A Different View of Jesus

PS: Abu Bakr didn't burn any hadiths - you are confused about the early Islamic history in this regard.

Victoria
It is true that the hadeeths are classified into categories of authenticity. But the most authentic are the saheeh hadeeths which the "Aisha was nine" belong to. In fact, they are regarded as the 'most saheeh' being "mutawatir". This means that they were narrated by so many sources corroborating each other that there is little or no doubt to Sunni theologians as to their authenticity.

Did you know that the "Aisha was nine" hadeeths include at least 17 different chains of narrations, of which 15 are considered saheeh, and 7 of these were collected by Bukhari and Muslim?

This makes the "Aisha was nine" hadeeths among the most saheeh of hadeeths.

Regarding 65:4 you are wrong - there are three classes of 'females' referred to:

1. Post-menopausal women,
2. Pre-pubertal females,
3. Pregnant women.

Hilali & Khan: And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months,

AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO COURSES

their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allâh and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.

Here is the tafsir of Ibn Kathir explaining this verse:

The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses

Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228]

THE SAME FOR THE YOUNG, WHO HAVE NOT REACHED THE YEARS OF MENSTRUATION. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause.

This is from Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs:
(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn:
And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months.

This is from Saheeh Bukhari:

Sahih Bukari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63:
Narrated Sahl bin Sad: While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, "Marry her to me O Allah's Apostle!" The Prophet asked (him), "Have you got anything?" He said, "I have got nothing." The Prophet said, "Not even an iron ring?" He Sad, "Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half." The Prophet; said, "No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?" He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an (as her Mahr)." 'And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4)

AND THE IDDAT FOR THE GIRL BEFORE PUBERTY IS THREE MONTHS IN THE ABOVE VERSE.

Game, set and match,
Qasim

you cant be serious. hadeeth fall into different categories of authenticity.

what a ridiculous statement you make.
the qur'an says no such thing.
as a matter of fact, that ayat deals with menstrual courses and divorce. (pre pubescent girls dont menstruate)

even sahih hadeeth is still predicated on the fallible memories of men.

really your eagerness to defame islam clouds your rendered opinions.

you cant just invent things, as youve done with the qur'an.

the story of abu bakr burning the 10,000 hadeeth is a well known one.

in the last sermon of the Prophet(pbuh) he told the people to follow the qur'an and sunnah.

to follow hadeeth is a social thing and if they contradict what we know of the behavior, or contradict the qur'an, they can certainly be questioned.

Which hadeeth says Aisha was an 'unmarried woman' before she married Muhammad? Please show. I'm not aware of them and I doubt they exist.

How can you say the saheeh hadeeth have questionable validity? Do you know what the term 'saheeh' means?

I'm not sure you're correct that Abu Bakr burned over 10,000 hadeeths - I think you're wrong on this.

The fact that there were many 'suspect' hadeeths does not mean the saheeh hadeeths are suspect. In fact, they have supposedly gone through rigorous Islamic checks to eliminate that possibility - that is why they are regarded as 'saheeh'.

I think you have confused the saheeh hadeeths with the non-saheeh hadeeths.

None of these saheeh hadeeths I mentioned above are deemed to be unreliable. The fact that they were included by both Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim is regarded by most Sunnis Muslims as evidence they are the 'most saheeh'.

The fact is that nothing in the saheeh hadeeths about Muhammad marrying a pre-pubertal little child is against the Quran as 65:4 says a Muslim can divorce a child before puberty.

If a Muslim can divorce a child before puberty he must have married her when she was before puberty. Stands to reason, no?

qasim- did you know that abu bakr burned over 10,000 hadeeth? because he wanted to be very scrupulous to not let questionable ones get through.

if a hadeeth contains information that is clearly out of character with the Prophets(pbuh) behavior, or is out of sync with the quran-(and there are some) it only makes sense that we must question their authenticity.

we follow the quran and sunnah as instructed by the prophet(pbuh)

you have to look at the transmission chain.

i think you probably know this- your name is an arabic one- were you raised as a muslim?
if you were, what could you possibly gain by pretending that hadeeth are the final or authoritative word?

we dont "know" the thngs youre claiming.

if you think these are solid facts and not subject to dispute- youre welcome to your opinion, but it is still opinion.

we also "know" that she was referred to a an unmarried woman before she married the prophet(pbuh) not a little girl.

we actually do know however, that many of the hadeeth cited came through persia at the time, which was virulently against aisha.

when a source has questionable validity, and further indicates it questionable intentions when it defames someone like aisha, then we have to use our brains and judgment.

Victoria,
You should know that the Abysinnian/Ethiopians playing in Muhammad's mosque incident took place after Muhammad married her - i.e. after Aisha was nine years old and she went to live with him at his house/mosque.

We know this from other sahih hadeeths. In this particular hadith, she said she was a 'little girl' which the translator clarified as being before the age of puberty. Don't accuse the translator of sneakiness as another translation would be 'young girl' - which in Islam means she was before the age of puberty.

Did you know that there are sahih hadeeths in which Aisha herself said she was an 'immature' young girl at the time of the raid of the Banu Mustaliq and during the incident when she got lost and was accused of adultery by Ali? This episode took place when she was 13 or 14 years old. If she was an immature little girl when she was 13 or 14, she was immature when she was 9.

see:
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 274
Sahih Muslim Book 037, Number 6673

Buraira said, 'No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.'

not all scholars agree ross-

if youre looking for extremists (and khomeini is one) then thats what youll find.
but theyre not the majority.

it doesnt matter if i think theyre idiots with agendas-

there are many many worthy scholars who disagree with their narrow 'take'.

Victoria,

Two months ago Channel 4 in the uk aired a program about the stuff preached in the mosques here (uk). Many of the sermons given featured famous imams from all over the world and nearly all of them were trained in saudi. All of them agreed that muslim men must be allowed to marry 4 women provided they are atleast 9 years old. The base this on the fact that Mo consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old. Infact they were proud of the fact that Allah gave Muhammed this priviledge.

I will try to find if there is a copy of this program on youtube.

Why do most islamic states allow men to marry girls as old as 9 ?
Do you consider yourself more knowlegable than people like Ayatollah Khomeini and other scholars of islam ?

the interesting thing to note is the unscientific way which peope present these hadeeths-

perhaps in their eagerness to find evidence to support their own prejudices the anonymous poster above as we dont know at what point in the life of aisha these things occurred.
was she recounting an incident where Muhammad(pbuh) visited her home? her father was a close friend of the prophet(pbuh)

the first hadeeth was teling little girls they could play with dolls, as some extreme interpreters took it to mean when it was revealed that there should be no images made,to keep the danger of worshiping them away- that dolls were fine gor girls.

the second one is what it is.
there is no mention at all of aisha being a girl- this comment was sneakily added at the end by the posterto make people think it was part of the hadith by the

the third has no bearing on age either, it is simply recounting what every muslim knows, to bather after the sexual act.

you cant just add things at the end to change its meaning- and expect to be credible.

Yes, I too would very much welcome reading the hadith in which Aisha said she had reached puberty at the age of nine. Of course, Karen Armstrong's unreferenced citation of Tabari doesn't count as Karen Armstrong is not a hadeeth narrator. If she wants to cite Tabari, the least she can do is to provide the page reference so someone like me can check.

To Anonymous

You said: "Even though we have established that puberty has been the historical, cultural and religious norm for indicating readiness for marriage, some may wonder at which age puberty normally takes place. This is somewhat meaningless in regards to our specific discussion of Muhammad(P) and cAishah, since the hadith literature makes it clear that she had reached puberty"

Well let's look at the hadith literature and see if you're telling the truth:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.’

Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Volume 13:
The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl, who has not reached the age of puberty, who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.’

Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0630:
'Aisha reported: ‘I and the Messenger of Allah took a bath from one vessel which was placed between me and him and he would get ahead of me, so that I would say: "Spare (some water for) me, spare (some water for) me"; and she said that they had had sexual intercourse.’

Well the EVIDENCE would strongly suggest that you are not telling the truth.

Please quote the hadith which state that Aisha had reached pubity as you claim, because I've never seen any such hadith. I, and many others, think you're attempting to rewrite history the way you'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is.

Important Note about Aisha:

Muslims use a lunar calendar and this lunar calendar was in operation at the time of Muhammad. Lunar years are shorter than those of the Gregorian calendar (which is used in the West today), therefore Aisha was in fact still 8 years of age by today's calendar when she had her 9th birthday. It is therefore quite probable that little preteen Aisha was just 8 years old when she was sexually penetrated by Muhammad for the first time.

The truth just is what it is. It has no opinion of its own.

Yes, we do tend to discuss Muhammad's picadilloes quite a bit no matter what how the discussion starts. This is because the Muslims have left some salient questions unanswered.

To the question: "how do Muslim women feel that their prophet had sex with a nine year old child?" there has been no answer. This question has been asked several times in this blog but no answer by any Muslim women nor their sympathizers has been forthcoming.

That is why this sort of question gets asked again and again. Perhaps the question is too difficult for Muslim women to comprehend. Perhaps the answer is too embarrassing for them.

Instead we get the ridiculous 'Aisha was not nine but a teenager' replies which have been debunked so many times already.

But having said that, I have tried to steer the discussion back to the topic at hand. Notice my bringing up the Quran's view of Jesus being born under a palm tree on the way to Egypt instead of in Bethlehem according to the prophesy in Micah 5:2?

Is any Muslim interested in discussing this issue of the Muslim version of the Nativity? No. Total silence.

No wonder the discussion goes off tangent if Muslims are unable or unwilling to even discuss the topic at hand.

As always,
Qasim

TO ALL MUSLIMS,

Please consider the following, assuming that it doesn't refer to Islam:

Imagine that a man moves in next door to you. He begins setting up a new cult. He claims that the creator of the universe speaks to him. He says that anyone who doesn't believe him will spend eternity in hell when they die. He preaches that anyone who leaves his cult must be murdered by the remaining cult members, and this starts to happen. He preaches that anyone who speaks out against him must be assassinated by his cult members, and this starts to happen. His followers become too afraid to ever question their faith publicly and so it becomes a taboo to doubt the faith or to question his teachings.

He preaches that his followers will not go to hell when they die, no matter what crimes they commit, because a non-believer will be made to pay for their sins.

Unlike most men, he finds little 9 year old girls sexually attractive and is able to get an erection with a 9 year old child in order to consummate his 'marriage' to that child (most men are incapable of this, as noted above). He encourages his male followers to emulate him. He teaches his followers to rape female captives of war in order to shame and humiliate the unbelievers. He has women stoned to death for simply having sex outside of marriage. He manipulates his followers into attacking local towns and villages by teaching that they are oppressed and need to be 'freed' by his cult. He teaches that his cult is oppressed and must attack in order to defend. He teaches that his followers can share in the booty of war. He keeps slaves, trades in slaves and allows his followers to enslave unbelieving women and girls. He teaches that the body of a slave girl belongs to the slave owner. He teaches that slave owners may have sex with female slaves without their consent.

The question for all Muslims is this: Would you support such a man, join his cult and help it grow? Would you consider it right to kill people who left his cult? Would you consider it right to engage little 9 year old girls in sexual relationships? Would you not see through his cult psychology and manipulation skills? Would you believe that god spoke to him or would you recognise him as a psychological manipulator? Would you be taken in by such a conman?

What is your answer?

To Anonymous,

Concerning Muhammad's sexual relationship with a child, and your long article which seeks to justify and excuse it, let me ask you one simple question:

How many men do you know who are capable of getting an erection with a 9 year old child? Are you not aware that the vast majority of men simply cannot get an errection with a 9 year old child because they feel no sexual attraction whatsoever to children.

There is only one type of man who is capable of getting an erection with a nine year old child, and that is a paedophile.

Do children give you erections? Are you a paedophile, like Muhammad? Only that could possibly explain your lengthly justifications for paedophilia.

JANET,

You wrote: “why shouldn't Muhammad’s sexual behaviour be part of the discussion? You imply that commenters who bring up Muhammad’s sex life, are the ones with the problem. It is like implying that those people who reported on the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are the ones with the problem. Considering that Muhammad is looked at as a role model by Muslims, his sexual behaviour is up for discussion, along with all his other behaviour, such as cutting off of hands and feet and beheadings.” (Post 11 April 2007 8:35 PM):

SAALEHA wrote, “The issue of the age at which the Prophet Muhammed took Aisha as his wife seems to recur in just about every discussion, whether it is related or not. It seems to be one of the constant weapons in the Islam Bashers' arsenal…Perhaps we need to stick to the issues at hand and accept that the purpose of this forum is not for it to degenerate into a Muslim Bashing fest, but rather to foster religious tolerance and understanding.” (Post 8 April 2007 5:55 PM)

PLEASE REF POSTS, APRIL 9, 2007 4:40 AM, APRIL 9, 2007 12:13 PM, APRIL 10, 2007 9:17 AM

You wrote, “BTW, this business of Aisha's age. Sistani, the leader of the Shia in Iraq, talks openly on his website about girls even UNDER 9 years old being of marriageable age. Where does he get this "nine years old". I am guessing from the stories about Muhammed. If the revered leader of the Muslim Shia in Iraq thinks Aisha's age was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, why should any Westerner listen to all the weasling out of this fact by Pamela and Victoria? Even for them, 9 years old, is something they have trouble with, so in order to not have too much cognitive dissonance, they move the goal post, and try to prove that Aisha was much older. Even though some commenters have posted passage after passage from authentic Muslim hadiths that clearly state that she was 9 years old.”

And this is what I wrote to which you responded:

“The title of this thread is, 'A Different View of Jesus.' Could anyone please explain why the discussion ends up thread after thread with the graphic descriptions of Mohammed's sex life, no matter what the discussion is about? What exactly is the repeated "tittilation of the mind," in every thread meant to achieve? Isn't pointing out and discussing the moral issue for non-Muslims about the marriage of Mohammed to several women, including a child, once, quite enough? Muslims have made it clear that they are aware of Mohammed's marriages and have no problem with it. So what exactly is the purpose of asking the same Muslim/Muslims the same questions over and over again in every thread?”

This thread is about Ms Taylor’s view of Jesus Christ according to Islam and NOT about Islam or Mohammed.

I did not imply that it was wrong to bring up Mohammed’s sex life. It has been brought up more than once before on these threads (which you may verify) and Muslims have given their answer. Considering Islam is sixteen centuries old, it is hardly likely that Muslims would not have an explanation for it and all those explanations have been given on these threads. Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome when there is absolutely no reason to expect a different outcome. So in my opinion asking the same Muslims (there no more than a couple of regulars on these threads) the same questions during every discussion, even if it may be unrelated to the topic, (and you will agree this is one of them, since the discussion is about the Muslim view of Jesus) requires reflection. To compare it to reporting sexual abuse – a sexual crime that needs to be punished - in the Catholic Church is disingenuous.

I did not dispute the age of Mohammed’s child bride as per the sources provided by knowledgeable people on this thread nor that it was not a fact that should pose a moral issue for non-Muslims. Personally though, in terms of following a religion, the issue would concern me only if I were a Muslim. The social implication stemming from Mohammed’s behaviour, i.e. the marriage of a child to a man old enough to be her grandfather, if practised in countries which follow the Muslim law, is a different matter that can be addressed only in different context.

I know you didn't write the article, Victoria. I didn't say you did. That is why I said it was your 'case'. Here is a summary of the 'discussion' so far.

Critic: Ayesha was nine years old. Here are saheeh hadeeth that proves this.

Victoria: No. Ayesha was a teenager. Here is an article that proves this.

Critic: Hang on. Your article is incorrect. Here is a refutation of your article, proving it is totally wrong.

Victoria: Ayesha was a teenager.

Critic: Hang on - didn't I just prove Ayesha was not a teenager but a nine year old kid?

Victoria: I don't care. Ayesha was a teenager.

Critic: Why do you say that? Haven't you read my refutation of your article?

Victoria: Nah. Nah. Nah. I'm not listening anymore. Ayesha was a teenager. Ayesha was a teenager. Ayesha was a teenager....

rajesh- take it up with the scholars who wrote the article.
as for me- ill be happy to discuss anything with good manners.
but it would me masochistic to argue with bashers.

if you actually read my post, you would have realized that i didnt write it-
as i provided at the outset the source-

o well-
see you all in the funny papers

It's just my observation of the posts here. I read your post, Victoria, then I read other posts which debunks it. You provide no counter-refutation so it appears that your case has been debunked. That is the usual way with discussions. Each side makes its case and then defends it with counter-arguments. When I read from other sources how your case is contradictory, plain wrong, or misleading, and you don't answer the evidence proving so, then what can I say?

When I read your case, it was already apparent that the arguments are weak, from my knowledge of Islam. I don't need anyone to tell me they are weak when I see that each of your arguments comes up with a different age for Ayesha. This, to me, cannot be true. I wish you would bother re-examining your arguments and see what age they come up with for Ayesha. I don't know about you - but when you put up contradictory arguments you have debunked yourself. Please think about this for a moment.

Rajesh,
Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi

these queries into the age of aisha have been dealt with at length, and usually show up at the end of posts when the usual crew of bashers show up-

to have the same argument repeatedly would be dull witted indeed- so the intention of the question has to be taken into account-

since the posters here are antipathetic to islam-
and when reasonable discussion has exhausted itself- it detenerates into personal attacks, which bear little on the discussion.

for instance, rajesh states that the article has been debunked.without providing evidence.

precluding a rational discussion.
when conclusions are drawn before points are made, there is no recourse but to withdraw from pointless discussion.

sadly, this is the state of fearmongering and the level that many of the muslim panelists posts come to.

there will be another question, and those with genuine queries.

good response on this fiery topic here. Shows that critical research can really untangle the mess:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html

The marriage of the Prophet Muhammad(P) to cAishah bint Abû Bakr when she was at quite a young age has been the focus of quite a bit of criticism in the West. Unfortunately, in this Neo-Colonialist Age of Smart bombs, MTV and the Big Mac, some of those who profess to be Muslims have themselves become critics. Many Muslims, faced with the juggernaut of allegedly "universal" Western liberal values that have permeated almost everyone around them, sheepishly avoid discussion of such "embarrassing" Islamic issues. It is a keenly true observation that even though the European powers have pulled their colonial armies out of Muslim lands and granted them "independence", an even worse plague continues. This curse is "Colonialism of the Mind" and it is more dangerous since it is much more subtle. Insha'Allah, this article will be a contribution to making both Muslims and non-Muslims aware of not only the objective facts regarding the Prophet's(P) marriage to cAishah, but how to understand it in light of Islam and life in the "modern" world.

Regrettably, for those of us trying to spread the truth of Islam in the West, we often have to agree with the Orientalist W. Montgomery Watt when he wrote:

Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.1

But here, for a change, were are dealing with something that is an authentic part of Islamic history, not an apocryphal or fabricated event that Westerners have been duped into believing is authentic, such as the so-called "Satanic Verses" incident. That a man in his fifties would marry such a young girl - especially a man who is supposed to be a living example of piety - is not only difficult for many "modern" Westerners to come to terms with, but it has even gone so far as to stir up disgusting "sexual misconduct" charges amongst them. In the face of such criticism, Muslims have not always reacted well. In the past century, when so many Muslims were so "Westoxicated" and ready to monkey Europeans in almost anything, the usual reaction was to deny the sources that reported the alleged "embarrassing problem". To Muslim "modernists", who argued that only a legal ruling found in the Qur'ân was Islamically valid, brushing aside this aspect of the Prophet's(P) life was rather easy. They simply denied that it had occurred and attacked the sources which reported it. Fortunately for Muslims, the apologetics of these "Uncle Toms of Islam" has faded to the periphery to a large extent. However, there are still many Muslims out there who try to get around what they see as a problem by ignoring authentic Islamic sources while claiming to be followers of the Ahl as-Sunnah. (which basically means "orthodox Sunni" Muslims, for those unfamiliar Islamic terminology). Many other Muslims possibly wonder whether the story is authentic and how to understand it if it is.

The Islamic Evidence Of cAishah's Marriage

Due to the apparent ignorance of many Muslims, possibly due to reading "modernist" apologetic literature like that mentioned above, a look at what the authentic sources of Islam say about the age at which cAishah married the Prophet(P) is in order. This way, before we move on to an analysis of the facts, we will first establish what the authentic Islamic facts are. At this point, it should be mentioned that it is absolutely pointless from an Islamic standpoint to say that the age of cAishah is "not found in the Qur'ân", since the textual sources of Islam are made up of both the Qur'ân and the Sunnah - and the Qur'ân tells us that. For those wanting (or needing) to learn more about the status of the Sunnah in Islam, please read An Introduction to the Sunnah, by Suhaib Hasan. Now in regards to what the authentic Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment to some "modern" and "cultured" Muslims that there are four ahâdîth in Sahîh al-Bukhârî and three ahâdîth in Sahîh Muslim clearly state that cAishah was "nine years old" as the time that her marriage was consummated with the Prophet(P). These ahâdîth, with only slight variation, read as follows:

cAishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet(P) was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years. (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)

Of the four ahâdîth in Sahîh al-Bukhari, two were narrated from cAishah (7:64 and 7:65), one from Abû Hishâm (5:236) and one via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahâdîth in Sahîh Muslim have cAishah as a narrator. Additionally, all of the ahâdîth in both books agree that the marriage betrothal contract took place when cAishah was "six years old", but was not consummated until she was "nine years old". Additionally, a hadîth with the same text (matn) is reported in Sunan Abû Dâwûd. Needless to say, this evidence is - Islamically speaking - overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both.

This evidence having been established, there doesn't seem much room for debate about cAishah's age amongst believing Muslims. Until someone proves that in the Arabic language "nine years old" means something other than "nine years old", then we should all be firm in our belief that she was "nine years old" (as if there's a reason or need to believe otherwise!?!). In spite of these facts, there are still some Muslim authors that have somehow (?) managed to push cAishah's age out to as far as "fourteen or fifteen years old" at the time of her marriage to the Prophet(P). It should come as no surprise, however, that none of them ever offer any proof, evidence or references for their opinions. This can be said with the utmost confidence, since certainly none of them can produce sources more authentic than the hadîth collections of Imâms al-Bukhârî and Muslim! Based on the research that I've done, I feel that there is a common source for those who claim that cAishah's age was "fourteen or fifteen years old" at the time of the marriage. This source is The Biographies of Prominent Muslims which is published in book form, on CD-ROM and is posted in several places on the Internet. Just another example of why going to the sources is important . . .

The Prophet's(P) Marriages In Perspective

To put all of this in perspective - hopefully without undue apologetics - the first thing that one should be aware of is that cAishah was the third wife of the Prophet(P), not the first. Prior to this, the Prophet's(P) first and only wife for twenty-four years was Khadijah bint al-Khuwaylid, who was about nineteen years older than him. He married Khadijah when she was forty and he was twenty-one - which might be called the years of a male's "sexual prime" - and stayed married only to her until her death. Just after Khadijah's death, when he was round forty-six years old, the Prophet(P) married his second wife Sawdah bint Zam'ah. It was after this second marriage that the Prophet(P) became betrothed to cAishah, may God be pleased with her. She was the daughter of Abû Bakr, one of the Prophet's closest friends and devoted followers. Abû Bakr, may God be pleased with him, was one of the earliest converts to Islam and hoped to solidify the deep love that existed between himself and the Prophet(P) by uniting their families in marriage. The betrothal of Abu Bakr's daughter cAishah to Muhammad(P), took place in the eleventh year of Muhammad's(P) Prophethood, which was about a year after he had married Sawdah bint Zam'ah and before he made his hijra (migration) to al-Madinah (Yathrib). As mentioned above, the marriage with cAishah bint Abû Bakr was consummated in Shawwâl, which came seven months after the Prophet's hijra from Makkah to al-Medinah. At the time of his marriage to cAishah, the Prophet(P) was over fifty years old.

It should be noted about the Prophet's(P) marriage to cAishah was an exceedingly happy one for both parties, as the hadîth literature attests. cAishah, may God be please with her, was his favourite wife and the only virgin that he ever married. After emigrating to al-Madinah, Muhammad(P) married numerous other wives, eventually totaling fifteen in his lifetime. Even though we do not have time to go into the details of each one of them here, each of these marriages was done either for political reasons, to strengthen the ties of kinship or to help a woman in need. Quite a few of the wives were widows, older women or had been abandoned thus were in need of a home. Additionally, it should be mentioned that the same collection of Muslim hadîth literature that tells us that cAishah was only nine years old at the time of the marriage tells us that the marriage was Divinely ordained:

Narrated cAishah, may God be pleased with her: The Messenger of God(P) said (to me): "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from God, He will cause it to come true.'" (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15)

Thus like everything that the Prophet(P) did, there was wisdom behind it and lessons to be learned from it. The wisdom behind such incidents provides us guidance on the basis of human morality, exposes the double standards of misguided hypocrites from other religions that criticize Islam and much more. But more on that subject below. . .

Criticism Addressed & Entertained

Myself and many other Muslims should no longer be surprised by the double standard that Christians display when they criticize the conduct of Prophet Muhammad(P) , since we've heard it for so long. To have an atheist, agnostic - or anyone else who does not believe in a Divinely revealed basis for morality - criticize something that is "politically incorrect" by today's moral standards comes as no surprise. Such people will always find something to criticize, since they simply have a bone to pick with "religion" in general. All of this "absolute morality" talk gets in the way of them having a good time, so they want to mock it, discredit it and do away with it. The criticism of Christians, however, is another matter. While it is true that Christians speak out against the "moral relativity" which is spreading amongst the increasingly secular society today, they too are unconscious victims of it. The values of most Christians today come from the humanist values of Western Europe (or, at a minimum, are heavily influenced by them). Their values do not come straight out of the Bible - in theory or in practice - regardless of what they may claim. That Christians today try to take credit for the so-called "Freedom", "Human Rights", "Democracy" and "Women's Rights" in Europe and America is nothing short of a joke. It may impress uneducated people in so-called Third World countries, but anyone who has studied history knows that these things came about in spite of the Church, not because of it. The way in which many Christians uncritically mix non-Christian values with (allegedly) Biblical values has always fascinated me. One interesting example of this is how nationalism and patriotism are supported amongst the majority of Evangelical Protestant (and even other) Christians in the United States. In America, good Christians are flag wavers. Few, if any, of these fiercely patriotic minds ever seem to realize that narrow-minded patriotism is both selfish and non-universal at its core. That patriotism and Christianity go hand-in-hand in the minds of many people is just an example of how we can be blindly sucked into "moral relativism" without even realizing it.

According to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, right and wrong are ordained by Almighty God. As such, morality does not change over time based on our whims, desires or cultural sensitivities. In cultures where there is no Divinely revealed ruling on an issue, what is right and what is wrong is determined by cultural norms. In such cases, a person would only be considered "immoral" if they violated the accepted norms of their society. As we will demonstrate, the Prophet Muhammad's(P) marriage to cAishah, viewed both in the light of Absolute Morality and the cultural norms of his time, was not an immoral act, but was an act containing valuable lessons for generations to come. Additionally, this marriage followed the norms for all Semitic peoples, including those of Biblical times. Based on this, and other information that we will provide below, it is grossly hypocritical for Christians to criticise the Prophet's(P) marriage to cAishah at such a young age. In case Christian readers are under the false impression that their values today are timeless and somehow reflect those of Biblical times, please consider the following points which are directly related to the question of at what age a person is properly ready to be married:

Keeping in mind the ideas of "political correctness" and "absolute morality", in Biblical times the age at which a girl could marry was puberty. However, during the Middle Ages it was usually twelve years old. Now in most "Christian" countries it is between fourteen and sixteen years old. I live in country where some states allow partners of the same sex to legally marry, but consider an eighteen year old boy who sleeps with a sixteen year old girl a "statutory rapist". So even though Christians might disagree with much of what is becoming all too prevalent in Western society today - whether it be drug abuse, gay marriages or abortion - they too have been swallowed up (possibly unknowingly) by the ugly monster of "moral relativism" Certainly, they might be giving in less quickly than people who have no Divine basis for their morality, but they're giving in nonetheless.

Historically, the age at which a girl was considered ready to be married has been puberty. This was the case in Biblical times, as we will discuss below, and is still used to determine the age of marriage in what the culturally arrogant West calls "primitive societies" throughout the world. As the ahâdîth about cAishah's age show, her betrothal took place at least three years before the consummation of the marriage. The reason for this was that they were waiting for her to come of age (i.e. to have her first menstrual period). Puberty as a biological sign shows that a women is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet's marriage to cAishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus(P) grew up in). The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time a marriage can be consummated is on the onset sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today: it is certainly not something that Islam invented. However, widespread opposition to such a Divinely revealed and accepted historical norm is certainly something that is relatively new.

The criticism of Muhammad's marriage to cAishah is something relatively new in that it grew up out of the values of "Post Enlightenment" Europe. This was a Europe that had abandoned (or at least modified) its religious morality for a new set of humanist values where people used their own opinions to determine what was right and wrong. It is interesting to note that Christians from a very early time criticized (again hypocritically) the Prophet's(P) practice of polygamy, but not the marriage to cAishah. Certainly, those from a Middle Eastern Semitic background would not have found anything to criticize, since nothing abnormal or immoral took place. It is"modern" Westernized Christians who began to criticize Muhammad on this point, not earlier pre-Enlightenment ones.

It is upon reaching the age of puberty that a person, man or woman, becomes legally responsible under Islamic Law. At this point, they are allowed to make their own decisions and are held accountable for their actions. It should also be mentioned that in Islam, it is unlawful to force someone to marry someone that they do not want to marry. The evidence shows that cAishah's marriage to the Prophet Muhammad(P) was one which both parties and their families agreed upon. Based on the culture at that time, no one saw anything wrong with it. On the contrary, they were all happy about it.

None of the Muslim sources report that anyone from the society at that time criticized this marriage due to cAishah's young age. On the contrary, the marriage of cAishah to the Prophet(P) was encouraged by cAishah's father, Abu Bakr, and was welcomed by the community at large. It is reported that women who wanted to help the Prophet(P), such as Khawlah bint al-Hakîm, encouraged him to marry the young cAishah. Due to the Semitic culture in which they lived, they certainly saw nothing wrong with such a marriage.

Society's ideas of love, family and marriage are much different in the so-called "modern" and "civilized" West of today than they were in Biblical or Qur'ânic times. Unfortunately, many of us carry the baggage of "romantic love" and ideas about sex that have managed to poison our minds since the Europeans (and their ideas) came to dominate the globe. These ideas have not only penetrated into the minds of Muslims, but actually permeate many of them. The European colonial powers have pulled out of almost all Muslim lands, but the colonization of the minds continues! As we mentioned above, the sad part is that most people do not even realize that they are under such un-Godly influences. Just to reference the way things have changed, a statement in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica makes it clear that values regarding the proper age of marriage have been changing over the years:

. . . in the United States and parts of Europe the association of adult status with sexual maturity as expressed in the term puberty rites has been unwelcome".2

The significance that sex and sexuality are thought to play in human psychology has its roots in Freudian thought. Even though many of Freud's ideas are being heavily challenged today, many of his ideas still play a role in the thinking of many people. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) taught that humans are basically "sexual beings" whose childhood sexual urges are the key to understanding them. He developed the methodology of psychoanalysis and his ideas on sex, repressed guilt and sexuality, the unconscious sex drive, the Oedipus complex and other ideas have come to almost haunt the Western view of sexuality (almost as much as the repressive views of the Roman Catholic Church). Needless to say, Freud's ideas have been criticized by believing Jews, Christians and Muslims since they basically deny human moral responsibility. In Freud's view of things, human beings are prisoners to the effects of unconscious forces and their sex drive. Such ideas are always welcomed by "liberals", "humanists" and others like them. The point of all this in regards to young marriage, however, might be less clear. What needs to be pointed out is the contradictory "modern" Western view of sexuality. They are taken aback by the thought of marriage at the age of puberty, even though it's an age old custom. However, they have junior high schools where sex education is taught and a society where sexually promiscuous "dating" is considered the norm. Sometimes sex is simply a natural pleasure to be enjoyed, but at other times it is a psychological demon of far reaching consequences. In short, everything from their private lives to their court systems, have fallen victim to the moral relativity of the psychiatrists and psychologists. The attitude that any experience in life can be seen as some sort of "trauma" is very widespread. Many people go through life constantly obsessed about what sort of "complex" they may be suffering from due to experiences they've had in their relatively normal life. The morality which is produced by such attitudes all but does away with human responsibility. People who are guilty of serious crimes, instead of being held responsible for their actions, are themselves considered "victims", since they are only doing what their psychological makeup causes them to do.

Puberty = Maturity = Marriage

These points having been presented, some additional details on a few of them is worthwhile. An interesting article on the age at which people married in Biblical times is Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs, by Jim West, ThD - a Baptist minister. This article states that:

The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the outset of puberty or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family line;

This is just one reference to the fact that the onset of puberty was considered the age at which young people could marry. That people in Biblical times married at an early age is widely endorsed. While discussing the meaning of the word 'almah, which is the Hebrew word for "young woman" or "adolescent female", Gerald Segal says:

It should be noted, however, that in biblical times females married at an early age.3

In spite of its somewhat arrogant Western talk of "primitive cultures", An Overview of the World's Religions makes it clear that puberty is an age old symbol of adulthood:

Almost all primitive cultures pay attention to puberty and marriage rituals, although there is a general tendency to pay more attention to the puberty rites of males than of females. Because puberty and marriage symbolize the fact that children are acquiring adult roles, most primitive cultures consider the rituals surrounding these events very important. Puberty rituals are often accompanied with ceremonial circumcision or some other operation on the male genitals. Female circumcision is less common, although it occurs in several cultures. Female puberty rites are more often related to the commencement of the menstrual cycle in young girls.

Some female authors agree:

Puberty is defined as the age or period at which a person is first capable of sexual reproduction, in other eras of history, a rite or celebration of this landmark event was a part of the culture. (Rites of Passage: Puberty, by Sue Curewitz Arthen)

"Getting your period" marks a rite of passage for young girls entering womanhood. (From the Women's Resource Center)

Another contemporary reference relating marriage age to puberty is an article on Central Africa, which says:

. . . women marry soon after puberty4.

There are many other references which should prove to any intelligent person what anthropologists and historians already know: in centuries past, people were considered ready for marriage when they reached puberty.

It should be mentioned that from an Islamic point of view, many problems in society today can be traced back to the abandonment of early marriage. Due to the way that Almighty God has created man and woman, i.e., with strong sexual desires, people should marry young. In the past, this was even more true since life expectancy was very low (i.e. you were considered "old" if you made it to 40!) Not only does marriage provide a legal outlet for people with strong sexual desires, but it usually produces more children. One of the main purposes of marriage is to produce children -"be fruitful and multiply" as the Bible says (Genesis 8:17). This was especially important in the past, when people did not live as long as they do now and the infant morality rate was much higher.

The Age Of Puberty

Even though we have established that puberty has been the historical, cultural and religious norm for indicating readiness for marriage, some may wonder at which age puberty normally takes place. This is somewhat meaningless in regards to our specific discussion of Muhammad(P) and cAishah, since the hadith literature makes it clear that she had reached puberty. However, in regards to puberty and at what age most girls have their first menstrual cycle, cAbdul-Hamîd Siddiqî says:

Islam has laid down no age limit for puberty for it varies with countries and races due to the climate, hereditary, physical and social conditions. Those who live in cold regions attain puberty at a much later age as compared with those living in hot regions where both male and female attain it at a quite early age. "The average temperature of the country or province," say the well-known authors of the book Woman, "is considered the chief factor here, not only with regard to menstruation but as regards the whole of sexual development at puberty."5

Raciborski, Jaubert, Routh and many others have collected and collated statistics on the subject to which readers are referred. Marie Espino has summarised some of these data as follows: (a) The limit of age for the first appearance of menstruation is between nine and twenty-four in the temperate-zone; (b) The average age varies widely and it may be accepted as established that the nearer the Equator, the earlier the average age for menstruation.6

Additionally, an article entitled Puberty in Girls by an Australian government Public Health organization, says:

The first sign of puberty is usually a surge of growth: you become taller; your breasts develop; hair begins to grow in the pubic area and under the arms. This may start from 10 years to 14 years - even earlier for some and later for others.

An article Physical Changes in Girls During Puberty has this to say:

During puberty, a girl's body changes, inside and out, into the body of a woman. The changes don't come all at once, and they don't happen at the same time for everybody. Most girls start showing physical changes around age 11, but everyone has her own internal schedule for development. It's normal for changes to start as early as 8 or 9 years of age, or not until 13 or 14. Even if nothing looks or feels different yet, the changes may have already begun inside your body.

Many will readily agree with the information above, but still might harbour reservations about whether a marriage to an older man could be happy for such a young girl. Putting aside the modern Western notions of "happiness" for a moment, the marriage of cAishah and the Prophet(P) was a mutually happy and loving one as in expressed in numerous hadîth and seerah books. That happy marriages occur between people with a fairly large difference in ages is known among psychologists:

When the differences (in ages) is great, e.g. exceeds fifteen to twenty years, the results may be happier. The marriage of an elderly (senescent) not, of course, an old (senile) man to a quite young girl, is often very successful and harmonious. The bride is immediately introduced and accustomed to moderate sexual intercourse. 7

More Wisdom Behind It

In his comments on the ahadith in Sahîh Muslim which mention cAishah's young marriage to the Prophet(P), cAbdul-Hamîd Siddiqî shows three other reasons for this marriage:

cAishah's marriage to the Prophet Muhammad(P) at an early age allowed her to be an eyewitness to the personal details of his life and carry them on to the succeeding generations. By being both spiritually and physically near to the Prophet(P), the marriage prepared 'Aishah to be an example to all Muslims, especially women, for all times. She developed into a spiritual teacher and scholar, since she was remarkably intelligent and wise. Her qualities help support the Prophet's work and further the cause of Islam. cAishah, the Mother of the Believers, was not only a model for wives and mothers, but she was also a commentator on the Qur'ân, an authority on hadîth and knowledgeable in Islamic Law. She narrated at least 2,210 ahâdîth that give Muslims valuable insights into the Final Prophet's daily life and behaviour, thus preserving the Sunnah of Muhammad(P).

At that time, this marriage refuted the notion that a man could not marry the daughter of a man who he had declared to be his "brother" (even in the religious sense). Since the Prophet(P) and Abu Bakr had declared each other to be "brothers", this notion was done away with. This is demonstrated in the following hadîth:

Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet(P) asked Abu Bakr for cAishah's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said, "But I am your brother." The Prophet(P) said, "You are my brother in God's religion and His Book, but she (cAishah) is lawful for me to marry." (Sahîh al-Bukhârî, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18)

The marriage did away with the pagan Arab superstition that it was a bad omen to be married in the month of Shawwal. They thought that the month carried this omen since the word Shawwal was derived from Shaala, which carried a bad omen. The authentic ahadith indicate that the Prophet(P) and cAishah were married in this lunar month.

Not Much Ado Back Then

Above, we established the fact that getting married at puberty was an accepted practice amongst not only today's "primitive cultures", but specifically amongst the Semitic (i.e. Hebrew, Arab, Syriac, etc.) peoples of the Middle East. In order to provide additional proof that Muhammad's(P) marriage to cAishah did not raise any eyebrows at that time, I submit here quotations from two Western female scholars who have studied Islam in detail:

It is not clear just when the marriage actually took place. According to some versions, it was in the month of Shawwal of the Year 1, that is, some seven or eight months after the arrival at Medina; but, according to others, it was not until after the Battle of Badr, that is, in Shawwal of the second year of the Hijrah. In no version is there any comment made on the disparity of the ages between Mohammed and Aishah or on the tender age of the bride who, at the most, could not have been over ten years old and who was still much enamoured with her play."8

In the above quotation, the sources which are given for the latter are "Nawawi" and "Tabari". Both Imâms al-Nawâwî and al-Tabarî were great Muslim scholars, but their works contain material that is less than authentic by Islamic standards, which is probably the reason over her questioning which date is authentic. This is all beside the point, since we've already shown that authentic Islamic sources state that cAishah, may God be pleased with her, was "nine years old". The main point to note is that "no version" was any comment made on their age difference or on cAishah's young age. Why? Such an early marriage was normal in all Semitic societies - such as the ones that Abraham(P), Moses(P), Jesus(P) and Muhammad(P) grew up in!

Another author, Karen Armstrong, has this to add:

Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents' home and the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty.9

This further establishes that the marriage took place at puberty and that, as such, no eyebrows were raised. "Tabari", it should be mentioned, refers to Abû Jacfar Muhammad ibn Jarîr al-Tabarî (225-310 AH / 839-923 CE), who was a great Muslim scholar who is well known in the West for his Qur'ânic commentary and history of the world.

It is no surprise that both of the above authors agree on the fact that the marriage of cAishah and Muhammad(P) took place when the former had reached puberty and that this was normal at the time. This is no surprise, since anyone who studies the Muslim sources and Semitic culture would be forced to come to the same conclusion, since it is simply a historical fact. It should be pointed out that both of the above quoted female authors do not hesitate to misrepresent Islam (intentionally or unintentionally) in their other writings. Suffice it to say that if there was some other "damaging" information available, they would not hesitate to bring it to light. Nabia Abbott, who has done some useful research on Islam in some areas, was basically an "Orientalist" in the classic sense. Her book which was quoted above, Aishah-The Beloved of Mohammed, is actually nothing but a disgusting second-guessing of cAishah's life. If a book with a similar mix of speculation and inauthentic sources were written about someone of significance in the West, it certainly would not be sitting on scholarly bookshelves. It has long been established that Orientalists with a bone to pick with Islam liked to decide on the authenticity of a story based on their preconceived notions. If an inauthentic story seemed to belittle the Prophet of Islam, it became oft quoted. However, any authentic material that contradicted their theories was simply ignored. It's analogous to writing a historical biography of Jesus(P) and using quotations from apocryphal gospels to override the Canonical ones whenever whimsically deemed appropriate. This is how Orientalists and Christian missionaries have been treating Muhammad(P) for centuries. For those who want to know more about this, please read our article Orientalism, Misinformation and Islam.

So What's The Verdict?

Overcoming cultural bias or admitting your own double standards is not always easy. For some people, it takes years for them to admit that they've been hypocritical. Hopefully, the thoughts presented here will plant the seed of reflection in some people so that they may reflect on the truth. Admitting that there's a problem is often half the battle, so before the reader heads off to make a final personal judgment on where they stand on this issue, I want to provide some more food for thought. Montgomery Watt, a long time scholar of Islam, had some choice words on how the West should judge Muhammad(P). I have never agreed with many of Watt's conclusions about Islam, but I have always viewed him as one of the more open-minded and open-hearted Orientalist scholars. Possibly, this is because he was more of a promoter of understanding than a narrow-minded Christian missionary. Years of studying Islam brought Watt to this conclusion:

The other main allegations of moral defect in Muhammad are that he was treacherous and lustful . . . Sufficient has been said above about the interpretation of these events to show that the case against Muhammad is much weaker than is sometimes thought. The discussions of these allegations, however, raises a fundamental question. How are we to judge Muhammad? By the standards of his own time and country? Or by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today? When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam . . . From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's standards were higher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or 'an old lecher'.10

From Abraham(P) To "Pick-And-Choose / Feel Good Religion"

Everything that we have discussed above logically frees Muhammad(P) from the unjust criticism that he has received (at least amongst those who can be intellectually honest and fair-minded). One point, however, still needs to be made a bit more clear. Even though we've mentioned it in passing, the hypocrisy and double standards of Christians who criticize Muhammad(P) for his morality needs to be more thoroughly analysed and exposed.

Before moving on to an analysis of Biblical morality, I would like to offer some advice and encouraging words to my fellow Muslims. My main piece of advice is to not be discouraged by slanderous attacks on Islam or how it is distorted in the media. Certainly, we all hate to see such things occur, but in the "Information Age" which was brought about by a culture that (allegedly) places a supreme value on freedom of speech, there is not much that we can do to stop it. The flip side to this coin is the fact that the Truth of Islam is still out there and people are finding it. Yes, Islam is spreading in spite of these hypocritical methods that Christians and others are using to stop it. From the "moon god" lies of Robert Morey to the almost daily distortions in the media, Islam is still spreading in the West. Actually, the fact that those who make a career out of attacking Islam, such as Christian missionaries, have to resort to lies and distortions when they discuss Islam, is a good sign. Certainly, if they discussed Islam as it was meant to be understood, they would only be hurting their own cause. When Islam is presented by non-Muslims in the West, usually matters of peripheral importance are addressed and criticised. The core beliefs of Islam, if discussed at all, are presented in a distorted manner. If Islam was just some ridiculous "Third World" religion with no appeal, they would not have to treat it this way. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the anti-Islamic literature that fills Christian bookstores (and the Internet) is not designed to convert Muslims, but to turn Westerners off to Islam. The people who write these lies are just trying to poison the minds of people so that they won't be receptive to the message of Islam when they hear it.

Their methods, however, are failing. In Europe especially, the Christian religion is in a severe state of stagnation and people are looking for truth elsewhere. Christians have always been embarrassed by their almost complete inability to convert a notable Muslim to Christianity. Certainly, they have their converts that they hold up as examples, however all of them seem to have been only nominal Muslims (at best) when they converted. However, many notable Westerners have embraced Islam, recently as well as in the past. One of the most interesting things about this is many (if not all) of these people could be called "Searchers for the Truth". By this I mean that they were the type of people who were spiritual, open-mined and read books on many subjects. They were not brainwashed simpletons who simply wanted to join an easy religion and the dominating culture of the time. They were people who knew a lot not only about religion, but about history, philosophy and other disciplines. Suffice it to say that the truth of Islam is out there, in spite of all the negative press that it gets today. The following is just one testimony that Islam is spreading in the West:

Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches. The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country . . . Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought the faith here", says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: "Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own". Islam is also spreading fast on the continent and in America. (The Times , London, Tuesday, November 9th, 1993, Home-News page)

Thanks be to God that many of us who are former "pew warmers" finally decided to go out and investigate what they try to spoon feed us from the pulpit and TV. Why does Islam succeed in attracting Christians and others? Because it's the Clear Way of Abraham. No other religion today can honestly claim this! Islam isn't just a "feel good" religion where they just tell you what you want to hear and read selected verses from the Bible. Most Christians today approach religion like they do Sunday brunch: they take what they like and leave what they don't like. They have this attitude in spite of the fact that Abraham is held up in their Bible as a towering example of faith. Abraham(P), who was going to sacrifice his own son because Almighty God commanded it, certainly knew the basis of morality. It is clear in both the Bible and the Qur'ân that Abraham knew that whatever God commands is the right thing to do. However, how many Christians today can say that they honestly believe that on all issues? How many of them have reflected on the moral ramifications of what is contained in their Bible? Seemingly, not even their learned apologists who attack Islam have reflected on it too deeply!

The question "What is our basis for morality?" is an easy one for those who follow the faith of Abraham(P) - and that's what Islam is. Islam is submission to the Will of Almighty God - "We hear and we obey"- the faith of our father Abraham. If it was good enough for Abraham(P), Moses(P), Jesus(P) and Muhammad(P), then it's good enough for me! It is this truth and this attitude that attracts people to Islam. The entire basis of Islam, which produces this attitude, is Unity - the Unity of Almighty God and the unity of mankind. To be sure, the message of Islam appeals to the very nature of man. No wonder it is spreading! A Christian theologian, relatively recently, observed:

It is probable that early in the twenty-first century Islam will have become numerically the largest of the world religions. 11

Quite possibly, if you count only Sunni Muslims (which are at least 85% of Muslims), we are already the largest religion in the world when compared not to "Christians" as a whole, but to either the Orthodox, Roman Catholics or Protestants each separately.

A Case Study In Biblical Morality

Now that we've taken a detailed look at an alleged moral difficulty in the life of Muhammad(P), for the sake of balance, let's take a look at a moral difficulty in the Bible. We've already made statements above concerning the nature of Biblical morality, but many readers may be unaware of some of its "difficulties". For better or for worse, in Sunday school they generally skip the verses which we are going to deal with below. However, these verses certainly are useful tools in putting intellectually honest Christians in the same "moral dilemna" that they think Muslims should be in due to Muhammad's(P) young marriage to cAishah, may God be pleased with her. It should be kept in mind that the purpose of this discussion is the basis for morality, not the inspiration of the Bible (or lack thereof). For the purposes of this discussion, we accept the Bible "as is". However, this should not be interpreted to mean that we are endorsing it as the "Word of God" in toto. On the other hand, it should not be interpreted to mean that we are attacking the "Word of God", since we are discussing it simply because Christians consider it to be the "Word of God" (whatever their particular definition might be). For those wanting more detailed information on the Muslim view of the Bible, please click here.

The portion of the Bible that we want to look at begins with the Book of Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 17 and 18. Here, Moses(P), following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children. The order continues with the following:

". . . kill every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

One can only guess how the Israelites determined who the virgins were. Most probably, they did it based on age and maturity, assuming that all of the female "children" who had not reached puberty were virgins. Keep in mind that this was done, according to the Bible, on God's command to "Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites". Later, God gives Moses(P) instructions on how to divide up the booty, "whether persons, oxen, donkeys, sheeps or goats". Based on this command, "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women who had not known a man by lying with him" were divided up. This was done so that the Israelite soldiers could have these young girls "for themselves". I do not suspect that anyone reading this is either so naive or ignorant of King James English to not know what this means!

Moving along to another great example of Biblical morality, . . . in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the Biblical "God of Love" gives the following command:

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has taken them captive, and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and had a desire unto her, that though would have her to thy wife, then though shalt bring her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go into her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go".

This should serve as sufficient proof that the morality that is taught in the Bible often is not what Christians make it out to be. In spite of what they teach in Sunday school, the above mentioned verses demonstrate the following:

* Almighty God, at least according to the Bible, ordered innocent babies to be killed; and

* He allowed young women to be forced into sex against their will.

Before moving on, it should be noted that killing women and children in war is never permitted under Islamic Law (the actions of some ignorant Muslims around the world notwithstanding). Some Christians may take issue with the words "innocent babies" above, since they believe that even babies are tainted with "Original Sin". However, this is not the topic of the discussion at hand. Suffice it to say that Biblical support for the Doctrine of Original Sin is contradictory at best. There are some verses that seem to support it, but there are others that seem to clearly deny it. One strike against "Original Sin", besides the fact that it's simply unjust, is the fact that the Jews - who read the Old Testament - never believed in it the way Christians do. But anyway . . . when faced with the problematic parts of the Old Testament, Christians react in various ways. Many offer up the ill thought out "Well-That's-in-the-Old-Testament" defense. In spite of the fact that they usually don't brush the Old Testament aside so quickly when they are being shown alleged prophecies which match Jesus(P), a few other thoughts can be presented. Some of the things that make brushing aside the Old Testament a bit more difficult (at least for Christians who want to remain intellectually honest) are:

1) the same God that "inspired" the Old Testament "inspired" the New Testament;

2) this same God is "unchanging" according to the Bible;

3) Jesus(P) in the New Testament endorses the "Law and the prophets" (i.e. the Old Testament) in several places; and

4) without the Old Testament there is no basis for Christianity.

When put in this predicament, Christians have one of two choices:

1) Stop thinking about it and fall back on a liberal "pick-and-choose" religion that just makes them "feel good" but does not answer any of life's more difficult questions; or

2) Accept the Divinely Revealed morality of the Bible "as is".

There are Christians out there who claim to accept the Divinely Revealed morality of the Bible. They understand what's at stake and the issues at hand. If people are allowed to whimsically decide what is right and what is wrong, there would be chaos. Just as importantly, if people decide what is "God's Word" and what is not His word based on their preconceived notions and "modern" sensibilities, nothing would be left of the Bible. As such, there are Christians who, in principle, say that killing babies is "moral" as long as God clearly commands it. For someone who understands the nature of Divinely Revealed morality, we would have to agree in principle but with certain reservations. As mentioned above, Almighty God - according to Islam - never commands the killing of innocent children. That is one "difficulty" that I am glad that Muslims don't have to explain their way out of! Killing babies is okay as long as God commands it!?! So much for having Christians as baby-sitters!

The bottom line is that morality comes from Almighty God and from Him alone. However, if ones studies the Bible, it is plain to see that it is not a foundation for morality. The examples above are just a few that can be provided from both the Old and the New Testament. The people who promote "Biblical morality" pick and choose from the text as they please. Only in Islam can one with good conscience accept "the whole package" without ignorantly or hypocritically denying things that they don't like. This is how true internal peace and balance are achieved. If one belongs to a religion without accepting everything in its scripture (real or alleged) one is not only bearing false witness against oneself but against God Himself. With all the false ideas in the modern age, it's easy to be lead astray. The liberal Western morality that has now touched all corners of the globe is, culturally speaking, something like an eight-hundred pound gorilla. It's very hard to stand in its way or speak out against it. However, being encouraged by others to follow "vain desires" has been an eternal problem for mankind, as Almighty God makes clear in the Qur'ân:

Say: 'I will not follow your vain desires: if I did I would stray from the path and be not of the company of those who receive guidance.'
[Qur'ân - Surah al-An'aam - 6:56]

Guideposts To Be Thankful For

The Prophet Muhammad(P) was a great example for all of humanity and peoples of different cultures (from "modern" Europeans to the aborigines of Australia). Not only was he a great Prophet and Messenger, but he was also a statesman, military leader, ruler, teacher, neighbor and friend. Family life was one of the most important areas where he was a great example, since he was both a husband and a father. Due to God's wisdom, His last and final prophet experienced a wide array of marriages and family situations. Due to this, he is an example for people who are monogamous, for those who are polygamous, for those wishing to marry those older than themselves and for those wondering how early someone can rightfully marry. Muhammad(P) reestablished the Religion of Abraham(P) so that it would continue to the Last Day.

As Muslims, we should be thankful for these guideposts in our moral journey through life. Reflecting on them aids us in avoiding being led astray into "moral relativism". This is a very dangerous thing, since it can lead to the worst of all sins - associating others with Almighty God in worship, belief and/or Lordship. By knowing the Prophet's(P) life we can see how to stay within the boundaries laid by Almighty God and stay on the Natural Religion of Islam which was made to suit the natural disposition (fitrah) of mankind. I pray that we, as Muslims, make Almighty God's limits our limits, and that we are not influenced by other societies and cultures. If it was good enough for Abraham(P) and Moses(P), then it's good enough for me . . .

That's the way I see it, but God knows best . . .

Related Articles

Muhammad(P) & Lies

i think freud was commenting on peoples obsession with the sex life of our Prophet(pbuh) to the exclusion of directing comments about the topics.

I've read the arguments on both sides and I have to say that Victoria's article about Ayesha not being nine has been debunked. I cannot see how Ayesha could not have been nine since the sahih hadiths are very explicit about this. Also, Victoria's arguments lack substance. Scratch beneath the surface and there is nothing there.

To Freud - and why shouldn't Muhammed's sexual behavior be part of the discussion? You imply that commenters who bring up Muhammed's sex life, are the ones with the problem. It is like implying that those people who reported on the sexual abuse in the Catholic church are the ones with the problem. Considering that Muhammed is looked at as a role model by Muslims, his sexual behavior is up for discussion, along with all his other behavior, such as cutting off of hands and feet and beheadings.
BTW, this business of Aisha's age. Sistani, the leader of the Shia in Iraq, talks openly on his website about girls even UNDER 9 years old being of marriageable age. Where does he get this "nine years old". I am guessing from the stories about Muhammed. If the revered leader of the Muslim Shia in Iraq thinks Aisha's age was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, why should any Westerner listen to all the weasling out of this fact by Pamela and Victoria? Even for them, 9 years old, is something they have trouble with, so in order to not have too much cognitive dissonance, they move the goal post, and try to prove that Aisha was much older. Even though some commenters have posted passage after passage from authentic Muslim hadiths that clearly state that she was 9 years old. In any case here is the link to Sistani's website where he clearly talks about 9 year old girls as being of marriageable age:

http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=
nav&nid=2&bid=59&pid=3093

A young prepubescent WOMAN of nine who was still playing with dolls? I don't think so.

Narrated Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, AS SHE WAS A LITTLE GIRL, NOT YET REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151

Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Sahih Muslim Book 8, Number 3311

Muslims have made it clear that they are aware of Mohammed's marriages and have no problem with it."

yes, we are aware of Muhammad's(pbuh) marriage and since he didnt marry a child but a young woman- there is nothing to have a problem with.
i refer you to this post on this blog-
april 8 11:59 pm

so you see, even when muslims answer the questions- people dont read the answers and understand them, but continue with the same false accusations.

The title of this thread is, 'A Different View of Jesus.' Could anyone please explain why the discussion ends up thread after thread with the graphic descriptions of Mohammed's sex life, no matter what the discussion is about? What exactly is the repeated "tittilation of the mind," in every thread meant to achieve? Isn't pointing out and discussing the moral issue for non-Muslims about the marriage of Mohammed to several women, including a child, once, quite enough? Muslims have made it clear that they are aware of Mohammed's marriages and have no problem with it. So what exactly is the purpose of asking the same Muslim/Muslims the same questions over and over again in every thread?

Worth reflecting about.

Hurs cannot be grapes for the following reasons:

1. Muslims 'marry' hurs. You can't marry grapes. In 44:54 and 52:20 the Muslim 'zawaj' (i.e. marry/pair with)hurs with eyes of black and white.

2. Muslims have companions of hurs with eyes of black and white. 56:22

3. with 'full grown' or voluptuous breasts 78:33

4. humorous/amusing virgins 56:36-37

5. Hurs untouched by man nor jinn 55:72-74.

It's hard to believe that Muslims will marry virginal amusing grapes with wide eyes and voluptuous breasts untouched by man nor jinn.

victoria wrote:
ross- i was addressing a literal interpretation with a literary translation- but none of it really matters-

All one requires is common sense, as Omar pointed out "you can't marry grapes". Mo confirms they were women in several hadiths.

victoria wrote:
we dont know what paradise holds- it is pretty much understood that the images that are pleasing to us in this plane of existence will be exponentially more pleasing in paradise-

I dont know and you refuse to believe allah's version of it, a version accepted by almost all muslims around the world.

victoria wrote:
i personally could think of no more boring eternity than resting on couches either eating grapes or being attended upon by dark eyed virgins-
this seems to hold great fascination for men- and you seem to be no exception.

It did fascinate your prophet, does not fascinate me, what fascinates me is the fact that a billion plus humans believe in this fantasy created by a pervert. After all he went on a trip to paradise on the winged donkey he must be quite sure the 'hurs' were not grapes.

About this trip, do you believe Mo really went there ? or do you have interpretation/translation issues about it ?

victoria wrote:
enjoy your fantasy then ross- personally- i dont interpret anything in a dogmatic literal narrow sense but if it works for you - well you know whose company you keep.

Let me repeat "I do not fantasize about it nor do it fascinate me" so do not try to introduce a red herring, it however does fascinate millions of your muslim brethern would willing bomb hundreds of innocents to get to this 'Allah's Hur House'. So the next time you prostrate in the direction of the birth place of your beloved prophet perhaps you can imagine him and his hur "company", after all he believed in it.

Victoria,
I'm not sure what you're saying as I have provided the evidence from Surah 5:116 which clearly states that Allah wondered if Jesus had taught Christians to take Jesus, Mary as gods besides Allah.

What is the trinity? Clearly 5:116 refers to Jesus, Mary and Allah as the trinity as they represent three gods.

This is clearly Muhammad's erroneous understanding of what the Christian Trinity is.

I also don't care whether other babies spoke. What we should be concerned about is that the story of Jesus speaking from the cradle is from the APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS - which means that it is a later invention - i.e. a fiction. The fact that Muhammad repeated this fiction as if it were true tells us he is a liar.

The sira extract I posted showed that Muhammad only revealed verses about Christian beliefs after talking to Christians. Stop and think for a moment the implication of this - if Allah was a true god, Muhammad would know all about Christian beliefs without having to talk to Christians as he would have direct source to the Big Guy upstairs and can get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

You are also misunderstanding what Maryam 21 refers to. Of course Maryam 21 does not talk about those other Christian beliefs since they are covered in other verses. Maryam 21 only has Allah saying he can make Mary conceive Jesus even though she was a virgin as a sign and mercy. It refers to this part, "All this was by the leave of Allah, the Praiseworthy the Exalted {to appoint him as a sign for men", not the rest.

Hey, don't blame me if the sira proves your prophet made things up. I didn't write the sira - I got it from Islamic_awareness - an Islamist site. Please refer to the reference I provided.

The fact that Muhammad lied is clear:
1. The Trinity is not comprised of Jesus, Mary and Allah.

2. Jesus was not born under a palm tree on the way to Egypt.

3. Mary, mother of Jesus, was not the sister of Aaron or the daughter of Amram.

4. The rest of the points I made above are related in the APOCRYPHA. The fact that Muhammad believed in this apocryphal fiction proves he was a liar.

mr omar- im not sure what your source was-

the first reference is the qur'an, and it has no real bearing on your post except that it tells us that muslims dont believe in the trinity- which is not in dispute.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"How Muhammad came by this erroneous idea about the Trinity is recounted in the sira:-"

everything after this statement is some wierd conjecture- you post that it is maryam21- but it is not. you are falsely presenting nonsense and claiming it is a sura- it is not-

te sura maryam 21 doesnt even resemble what youve written-

you also wrote-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"hey also argue for saying that he is Son of Allah by saying he had no known father and spoke in infancy which is something never done by any human being"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this also is not true-

there are 3 other and separate instances when an infant spoke. Al-Bukhari Vol.4,hadith #645

i dont know how you can accuse someone of lying when you present something they didnt say,but go look at this hadith- or maryam 21 again-

im not bothering to post them- as youre not interested in the truth nor is anyone else here right now-

if you are- go and look at the references- if not- it is on your soul

well, maybe mr conolley but he didnt seem to take you too seriously either

Sorry. Above comment by me.

Pablo, another topic:

"I write the following out of love for you and all Muslims. I know the truth may hurt but it is necessary for you and all Muslims to realize the Islamic deception so that you may be set free from the lie of Islam."

I understand your POV. You have a holy book dictated by God which you consider the inerrant truth, and you want everyone to know that truth and love it as much as you do.

But consider this: Muslims have a holy book dictated by God which they consider to be the inerrant truth. Why should they accept yours over theirs?

abraham also searched- it did not make him a liar

Pablo,

"Are you asserting that the only way is to accept all religions? That is so intolerant of you."

Woah. I'm speechless.................

I want to believe you're attempting humor, except I'm pretty sure no fundamentalist in any religion is ever humorous about his beliefs.

Tell me, please, how are "accept all" and "intolerant" synonomous? I thought that accepting all was the definition of tolerance.

I do hold that all religions should be respected, and every believers right to believe should be defended, but I don't accept any religion. I'm an atheist. I think all religions are hokum, and most of them are dangerous hokum. Christianity and Islam at the top of the list for danger.

I'm surprised that no Christian has stepped forward to claim that Christianity is, too, spiritual. I didn't think they knew it wasn't. I guess I underestimated them. And I had arguments prepared.

Glad I won't need them.

The interesting pattern is revealed best when one reads all the threads (not just that of the Muslim panelists) since the beginning, involving exchanges between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Some of the Muslim - Non-Muslim exchanges reveal a pattern that would make for an interesting case study!

I find it amusing intelligent people can fall for the hur = grape idea. This is clearly false. You can make all sorts of connections between languages if you assume there is a connection the first place. I.e. syriac hur is not arabic hur.

The reason for scepticism of the hur = grape idea is that the Quran explicitly states that the Muslim 'marries' the hurs or makes them consorts. You can't marry grapes.

Grapes also don't have high breasts and dark eyes.

I'm wondering if a Muslim might want to comment on how the Quran says Jesus was born under a palm tree on the way to Egypt, instead of the traditional Christian belief that he was born in Bethlehem in accordance to the prophesy in Micah 5:2.

Is this yet another example of how the Christians have corrupted the Injeel? Must be, huh. Muhammad cannot be wrong because Allah is the true god, eh.

Anonymous, why is it no surprise to you that I would (supposedly) follow in Muhammad's example? Seeing myself as a freethinker, I find that highly surprising.

Also, I think this is a Gong Show because there is no real dialogue between believers and non-believers anymore. It has descended into senseless name calling and accusations without any purpose. Clearly state your purpose and what you would like to know/hear/see from others. I am neither for nor against your position, per se, but I think your method is just terrible.

Victoria,
If you have read the story of the miraj, Muhammad's ascent to Heaven to bargain with Allah the number of times Muslims pray each day from 50 times per day to 5 times per day you'd know that Jesus and Mary occupy the lowest rung of heaven.

Also, the Quran alludes to the Trinity being comprised of Jesus, Mary and Allah. Christians know this isn't true but apparently Muhammad did not.

al-Ma'idah 5:116
‏واذ قال الله ياعيسى ابن مريم ءانت قلت للناس اتخذوني وامي الهين من دون الله قال سبحانك مايكون لي ان اقول ماليس لي بحق ان كنت قلته فقد علمته تعلم مافي نفسي ولااعلم مافي نفسك انك انت علام الغيوب

Wa-ith qala Allahu ya AAeesa ibna maryama aanta qulta lilnnasi ittakhithoonee waommiya ilahayni min dooni Allahi qala subhanaka ma yakoonu lee an aqoola ma laysa lee bihaqqin in kuntu qultuhu faqad AAalimtahu taAAlamu ma fee nafsee wala aAAlamu ma fee nafsika innaka anta AAallamu alghuyoobi

Maulana Ali And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah? He will say: Glory be to Thee! it was not for me to say what I had no right to (say). If I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen.

How Muhammad came by this erroneous idea about the Trinity is recounted in the sira:-

[Those who talked to Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, were Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id.] They were Christians according to the faith of the king with differences between them; they say: He is Allah, and say: He is Son of Allah, and say: He is the third of three [i.e., part of Trinity] and these are the claims of Christianity. [They use as evidence for their claim that He is Allah the argument that] he used to raise the dead, cure the sick, create from clay bird-like structure then breathe into it to make it a [living] bird. All this was by the leave of Allah, the Praiseworthy the Exalted {to appoint him as a sign for men} (Maryam:21).

They also argue for saying that he is Son of Allah by saying he had no known father and spoke in infancy which is something never done by any human being. They use as evidence for their claim that He is the third of three [i.e., part of Trinity] the argument that Allah says: We did, We commanded, We created and We judged [i.e., by using the plural for Himself], and whereas if He was one, He would say: I did, I judged, I commanded and I created; but it is He, Jesus and Maryam. The Qur'an was revealed addressing all these arguments.[27] Ref: Abu Muhammad `Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham al-Ma`afiri, Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah, 1998, Volume II, Dar al-Hadith: Cairo (Egypt), pp. 181-182; also A. Guillaume, The Life Of Muhammad: A Translation Of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, 1998 (13th impression), Oxford University Press: Karachi (Pakistan), pp. 271-272.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html

Note how Muhammad made up the verses regarding his erroneous understanding of Christian beliefs of Jesus and Mary only after he spoke to 3 Christians. A true god would have known all this and a true prophet would have known all this without having to talk to Christians first. Such situational (and patently erroneous) verses can only mean one thing - Muhammad was a liar and Allah is a figment of a liar's imagination. The Meccans already accused Muhammad of lying - several verses refer to this - probably because of his clear theological ignorance/mistakes.

ross- i was addressing a literal interpretation with a literary translation- but none of it really matters-

we dont know what paradise holds- it is pretty much understood that the images that are pleasing to us in this plane of existence will be exponentially more pleasing in paradise-

i personally could think of no more boring eternity than resting on couches either eating grapes or being attended upon by dark eyed virgins-

this seems to hold great fascination for men- and you seem to be no exception.

but i already know you dont have the intention of seeking knowledge but have a fully uniformed opinion already - so i wont waste time arguing or proffering sites or any such nonsense-

im reserving my energies for those who want to engage for real-

enjoy your fantasy then ross- personally- i dont interpret anything in a dogmatic literal narrow sense but if it works for you - well you know whose company you keep.

Victoria,

No,you do not dissapoint me I do not look foward to this sexual paradise nor does the grape one appeal to me.

Muslims have tried the raisin argument before, it makes your paradise look even more pathetic !

sura 56 verses 12- 39: "They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds... We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand..."

In sura 55 verses 72-74, Dawood translates the Arabic word " hur " as "virgins", and the context makes clear that virgin is the appropriate translation: "Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents (which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?) whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before." The word hur occurs four times in the Koran and is usually translated as a "maiden with dark eyes".

Perhaps allah's raisins evolve to produce 'dark eyes' and recline on couches !

google christoff luxemburg ross

One passage that he has emended has attracted a great deal of attention. He argues that the word huri, usually interpreted by Islamic commentators as wide-eyed virgins (who will serve the faithful in Paradise; Qur'an 44:54, 52:20 ,55:72, 56:22) actually means white grapes. He says that many Christian descriptions of Paradise describe it as abounding in pure white grapes. This sparked much joking in the Western press; suicide bombers would be expecting beautiful women and getting grapes.[1]

while nothing seems to tittilate the male mind more than those 72 virgins, its likely the word is grapes.

also the entire concept comes from a shaikh in the distant past and is not anywhere a concept that is accepted-

sorry to disappoint

Victoria wrote:
wherever Muhammad(pbuh) in heaven- Jesus(ata) is right with him as his closest companion.

According to Mo and the quran he should be enjoying his share of 72 houris and pearly boys now, something radically different from the paradise jesus spoke of !!.

1. Jesus was just another prophet - occupying the lowest level of heaven with his mother."

really no muslim would believe anyone is "just a prophet" all prophets are deserving of extreme respect-
hes just making up the lowest level of heaven- wherever Muhammad(pbuh) in heaven- Jesus(ata) is right with him as his closest companion.

"he Christian Trinity comprised Jesus, Mary and Allah." what?

what? no - everyone knows the christian trinity doesnt include mary

as for the apocrypha- there are no parallel stories - and yor conjecture that the apocrypha is "probably not true" is your own invention

there is no assumption that it is not true

protesetant MEN removed it - it is still extant in the catholic bibles.

this is convoluted logic based on faulty conjecture

this in no way represents what muslims believe

this only represent what qasim believes

Norrie Hoyt:

"It is true that impatience, the mother of stupidity, praises brevity, as if such persons had not life long enough to serve them to acquire a complete knowledge of one single subject"

LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452 – 1519 CE Considered by many to be the greatest genius ever to have lived)

DIVINE NOTIFICATION TO ALL POSTERS WHO EXCEED FOUR COLUMN INCHES:

"THE SECRET OF BEING A BORE IS TO TELL IT ALL."

- Voltaire

Mavaddat,

You said: "The comments section on this thread has officially descended into what can only be called 'a Gong Show.'"

Such comments are regularly posted by people who seek to divert attention away from serious debate surrounding the facts of Muhammad's life which Muslims wish to keep hidden.

Serious charges have been made against Muhammad, including paedophilia, rape and mass murder, yet you attempt to portray it as a joke. This is exactly the same sort of tactic that Muhammad would have used to manipulate the gullible people of his time. It is no surprise that you follow in his example.

Countless people have lost their lives for questioning the behaviour of this man, murdered by Muslims, and many people (including authors, apostates and blasphemers) are still being murdered across the world today by muslims in accordance with Muhammad's teachings, ideology and belief system. This is no joke.

The comments section on this thread has officially descended into what can only be called "a Gong Show."

Victoria,

Please refrain from copying and pasting the prayer of St. Francis. Your Koran mocks his prayer with the "koranic" militant and anti-female agenda.

Muhammad's understanding that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a palm tree when the Holy Family was fleeing to Egypt is clearly erroneous according to the Bible.

Muhammad conflated Matthew's account of the flight to Egypt with the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew in which Jesus as a baby spoke to the palm tree, and erroneously thought that Mary gave birth to Jesus under that palm tree and not in Bethlehem.

The Quran's parallelism (compounded by a clear error) to an apocryphal gospel dated by most scholars to the fourth or fifth century casts doubt on the authenticity of the Quran. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew was probably translated into Latin by St Jerome.

In reference to the opening post by Pamela:

Islamic view of Jesus and Mary:

1. Jesus was just another prophet - occupying the lowest level of heaven with his mother.

2. Mary, mother of Jesus, was the sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram.

3. Mary gave birth to Jesus under a palm tree, not in a stable in Bethlehem.

4. Mary was brought up in seclusion in a temple with Zachariah as her guardian.

5. The Christian Trinity comprised Jesus, Mary and Allah. {On Judgment Day Allah asks Jesus if he had taught Christians to worship himself and Mary besides Allah - which Jesus denies. This raises the question as to Allah's omniscience since he didn't know Jesus didn't teach this. It is Muhammad's way of saying that the Christian Trinity is a false doctrine but his way of saying this betrays his own falsehood.}

6. Jesus animating clay birds.

7. Jesus talked as a baby in the cradle.

These beliefs about Jesus and Mary by Muhammad were either paralleled in the apocrypha (meaning they are probably untrue) or were heretical (i.e. the Mary worship by the Collyridianists prevailing in Muhammad's time).

((((( "SECULAR THINKERS [i]" Rule The Universe and know the ECLATi as being their Heuristics" )))))

---- Against ----

((((( "Pre-Apocalptic Thinkers [you]" Rule the Earthly "Heaven & Hell" not in the ECLATi and thus have No Heuristics ))))))

BEHOLD: IT(g-d) is TRUE(Justice)!

A NEW AGE have commeth upon all yee and thee of thy PreApocalyptic actions in fath;

Humates are crossing over and now going through the Aquarias Age. SO BEHOLDS:

All ancient PreApocalyptic religious, from the PISCES AGE will go POOF-TIME in around the Calandate year or Circa year 2444.

Note: On the ECLATARIAN CALANDATE (based on an 8 daly Week) the correct recording years should be:
UNIVERSAL YEAR CIRCA (UYC), 4B (Billion Years Ago), .98M (Million Years ago), 2007, 04, 9th (dia).
Short hand= UYC.4.98B.07,04.09/09:39am

And The faith exchange will usher-in the total or fullfilment of the APOCALYPSE by Circa year 2222.

The INTERNATIONAL FAITH EXCHANGE is the acception and NOT the Norm.

So: SECULAR MAN WINS! AND Preapocalyptic Man Looses!

Their Jealousy Raligion(s) and their SEXUAL GUILT laden discusting and insulting storys, tales, Suras, scipture, IS an indirect attack on SECULAR THINKER & a direct attack on the "HUMATITY DOCTRINE" .

Thus causing and resulting misery for Intelligent HUMATES in Religious persecution and their religious violations and commiting, in the open, viaolations of Human Rights, civil rights & more.

THIS MUST END NOW!

If there is such a Holy & Glorious Being such as Mohammad et al, then He & the Other greats, not ECLATi, Hates You ISLAMOMANIACS!

STOP OR NO MORE ISLAM! N.O.W. "The benneficient One is Now & Here Today for ALL OF US," Last Chance Lovers of SATANIC VERSUS & KILLERS wherever you or they may be & beyond.

Ya Ya Mon. :+)/ Stop the VIOLENCE Brothers & Sister. Stop the Violence,

If You See Something, then Please SAY SOMETHING

If someone looks like a terrorist, a Mafia type, or Gang Member, drug pusher etc.. Please Call POLICE. Ya MOn. Please turn in all suspicious activities. Ya Momma Mon. E.C.L.A.T. is IT!

Pablo:

Did you just accuse someone of being intolerant?
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black!

Dear Muslim

You have now demonstrated that they cannot defend the acts of Muhammad and the actions of His followers. Islam has been soundly defeated on this thread because there has been no refutation that would stand in a formal debate. The evidence has been given demonstrating that Muhammad the warrior prophet and his followers since the inception of Islam have murdered, pillaged, and Islamisized all the nations we currently know to be Muslim. Muhammad has also been shown to have given standards that he did not live up to himself. These things have been clearly laid out with the use of the Qur'an and the most trusted Islamic Haddiths of Bukkuri. It has also been shown that Muhammad's true followers continue to follow His legacy by working to bring Islamic rule to the whole world by any means possible. Most of the Islamic progress today is seen in Europe especially France, Germany, Great Britain, and Holland where Muslims deny they are citizens. In France the police are afraid to go into some neighborhoods because the Muslims come running out of their apartments and throw stones at the police and fire bomb their police cars. In Great Britain Muslims openly preach in the streets that Islam will take over Great Briton.

This means that Muslims who are not on this program are not truly following the prophet or the Qur’an but have bought into a whitewashed version of Islam that fits the USA for this time.

Tell us Muslim friend, will you defend our nation against Islamic terror? Will you honor our flag? The answer for the true Muslim is a resounding no. That is because you want Islamic rule for the whole world. In other words you are not true citizens of the USA and therefore should not be trusted in any office. In fact I would go as far to say that you are really guilty of plotting against the USA because you are working towards the fall of the United States to Islamic rule. You have been challenged to give an answer. You all have not; therefore, you are exposed, refuted, and defeated.

Saaleha,

You wrote:-
The Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him does not need anyone to defend his character. Even those who did not accept his message could not deny his honesty and trustworthiness.

This is not true but I notice Muslims always make this claim that Muhammad was considered honest and trustworthy even by those who did not accept Islam.

I wonder if you had read the Quran at all. If you did you'd know that the Meccans accused Muhammad of LYING and FABRICATING TALES.

Lying and fabricating tales are not signs of honesty, my friend.

surah 26:186 for thou art nothing but a mortal like ourselves! And, behold, we think that thou art a consummate liar!

surah 26.189 But they called him a liar,

surah 38.4 And they wonder that there has come to them a warner from among themselves, and the disbelievers say: This IS an enchanter, a liar.

surah 54:25 Why - on him alone from among all of us should a [divine] reminder have been bestowed? Nay, but he is a boastful liar!”

Victoria,
I think another poster has already provided Shaykh Gibril Haddad's refutation of your 'Aisha was not nine years old' polemics. What you posted has been proven, yes proven, to be absolute garbage. Yet you persist in posting your copy-paste as if it were the truth.

I ask you - are you interested in the truth or merely salving your conscience? If you read your copy-paste you'd see it comes up with wildly contradictory estimates of Aisha's age. One estimate says she was 12. Another says she was 14+. Another says she was 18+. All these cannot be true - in fact, their contradictions prove your polemics to be false.

In contrast, the SAHIH ahadeeth all say with breath-taking consistency that Aisha was 9 years old. Every single one. There are at least 20 different hadiths where Aisha narrated that she was 9 years old. But you choose to believe contradictory, non-hadiths that are clearly false.

I wonder why?

All US Politicians need to be aware of the following:

SAUDIS SPREAD HATE THROUGH U.S. MOSQUES - WorldNetDaily - Propaganda against Jews, Christians 'mainstreamed within our borders' 29th January 2005
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42603
“The government of Saudi Arabia is disseminating propaganda through American mosques that teaches hatred of Jews and Christians and instructs Muslims that they are on a mission behind enemy lines in a land of unbelievers, according to a year-long study by a Washington human-rights group. The 89-page report by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," concludes the Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a "totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence." The report says the fact it is "being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government, namely Saudi Arabia, demands our urgent attention."

[…] Among the key findings of the report: Various Saudi government publications gathered for the study, most of which are in Arabic, assert it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way or taking part in their festivities and celebrations

[…] The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam.

[…] In an authoritative religious voice, it gives detailed instructions on how to "hate" the Christian and Jew: Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel; Other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidels. The opening fatwa in one Saudi embassy-distributed book, published by the Saudi Air Force, responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric's reply rebukes the Muslim cleric: "He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his." Since, under Saudi law, "apostates' from Islam can be sentenced to death, this is an implied death threat against the tolerant Muslim imam, as well as an incitement to vigilante violence; Sufi and Shiite Muslims are viciously condemned; For a Muslim who fails to uphold the Saudi Wahhabi sect's sexual mores [i.e. through homosexual activity or heterosexual activity outside of marriage], the edicts published by the Saudi government's Ministry of Islamic Affairs and found in American mosques advise "it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money"; Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts, they "should be killed"; Saudi textbooks and other publications in the collection, propagate a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treat the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avow that the Muslim's duty is to eliminate the state of Israel; Regarding women, the Saudi publications instruct that they should be veiled, segregated from men and barred from certain employment and roles; The report states: "While the government of Saudi Arabia claims to be 'updating' or reforming its textbooks and study materials within the kingdom, its publications propagating an ideology of hatred remain plentiful in some prominent American mosques and Islamic centers, and continue to be a principal resource available to students of Islam within the United States." The Center for Religious Freedom said the research, translation and principle analysis of the materials for the report were carried out by both Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of security.”

Pamela and Victoria:

Please explain the following so that your readers can understand what the 'real' message of Muhammad was to Christians and Jews:

Qur’an Chapter 2 Verse 65:
And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (Jews): We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

Ishaq: 250
The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised.

Tabari VIII: 28
When the Messenger approached the Jews, he said, ‘You brothers of apes! Allah shamed you and cursed you.’

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 41:
…Jews, - men who will listen to any lie…For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 82:
Strongest among men in enmity (hatred) to the believers (Muslims) wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans.

Ishaq: 262
Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur’an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 51:
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.

Qur’an Chapter 3 Verse 28:
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. [This verse teaches Muslims not to make friends with unbelievers, but allows them to feign friendship with unbelievers in order to prevent harm befalling themselves]

Ishaq: 364
Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate.

Ishaq: 364
‘I fear this change of circumstance may end up overtaking us.’ So Allah replied, ‘He will be sorry for his thoughts. True believers perform prostrations, they pay the tax, they bow in homage, and renounce their agreements with the Jews. They are Hezbollah—Allah’s Party.’ [Muslims believe they are commanded by Allah to break any agreements they make with the Jews, because of this hadith]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 457:
Narrated Abi Aiyub: Once the Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice, and said, "The Jews are being punished in their graves."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 679:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid: Allah's Apostle said, “Plague was a means of torture sent on a group of Israelis”

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6981:
…You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: ‘Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.’

Sahih Muslim Book 037, Number 6665:
Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire. [All Muslims are saved from Hell because a Jew or a Christian will go to hell in their place]

Sahih Muslim Book 037, Number 6666:
Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle said: ‘No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire’. [Muslims don’t go to hell, because Jews and Christians will be made to suffer for the evil deeds of Muslims]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
…The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" Ya'qub bin Muhammad said…

Malik’s Muwatta Book 45, Number 45.5.17:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' "

Malik’s Muwatta Book 45, Number 45.5.18:
…the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.… [Muhammad carried out ethnic cleansing]

Tabari VII: 158
Call Muhammad bin Maslamah to me.’ When Muhammad came, he was told to go to the Jews and say, ‘Leave my country. You have intended treachery.’ He went and said, ‘The Messenger orders you to depart from his country.’ They replied, ‘We never thought that an Aws (a former ally) would come with such a message.’ ‘Hearts have changed,’ Muhammad said. ‘Islam has wiped out our old covenants.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 524:
The Prophet said, “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats…” [Muslims believe Muhammad was god’s messenger. If god’s messenger curses Jews and considers them rats, then is it surprising that many Muslims adopt the same attitude?]

Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.2, p.37
When it was morning, he said: ‘Kill every Jew whom you come across.’ The Jews were frightened, so none of them came out, nor did they speak. They were afraid that they would be suddenly attacked as Ibn Ashraf was attacked in the night.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 15:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: ‘A Jew crushed the head of a girl (a Muslim) between two stones, and the girl was asked, "Who has done that to you, so-and-so or so and so?" (Some names were mentioned to her) till the name of that Jew was mentioned (whereupon she agreed). The Jew was brought to the Prophet and the Prophet kept on questioning him till he confessed, whereupon his head was crushed with stones.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 16:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: ‘A girl wearing ornaments, went out at Medina. Somebody struck her with a stone. She was brought to the Prophet while she was still alive. Allah's Apostle asked her, "Did such-and-such a person strike you?" She raised her head, denying that. He asked her a second time, saying, "Did so-and-so strike you?" She raised her head, denying that. He said for the third time, "Did so-and-so strike you?" She lowered her head, agreeing. Allah's Apostle then sent for the killer and killed him between two stones.’

Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 24:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: ‘The Prophet killed a Jew for killing a girl in order to take her ornaments’

lbn Haban Sahih, Volume.14, p.529:
Muhammad said: “I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter.” [Osama bin Laden quoted this hadith in his “Declaration Of War Against The Americans Occupying The Land Of The Two Holy Places” in 1996]

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5186:
Narrated AbuHurayrah: ‘Suhayl ibn AbuSalih said: I went out with my father to Syria. The people passed by the cloisters in which there were Christians and began to salute them. My father said: Do not give them salutation first, for AbuHurayrah reported the Apostle of Allah as saying: Do not salute them (Christians) first, and when you meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it.’ [Teaches hatred of Christians]

Sahih Muslim Book 039, Number 6711:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying: If ten scholars of the Jews would follow me, no Jew would be left upon the surface of the earth who would not embrace Islam. [Muhammad’s main goal in life was to replace Judaism with Islam, either through slaughtering every Jew or converting the Jewish Rabbis to Islam. It was the refusal of the Jews to follow his teaching which infuriated him more than anything else. He expressed his frustration through hatred of Jews, and instructed his followers to do the opposite of everything the Jews did]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 786:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Jews and Christians do not dye their hair so you should do the opposite of what they do."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 780:
Narrated Nafi': Ibn Umar said, The Prophet said, 'Do the opposite of what the pagans do. Keep the beards and cut the moustaches short.' [This shows that the Imam’s and the Ayatollah’s follow the teachings of the hadith religiously]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 30, Number 92:
Narrated Anas: ‘The Prophet came to Medina and ordered a mosque to be built and said, "O Bani Najjar! Suggest to me the price (of your land)." They said, "We do not want its price except from Allah" (they feared Muhammad and just gave him the land). So, the Prophet ordered the graves of the pagans to be dug out and the land to be levelled, and the date-palm trees to be cut down. The cut date-palms were fixed in the direction of the Qibla of the mosque.’ [Muhammad deliberately desecrated the pagan graves to send a clear message of hatred and intolerance to pagans]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira: ‘While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."’

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4363:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira who said: We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qasim, you have communicated (your message to us). The Messenger of Allah said: I want this (i.e. that you submit to Islam), accept Islam and you would be safe. They said: Abu'l-Qisim, you have communicated (your message). The Messenger of Allah said: I want this. - He said to them (repeated the same words) the third time (and on getting the same reply) he added: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land. Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (meaning that they should sell their possessions before being forced off their land).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 380:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab expelled all the Jews and Christians from the land of Hijaz. Allah's Apostle after conquering Khaibar, thought of expelling the Jews from the land which, after he conquered it belonged to Allah, Allah's Apostle and the Muslims. But the Jews requested Allah's Apostle to leave them there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits (the land would yield). Allah's Apostle said, "We shall keep you on these terms as long as we wish." Thus they stayed till the time of 'Umar's Caliphate when he expelled them to Taima and Ariha.’

Tabari IX: 86
Don’t seduce the Jews or Christians for incumbent on them is to pay the jizya protection tax. [Jews and Christians who agreed to pay a protection tax to Muhammad were allowed to stay on their land, those who refused were either killed, enslaved, or forced off their land]

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 19, Number 3051:
Narrated Iyad ibn Himar: ‘I presented a she-camel to the Prophet. He asked: Have you embraced Islam? I replied: No. The Prophet said: I have been prohibited to accept the present of polytheists.’ [Islamic fundamentalists often refuse to accept gifts from non-Muslims, due to this hadith]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 215:
Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas'ud): ‘When the Prophet realized that the Quraish had delayed in embracing Islam, he said, "O Allah! Protect me against their evil by afflicting them with seven (years of famine) like the seven years of (Prophet) Joseph." So they were struck with a year of famine that destroyed everything till they had to eat bones, and till a man would look towards the sky and see something like smoke between him and it.’ [This text reveals that there is no tolerance of other faiths or beliefs in Islam. Muhammad tried to invoke evil upon the Quraish, simply because they ‘delayed in embracing Islam.’ They suffered famine because Muhammad’s men cut off their trade routes]

Qur’an Chapter 2 Verse 216:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.

Qur’an Chapter 4: Verse 89:
(Of the unbelievers): “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Qur’an Chapter 4 Verse 74:
Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain or gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value.

Qur’an Chapter 8 Verse 12:
Remember your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.’

Qur’an Chapter 8 Verse 17:
It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things). [Meaning that when a Muslim kills an unbeliever in a test of his commitment to Allah, it isn’t the Muslim who has committed the act, it is Allah who commits the act, using the Muslim as an instrument to carry out his will. Muslims should therefore feel no guilt in killing unbelievers]

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 17:
“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that god is Christ the son of Mary.” [The penalty for blasphemy, taught by Muhammad, was death]

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 72, 73 & 75:
“They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." They do blaspheme who say: god is one of three in a trinity: for there is no god except one Allah. If they do not desist from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him.”

Ishaq: 552
The Quraysh had put pictures in the Ka’aba including two of Jesus and one of Mary. Muhammad ordered that the pictures should be erased.

Qur’an Chapter 4 Verse 157:
That they (the Jews) said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not [According to Muhammad, Jesus was never put on the cross, it was just an illusion. Muhammad said this in an attempt to destroy the credibility of both the Jews and the Christians, making it easier for him to convert Jews and Christians to Islam]

Qur’an Chapter 9 Verse 113:
It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin (family), after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire (Hell). [Meaning there’s no forgiveness for non-Muslims, in Islam]

Muhammad’s very last words, as narrated by Aisha (Muhammad’s third wife) and Abdullah bin Abbas: “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets.” (Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, No 427 & 428)

SERMONS READ BY OVER 3,000 IMAMS IN 62 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

WEB SITE FOR IMAMS – www.alminbar.com – [Alminbar means “pulpit” in Arabic. “Imam” means “Teacher & leader of Muslim prayer”]

As viewed August 2006
(Home Page): “Welcome to the Alminbar.com - …Here you will find a variety of material to help you prepare for your sermons.” (About Us page): “We welcome you all to the site where Imaams and Du'aat meet on the internet.” (Introduction page): “Even I as the most optimistic member of the team never expected to reach about three thousand Imaams on weekly basis. Our server counter is informative and accurate, these Imaams represent sixty two countries and territories. With the advent of the English site's launch, we expect the number to increase greatly if not double.”

[If any of the following sermon pages have been removed then visit www.archive.org to see archived copies]

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 411
“O Muslims! The Jews are notorious for their betrayal and treachery. They incurred Allaah’s curse and are deserving of His wrath. They made lawful what Allaah prohibited through stratagem and cunning. This is why Allaah cursed them and transmuted them into monkeys and pigs. Shame is pitched over them like a tent wherever they are found, except when under a covenant of protection from Allaah and from men.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/411.htm)

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 819
“The Jews, who are the nation of pigs and monkeys, are nothing but a source of evil, corruption, tribulation and war. Hatred against the Muslims is inherited by every generation of Jews who in turn teach it to their children. Our enmity and hostility against them is based on our faith.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/819.htm)

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 9022
“Why do we hate the Jews? We hate them for the sake of our Lord, we hate them for the sake of Allaah because they slandered Allaah and they killed and slandered His Prophets.” […] “Finally, we ask Allaah to save the weak and oppressed believers (Muslims) and to humiliate the Jews and polytheists and grant victory to the people of Tawheed (meaning the people who believe in Allah, i.e. Muslims). May He expel the Jews from Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), humiliated and defeated.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/9022.htm)

[COMMENT: These sermons are downloaded and studied by thousands of Imams in 62 different countries. These sermons are NOT the teachings and prayers of extremists. The extremists pray for the death of the Jews, the enslavement and rape of Jewish women and the annihilation of Israel. The above sermons are at the ‘moderate’ end of the scale. These quotes are just a small taste of Islamic teaching and prayer across the world. Please note that no Muslim or Muslim organisation publicly criticises this extremely influential web site, or calls for other Muslims to boycott it. Such organisations that fail to criticise Alminbar.com include the Muslim Council of Britain and the so called “Islamic Human Rights Commission”]

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 68
“This Sharee’ah [alternative spelling of “Sharia”] is the straight and correct way, which is the way of those on whom Allaah has bestowed His Grace such as His Prophets, the sincere, the martyrs, and the righteous. Anything other than this is the way of those who have earned the wrath of Allaah such as the Jews, the Christians and the polytheists.”

[…] “the Qur’aan and the Sunnah are replete with evidences that command the Muslims to differ from the disbelievers and forbid imitating them in order to keep the Muslims away from all harmful matters. This is because the actions of the unbelievers are false and only for show, their endeavours are misleading and their end is certain destruction.”

[…] “some Muslims will deviate to the doctrines of the religion of the Jews or that of the Christians. Such deviation is made alluring by Satan. That is why a servant of Allaah is commanded to ask Allaah to guide him to the straight path, which is far away from Christianity and Judaism.” [Christianity and Judaism are satanic, according to this sermon]

[…] “O servants of Allaah! The wisdom behind the prohibition of imitating the disbelievers and commanding us differ from them is so clear. This is because imitating them outwardly leads to imitating them inwardly which in turn results in resembling them in their morals and actions. However, being different from them outwardly leads to differing from them inwardly, which in turn leads to being so completely distinct from them that one is rescued from the causes of Allaah’s wrath. Being distinguished also saves one from going astray and leads to being directed to the way of guidance and Allaah’s pleasure.” [This teaches Muslims to be completely distinct from non-Muslims, in every way possible, and to look down on non-Muslims]

[…] “We must know that clipping the moustache and growing the beard are among the characteristics of Fitrah, or human-nature and from the guidance of the Prophets, peace be upon them all. It is a symbol of being distinct from the enemies of Allaah and His Messenger.” [This teaches that non-Muslims are enemies of Allah, therefore Muslims must not imitate non-Muslims, they must try to be different in every way possible. It is this type of teaching that creates divisions, tensions and suspicions between cultures, and will lead to the polarisation of Western societies in the future, because it teaches Muslims to mistrust all non-Muslims and disrespect all non-Muslims, and aims to create an entirely separate sense of identity. No one should underestimate the dangers of teaching separatism]

[…] “The disbelievers are also imitated in certain acts of worship, such as building up the areas around graves and making them places of visitation and worship. Allaah’s Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “May Allaah’s curse be on the Jews and the Christians, for they build places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” He sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said: “If any righteous man dies amongst them, they would build a place of worship at his grave and make pictures of him to place therein; they are the worst creatures in the sight of Allaah.”” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/68.htm) [This teaches that Allah has cursed the Jews and the Christians, because they are “the worst of creatures”. It simply confirms that “moderate” Muslims do follow the teachings of the Qur’an and hadith. It is this type of teaching which will eventually create divided societies and mistrust between the different parts of society. The lessons of history, and Islamic history, show very clearly that peace between the different cultures can quickly evaporate under such circumstances]

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 37
www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/37.htm
“O Beloved brothers, if you want to know the truth about this, you should know that the high population of the weak and poor countries, especially the Islamic ones, terrifies them, as it has been clearly revealed in their documents. These documents indicate that overpopulation (of Islamic countries) threatens their interests and destroys their security. Included in what they have said, is that their countries’ icecaps melt under the heat of the sun due to the over population of ‘developing countries’. Some of them were more frank saying that, in the future, they will face the danger of “Islamization” (the spread of Islam). The calls of their writers and theorists have been so loud in warning of the imbalance of power between east and west, that they have announced that the productivity of the Islamic countries is more than theirs by multiples, which will lead to the transition of power and authority within no more than a few decades, according to their estimations, statistics and percentages. Yes brothers, their numbers and birth rates are decreasing so fast that they support families to increase the numbers of the new born. But this will not happen [i.e. an increase in the birth rate of Westerners will not happen] because they have legalized what Allah has prohibited, through His Messengers and His Books. They have legalized adultery, and homosexuality. Most of them become just one of two, either gay or lesbian. Let those materialists be cursed and humiliated”

Most Western academics approach the study of Islam from an ideological perspective of cultural relativism, and this approach frequently blinds them to cultural beliefs which can lead to hatred, separatism and violence.

Such academics and historians tend to acquire their knowledge of Islam through books written by Muslims, instead of studying the sermons given in Mosques around the world, and the source material upon which those sermons are all based - the Qur’an and the Hadith. Islam requires Muslims to defend their faith, therefore the books written by Muslims for non-Muslim consumption typically ignore or misrepresent any facts which might lead to Western objection or criticism. The result is that Western academia now has a completely distorted, idealistic and sanitised understanding of Islam, which is of no use to politicians in understanding the terrorism carried out in the name of Islam.

ISLAMIC SCHOOL ‘TEACHES HATRED TO PUPILS AS YOUNG AS FIVE’
Evening Standard 5th February 2007, p16
“An Islamic school in London is poisoning the minds of pupils with lessons in hate, a former teacher claimed today. Colin Cook, 57, says textbooks used by children as young as five at the King Fahd Academy in Acton describe Jews as “repugnant” and “apes” and Christians as “pigs”. Pupils have allegedly been heard saying they want to “kill Americans”, praising 9/11 and idolising Osama bin Laden as their “hero”.”

ROW OVER SAUDI SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS
BBC News 7th February 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6337299.stm
“A Saudi-funded Islamic school in west London has been accused of using textbooks containing offensive remarks about Christianity and Judaism. […] A textbook dated 2005/2006 allegedly asks the reader to "give examples of worthless religions... such as Judaism, Christianity, idol worship and others". The book also allegedly asks the reader to "explain that those who die without adhering to Islam will go to hellfire". In another textbook for 12 and 13 year olds, dated 2004/2005, the author allegedly says that a Koranic verse, which talks of turning people into monkeys and pigs, is about Jews and Christians. The author quotes an early Islamic scholar as saying: "The monkeys are the Jews. And the pigs, they are the Christian infidels at Jesus's table." King Fahad Academy director Dr Sumaya Aluyusuf admitted the textbooks - translated for the BBC Two's Newsnight programme by two independent scholars - were kept at the school. […] She said she would not withdraw them, saying: "These books have good chapters that can be used by the teachers - it depends on the objective they want to achieve."”

RADICAL: BEHEAD MUSLIM SOLDIERS
Metro Newspaper – 6th February 2007 (front page)
"Dramatic footage emerged last night of an Islamic extremist calling for British Muslims who join the Army to be beheaded. The film of Abu Izzadeen, speaking at a London mosque, came to light days after police foiled an alleged plot to behead a British Muslim soldier. […] The footage was apparently shot two years ago at Regents Park Mosque" [It should be noted that Regents Park Mosque is often presented as the centre of moderate Islam in the UK]

Pamela, please explain the above.

Dear Ms Taylor

You are welcome to your different views about Jesus Christ. However it does not alter the fact that Christianity is based on the faith that Jesus Christ was not a prophet, but the Son of God, the Messiah, who fulfilled the prophesies of the prophets of the Jewish Scripture. It is not possible for Christians to accept the Muslim version of Jesus. So we Christians look forward to the Muslims telling us in what way Islam fits in with the Jewish and Christian Scripture and in what way the revelation of Islam as a spiritual path fills the identifiable gaps, if applicable, in Judaism and Christianity, considering Islam refers to the Scripture and revelation in both religions and was founded over six centuries after Christianity.

As to answering the hypothetical question, I would like to cross the bridge only after I have reached it, so for me the question is premature at this stage. For the following reasons I have no reason to consider that the possibility of finding the remains of Jesus exist:

1. One cannot simultaneously claim that Jesus Christ was an exemplary moral teacher (for all non-Christians are willing to admit at least that much about Jesus) who walked his talk and at the same time imply that He was a liar when He claimed to be the Messiah, and His many references to the Jewish prophesies which His life fulfilled, and the prediction of his death and Resurrection. Why did Jesus have to lie about who He was? He was after all aware of His coming fate, namely death on the cross, for His claim of being Messiah. He had only a band of simple men as His followers. If He was an ordinary man there was no way for Him to have known that in centuries to come Christianity would help shape a powerful civilisation. Jesus lived among the poor and outcastes of his society like a poor man. In other words, Jesus stood to gain nothing in a materialistic worldly sense at all. Jesus did not offer His disciples carnal pleasures and worldly wealth for following Him. He offered them just the opposite. Jesus wanted His disciples to take up the cross and follow Him, be prepared to be persecuted and die if need be, and to concentrate on gathering and storing up spiritual wealth, rather than amass worldly wealth and measure their success in terms of access to unlimited carnal pleasures. Considering all that, why did Jesus have to lie - to seek cheap popularity among the poor social outcastes He chose to associate with? Weren’t His miracles proof enough that He was no ordinary man? How could He as an ordinary human being have predicted His mode of death and Resurrection? Why would He invite death by crucifixion by claiming to be the Messiah?

2. The crucifixion of Jesus was a highly controversial issue in His time. It must be remembered that Pontius Pilate was hard pressed to find a loophole in Roman law to justify meting out the worst possible punishment to an innocent man. Even the worst of men try to build at least a false case before they do something they know to be wrong. And yet Pilate did no more than wash his hands off the guilt, making it a point to emphasise that he was merely giving in to the wishes of the Jewish people themselves (who claimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy according to their Scripture, which demanded the ultimate punishment which they could not mete out themselves), thus covering his back and appeasing his guilt in one stroke, for there was nothing to make a false case about. Considering the seriousness of the claim of Jesus and the consequences He had to face as a result of it, the credibility of the religious Jewish and secular Roman authorities were at stake. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have done everything in their power to discredit the claims of Jesus and His followers. We know from the Bible that the Roman authorities took extra care to guard the tomb of Jesus to prevent any theft of the corpse. In other words, in the best interests of both the Jewish and Roman authorities they would have gladly produced the bodily remains of Jesus, especially after the disciples began to circulate reports that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead. The logical question is: Why didn’t they produce the evidence of the bodily remains of Jesus? The simple logical answer is: They couldn’t!

3. During the days of His ministry before crucifixion, Jesus performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. A Hindu sage and yogi would have no difficulty in believing that Jesus could have performed miracles, because miracles are wrought by those who have acquired the powers of Siddhi. (Jesus was after all accused by the Jews of performing miracles with the power of the Devil, which proves that miracles in themselves need not have a divine origin and need not create good fruits.) But raising a man from the dead is a unique power that is beyond the power of a human being even with psychic powers, and hence the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead is what marks the power of Jesus different from all those who have acquired psychic powers through spiritual practice. Jesus was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, one with the Father, through whom all things were made. (Refer John’s Gospel)

4. The disciples of Jesus were no less doubting of His claim of Resurrection than many tend to be today. The Bible narrates the fears and doubts of His disciples and how it took some appearances and convincing on the part of Jesus to prove that He was indeed raised from the dead. The classic example is that of Apostle Thomas. He is known as Doubting Thomas, but I refer to him as Thomas, the Scientific Apostle. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it.” (John 20:25) And like a true scientist Thomas was willing to believe, once he was shown the proof (unlike many who say they will not believe no matter what anyone says and they refer to their attitude as that of a scientific rational mind). Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my GOD.” (John 20:27,28) The Bible account describes Jesus as having had a physical dimension which could eat and drink with His disciples, but His risen body was spiritual at the same time because He could walk through closed doors and disappear suddenly, and at times appeared in a form that wasn’t immediately recognisable.

5. It is important to recall that three wise men from the East came to worship Jesus when He was born. It was the confirmation of a universal awareness that God was going to reveal Himself in a unique way. The Bhagavad Gita which was completed around that time had already developed the theme of a personal God. The Jewish Prophets after all had prophesied the coming of the Messiah for centuries. Tradition has it that Apostle Thomas, (the Scientific Apostle in my definition), came to Kerala, India in 52 AD to evangelise to the small Jewish community that lived there at the time, and ended up converting many high caste Hindus, including rigid, ultra-orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins (like my ancestors), who practised the oldest Vedic religion. Without a powerfully convincing message it was highly unlikely that Apostle Thomas could have persuaded a Nambudiri Brahmin to accept Christianity and give up the privileges of belonging to an exclusive and powerful Hindu community, considering immediate ex-communication was the rule, with loss of means to earn a living in ways open only to the Hindu Nambudiri Brahmin: e.g. By practising Ayurveda taught only as a family profession, offering priestly services which brought very high income, being advisors to rulers or being priestly lords themselves, or serving the Nambudiri community in various ways. I have been asked on what grounds I believe that Apostle Thomas came to Kerala in 52 AD and converted among others, my Hindu ancestors when there is no historical proof of it. In India many traditions are orally transmitted without being recorded historically. Hence I have every reason to believe that a whole state does not invent a tradition and pass it on faithfully for centuries without a trace of truth to it, considering the birthplace of Jesus was far away and the account of His life and death and role as Messiah could not have been invented in Kerala. I await proof that traditions such as mine (the Syro-Malabar Catholic) cannot exist based on historical facts and such traditions have no validity if the events do not find a mention in history textbooks stemming from that period, especially since history writing was not a part of Indian culture at the time.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14678a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Church

Until such time that the mortal remains of Jesus Christ is unearthed/found and it is proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt, with DNA verification, that it is indeed the bodily remains of Jesus, I will continue to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and base my Christian faith on it. I see no reason whatsoever to raise the question now, as to whether it would affect my faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God is risen! Alleluia!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

viejita is always a voice of reason

in honor of our christian friends, i have laways loved this poem-

Saint Francis's Prayer for Peace!

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
Where there is hatred, let me sow love:
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not
So much seek to be consoled
As to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born
to eternal life.

Saint Francis

Anon
(You ought to at least use a pseudonym. Are you one person or many?)
I am not a Muslim, but Victoria has a point. This has nothing to do with her "victimhood." She has sincerely tried to respond to your criticisms of her faith and its history, and you just repeat the same arguments over and over. Do you have all those lengthy references on your computer's clipboard, just waiting for a moderate representative of the Islamic faith to venture an opinion on an unrelated topic? Are you some kind of autopilot, or do you actually read the columns you claim to be writing about?
I realize you are not the only one taking the opportunity to for Muslim-bashing, just the most recent...

Mo, foam and trash do not get rid of themselves. Often times, people do not even realize that they believe in foam and trash. For example, racial prejudice is a trash of the mind that does not go away without education.

That is the way to do it Victoria just make yourself a victim and do not bother to refute the case that has been laid out before all the Muslims on all the Muslim threads. I guess all the people who have a problem with Islam have no reason to. I guess all the Haddiths speaking of Muhammad’s violent tendencies are not to be trusted? Lets all pretend like there was never any hostages taken in Iran, no embassy bombings in Lebanon, no murder in Somalia, no bombing of the US Cole, no beheadings, no revenge murders, no twin towers bombings, etc, etc, etc, (there is not enough room on this page to list them all) all at the hands of Muslims. No we should not speak out against a religion that wants to take over the world through Jihad. What do you want us to do lie down in die? Maybe I should not ask that question. Do you really have the audacity to assert that Islam has nothing to do with all these reprehensible acts? That Muslims did not execute all these evils. Are you going to condemn all their actions? Are you going to prove to us that these things were not consistent with Muhammad’s life? You have not answered one charge all you have done is played the victim. Considering all these violent acts and the fact that the Qur’an commands Muslims to fight and slay the unbelievers I think it is quite reasonable to ask you to give an account for all these atrocities.

glad tidings.

as for foam and trash ,it goes away and donot last.

as for what is good and wholesome it stay and last.

life is self diagnostic ,self balanceing .the allmighty creator of life is live,he sees and he hears.

the no sweat policy of life.

John Conolley,

Are you asserting that the only way is to accept all religions? That is so intolerant of you.

Pablo

Asaalu alikum Saaleha-

dont worry about the bad manners here-

here is a quick study for you- go to the last several questions- and then just look at the muslim panelists questions-

youll see the exact same accusations from the same people and it gets uglier and uglier until the posts degenerate into muslim bashers bashing among themselves-

every single muslim post!
do a check-

so dont pay attention- when i see a negative post i dont even read it at all-

the people who come here with these posts dont want asnwers- if you take the time to answer them they will ignore your answers or worse-

so take this to heart as i do-

Al-Furqan (The Criterion)

25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;

when you see the defamation and nonsense- pass by it with dignity and dont dignify the really atrocious lies with answers-

if someone has the intention to come and spread lies- they will not be satisfied with the truth-

ignore childish taunts or challenges-
im sticking around here and am ever ready to engage honest inquiries-

we must have suspicion for the good intentions of people so that those who really are inquiring seriously can be responded to-

your post about Jesus(ata) was well spoken-

peace and salaams

Garyd, how is the justice of Islam any worse than the justice of Christianity? Blind assertions do not become us.

Nicholas Price,

You have apparently been mesmerized by the false dichotomy of William Paley and C.S. Lewis that either Jesus was a raving lunatic or he was who he said he was. Given this disjunction, the only possible choice is that Jesus was the Messiah.

However, it is highly plausible (and I personally believe) that Jesus was sane, but simply mistaken about his relationship to God. That is, he had moral and metaphysical insights that were genuinely his own, but he was mistaken in thinking that they were given to him by God. How difficult is that to imagine?

Jesus was neither raving mad, nor the Messiah. He was just a very precocious man who happened to be very mistaken about where he got his ideas from. Think Joan d'Arc.

Saaleha:

"What continues to amaze me about all the people who act in the name of God and Jesus is that they see fit to judge and assert that their way is the only way. This is not spirituality."

Western Christianity is not a religion of spirituality. Western Christianity has been at pains to suppress spirituality from the beginning, when they destroyed Gnosticism, Docetism, Ebionism, etc. (spiritual versions of Christianity), and they've been doing it ever since. And whie they merely look downs their noses at al-Islam, knowledgeable Christians consider Sufiism just ridiculous.

Christianity as it is practiced in America is so unspiritual that anyone who needs spirituality turns to some other religion: mostly Buddhism, Wicca, or some newly made-up religion.

(Note: Greek Orthodox Christianity and other eastern versions do have a significant element of spirituality.)

Saaleha & Victoria,

Instead of ducking and jiving from the issues refute one thing that has been said about Muhammad's sex drive, his standards for others that did not apply to him, The belief that the whole world should be under the rule is Islam, Satanic verses, expansion of Islam through war (Jihad), and his murder of his critics. This practice continues today in the countries where Islam is really practiced. I have no doubt that it will happen here in the USA. Let’s have some proof or be silent. Enough of the hiding behind web links and Muslim propaganda lets have some proof. So far all I have heard is that you will believe Muhammad is great not matter what the proof demonstrates. Not one these things have been refuted, not one.

SAALEHA,

Let us not hide the major issue of Islam with a discourse about the sex drive of Mohammed.

The major issue will and always be the militant agenda of the Koran added either by Mohammed via oral communication to his scribes or by the scribes themselves. This agenda calls for the pludering and looting of the lands of the unbelievers and the killing of those refusing to convert to Islam. Until you renounce this militant agenda, your religion is a sham.

Assalaamu alaikum Victoria

I think just about everyone who joined the fray because of the link I posted has missed the point. It's not really about what the norm was back then as regards age for marriage. It's not about the proofs of Aisha ra's actual age at the time of the marriage. It's simply that as a Muslim, I am content and agree completely when Allah says of Muhammed pbuh, "Indeed there is for you a beautiful example in the messenger of Allah. "

I accept him as such. I don't need to justify this belief to anyone. Just as I would not expect a Chiristian to justify their belief in Jesus peace be upon him.

I would not throw all the stuff that is floating around on the net about Christmas and Easter having roots in paganism into any Christian's face simply because I respect their right to believe in what gives them contentment in their hearts. I don't need to explain to someone who is bent on believing the worst about my Messenger that the marriages he entered into all had benefits, not for him, but for others. I don't need to say that the wisdom behind his marriage to Aisha (whatever her age was) is that because of her young mind, she has narrated the most hadith about his habits at home compared to any other wife. This would not have been so had she been older. Her memory would not have been as good.

What continues to amaze me about all the people who act in the name of God and Jesus is that they see fit to judge and assert that their way is the only way. This is not spirituality. The truly spiritual seek their way to God and see the bit of His divinity that is in each of His created beings. They respect this.

What is more mind boggling is that people who claim that the Quraan is not a book that can be belived use it as evidence. If you do not trust a source, how can you cite is as evidence. The same goes for the hadith.

Is respect and tolerance too much to ask for? A Muslim would never insult Jesus peace be upon him the way these 'believers' insult a man who, like every prophet before him brought a message that gave meaning to the lives of thousands back then and millions today. Because every Muslim accepts what Allah says about Jesus pbuh. He was the Word of God, placed in the womb of the virgin Mary peace be upon her.

If this is how every one of Pamela's efforts wil be twisted, then I'm afraid this forum is not achieving the desired results.

The biggest problem for Islam and indeed any theology of works lies in the fact that it has to presuppose a God for whom justice is just a meaningless phrase.

Only in Christianity do you have a God fully willing to satisfy the demands of justice for the sake of his followers.

NIVEDITA,

I agree, Hinduism was not founded by God. I simply added what a Hindu internet site had listed under foundations. Note the quotation marks around my comments. See http://www.hinduism.co.za/founder.htm

And note my warning: Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

I assumed anyone reading the synopsis about Hinduism would infer the mythical nature of its foundation.

And note my added concern about Hinduism: The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism.

If you refute what has been stated then maybe the anti-Muslim sentiment will go away. But that is the problem. You cannot refute that Muhammad was a false prophet who indulged himself with many woman. Who contradicted himself all the time? Who set up standards for others that he did not keep himself? Like limiting Muslim men to four wives and then having more than four himself. Who said he had revelations from Satan that were later to be struck from the Qur'an. No you have not refuted these assertions and you will not be able to either. Your pride is in the way of admitting that you cannot refute these things while at the same time you have been deceived and for that I am praying for you. That you would see Jesus as He really is. The Son of God who shed his blood to save you from your sins. I pray that all Muslims would see this and be set free. Jesus said, "...the truth shall make you free." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and Thou shalt be saved."

To Concerned the Christian.....

Hinduism was certainly not created by God, and no Hindu claims as much. It is an amalgamation of different thoughts and philosophies put forth by different people. And since these philosophies are indeed put forth by humans, there will always be something positive and something negative in them. Please do not comment on a "way of life" that you do not have complete knowledge about.

The following evidence should cause any rational human being to question the morality and divinity of the prophet mohammad:

The following evidence comes from the Sahih hadith (meaning sound and authentic, as determined by Sharia Law courts). Islamic Sharia law is dependent on both the Qur'an AND the Sahih hadith:

From Ayatollah Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran, 1990:
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister. […] It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young [to another man] will have a permanent place in heaven. [Meaning that all girls should begin a sexual relationship before onset of menstruation. For more information about ‘Tahrirolvasyleh,’ please contact the Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation: www.homa.org]

Please remember that the following ‘Sahih’ Hadith represent Sharia law on the issue, and are fully accepted, and taught, by ‘moderate’ Sunni Muslims (Ayatollah Khomeini was a Shia Muslim). Please remember that these texts are made available to Muslim children studying at school, and in mosques and madrassas, because studying the sunnah (according to the Sahih hadith) is an essential part of an Islamic education:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 494:
Narrated Aisha: (Muhammad’s third wife) ‘Since I reached the age when I could remember things, I have seen my parents worshipping according to the right faith of Islam. Not a single day passed but Allah's Apostle visited us both in the morning and in the evening.’ [Muhammad saw Aisha every day whilst she was a young infant]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18:
Narrated 'Ursa: ‘The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."’ [Aisha’s father didn’t want Muhammad to marry Aisha, because she was no more than 6 years old at the time, and Muhammad was in his 50’s]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was you." I said to myself, "If this dream is from Allah, He will cause it to come true."’ [Muhammad told Aisha that he had been dreaming about her]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha: ‘The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah's blessing and good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.’

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3309:
'A'isha reported: ‘Allah's Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine.’ She further said: ‘We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (out of breath), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.’

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 4917:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: ‘When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair was up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years’ (i.e., till his death).

Confirmation That The Word “Consummate” Means “Sexual Intercourse”:
In Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64, the root word used is "dakhala." From the Hans-Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary p273, it means "to enter, to pierce, to penetrate, to consummate the marriage, cohabit, sleep with a woman."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: ‘I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
Narrated 'Ursa: ‘The Prophet wrote the marriage contract with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father: ‘Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.’

Tabari, Volume 7, page 7:
Narrated Aisha: ‘....my marriage (to Muhammad) was consummated when I was nine.....’

Tabari, Volume 9, page 131:
Narrated Aisha: ‘Then the men and women got up and left. Allah’s messenger consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me.’

Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0630:
'Aisha reported: ‘I and the Messenger of Allah took a bath from one vessel which was placed between me and him and he would get ahead of me, so that I would say: “Spare (some water for) me, spare (some water for) me”; and she said that they had had sexual intercourse.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.’

Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Volume 13:
The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.

Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0624:
Aisha reported: ‘The Messenger of Allah washed himself with water from a vessel because of sexual intercourse.’

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311:
…she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (Muhammad) died she was eighteen years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar: ‘I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible."’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.’

Sahih Muslim Book 002, Number 0570:
'Amr b. Maimun said: ‘I asked Sulaiman b. Yasir whether the semen that gets on to the garment of a person should be washed or not. He replied: 'Aisha told me: “The Messenger of Allah washed the semen, and then went out for prayer in that very garment and I saw the mark of washing on it.”'’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 163:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl, who has not reached the age of puberty, who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:
Narrated Abu Huraira: ‘The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 68:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘I said, "O Allah's Apostle! A virgin feels shy." He said, "Her consent is (expressed by) her silence."’

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3305:
'A'isha reported: ‘I asked Allah's Messenger about a virgin whose marriage is solemnised by her guardian, whether it was necessary or not to consult her. Allah's Messenger said: “Yes, she must be consulted.”’ 'Aisha reported: ‘I told him that she feels shy, whereupon Allah's Messenger said: “Her silence implies her consent.”’

Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: ‘When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron" He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?"’ [Muhammad asked Aisha’s father for her hand in marriage when she was just 6 years old]

Definition of Womanhood In Islam - The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI)
A Muslim girl who has not reached menarche is called ‘nabalika’ (immature), and a girl who has reached it is ‘sabalika’ (mature) […] As soon as a Muslim girl reaches menstruation she is instructed to pray five times a day, to keep fast, to wear special clothes such as long shirt and trouser (kamiz & salwar), most importantly an extra piece of cloth to follow "purdha" (veil), i.e., to cover head and breast. [A ‘girl’ becomes a ‘woman’ in Islam when she reaches puberty. This means that all references by Muhammad to ‘young girls’ can only mean young prepubescent girls]

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3460:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: 'Abdullah died and he left (behind him) nine or seven daughters. I married a woman who had been previously married. Allah's Messenger said to me: Jabir, have you married? I said: Yes. He (again) said: A virgin or one previously married? I said: Messenger of Allah, with one who was previously married, whereupon he said: Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you? I said to him: 'Abdullah died (he was martyred in Uhud) and left nine or seven daughters behind him; I, therefore, did not approve of the idea that I should bring a girl like them, but I preferred to bring a woman who should look after them and teach them good manners, whereupon he (Muhammad) said: May Allah bless you, or he supplicated (for the) good (to be) conferred on me (by Allah). [The Arabic word for ‘woman’ was used for any female who had begun menstruation. ‘Young girl’ therefore means prepubescent girls. Jabir obviously didn’t fancy children. He was attracted to women]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 47, Number 755:
Narrated 'Urwa from 'Aisha: ‘The wives of Allah's Apostle were in two groups. One group consisted of 'Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Um Salama and the other wives of Allah's Apostle. The Muslims knew that Allah's Apostle loved 'Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give to Allah's Apostle, he would delay it, till Allah's Apostle had come to 'Aisha's home and then he would send his gift to Allah's Apostle in her home.’ [Aisha, Muhammad’s child bride, was his favourite wife, even though there was a age gap of 45 years between them. Other hadith reveal that his other wives often gave up their nightly turns with Muhammad, to please him, because they knew he preferred to spend his nights with preteen Aisha]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 139:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘Sada bint Zam'a gave up her turn to me ('Aisha), and so the Prophet used to give me ('Aisha) both my day and the day of Sada.’

al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v8, p148 & Ibn Kathir, v5, p299
The Prophet married Malika Bint Ka'b who was known for her outstanding beauty. Aisha went to see her and said to her: "Aren't you ashamed to marry your father's killer?" [Aisha was very jealous of Muhammad’s other wives and tried to prevent him from taking new wives. Muhammad picked the prettiest female prisoners of war for himself, after slaughtering their families, sometimes keeping them as slaves and sometimes marrying them. Aisha was forbidden from remarrying after Muhammad’s death, although just 18 when he died]

Qur’an Chapter 33 Verse 50:
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war (slaves) whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess (slaves); in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [This ‘revelation’ changed Islamic law so that Muhammad’s female cousins became sexually available to him. It also allowed him to take as many wives or sexual slaves as he desired, whereas his followers were restricted to 4 wives, plus sex slaves, according to a previous revelation]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 462:
Narrated 'Aisha: ‘After the slanderers had given a forged statement against me (Aisha had been falsely accused of being sexually unfaithful to Muhammad), Allah's Apostle called 'Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid when the Divine Inspiration was delayed. He wanted to ask them and consult them about the question of divorcing me. Usama gave his evidence that was based on what he knew about my innocence, but 'Ali said, "Allah has not put restrictions on you and there are many women other than her. Furthermore you may ask the slave girl who will tell you the truth." So the Prophet asked Barira (Aisha’s slave girl), "Have you seen anything that may arouse your suspicion?" She replied, "I have not seen anything more than that she is a little girl who sleeps, leaving the dough of her family (unguarded) that the domestic goats come and eat it." Then the Prophet stood on the pulpit and said, "O Muslims! Who will help me against the man who has harmed me by slandering my wife? By Allah, I know nothing about my family except good." The narrator added: Then the Prophet mentioned the innocence of 'Aisha.’

Aisha’s slave girl confirmed that Aisha was a ‘little girl,’ who only left the bread dough unguarded through childish inexperience. Other hadith relating to this same event record the fact that Aisha used to travel in a ‘howdah’ which was hung over the back of a camel, and that on one occasion the men lifting her howdah back onto her camel didn’t even notice that she wasn’t inside. They rode off without her, and this eventually led to the accusation that she’d been sexually unfaithful. The ‘howdah event’ could only have happened if Aisha was a young child who weighed so little that the men couldn’t tell from her weight if she was inside the howdah or not. This event provides further confirmation that Aisha was a young child involved in a sexual relationship with Muhammad.

DATES:
Muhammad was born 570 CE (Encyclopaedia Britannica) and died in 632 CE. The date generally accepted by Islamic scholars and historians for Aisha’s year of birth is 614 CE (Encarta Encyclopaedia). Between 621 and 623 Aisha is said to have contracted a disease whereby she temporarily lost her hair. The Hadith records that the emigration to Medina in Shawwal took place in 623 CE and that Muhammad married Aisha three years earlier (620 CE), and consummated the marriage three years after the marriage, in 623 CE (http://lexicorient.com/e.o/aisha.htm).

From “THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM (published by E.J. Brill), under the heading "Aisha":
“…It had already been agreed that Aisha should marry Djubayr Mutim, whose father, though still pagan, was friendly to the Muslims. By common consent, however, this agreement was set aside, and Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha […] The marriage was not consummated until some months after the Hidjra, (in April 623, 624). Aisha went to live in an apartment in Muhammad's house, later the mosque of Median. She cannot have been more than ten years old at the time and took her toys to her new home."

From the book "WOMEN IN ISLAM" by Said Abjullah Seif-Al-Hatimy, published by Islamic Publications in Lahore Pakistan: " ...(Aisha) She was the youngest of his wives. It is said that she was nine years of age when he married her."

Many Muslim sources refer to Aisha still playing with her dolls when she was married:
Sahih Bukhari (no.5665), Sahih Muslim (no.4470), Sahih Abu Dawud (no.4283), Ibn-i-Majah (no.1972) and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (no.23163, 24169, 24770 and 24777)

From Channel 4 Television: www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/I/islam_unveiled/history1.html
Aisha: Married to Muhammad at the age of just six, Aisha was the third of the Prophet's wives and his favourite after Khadija […] In 656CE, Aisha became one of the first women to play a prominent political role in Islam when she led thousands of men into the Battle of Camel against Fatima's husband Ali, the fourth Caliph. But Aisha suffered a devastating defeat in an Islamic civil war that led to the historic split between the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. Aisha was 18 when the Prophet died in her arms. After his death, she became a pivotal figure in the development of early Islam.

Further Confirmation That “Consummated” Means “Sexual Intercourse”:

Malik’s Muwatta Book 28, Number 28.7.17:
Yahya related to me from Malik from al-Miswar ibn Rifaa al-Quradhi from az-Zubayr ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr that Rifaa ibn Simwal divorced his wife, Tamima bint Wahb, in the time of the Messenger of Allah, three times (divorce occurs when a man repeats out loud the words “I divorce you” three times to his wife). Then she married Abd ar-Rahman ibn az-Zubayr and he turned from her and could not consummate the marriage and so he parted from her. Rifaa wanted to marry her again and it was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, and he forbade him to marry her. He said, "She is not halal (lawful) for you until she has tasted the sweetness of intercourse." [Rifaa was prevented from remarrying his divorced wife until she had consummated a marriage with another man through sexual intercourse, and then became divorced from that man. This hadith confirms that the word ‘consummate’ means ‘sexual intercourse’]

Voices Behind the Veil p.110 (Ergun Mehmet Caner) Kregel Publications 2003
The Taliban encouraged families to marry off their daughters as young as eight years old. [This teaching was based on the hadith and demonstrates what happens when Sharia law becomes the law of the land]

Voices Behind the Veil p.136-137 (Ergun Mehmet Caner) Kregel Publications 2003
As of June 2002, it became legal in Iran for a 9 year old girl to marry with her parents’ permission. [Previously, girls could be married at a much earlier age]

Ayatollah Khomeini's Religious Teachings on Marriage, Divorce and Relationships
From Khomeini's book "Tahrir-ol-Masael":
www.homa.org/Details.asp?View=Detail&ContentID=2137352748&TOCID=2083225413
“A woman may legally belong to a man in one of two ways; by continuing marriage or temporary marriage. In the former, the duration of the marriage need not be specified; in the latter, it must be stipulated, for example, that it is for a period of an hour, a day, a month, a year, or more. A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed […] A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister. [...] …A woman who has contracted a continuing marriage does not have the right to go out of the house without her husband's permission; she must remain at his disposal for the fulfilment of any one of his desires, and may not refuse herself to him except for a religiously valid reason. If she is totally submissive to him, the husband must provide her with her food, clothing, and lodging, whether or not he has the means to do so. [...] … If a man who has married a girl who has not reached puberty possesses her sexually before her ninth birthday, inflicting traumatisms upon her, he has no right to repeat such an act with her. […] A woman temporarily married, say, for a month or a year, has her marriage automatically annulled at the end of that time, or at any other time when the husband releases her from the balance of her engagement. It is not necessary for this that there be any witnesses, or that the woman have had her period. A woman who has had her ninth birthday, or who has not yet entered menopause, must wait for three menstrual periods after her divorce before being allowed to remarry. If a woman who has not reached her ninth birthday or who has not entered menopause gets temporarily married, she must, at the end of the contract or when the husband has released her from part of it, wait two menstrual periods or forty-five days before marrying again. […] A woman who has not yet reached the age of nine or a menopausal woman may remarry immediately after divorce, without waiting the hundred days that are otherwise required.” [This last sentence states that Muslim men are allowed to have sex with girls younger than nine as often as they like through temporary marriage]

MOORE'S PAEDOPHILE 'SLUR' ANGERS MUSLIMS by Nicholas Pyke - 12 December 2004
The Independent (National UK Newspaper, Online Edition)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=592343

“Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, provoked a storm of criticism from British Muslims yesterday for an article in which he championed the right to call the Prophet Mohamed a paedophile. Mr Moore, who opposes new legislation banning incitement to religious hatred, chose the sensitive issue of the Prophet's marriage to a nine-year-old to illustrate his case.”

In the UK (and most other civilised societies), sex with a girl under the age of 13 is classified as statutory rape, because such an act represents the total exploitation and abuse of a frail, dependent and defenceless human being. The offence carries a maximum life sentence. When girls under 13 are prescribed contraceptives, doctors are required to report this to the police or to social workers. The body of a 9 year old girl is much less developed than that of a 13 year old girl, and the mind of a 9 year old girl is much younger than the mind of a 13 year old child. Most 9 year old girls have no sexual thoughts or feelings therefore sex with a girl of 9 years of age can only be considered as RAPE, NO MATTER WHEN IT HAPPENED IN HISTORY. Just because rape of little undeveloped children by middle aged paedophiles was tolerated at the time of Muhammad doesn’t mean that it was any less of a crime against humanity than it is today. Do you think the children at that time felt any better about being raped than the children of today? The words “culture” and “religion” must never be used to justify or excuse serious crimes against humanity, particularly crimes against children. No excuse can justify such immoral and criminal behaviour. Any man caught having sex with a little nine year old child today would be locked up for life, and rightly so.

It should be mentioned that criminals who are imprisoned for murder, armed robbery and theft respect the crimes of all their fellow inmates with one exception; paedophilia. In many countries around the world, paedophiles do not survive long in prison, because they are very often raped or murdered by other inmates. Even amongst criminals, paedophilia is considered the worst crime of all. The lowest of the low.

If you are considering defending Muhammad on this issue, then probably you are a paedophile, BECAUSE TO DEFEND MUHAMMAD ON THIS ISSUE IS TO DEFEND SEX WITH LITTLE CHILDREN.

Why do Muslims consider that a man who abused little children can teach the world anything about morality, and how to lead a decent life?

Muhammad had his critics assassinated, and taught that apostates must be murdered. This explains the success of Islam - fear. People are still too afraid to speak the truth about Muhammad. People who do are killed, and that is why Islam continues to survive. Muslims never question their faith, because Muhammad taught that it was blasphemy to do so, and blasphemers are still killed today across the Muslim world. Many Islamic countries, including Pakistan, have laws on blasphemy which require the death sentence. For this reason the truth about Muhammad has been covered up for centuries, but now the truth is out of the bag.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 448:
Narrated 'Aisha (Muhammad’s child bride): ‘…So Allah's Apostle went to them (i.e. Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe). They then surrendered to the Prophet's judgment but he directed them to Sad to give his verdict concerning them. Sad said, "I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed."’ [Note that these Jews had surrendered to Muhammad]

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: ‘I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions of Muhammad) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (reached puberty) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.’

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4364 & 4368 & 4370:
…Then he (Muhammad) killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims…

Ishaq: 464 (& Tabari VIII:35) (The Sirat Rasulallah – The earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad)
The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina (it is still its marketplace today), and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men. As they were being taken in small groups to the Prophet, they said to one another, ‘What do you think will be done to us?’ Someone said, ‘Do you not understand. On each occasion do you not see that the summoner never stops? He does not discharge anyone. And that those who are taken away do not come back. By god, it is death!’ The affair continued until the Messenger of Allah had finished with them all.

Tabari VIII: 40
Allah’s Apostle commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.

Tabari VIII: 35 / Ishaq: 464
Huyayy, the enemy of Allah, was brought out. He was wearing a rose-colored suit of clothes that he had torn all over with fingertip-sized holes so that it would not be taken as booty. His hands were bound to his neck with a rope. When he looked at Muhammad he said, ‘I do not regret opposing you. Whoever forsakes god will be damned.’ He sat down and was beheaded.

Ishaq: 464 / Tabari VIII: 36
According to Aisha, one Jewish woman was killed. “She was by my side, talking with me while Allah’s Messenger was killing her men in the marketplace.”

Tabari VIII: 38
The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.

Ishaq: 465
When their wrists were bound with cords, the Apostle was a sea of generosity to us. [Meaning that after all the fighting men had been tied up, ready for beheading, Muhammad gave the women and children as slaves to the Muslims]

Ishaq: 465
Then the Apostle divided the property, wives, and children of the Qurayza among the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger took his fifth of the booty. He made known on that day the extra shares for horses and their riders—giving the horse two shares and the rider one. It was the first booty in which lots were cast.

The evidence speaks for itself, doesn't it? Anyone who lives their life according to the teachings of a paedophile and mass murderer should be monitored closely by the authorities.

Politicians need to become aware of all the above. Muhammad was a criminal and a terrorist, by any definition of those words, and anyone who seeks to emulate his “perfect example” should be monitored closely, particularly considering the terrorism we are all witnessing across the world today, carried out by men quoting from Muhammad's Qur'an and holding copies of the Qur'an, all claiming to be acting on behalf of Islam.

Mo's Holy family

Family is the basic building block of a society. If the families in a society are happy, then that society becomes a happy one. A happy family requires a strong love and sense of belonging and feelings between the spouses and a sense of security in the minds of children. A family cannot be happy if any of the spouses engages in philandering and collecting wives/husbands or engaging in objectionable behaviour like child molestation etc. Readers may have read that Islamists often talk a lot about peace and harmony in a family life. Where can we find the examples of peaceful and loving family lives? The answer, according to the Islamists, of course, is the examples of the prophet and his closest friends and allies. Day and night, these Islamists are preaching that in all aspects of our lives we should imitate the prophet (pbuh) and his disciples. These are the examples of the holy families that the Muslims are supposed to emulate. Let us now briefly see what examples the prophet of mercy (pbuh) and his closest partners have left for the rest of the Muslim Ummah to follow. I have included the brief descriptions of all the wives of prophet Mohammad, his four Caliphs (Khulafa Rashedin) and two Imams (Imam Hasan and Imam Husain).

After the death of Khadijah, his first wife, Mohammad went on a wife collection spree. Between the ages of 50 to 58, he collected at least seven wives. The ages of his wives ranged from a mere 6 years old child to a 50 years old lady! It is more surprising that at the age of 60 alone, Mohammad collected another sortie of at least four wives whose ages ranged from 17 years Safiyah to 36 years Maimunah. It is interesting to note that as Mohammad was ageing he desired more and more young women.

Muhammad's lust for young/child girls is clearly stated in hadith. Here is one example:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?' ( Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17)

Mohammad left the following examples to his followers (in marriage):

· If possible, marry rich women so that they can support you (Khadijah, Zainab bt. Jahsh). In this case, you do not need to work. You can be a parasite.

· Marry old women only to take care of your family (Saudah, Umm Salam Hind, Zainab bt. Khuzaima). That is, marry old women to save on maidservant's pay.

· It is okay to marry children as young as 6 (Ayesha). This is to satisfy your paedophilic fantasies and also to ensure a carer when you are about to die. You will save on nursing charges as well as having a youthful face around.

· You can marry your friend's daughters (Ayesha, Hafsah) even though you may be like their grandfather or even great grandfather.

· You can marry your adopted son's wife (Zainab bt. Jahsh) even though Islam forbids the adoption of children.

· You can marry your first cousin (Zainab bt. Jahsh). In many societies, it is almost like committing incest. However, in Islam this is perfectly okay.

· You can marry and have sex with your captives (Safiyah); but always take the most beautiful and the youngest girls as your prisoners. Do not go for the old, ugly, poor and hapless women prisoners.

· It is all right to accept women as gifts (Umm Habibah, Mariyah) and to have sex with them by marrying them. Make sure the women are extremely attractive and young.

· You can marry and have sex with your slave girls given as gifts (Mariyah).

· You can also have sex with unlimited number of girls got as gift and/or war booty, without marriage.

· If a captive refuses to marry you, then you can keep her as a concubine (Rayhana) and have sex with her until you’re contended.

Here are some details of women the prophet of Islam married or kept as concubines.

The prophet said, "the woman can be married for religion, her fortune or her beauty. So marry one for the religion" (Abu Issa al-Tarmidi, Sunan al-Tarmidi, Medina n.d., p.275, B:4, H:1092). I quote one more hadith for confirmation:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "A woman is married for four things, i.e., her wealth, her family status, her beauty and her religion. So you should marry the religious woman (otherwise) you will be a losers. (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 27)

Notice that prophet never talked of love, sense of belonging and feelings between men and women. The basis of his relationship is all physical.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/abulkazem/holy_family.htm

Victoria,

Copying and pasting Islamic "wishy wash" to cover the sins of Islam does not work. Please address the militaristic and female demeaning agenda of the "Koranic" scribes in future commentary.

SAALEHA- perhaps youve noticed a certain strain of anti-muslim sentiment expressed here-
it is nothing new and happens to every post.
i am posting this for your sake, as the Prophet(pbuh) doesnt need to be defended.

i will also post the link-this information was provided initially as a link from the panelist pamela taylor- and i bookmarked it

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To begin with[1], I think it is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single reliable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.

In my opinion, the age of Ayesha (ra) has been grossly misreported in the narratives of the incident. Not only that, I think that the narratives reporting this event are not only highly unreliable but also that on the basis of other historical data, the event reported, is quite an unlikely happening. Let us look at the issue from an objective stand point. My reservations in accepting the narratives, on the basis of which, Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is held to be nine years are:

*

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `urwah reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.
*

It is quite strange that no one from Medinah, where Hisham ibn `urwah lived the first seventy-one years of his life has narrated the event, even though in Medinah his pupils included people as well known as Malik ibn Anas. All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medinah for seventy-one years.
*

Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq (Vol. 11, pg. 48 - 51).
*

Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, another book on the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that when he was old, Hisham's memory suffered quite badly (Vol. 4, pg. 301 - 302).
*

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an , was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th Surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Ayesha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not even only an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why should we not accept this narrative to be more accurate.
*

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden upon them.
*

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in the 73rd year after hijrah[2] when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in the 73rd year after hijrah, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra) - if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.
*

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she most likely got married.
*

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not even have been born during the first year of Islam.
*

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr (ra) planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged at that time - and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam. Subsequently, his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.
*

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".
*

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

These are some of the major points that go against accepting the commonly known narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage.

In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

1st May 1998

[1] The answer to this question is primarily based on the research by Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi (urdu) as presented in his booklet, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat", Anjuman Uswa e hasanah, Karachi, Pakistan

[2] That is, the migration of the Prophet (pbuh)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375.

i started a recap- but it ended up being as long as the article.
so it speaks for itself

peace saaleha

SAALEHA,

Mohammed taking young and many wives is disturbing. What is more disturbing, however, is the rest of his biography i.e.

Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

One two groups of people make absolute truth claims that are incommensurate -- as we see on this thread -- they cannot both be correct.

Just blindly follow

Salleha,

You want to send people to Wikipedia? Any person can post something on Wikipedia. Why don’t you defend it yourself? So people make a good point and you want to change the subject. Are you saying that it does not matter if Muhammad acted in way that is inconsistent with being a prophet? That Muslims will just blindly follow no matter what the evidence shows. Wow, that is interesting.

The issue of the age at which the Prophet Muhammed took Aisha as his wife seems to recur in just about every discussion, whether it is related or not. It seems to be one of the constant weapons in the Islam Bashers' arsenal. To bring matters into perspective, I think you need to look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

It is of interest to note that as late as the Nineteenth Century an age of consent ranging between 10 and 13 was seen as perfectly acceptable. My Grandmother was married at 14 and had her first child by the time she was fifteen.

The Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him does not need anyone to defend his character. Even those who did not accept his message could not deny his honesty and trustworthiness. And no amount of 'hadith' to prove otherwise will make a difference to the belief of a Muslim.

Perhaps we need to stick to the issues at hand and accept that the purpose of this forum is not for it to degenerate into a Muslim Bashing fest, but rather to foster religious tolerance and understanding. We worship a God who loves us, and desires the best for us. And hatred is never good for the soul. The spiritual journey must make us better, not worse.

Correction: it was Caliph Uthman who ordered the old scribe Abdullah ibn Mas'ud till he died. Remember Ibn Mas'ud was Muhammad's most trustworthy scribe, not the junior scribe Zayd ibn Thabbit who wasn't thought much of by Muhammad.

Ibn Mas'ud was the one who was with Muhammad when he reviewed the Quran each Ramadan. In fact, when Muhammad was asked whose 'reading' of the Quran he preferred, Muhammad answered, 'The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud'. Ibn Sa'ad 2:441.

Thus, it is clear the version of the Quran we have today was the particular version of Caliph Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabbit, not the one favored by Muhammad himself.

Correction: it was Caliph Uthman who ordered the old scribe Abdullah ibn Mas'ud till he died. Remember Ibn Mas'ud was Muhammad's most trustworthy scribe, not the junior scribe Zayd ibn Thabbit who wasn't thought much of by Muhammad.

Ibn Mas'ud was the one who was with Muhammad when he reviewed the Quran each Ramadan. In fact, when Muhammad was asked whose 'reading' of the Quran he preferred, Muhammad answered, 'The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud'. Ibn Sa'ad 2:441.

Thus, it is clear the version of the Quran we have today was the particular version of Caliph Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabbit, not the one favored by Muhammad himself.

The order and verses of the Quran were essentially the work of two men - the junior scribe Zayd ibn Thabit and his master Caliph Uthman ibn Affan.

Many verses were not included. Though Muhammad did make some references to where some verses should be included where he didn't specify the exact location (merely that this or that verse should be in surah x, not its actual place). Also, many verses were lost - evidence is the sahih hadiths that has recorded these lost ayats. Some surahs were known to be much longer in Muhammad's day than they are today.

Even authorities of the like of Aisha and Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab swore that there were missing verses - e.g. the verses of rajm (i.e. stoning) and raza'at (i.e. suckling).

Also we know that there were several other scribes who made their own versions of the Quran - all these were destroyed by Umar in favor of his version. If you burn 'dissenting' copies then why do you claim that the Quran is unchanged? It is essentially unchanged from Umar's version because he made it a capital crime to deviate from HIS version.

Remember that Umar ordered the flogging unto death an old scribe who was one of Muhammad's companions who insisted on keeping his own version of the Quran as he himself learnt from Muhammad. Thus, the "divinely laid down order" of the Quran is tinged with blood - typically Islamic of course.

The fact that it did not even occur to Muhammad to lay down a single authoritative version of the Quran is quite hilarious, if one can only see the funny side of the Quran left on bits of bark, leather, bone etc.

The fact that the Muslims decided to compile the Quran was a decision of the first Caliph - Abu Bakr. Some of Muhammad's closest companions were not in favor of doing so since Muhammad never compiled the Quran, but Abu Bakr proceeded, saying it was a 'good project'. Thus, began the first compilation of the Quran which was given to Hafsa, one of Muhammad's wives.

Later on, other Muslims, mostly scribes, followed this 'innovation' and compiled their own versions.

Thus, Muslims who claim that the Quran is unchanged and that it is exactly as Muhammad had laid it down have not read or ignored the evidence from their own historical sources.

Does it really matter what parts of the Koran are missing when Mohammed's short bio is as noted below?

Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

Al-Isra (The Journey by Night)

17:36 And never concern thyself with anything of which thou hast no knowledge: [45] verily, [thy] hearing and sight and heart - all of them - will be called to account for it [on Judgment Day]!

Al-Furqan (The Criterion)

25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;

Al-Qasas (The Narration)

28:55 and, whenever they heard frivolous talk, [54] having turned away from it and said: “Unto us shall be accounted Our deeds, and unto you, your deeds. Peace be upon you - [but] we do not seek out such as are ignorant [of the meaning of right and wrong].”

Al-Nour (The Light)

24:12 Why do not the believing men and women, whenever such [a rumour] is heard, [15] think the best of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”?

24:13 why do they not [demand of the accusers that they] [16] their allegation? [17] for, if they do not produce such wit­nesses, it is those [accusers] who, in the sight of God, are liars indeed!

24:15 when you take it up with your tongues, uttering with your mouths something of which you have no knowledge, and deeming it a light matter whereas in the sight of God it is an awful thing!

24:16 And [once again]: Why do you not say, whenever you hear such [a rumour], “It does not behoove us to speak of this, O Thou who art limitless in Thy glory: this is an awesome calumny”? [19]

Al-Hujurat (The Dwellings)

49:11 O YOU who have attained to faith! No men shall deride [other] men: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves; and no women [shall deride other] women: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than them­selves. [12] And neither shall you defame one another, nor insult one another by [opprobrious] epithets: evil is all imputation of iniquity after [one has attained to] faith; [13] and they who [become guilty thereof and] do not repent - it is they, they who are evildoers!

Most Muslims believe the Qur’an is an exact copy of a tablet of the Qur’an [in Heaven] in Sura 85:20-22. But consider the following points.
1. It is strange that even in the temporary verses in the Qur’an that Muslims agree Mohammed said were abrogated, are stored for all time in Heaven. They are still in the Qur’an today.
2. Many Muslims are not aware that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur’an today. Muslim apologists claim this too was abrogated, but it is not in today’s Qur’an.
3. ‘Ubai’s early copies of the Qur’an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur’an today.
4. ‘Abdallah ibn Mas’ud was one of the four people Mohammed said to learn the Qur’an from. Yet Al-Nuri lists verses in Ibn Mas’ud’s version that are not in the Qur’an today.
5. Satan always throws something in with a prophet’s words according to Sura 22:52, but God has to cancel it out. This might be an explanation for why four different Muslim historical sources report that Sura 53:19-20 originally said the intercession (help) of four idol goddesses was to be hoped for.
6. ‘Uthman also made changes to standardize the Qur’an, but that is the topic of the next part.

When Mohammed had a vision, the Bukhari Hadiths record that strange things would happen. He experienced a ringing in his ears vol.1:1;4:438, his heart beat rapidly vol.1:3, his face would turn red vol. 2 ch.16 (after no.610); vol.5:618; he breathed heavily vol.6:508 p.476, he fell on the ground with both eyes open toward the sky vol.5:170;6:448, he sweat profusely vol.1:2;2:544;3:829, and see and hear things no one else did vol.1:2,3 vol.4:458,461; vol.6:447. These would seem weird back then, but doctors recognize these as signs of an epileptic fit.

Since the fits were unpredictable, after Mohammed’s death fragments of the Qur’an were written on palm leaves, rocks, and bones according to the Bukhari vol.6:509 p.478. Thus there was no organized manuscript of the Qur’an prior to his death. Some verses did not survive according to the Bukhari vol.4:57,62,69,299. Many who had memorized the Qur’an were killed, and Abu Bakr was worried that some parts of the Qur’an would be lost. Bukhari vol.6:509 p.477-478. After the Qur’an was gathered, it still needed "compiling" years later.

Timothy,

That verses were abrogated during the lifetime of the Prophet is not debated. They were. We know that. Revelation was an ongoing process, not a single book-long narration. Before the Prophet's death, he made clear which verses were to be included in what order.

The Qur'an that is published today is the same as that version he finalized, the only exception being the addition of diacritical marks clarifying vowelization. (Note, vowelization is not necessary in Arabic -- pick up an Arabic newspaper or book, for instance, and there are no vowel markers as the pronunciation is clear, but in the case of the Qur'an and hadith where non-native Arabic speakers will be reading them, the vowel markers are important.) The earliest extant Qur'an was, unfortunately, burned up in Baghdad after the American invasion. Two dating from 20 years after the Prophet's death are on display, one in Turkey and one in Tajikistan. You can compare modern Qur'ans to them if you'd like.

Abrogated Verses in Mohammed’s Lifetime

"Then Allah revealed to us a verse that was among the cancelled ones later on." Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.416 p.288.

"Narrated Anas bin Malik: ... There was revealed about those who were killed at Bi’r-Ma’una a Qur’anic Verse we used to recite, but it was cancelled later on. The verse was: ‘Inform our people that we have met our Lord. He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased.’" Bukhari vol.4:69 p.53. See also the History of al-Tabari vol.7 p.156.

Other references to cancelled verses are: Bukhari vol.4:57 p.45, Bukhari vol.4:299 p.191, and Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.421 p.293 all repeat the same thing about the same verse.

The Satanic Verses of the Qur’an

This term has been used for some time to describe two verses of Mohammed that were "abrogated" or taken out.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was a god with three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat.

Sura 53:19-20 "Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?"

-originally followed by

"These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for."

vs.

"Are yours the males and His the females? That indeed were an unfair division."

At one time Mohammed compromised and said concerning the daughters of Allah in Sura 53:19 that "their intercession was to be hoped for." In other words, Mohammed said we should hope for the help of these three idols. Mohammed’s followers were amazed that he said this. Mohammed later changed and said Satan had deceived him. These verses were abrogated or taken out.

It is interesting to read how Allah could have what are called "abrogated verses" in Suras 13:39; 16:101; 2:106.

Hello Pamela,

If the Qur'an truly is uncorrupted, why does the Muslim world not publish the oldest Qur'an manuscripts? What is there to hide?

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:22-23).

Islam is a religion of self righteousness. Jesus rejected those who thought that they were righteous within themselves. Islam is full of modern day Pharisees who focus on outward religious appearance rather than the heart. Islam is only for those who speak Arabic and accept Islamic culture. Jesus is for everyone and you do not have to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to read His word. The sovereign God of the universe made sure we received His word as it should be. We have more manuscript evidence that any other writing in antiquity to check our translations against. I trust God over Muhammad who came along 600 years after Jesus and denied God's revelation by teaching that Jesus is not the Son of God and that Jesus did not die on the cross. These claims are the height or arrogance and an insult to Jesus Christ and all Christians but we will let God be true and every man a liar. We will pray for the Muslim to see the truth and will not draw the sword to force them to convert. Our God is big enough to take care of the unbelievers.

Pablo

i hope you all have a sense of humor-

i always liked this bumper sticker

'look busy, jesus(ata) is coming

Christ has died Christ has arisen and Christ is definetley coming again

that was easy enough- no there were no new testament scrolls- i had forgotten completely about the essenes though-

i think maybe ill reread them in the context of being muslim_ ( i read them as a christian)

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/library.html

i have heard others say there were other scrolls with scripture, but all i remember reading about was isaiah- i read several books aboyt the dead sea scrlls many years ago, and i dont remeber any other scripture.
i guess a search is easy enough these days but maybe someone knows.
peace

Harvard Divinity School is apostate and has denied the faith. I do not trust anything those non-believers say. The true men of God who preceded the apostates there now would expose their lies and unbelief. I am not impressed with your time at Harvard. God is not impressed with your education either. Many of the disciples Jesus chose were fishermen.

Pablo

Glory Only in the Lord
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”

Pamela,

Most honest textual critics agree with you concerning the end of Mark and also with other NT variants. However, these variants do not affect the theology of Scripture. Most of them have no bearing on consistent doctrinal teaching and can be explained away as scribal mistakes. Any beginning book on textual criticism has a good explanation on variants and how Scripture was passed down through the ages.

The amazing thing is that recent discoveries have validated the accuracy of scribes...especially those copying the OT. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the main example. Even secular scholars recognize the value of this find in establishing the accuracy of our current texts.

Hmm... Pablo not sure which version of the Bible you are referring to as untampered -- the Catholic one or the Protestant one. There are significant differences between the two.

More pertinent, in my class on the New Testament at Harvard Divinity School, a class for people who were being ordained as priests, we were studying Mark. At the end of one class, the professor said, "Next class we move onto Matthew." One of the students raised his hand and said, what about the final 12 verses, sir?" And the Professor said, "Oh, everyone knows those were added by a scribe in the 1300, so we don't teach them."

This was not a Muslim arguing against the Bible, but a man whose life work was to educate the next generation of pastors and priests.

Wikipedia has a section discussion edits to Mark:

"Mark 1:1 has been found in two different forms. Most manuscripts of Mark, including the 4th-century Codex Vaticanus, have the text "son of God",[25] but three important manuscripts do not. Those three are: Codex Sinaiticus (01, א; dated 4th century), Codex Koridethi (038, Θ; 9th century), and the text called Minuscule 28 (11th century).[26] Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament states: "Since the combination of B D W all in support of [Son of God] is extremely strong, it was not thought advisable to omit the words altogether, yet because of the antiquity of the shorter reading and the possibility of scribal expansion, it was decided to enclose the words within square brackets."

(...) one may take note of Mark 7:16, "Let anyone with ears to hear, listen," which is not found in early manuscripts.

Ending
Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was added after the original autograph. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel. The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:7, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 [on Wikipedia] for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.)

pablo- you wrote-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I write the following out of love for you and all Muslims. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and then-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Muhammad is an antichrist because he denied the Son. This means that all of Muhammad’s teachings should be rejected."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PABLO- YOU CAN STOP LOVING US NOW

mr price- very impressive scholarship-
your point that if abraham were indeed a composite- the authors would have simply assimilated isaac and jacob into that personality are beyond my meager ability to dispute.

very astute and also most reasonably toned

im very happy to see such people here

danny- you really are catholic in the literal sense of the word-

this is an issue dear to my heart and when i have time i hope to come back (insha'alla-if god wills)and make some remarks on my ruminations about personal responsibility and salvation-

if the muslim bashers can be kept at bay- this looks to be a promising discussion.
peace

Professor? Price,

You noted that the Jesus Seminarians concluded that only one statement from Mark's Gospel was authenic Jesus i.e. Mark 12:17. "The Jesus Seminar, however, only states one text from Mark as being truly authentic and that was "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's""

Hmmm, let us look at the conclusions of Professor Crossan (#1 Jesus Seminarian) as posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf and also noted in his book The Historical Jesus.

Positive ratings so listed:

1+. Mission and Message: Mark 6:7-13

4+. Ask, Seek, Knock: Mark 11:24

5+. Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) ) Mark 15:22-38 .

8+. When and Where, Mark 13:21-23

9+. Who Has Ears, Mark 4:9

10+. Receiving the Sender: Mark 9:36-37

15+. Against Divorce: Mark 10:10-12

19+. What Goes In: Mark 7:14-15;

20+. Kingdom and Children: Mark 10:13-16

And the list goes on and on if you want to review the complete referenced site. Use your Edit Menu with "Mark" as the Find word.

For added commentaries, see also http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html by simply scrolling down the page to the cited number and title of each passage noted above and from the continuation of the list so noted in the first web site. Specific voting by the Jesus Seminarians is also shown at the second referenced web site for many of the passages.

Interesting post Nicholas Price.

I have also seen Concerned Christian's lengthy post multiple times, and refrained from comment.

While I cannot comment on all the traditions he lists, the note about Martin Luther is not really accurate either.

Martin Luther was not motivated by hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie(s)" (which is condescending, and however original, is not clever). He wrote his 95 theses in response to his deep concern that Rome was profiting at the expense of the souls of the faithful in the selling of indulgences.

Furthermore, this dubious information isn't even relevant to the question or article here.

I don't think the disproving of the resurrection would impact the value of Christ's message. It would however, require a Christian at that point to serach for the new way to salvation.

Many, many profound people have had wonderful, life chaging messages over time...they just could not personally offer salvation to the faithful, as Christians believe Jesus can. That doesn't mean their messages were valueless.

Dr. Price?,

Let us start with Abraham and comments by others. First, there are 1.5 million Conservative Jews who no longer believe in the Torah since by their analyses there is insufficient text and archeological evidence that any of the stories ever happened.

From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "

Next we have his age: He was one hundred when he sired Isaac with his wife, Sara who was 90. Deal or no deal??? He was 175 when he died. Deal or no deal? He was a direct descendent of Adam. All that inbreeding with the first family then Noah's group did the same thing!! Yucky Do!!!

And being a descendent of someone who talked to Satan/snakes and resided nude in a magic garden? Probably not!!

I believe National Geographic tried finding Abraham's roots a few years ago. They apparently found a few birthing venues and tombs that had "tourist traps" written all over them but found no bones or supporting texts.

With respect to the true Adam, see the National Geographic Genographic project review at :

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
(Click on the Atlas tab)
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Time for Office then back to the discussion.

Nicholas Price,

Thank you for your rational well written response to Concerned. I hope that your example will lead others to be considerate of each other and to address the issues of the postings. A reasoned dialogue is the goal, I believe.

Dear Concerned,

I have seen you post this list on several threads now and I thought it might be a good time to respond. I cannot speak for all of the traditions that you address, but I would like to comment on your first and second points.

In regard to the first point, you wrote, "Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men." This critique of Abraham has largely been posited by scholars based on the argument that there is no archeological evidence for the existence of Abraham. However, there would not be because of the fact that he and his family are depicted by the three monotheistic traditions as pastoral nomads. As such, they would not have built civilizations which could be traced.

Others argue for this point of view on literary grounds, stating that his son and grandson (Isaac and Jacob respectively) had similar experiences to Abraham, and therefore, the depiction of him must be an amalgamation of three persons. However, the textual evidence does not support this point of view. For one, the claim that they had similar experiences in regard to the locations that they visited can easily be explained on anthropological grounds. Nomadic cultures often visit the same sites at different points in the grazing season. This pattern would be followed by subsequent generations as a way of maintaining their lifestyle.

Furthermore, to argue that Abraham was a combination of three men based upon similarities with the Isaac and Jacob stories ignores the fact that the Isaac and Jacob tales, if anything, may have been modeled on Abraham's story. The literary purpose of the author of Genesis was to show God's continuing covenant with Abraham's descendents. So the narrative carries these similar elements into the Isaac and Jacob narratives. However, if Abraham was based on these other two men, the author would have simply merged the three.

Regarding your second point, the data that you cite, specifically that "contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic" is simply inaccurate. The belief that only 30% of Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament are authentic was made primarily by the Jesus Seminar. Unfortunately, the scholarship being done by the Jesus Seminar is hardly representative of the majority of NT scholarship and the methodology used by them to arrive at their claims fails to take into account serious historical and literary issues.

For starters, the Jesus Seminarians began their research with several major assumptions. Some of these included the belief that Jesus said nothing relating to an eschatological belief system and that his explanations of his parables are not to be attributed directly to him. These are just two of several major assumptions about what Jesus did and did not say.

However, the problem with this is that they do not draw on any other texts to support this claim. Though they cite the Gospel of Thomas, the earliest form of this gospel that we have is dated to the 4th century, a great deal later than the dating of the four canonical gospels. Even the most liberal scholars in the field of New Testament studies would only date its earliest form to the late second century. This would place it well behind Mark, which is widely asserted to be the earliest account of Jesus’ teaching. The Jesus Seminar, however, only states one text from Mark as being truly authentic and that was "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:17).

While the Jesus Seminar does hold to the two source theory, namely that Luke and Matthew were compiled using Mark and the theoretical document Q, they still discount a large amount of material shared by Matthew and Luke as inauthentic, even though these texts are believed to be derived from the Q source material. Once again, they give no historical proof or basis for doing this.

The Jesus Seminar also immediately discounts any of Jesus’ claims of having a role in God's plan for Israel and any of his explanations of his parables. However, this divorces him from the Jewish context in which he lived and ignores the fact that rabbis would often expound upon their allegorical teachings. The most probable assumption, whether one agrees with Jesus or not, is that the explanations that he gives regarding his teaching and his identity are indeed his. This viewpoint has been supported by several NT scholars including Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza who stated that, "Exegetes agree that it is the mark of Jesus' preaching and ministry that he proclaimed the basileia of God as future and present, eschatological vision and experiential reality" (as quoted in "The Corrected Jesus" by Richard B. Hays). Likewise, James Charlesworth of Princeton and E.P. Sanders of Duke state that "the dominant view today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism" (see E.P. Sanders, "Jesus and Judaism", 2; quoted by James H. Charlesworth, "Jesus within Judaism" (New York: Doubleday, 1988). They ground these findings in their analysis of the New Testament documents as well as trends within 1st century Judea.

The Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, misses this point by stating that we can only state that 30% of what Jesus said was authentic, while failing to provide any evidence to support this theory. Instead, they needed to separate Jesus from the historical period in which he lived and cut out large parts of his teaching without giving scholarly grounds for this approach. Furthermore, while there were a few notable scholars participating in the Seminar, "not one member of the New Testament faculty from Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Duke, University of Chicago, Union Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt, SMU, or Catholic University was involved in this project" (see aforementioned article by Hays). So to say that their findings are representative of the best scholarship is indeed misleading.

All of this is to say that your claim is founded upon poor NT scholarship which hardly represents what many would call sound academic research. If Jesus did exist, it is clear that his teaching reflected an eschatological viewpoint and that he saw himself as a messenger from God or even the Jewish Messiah. Therefore, he was either raving mad or he was who he said he was. That choice is up to you and is merely a matter of opinion.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

Time to resurrect a short synopsis of world religion founders:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations (if you take the literal word of the NT), has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress Gentiles and various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

Dear Pamela,

I write the following out of love for you and all Muslims. I know the truth may hurt but it is necessary for you and all Muslims to realize the Islamic deception so that you may be set free from the lie of Islam.

Muhammad had no right to judge the Bible and there is no proof as the Muslims claim that the Bible has been “doctored.” Muslims claim they believe the Bible is the Word of God before it was doctored and claim that the Qur'an is not corrupted because God kept it that way. My question is why Muslims believe that God is not big enough to keep the Bible from corruption. It seems to me that they are selective in where they apply God's sovereignty.

Muhammad denied that Jesus was the Son of God and that He died on the cross and arose from the dead. It seems to me that these claims are from the spirit of the antichrist as the Apostle John who walked with Jesus wrote:

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also" (1 John 2:22-23).

According to the Apostle John who walked with Jesus Muhammad is an antichrist because he denied the Son. This means that all of Muhammad’s teachings should be rejected. I know this is not politically correct but it is the truth and thus every Christian should reject Islam and its false prophet Muhammad.

No Muslim has proved that the Bible is corrupted and I will take the word of the Apostles who walked with Jesus over Muhammad who came along 600 years after Jesus and claimed to have visions. Especially since the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament and fits perfectly with what was foretold about the Messiah. It is interesting that Muhammad thought demons where the source of his initial vision until his wife told that it was God. His first inclination was correct. His revelations are from the spirit of the antichrist.

The bones will not be found for, "He is risen just as He said."

Pablo

Relying on either the Gospels or the Koran to learn about the life of Jesus is a bit like asking what happened to Sherlock Holmes after he seemed to disappear into the Reichenbach falls. One could write the ending lots of different ways.

The gospels and the Koran present two endings, here is a third option: Jesus was killed in a jealous rage by a follower of John the Baptist. What basis do I have for this assertion? None, about the same as the author of the Koran writing in the 7th century CE.