحتمل أن يكون هو ثم ظهر أنه هو فقد ذكره بذلك كله البخاري ولم يذكر فيه جرح )
2 / الحديث السابق بنفس اللفظ أخرجه الأصبهاني ( الدقاق ) في مجلس في رؤية الله ( ص 206 ) من طريق عبد الله بن لهيعة عن عبد الرحمن بن زياد بن أنعم عن أبي عبد الرحمن الحبلي عن عبد الله بن عمرو به ، وإسناده ضعيف فيه ابن لهيعة وشيخه عبد الرحمن بن زياد ضعيفان .
3 / حديث ( أهلك الله عز وجل امه كانوا يعبثون بذكورهم ) ذكره في العلل المتناهية ( 2 / 633 ) من طريق إسماعيل البصري قال حدثنا ابو جناب الكلبي عن الخلال بن عمير عن ابي سعيد الخدري به .
وإسناده ضعيف إسماعيل البصري مجهول وأبو جناب ضعيف .
وينظر : سلسلة الأحاديث الضعيفة ( 1 / 490 ) برقم ( 319 ) التلخيص الحبير ( 4 / 381 )
ثانيا : ما يتعلق بحكم المسألة :
الأقوال في الاستمناء :
أولاً : اتفق الفقهاء على جواز الاستمناء إذا كان بيد الحليلة .
ثانياً : اتفق الفقهاء على جواز الاستمناء إن خشي الوقوع في الزنا .
ثالثا : اتفق الفقهاء على تحريم الاستمناء عن كان بيد أجنبية أو أدخل الجنبي إصبعه في فرج امرأة .
رابعاً : اختلفوا فيما سوى الحالات السابقة على ثلاثة أقوال :
القول الأول : التحريم وعليه جمهور العلماء من المالكية والشافعية والحنابلة في المذهب والحنفية وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله .
القول الثاني الكراهة وهو قول ابن حزم ورواية عن أحمد .
shafique, searching in arabic is the new black now, you uncover so much more than the english versions let out - i think i need to invest in an arabic keyboard and download the language pack and maybe even get some lessons on how to type in arabic then we can really play some ball. freza yup masturbation is a sin according to Islamic scholars which one assumes they base on the Quran.
And that thing about masturbation being OK when it prevents adultery also left me-> :scratch:
btw, I came upon this phrase of Fayyad ibn Najih:

now this is gold! ebonics
there's squillions of things like this that come out every now and again, they by far take the cake. shafique freza, You ask why should anyone believe the Quran's version of events over the Bible. It comes down to choice. I choose to believe the Quran because it is more internally consistent and it is compatible with my logic - that God will choose the best of people at the time to be His prophets, and they will serve as models and will show how to live without contradicting God's laws. You believe Muhammad, pbuh, to be sinful. I don't. However, you also believe previous prophets to be sinful - so this in itself should be for you not a criterion to reject Muhammad, pbuh. But this is my logic and I don't wish to impose this on you. ebonics - some muslims do believe masturbation is a big sin. I have heard from Shia scholars that this is one of the main reasons why temporary marriages are allowed. Catholics similarly teach that you'll go to hell for masturbation (or so the depictions in general society have led me to believe), but I do not believe in this. The Quran is not explicit about this and to be honest it is not a subject that I have heard a lot about in mosques (there are better things to discuss!) Similarly for slave ownership - the Quran does not give people the right to make others into slaves, but gives many ways in which to free slaves. The only exception being in times of war when the practice was to execute prisoners of war, the alternative of slavery (with clear injunctions of how they could be set free) was allowed. Today I believe that economic slavery can be just as bad a chattel slavery - in fact today the biggest problems are down to effective economic slavery/exploitation. Islam says that whenever one is a position of power one needs to act with justice, kindness and kinship (treat people as you would treat your family). Cheers, Shafique shafique
Believe me this is tame to what is contained in other 'hadith'! :)
What is written by man, is corrupted by man - a general principle that keeps getting proved every day!
The Quran is one thing - the Hadith is a totally different kettle of fish. There are hadith which tell us how to establish whether they are true or not (yes, Hadith telling us that some hadith will be false - due to people mis-reporting or just plain old telling porkies).
I consider Hadith as a collection of recollections and therefore similar to the Bible. Just as the Bibles of different churches were compiled from previous writings, so were the different collections of Hadith. Just as Biblical verses are subject to interpretation and apparent contradictions, so we find the same in the Hadith. (and as we're on the subject, just like the Bible contains salacious passages about s.e.x... so do the Hadith...)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique For freza - concerning whether Muhammad, pbuh, admitted his shortcomings/sins and prayed for forgiveness:
‘A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, reported:
When Allah’s Messenger [SAWS] occupied himself in the prayer at night, he observed it with such a extended qiyam (posture of standing) until his feet were swollen.
‘A’ishah said: “Allah’s Messenger, you do this in spite of the fact that your earlier and latter sins have been forgiven for you?”
He [SAWS] replied: “‘A’ishah, should I not prove myself to be a thankful servant of Allah?”
[Muslim]
So - this meets your criteria that Prophets should admit their sins and be forgiven by God for them.
(Note that I still consider Muhammad, pbuh, to be sin-less but not mistake-less in his conduct. I remember being told that he is chastised in the Quran for frowning when a blind man interrupted him when he was in discussion with someone, the blind mad did not see this, but the expression of displeasure was considered a 'sin' for someone who needed to show the most excellent of virtues - and he asked for forgiveness for this failing.)
Cheers,
Shafique spoonman
ebonics, if you have your windows CD (XP or vista) you can easily add the Arabic language in the 'regional and language setting' in control panel.
and then you can use both English and Arabic and switch between them easily.
I'm sure you can buy a keyboard with both English and Arabic character in AD. if you are using a special or a professional keyboard you don't want to change, you might find those transparent Arabic letter stickers which can be sticked to every key on the keyboard.
typing Arabic doesn't need a lesson if you know the Arabic alphabet.
Although letters of every word get attached, unlike south Asian languages you just type every letter and everything automatically get fixed. ebonics typing on arabic for me is like placing an 80 year old infront of a PC for his first time and asking him to type.... takes me about 5 min per word, and i cant work out the back to front way of navigating a mouse, or deleting mistakes.... its very daughnting.

havent you and flying dutchman established that the quran was also written by man?
but moving on from that,

isnt this another hadith - that could or could not be accurate? so where do you draw the line of selectiveness of what you want to accept and what you dont? or is it simply personal choice? spoonman Shafique, so you only believe in Quran and choose the hadith that personally suits you or seems reasonable to you? or do you believe in a series of hadith that is defined genuine by a religious figure like a cleric or a famous scholar? shafique
Yes - I believe Quran is 100% word of God, the Sunnah (practice of the Prophet, pbuh) comes next in authenticity then come the Hadith. If Hadith are declared genuine by scholars and clerics, then this adds weight to the authenticity, but it does depend on which scholars/clerics and whether there is unanimity amongst all scholars. I would also use my own reasoning if it was a particularly contentious hadith (most aren't).
Hadith themselves were compiled by different people a long time after the events. The compilers themselves said that the Hadith should be treated with caution - they chose one set of criteria, that the chain of narrators was sound, but pointed out that there were still contradictions in the Hadith thus selected.
Therefore there are weak and strong hadith - based on numbers of different people reporting them, the chains of narrators.
However, the simple formula that is contained in many Hadith is the Prophet's saying that if any report reaches you of me contradicting the Quran, reject it as false.
The compilers of the Quran (to their credit) compiled Hadith and gave the reasonings for inclusion. They did not reject Hadith because it contradicted their views of the Quran, but left that to readers to weigh up the merits of each Hadith.
This is no different to choosing which 'hadith' of the Bible to take as literal, which to take as metaphorical and which to reject altogether (some narrations of the Gospels never made it to the canonised book).
All books of Hadith contain strong and weak hadith - so each should be judged on their merits.
One point to bear in mind, there are tens of thousands of hadith out there (may be into the hundreds of thousands), so it is no surprise that there isn't a definitive list of authentic hadith.
(Oh, and yes there are scholars of old and of present day that I will take their views on Hadith being authentic or not - in that I would respect their opinions and read what they have to say on the subject. I am not a scholar of Hadith myself. I respect the opinions of Shia as well as Sunni scholars when it comes to Hadith - although on the core issue of succession to the Prophet, I do not agree with Shia arguments/interpretations of the Hadith on this subject.)
Cheers,
Shafique spoonman ok, so as a Sunni Muslim you are free to choose which religious figure to follow, even if he is from another sect. and then you must personally believe that the practice of Islam (following Quran, sunnah and hadith) is the best way of life in 2008? Don't you think that Islam relies heavily on a single culture and time? Do you believe its universal and eternal? Nucleus
Masturbation is mainly considered big sin among shia scholars. Nucleus Here is a quote from a person who has good knowledge with classical arabic.

ebonics
they wouldnt quote a hadith, if they were shi'a - as such the above is definatly sunni. Nucleus Shia use and quote hadith too.
shafique
Last question first - no I don't think Islam relies heavily on a single culture. It is a misconception (that is perpetuated by some Muslim scholars as well) that Islam should be stuck in 7th century Arabian culture. But even in the 7th century, Islam was spread to China to the East and the Atlantic coast in the West.
Islam is universal and eternal (it claims to be, and I have satisfied myself that it lives up to these claims).
Islam dictates how people should interact with each other, and also dictates how best to worship God. Humans have not evolved (in my opinion) in terms of social needs or psyche in the past 1600 years. They certainly have not evolved spiritually. Thus the religious principles of Islam are valid today as they were in the 7th century - how one should live one's life and how one should pray haven't changed.
An Indonesian or Chinese or European Muslim will have cultural differences with an Arab Muslim - but they will pray the same and have the same core values. The dress, food, taste in music and language will be different though.
Coming to your second question - yes, I do believe that following the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith is the best way for me to live my life in 2008.
Your first question is about following a religious scholar if they come from another sect. Well, for this there is a famous (and undisputed) Hadith which says that a Muslim should seek knowledge wherever it is found - even if it means going to China. (Sorry, I'm paraphrasing)
Scholars and opinions know no boundaries for me - I look to what is being said first, but will also take note of who is saying it - but I won't reject something because of who is saying it. Similarly, I have been taught not to blindly follow any injunction - we were given brains and logic by God, and He won't ask us to do something that goes against these faculties (this is my strong personal belief, and also what I have been taught).
I also don't limit my sources of knowledge to Islamic sources - Buddha, Krishna, Confucius, Zoroaster (for example) all have valid teachings and I consider them all to be true prophets of God (as the Quran says all peoples were sent prophets).
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Thanks Nucleus - I think this settles this particular point - the vulgar word comes from a different root.
Ebonics - can you check and confirm that the above explanations are correct - that the swear words come from a different root word. You may also want to tell the Christian Priests that they can recite the Quran in full now and not to be embarrassed by the word 'Nikah'.
Cheers,
Shafique freza Re: " When the male organ of a man stands erect, two thirds of his intellect go away. " actually I think this is a little gem because I think the author is being honest!
Re:wow! I would say it comes down to a number of thing including tradition but you can NOT ignored the factoids and the LOGIC. Too choose to ignore facts is to choose ignorance and one has to wonder why people would choose this. What came first, Quran or OT? Why would the Quran mess with both a traditional and historical series of events unless there was something in these events that did not fit Mohammad's prophethood. I go with logic.
consistent? i think it's anything but consistent. you believe whatever you like of course, but I wonder, why has faith been indoctrinated so much in you that you refuse to question anything about your religion? have you ever even questioned? have you ever observed it from the outside in?
comparing the Bible to Hadiths is plain ridiculous. The Bible is a historical book with historical significance, it's the holy book shared in part by two religions and main principle of one. The issue of the apocryphal books has been discussed to death and if you don't "get it" at this point you're just "choosing" to not understand.
huh? war captives, slaves, family...
Edited: correction on OT typo Nucleus Can you check this in lane's lexicon?
ebonics what nucleus posted sounds accurate enough, only nika in the vulgur sense is derived from the one used in the quran... not from a different root word. the quran definatly never used the first one in its slang term, i never claimed so. the comment about god telling people sex is fine, did he really have to spell it out? were they that thick? isnt it already known that if a man and woman marry they reproduce, or was it news to them before the quran? :lol: i still maintain zawag is more appropriate, as that word as flying dutchman said, could be offensive to some, definatly not a holy word for a god to be using in a holy sense... since saying "penetrate two, three or four" can sound ok for a male, but how does that sit with a female, and indeed this has been brought up to debate on tv by muslim women before. but as you guys always say, allah knows best.... i just happen to disagree with him. shafique
What came first, the OT or the NT?
Why should we believe that the NT supersedes the OT? Why should a Jew believe your interpretations and reject the OT when it says Elijah needs to descend bodily from heaven and the Messiah needs to banish wars (rather than turn up, preach peace and then a few decades later the Romans ransack Jerusalem).
Is not choice? You choose to believe a later scripture that supersedes the previous one. So do I.

Because the events were corrupted. Lot did not sleep with his daughters according to the Quran.
You can choose to believe that a Prophet of God got drunk and slept with his daughters, I choose to believe the Quran's account.
For me, this is logical. You have a different set of values.
(note that Muslims can also be very possessive of dubious writings and let go of logic - look at the discussion I'm having with Habib - I am discarding a Hadith and he thinks it is the truth)

I have not found any inconsistencies. You may find it inconsistent.
I see you as acting just like Jews who reject Jesus by using the Bible and insisting that they know more about the Biblical prophecies than Christians do. I'm sure Jews think they are right.

Are you serious? Of course I have questioned - I laid it out in a separate thread inviting people to show contradictions and I dealt with all of them to my own satisfaction (if not yours).
I have no problem quoting the Quran, yet when I have asked you for Biblical criteria for prophethood it took about 50 posts for you to quote the Bible.

There is no difference between Hadith and the Bible. Both contain some words of God, both contain corruptions. Both are historical documents, both have had 'accepted' hadith compiled into books and both have had reports rejected.
Both were written/compiled after the events in question and by people who weren't there directly.
I can't see how they are different.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
ebonics - you said that 'neek' was a slang word and was derived from Nikah. Now you can see that this was a wrong statement to make. Neek/Naik come from a different root.
Similarly you said that 'entihoo' literally meant 'f...king' whereas now we know it does not literally mean this (for it does not come from the root 'nyk' but from the root 'nkh') - so here too I would expect you to take back the accusation (I'll put it down to an error of the root of the word).
You are saying that 'nikah' is a vulgar word - however, it is not in Classical arabic as it does not mean 'f..k'.
For me, I am glad that we have been able to clear this up and now know that there are two different words in Arabic and should not be mixed up. The Quranic choice of words are not vulgar at all in Classical Arabic.

Well, given that the Christian Church does believe that s.e.x. is shameful whereas we don't believe Jesus ever taught this - then yes, it is important for God to spell this out and prevent Mullahs making the mistakes that the Catholic Church made (note that Celibacy and the whole s.e.x is shameful theology came a long time after Jesus and was started by men interpreting the Bible).
God making it clear in the Quran that .s.e.x is not shameful is another example of the Quran being more completed than the Bible.

Zawag is wedding - and does not include the act of legal s.e.x. which is what Nikah also incorporates. Furthermore Nikah is not an offensive word in classical arabic but a polite way of saying 'Marriage that will be consumated'.
I think you confusion was thinking that Neek/Naik had the same root as 'Nikah' - now that we know that 'Nikah' does NOT literally mean 'f..k' we don't have any disagreement.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
one day i will translate this word for word, even though there's not enough words in the english language or vocab to describe what is going on in there..
its talking about the use of the word "s.e.x" nekah in the arabic language and the fascination of arabs with s.e.x. and every strange word that emerged thereof. awesome read
the arabs made a seperate word for the genitals of every animal, and it goes through and lists a few.... this is actually one of the funniest pieces i ever read ebonics
firstly, i didnt say anything about entihoo
and my first statement i still maintain is correct, it doesnt come from a different word, and i am certain of what im saying.
regarding catholics making s.e.x a bad thing, that was their own man made idiology - which has no basis whatsoever, doesnt mean the rest of the sects follow that.
tell me sunni's and shi'a's dont have man made ideoligies, we already talked about making the hijab a fairda.... which is total bull. shafique
Ok, let us look at your first statement (which was talking about v 4.3):

So, were you talking about 'enkahoo' which is derived from nkH and does not literally mean 'f..k'?
(sorry I typed this as entihoo - you can tell I don't speak Arabic).
This was your first statement - if you agree this is wrong, then we have no disagreement. (And I remind you that I posted what the root of Enkahoo was and stated that it did not mean f..k')

Ok - we agree on this as well.

Yes they do have man made ideologies. I denounce those as well.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics so instead of f..k replace that with penetrate... really achieves the same result, its still beyond me why zawag isnt used. if you ask my fiance, and tell her God says: "penetrate two, three, four" and goes on to go "and whatever your right hand possessed" she'd back hand you with her handbag and most have some really large metal bits on it, so i wouldnt recommend you do that. ill have to draw the line here, my daily productivity dropped something shocking... and my work is now piled up further than i can see.. shafique
Why skirt around the issue - it means to marry, and have legal s.e.x.
It does not mean 'f...k'.
Therefore your original statement is wrong.

Groundhog day!
S.e.x is not shameful and the previous posts clearly state why s.e.x was included in the definition.
I merely brought you up on your accusation that the Quran used a profane swear word. Now that we have exposed this as an untruth, you are changing the argument. Look at what you wrote - you said why did God use this kind of language - you did not say why did God decide to say 'marry and have legal s.e.x'.
On Friday, on page 6 of this thread you said:

We did ask an Arabic speaker and they informed us that all the words you listed are from nyk and not nkh. You were trying to convince me that they derive from the 'same word' (nkh).
So, do you take back the above comments and confirm that what you wrote was wrong?

Except, what God said was 'marry' - you have conceded this. Sorry - must try harder.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
you're an expert in putting words in my mouth, i do not fully agree with what nucleus said - i said for the most part it is true, and i still maintain it means penetrate in the s.e.xual sense IN A LITERAL WAY. not mary, then penetrate...
stop taking me away from work shafique! shafique No problem ebonics. I think there is enough material above for people to make up their own minds. I'm happy to move on to other topics. cheers, Shafique Flying Dutchman Went over the thread again...one more question came to mind. Why are we writing s.e.x. with dots? shafique
Because if you don't it gets displayed as 'love' - see s.e.x and sex.
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman
Yeah, buy why? Is the word s.e.x. offensive or insulting? Why canīt we use it? It is a normal word no? Also used in the Quran. Thatīs what a main portion of this thread is about. S.e.x.ual intercourse is supposed to be non-offensive... shafique
Don't know why - a question for the owners of this forum (I guess it is a setting in the forum software to translate certain words).
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman
Ok, I asked. So according to you this translation shouldnīt be necessary? I think it might be iot prevent problems with Etisalat, but I will wait for the answer. Flying Dutchman Just trying something: sexual intercourse sex edit: Hahaha, we can use sexual intercourse! Flying Dutchman I agree with Shafique that there must be an end to a discussion some time. But at the beginning of the discussion about nikah I emailed my Arabic teacher in Holland about this (he has a phd in classical Arabic). And i donot want his efforts to be in vain. The following description in Lane caught his attention: inivit feminam. Which according to him translates to in Dutch "hij neukte een vrouw". This translates to English "he f***ed a woman". shafique FD - for me the issue was not whether Nikah meant legal sexual intercourse or not, but whether it was a profane word. From the above, I'm not sure whether inivit feminam is the latin meaning that was translated into Dutch as 'he f..d the woman' or not, but if it is isn't 'f..d' being used to mean sexual intercourse (as the literal meaning of 'f..d'). f..d does mean sexual intercourse, but the former is profane (a swear word and coarse) whilst the other is descriptive. I'm not an Arabic scholar, but given that all Muslims call the marriage ceremony 'Nikah' and the dictionary definition of the root word is 'marriage, including legal sexual intercourse' - I think the feedback from Arabic speakers that Nikah is not profane holds water (for me at least). Ultimately, the question I think is: is 'Nikah' considered profane in classical 7th Century Arabic? It appears to me the answer is 'no', but it would be interesting to hear what your teacher says. Cheers, Shafique Flying Dutchman His answer is dissapointing (as it doesnīt solve the issue): opinons differ and sometimes contrary to each other... shafique I think we've flogged this particular dead horse enough :) At least now I know how to swear in Arabic! Cheers, Shafique Flying Dutchman I agree, let it rest...Me personally, although not a scolar, give the Quran the benefit of the doubt. It did raise another question in my mind though, how come naqa en neuken are so close...coincidence or two languages influencing each other with bad words...but thatīs not for here... :D :D freza woah! The banishment of wars - surely you do know that it's referring to the Second Advent. Don't Muslims believe in it? My understanding is that they do...correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm correct, are you contradicting what the Quran tells you about Jesus' Second Advent? Preachers that preach what they themselves can't seem to do, and who are into wars of conquest are a much better preachers than those that advocate peace, oh I'm sure.:-)
supersede is not the correct word. The OT is important to the NT that's undeniable - the NT wouldn't exist without the OT. What's funny is to see how you cling to (some) Jewish rejection of Jesus as their Messiah but do not cling on Judaism's disqualification of Mohammad. If a Jew couldn't be their prophet, do you think a Muslim could be? They don't even look in that direction, period. One can't argue Christianity's Jewishness but when Islam tries to get in the picture and meddle with books that were not written by them and had long since been established, well...it seems very odd.
Lot, Lot, Lot. You are Lot fixated. Lot wasn't a prophet. The very BASIC requirement for prophethood is to be a vessel of God. Lot dealt with some angels, whoop dee doo. He wasn't a vessel of God, period. There are true prophets and important ones in the OT why bring up one that wasn't even a prophet? But this I say - I'm also on the fence about the whole Lot thing! (yes Shafique, some Christians do question things in the Bible, shocking to someone like you who criticizes people for questioning but also criticizes them for not questioning.)
first of all, some Jews DID accept Jesus as their Messiah, do you forget this? apparently. the ones that didn't - well, if they think they are right, yay for them. some people say whenever they get a chance that "there is no compulsion in religion" while slyly criticizing everything under the moon about a particular religion *cough* cough* But anyway, I'm sure you do know that some old Jewish writings state things that seem very similar to Christian ones re: Messianic qualities. Including that "Israel will reject the prophet"
whaat? you obviously didn't understand my original question. Have you ever questioned your belief system in a profound and sincere way? If so, what exactly have you questioned? And please don't point to a thread that you have started in order to challenge others Not yourself. your replies on that thread are predictably patronizing and quite vague when its convenient (contradictions, Mohammad's character). What I meant by this question is real personal doubts that you haven't yet aired on this forum.
Well for the unanimity that you preach about the Quran's teachings you can't even seem to agree with other Muslims and with Islamic scholars (no less) on which Hadiths are genuine and which ones are not. The ones that are inconvenient and unflattering of Mohammad seem to be the ones you pick as being false, even if Islamic scholars state that they're real. However, the Quran has Biblical influences, has references to Jesus and Biblical characters and according to your "logic" the Bible, that book which you just dismissed, shows proof that Mohammad was going to be the last "prophet". aaaaaahhhhhh, logic! shafique
No, I'm not talking about why Christians and Muslims believe Jesus to be the true Messiah, but why Jews reject Jesus for not fulfilling prophecies literally.
The OT does not say that the Messiah will only bring peace only with the second coming.
So, I repeat - Jews use the Bible to reject a true messenger. Christians use the Bible to reject a true messenger. No difference, from my view.
Some Jews did accept Jesus, many Christians accepted Muhammad - but those that reject Jesus and Muhammad use the Bible to justify their
rejection. I can't see how these can be considered contentious statements - these are just facts. I have shown the Biblical objections to Jesus in another thread (arguments that Jews make, but that you and I reject - the fact we reject them, does not change the fact that Jews believe those arguments).
You believe Lot was not a prophet, the Quran says he was. You believe David was a prophet who committed adultery according to the Bible, we believe he was a sinless prophet. As I said, the Quran corrects errors that crept into the Bible.
And yes, when I say I question religion I do mean I question the core beliefs and values. That there are differing interpretations of Islamic teachings does not change the fact there is one Quran. There are many sects of Christianity who have differing interpretations of the same Biblical verses - and there are sects of Christianity who have different books of the Bible. Does not change the fact for me that Jesus was a true prophet and Muhammad is a true a prophet.
So, you agree with me that Jews are misusing/misunderstanding the Bible when they use it to reject Jesus, but disagree with me that Christians are misuing/misunderstanding the Bible to reject Muhammad, pbuh.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique freza, concerning Lot - the Bible says he offered his daughters to strange men and slept with his daughters them after they got him drunk, then in the NT ( 2 Peter 2:7) he is called a righteous man by Peter, and the OT tells us that he was saved by God. As Muslims, we believe the bits about Lot acting sinfully were corrected by the Quran - so the Quran does not copy, but corrects the account according to Muslims. Similary, your last paragraph says I dismiss the Bible when I clearly said I give it the same respect I give the Hadith - accept the true accounts of the sayings of Jesus or Muhammad, pbuh, and reject/re-interpret the false accounts. Bible contains salacious passages, so do Hadith. Some hadith have been fabricated ... Cheers, Shafique freza it's not what I personally believe, it's that he didn't meet the basic criteria. How was he a messenger of God? What message did he bring man? not a prophet. focus on something more substantial. Mohammad is known to have acquired an imperfect knowledge of the Bible. He didn't formally study it, he got info in bits and pieces through Christians that he met. Hence the mistakes in the Quran. The man had an informal knowledge of the Bible yet his adherents say that he "corrected" parts of it? how can you correct something that you don't even fully understand? oh please.
do you know the amount of debate there is in Judaism today? Judaism is one fractured religion. I wonder why you don't fixate on Jews and their different groups and interpretations of their holy books.
You insist that Christianity is fragmented yet you don't see that the most important element that binds Christians of any group together is their Messiah - Jesus.
Jews don't even have a Messiah!
Christians aren't misusing the Bible to reject Mohammad, Mohammad is not even someone to consider a prophet when Christians already have one. Why would most Christians reject their prophet for a flawed and false one? Makes no sense. You would be better off trying to "save" Jews than Christians. You know a group who actually needs a prophet. But Jews want a Jewish prophet, yeah that's a dilemma.... shafique Thanks freza - I actually agree that your point of view is a valid one. I happen to have a different point of view. I think our respective opinions don't change the basic fact that the Bible can be used to reject true messengers of God - Jews do this for Jesus, and (from a Muslim perspective) Christians do this for Muhammad, pbuh. Whether Jews and Christians are right to use the Bible this way is a matter of opinion. I accept you think you are right, just as I accept the Rabbinical scholars think they are right. Cheers, Shafique freza in conclusion, why I don't think Mohammad was a true prophet: His personal character. He might have been fond of prayer and have decreed some good deeds onto others but I think that the excessive praying bit were him wrestling with his personal demons (figuratively) and his good deeds were mostly part of his propaganda campaign - like a politician trying to win over votes of his constituents. What's obvious is that he helped some but also shattered others. I think that Mohammad was very good at some things: his opportunism, and manipulations. I think his ideologies succeeded during his lifetime because of these traits (as I think his ideology successfully spread for a number of other reasons afterwards). The are references of Islamic scholar and of historical ones that point to Mohammad mental disease - that he suffered from fits and seizures. The voices in his head could very well been just that. He was fascinated with stories early on and was apparently very impressionable by other cultures and he learned about these cultures and religions in an informal setting. There is also a general consensus that Mohammad had an imperfect knowledge of the Torah and the Bible. It explains the influences of such in the Quran but also the many mistakes. a true prophet would not be ignorant of information that would be left in a book and that he and his adherents would claim is "perfection" and God's own words. Prophets had a much deeper spiritual awakening. Mohammad seems to have gotten even more erratic and selfish as his so-called communications with the angel Gabriel progressed. The OT prophets follow a pattern - the prophets led moral lives and those who didn't ran the risk of being stripped of their prophethood or being punished by God. God would never have advised them to commit sin. Apparently God never punished Mohammad but if he did, it wasn't recorded. But we're to believe that God actually advised Mohammad to commit sin and he even justified it for him. Mohammad doesn't bring a unique and revolutionary doctrine into the world, he brings a religion that focuses on God, but how is that different from the other monotheistic religions? He focused on rituals and the mundane in daily lives but not on an impressive and different ideology. To pray in a different physical manner does not warrant an entire religion. Re: Humanity, he took steps backward. Women are to be respected yes, but they're less than men and men can rule over them. War captives are OK as are slaves. Wars of conquest are justified in every sense as long as it's Islam on the offensive. He blurred politics into religion. Questioning is not good....so many things that one would not expect of an ultimate prophet. shafique thanks freza - we can agree to disagree. All true prophets had their opponents, and all prophets bringing a new message had opponents who used their scriptures to denounce them. This fact was going to be one of my Biblical criteria for a true prophet. However, we have not really had occasion to examine what the Bible says - as we have been side-tracked on other subjects. For me, your objections to Muhammad, pbuh, are valid - but for me fall short of a Biblical criteria. For me, all the objections I could argue against and certainly do not agree with the objections - but that is my view. I would also point out that the objections are similar to those that were proferred by the opponents of Biblical prophets. Some people will see that Muhammad, pbuh, meets the criteria in the Bible and will see the prophecies fulfilled in Islam as a sign of his truth. Others will not. Therefore, your well written objections are for me a sign of the truth of Muhammad, pbuh, claims. All of them can be examined by people and I have found that many who do look at the objections end up with a more favourable view of Muhammad, pbuh, than they had to begin with. I am pragmatic as well, Jews have continued to reject Jesus for 2000 years and are 100% that their Biblical scholars are right, so I am therefore not surprised to read your views. What is important though, is for all parties to listen and acknowledge the right of others the freedom to believe in what they want. Cheers, Shafique



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy