The comments below the article indicate most Brits are dead set against the recognition of polygamy, and sharia law in general.

Of course, we all know how much public opinion counts with our fearless leaders these days.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at November 21, 2008 8:47 AM

...he clarified his position as being one of confusion as to why relationships such as extra-marital affairs should be recognised under English law, and furthermore how men could be permitted to marry other men, and women other women. He argued that if such relationships were not considered abhorrent, then current attitudes towards polygamy could not, and should not, be justified.

Because gay marriage and extra-marital affairs (i.e., consentual relationships which do not take place under incestuous Sharia sex slavery, having a boyfriend or girlfriend) do not violate anyone's human rights. Of course Muslims don't understand that. It hinges upon the fact that women are human. If Britain legalizes it then they have to legalize polynadry too, since when they say "polygamy" what they mean is "polygyny." Muslims keep demonstrating that they have zero concept of morality whatsoever.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 8:47 AM

ImNoDhimmi, the only segment of public opinion that matters to those gutless cowards is that of Muslims.

Posted by: Proud_Kafir7908 at November 21, 2008 9:04 AM

"He asserted that these marriages would be relatively few in number, due to the advances made by women in society negating the need to "save" them from destitution, and that any entered into would be through the free choice of the woman."

That's right. Get your foot in the door and then all bets are off.
Why should there be ANY need for polygamy given "the advances made by women in society negating the need to "save" them from destitution"?
The Mormon Church was required to give up polygamy before Utah would be admitted into the Union. Europeans forbade polygamy as well.
As to the question whether 1.5 billion Muslims are "stupid" for believing in polygamy, the answer is no. That doesn't mean that Western societies are required to forfeit their own laws and rules. The day Muslims in Muslim countries decide that the billions of people who believe in a different God or even in no god have as much right to exist as a Muslim does, then maybe we can talk.
The comparison of gay marriage and polygamy is another false argument. Like it or not, even gay marriage is between two people. How can you forsake all others in a polygamous relationship? Unless a woman is allowed to take multiple husbands then she will always be in a subservient position. Marriage is a contract between two people. Polygamy is not marriage.
If polygamy becomes legal then, since the entire concept of marriage has been squashed, I want the right to marry my sister, my brother or my mother, for purely financial reasons. I want the many benefits accorded to married couples. I want to pay a lower tax rate on my income.
Globally, non-Muslims outnumber Muslims by at least four to one. Muslims: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. You chose to live in the West. Abide by its laws or go home to dar-al-Islam.
Can anyone in the UK explain what happens when Muslims who already have multiple wives come to live in the UK? Are they grandfathered in?

Posted by: PMK at November 21, 2008 9:09 AM

Good Grief. And I do mean Grief.

Posted by: darcy at November 21, 2008 9:39 AM

l would say to this Sheikh Faiz ul-Aqtab Siddiqi that if you do not like the British rule of law, you can leave the country and dont let the back door hit your backside. good riddance!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 21, 2008 9:54 AM

From jdamn: Of course Muslims don't understand that. It hinges upon the fact that women are human.

Well, I guess you didn't read the part where it says women are 'tilth'.

There is some cosmic symbolism behind that but I doubt Allah or Mohammad were that sophisticated.

'Tilth' in terms of forcing sex, and possibly pregnancy, on an unwilling woman, is the lowest possible form of cosmic 'tilth' short of murder.

And also Tabari records that Allah created women stupid, as retaliation for what Eve did in the Garden. He also made women bleed once a month as payback for slashing the tree ( A wheat tree apparently), and making it bleed.

A 'stupid' woman/child of 'tilth', one that is not quite human, is the ideal victim for Mohammadans in a superior position, which is all of them.

Would a good Mohammadan take unfair advantage of his power position over another???...You bet...Allah willing, and he always is...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 21, 2008 10:32 AM

This just underlines the need for the Tancredo Bill. People who support polygyny, or any other aspect of Sharia, simply are not entitled to live in civilized nations. Period. They don't respect our laws nor do they have any respect for civilization itself. It's digusting.

As to the question whether 1.5 billion Muslims are "stupid" for believing in polygamy, the answer is no.

They're not stupid because of that. They're stupid because of Islamic education based on the filthy Koran and Hadiths, which teaches them that Earth is flat and whole host of other insane and barbaric beliefs which would preclude admission to any private kindergarten in the Free World. They are mentally ill, filthy, digusting, evil barbarians with no concept of morality for believing in polygyny, which hinges upon the belief that women and little girls are not humans, just property to be bought, mistreated and raped. If they allow polygyny then child marriage (forced, institutionalized rape/proostitution of little girls) is next.

I hate the gay marriage argument. Gay marriage hinges upon the fact that gays are people and are therefore entitled to all the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. Polygamy hinges upon the idea that women are not people - just mutilated, undead-corpse sex slaves/property - and are therefore not entitled to any rights and freedoms.

Here's a civilized idea: no rights or freedoms for non-taxpayers or non-citizens. Seriously. The UK's modern system of government is largely rooted in the Federalist Papers, as is ours. "No taxation without representation" should be a two-way street.

To quote Philip Saenz:

Polygamy is legalized prostitution. This goes against a harmonious society. The True God of the Christians and Jews never intended for lecherous male Muslims to have more than one wife. When the God of Christians and Jews created humans, He created only one man and one woman, Adam and Eve. Those lecherous Muslim males think that they should have several wives, actually prostitutes. The child molester and paedophile Muhammad had at least a dozen wives. Muhammad was worse than a pig in heat. Aisha complained that Muhammad and his followers were mean to their wives, (Sahih Muslim, 4.1039).

God also never intended for old, lecherous Muslim males to rape little girls after forcing them into a "marriage" that the poor children never wanted. Let's face it, authentic Muslims are worse than wild animals in heat. Authentic Muslim males have never learned to contain their run away sexual passions. Their minds must be very perverted. Could it be because they are always dwelling on those 72 virgins and 28 prepubescent little boys? Why don't you Muslim lechers slow down? See if you Muslim lechers can hold back. The world would be much more beautiful if you wild Muslims stopped your raping and killing all over the world.

God never intended for people to narcissistically buy and sell one another as sex slaves (i.e., Muslim marriage), to rape one another (i.e., Muslim marriage), to buy and sell mltiple women as sex slaves (i.e., Muslim marriage), or for old men to buy little girls as sex slaves (i.e., Muslim marriage). Muslim "marriage" is nothing more than a justification for rape and slavery, which were nothing more than motivation for mentally ill, inbred barbarians to commit genocide. Islam is unacceptable and intolerable. Everything about it. Period.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 10:46 AM

Women cannot possibly be equal to men in any society that permits polygamy. Polygamy is an absolute guarantee that women will be inferior to men. All sensible women should see this and all men who do look upon their wife or girlfriend as their equal should implicitly know this. No Western nation should, to any extent, entertain the notion that polygamy should be permitted. To do so runs counter to the entire Western tradition of placing more emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual.

And how fitting it is that Islam condones polygamy-----still. But then Islam is an absolute guarantee that women will always be subordinate to men, even in the next world. So it should come as no surprise to anyone who knows Islam's true worth that its religious law values and permits polygamy. As for Britain, if it permits polygamy via Sharia creep, then it really is losing its national soul.

Posted by: Wellington at November 21, 2008 10:47 AM

duh_swami, Tabari also said that "women are like domestic animals." It's true, under Islam, according to which domestic animals are also sex slaves to be bought and sold.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 11:00 AM

There was a song...'When a man loves a woman'.

There is another song...'When a man loves some women'.

Then there's another song...'What's love got to do with it?

Mohammadans don't sing the first one very much, but there is a loud chorus of the second two...

And they say Allah does not like singing...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 21, 2008 11:13 AM

Muslims don't support Tina Turner because of her decision to leave Ike and to have her own career. According to Mohammedans, she should have stayed at home in a burqa, never showing off her fabulous legs, never wearing her trademark wigs, getting physically abused all the time. She should not have divorced, had a career, or taken issue with being beaten. She should not have gone on Oprah to talk about it either, since Ike should not have been asked why he beat her.

"What's love got to do with it" isn't their song. "What is love?" (the Mango song) is their tune.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 11:25 AM

It struck me that the argument being made for polygamy is that other forms of relationships are allowed in the UK. Yet Sheikh Faiz ul-Aqtab Siddiqi seems to draw the line arbitrarily at men having lots of wives. If the argument is true for that situation it should be extended...and I wonder how does a wife having lots of husbands or a group of homosexual men all being married to one another work under Sharia Law?

Posted by: Peterborough at November 21, 2008 11:34 AM

"What's love got to do with it" isn't their song. "What is love?" (the Mango song) is their tune.

Posted by: jdamn

Yeah but, 'What's love got to do with it ' is a catchier tune...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 21, 2008 11:44 AM

You got me there, Swami.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 11:46 AM

Yes, this is certainly an example of what Robert discusses in Stealth Jihad, no doubt about it. However... This is just another example of WHY Islam should be considered a cult. This is just another example of why this "religion" does NOT in fact adhere to or follow the same God as the Judeo-Christian God. Islam does not in fact acknowledge the teachings of Christ, as muslims would have the average citizen and appologist believe (and as some portions of the Koran try to deceive it's followers to believe). It is in fact an insult to me to claim a belief in the same God that I believe in and follow while spouting off about polygamy. It is my hope that more and more American Christians and Jews would lock arms to push back against this ideology and understand the threat that is heading from just across the great pond.

"But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)

Also, here is a really great article I recieved in an email that discredits the Koran's teaching about God decieving people, and the inherent differences between Christianity and Islam:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm

(Again, appologies if this is coming off as some sort of pissing contest, as that is NOT my intent. I am sincerely insulted, however, that I must hear people like this claim to follow the same God as myself...)

Posted by: Heidi J at November 21, 2008 11:58 AM

Polygamy is the triumph of patriarchal despotism and the inevitable subordination of women in society. This is the one and only reason I oppose gay marriage, because it will shatter the definition of marriage between one man and one woman and become a stepping-stone for the legalization of polygamy.

It's the law of unintended consequences, but try to explain that to a liberal or a gay and you'll get in response a tirade of indignation.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 21, 2008 12:10 PM

Cornelius,

"...because it will shatter the definition of marriage between one man and one woman..."

So who is defining this as the standard of marriage?

It has only been done so in the last few minutes if you consider the human epoch.

"...why relationships such as extra-marital affairs should be recognised under English law, and furthermore how men could be permitted to marry other men, and women other women."

I have never heard anyone frame it as such, but the thought has merit.

The permissability of marrying more than one wife in Islam is just that, permission, not a standard or a rule that must be followed.

It is a remedy that is available for situations that require it that are well defined. For those who understand Islam, it isn't a license to do whtever one wants, and the first wife must condone the marriage or she has the legal right to divorce.

In Islam, for those who abide by it, we understnad and enforce that no one can be forced to enter into or stay in a marriage they no longer want to be in.

And the strongest caution and advice in the Quran is to marry only one wife.

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 21, 2008 12:32 PM

"Family Law, Minorities and legal Pluralism: Should English Law give more Recognition to Islamic Law?".

No.

Posted by: tanstaafl at November 21, 2008 12:44 PM

Heidi, you're right. Allowing, defending, or condoning polygyny is the height of immorality. One single immoral teaching or practice (i.e., one which violates the Golden Rule) automatically invalidates Islam's claim to be a religion. Furthermore, polygyny is so evil and destructive that, even if it is not practiced, the family unit is simply null and void just by virtue of it being a possibility. They can claim, in typical taqiyya fashion, that women are people and not just mutilated, undead-corpse sex slaves/property to be raped, enslaved, traded for money, and killed, but not if they so much as defend polygyny.

Posted by: jdamn at November 21, 2008 1:15 PM

Abdullah at his taqiya best! We abhor Islamic practices and that is a good enough reason to oppose them perpetually. On the other hand, if Islam is such a "just" creed, why can't women have multiple partners? Why are they the ones to be covered from head to toe in ugly ninja outfits? Why can't men be required to hide their flesh from women, so as not to arouse women?

Posted by: IndianTiger at November 21, 2008 1:55 PM

Thats not surprising polygamous marriages are already recognised under the benefits system. If someone immigrates with 2 wives he can claim for them. It is even a good excuse to get out of a driving ban if losing use of your car will mean hardship if the husband cannot service both wives at a distance (recent court case in the UK). Where are the rabid feminists? Getting their knickers in a twist about the possible rise of right wing extremism because the government is wrecking the UK( Jacqui Smith Home secretary and friends) Mentioning marriage is between one man and one woman is a 'hate crime', everything else perfectly acceptable and don't mention how babies are made without third party medical intervention.

Posted by: James at November 21, 2008 2:03 PM

Posted by: Heidi J at November 21, 2008 11:58 AM

I went to your link and found this:

from David Wood: FACT #1: The Qur’an states that Jesus was a messenger of Allah and a prophet of Islam.

Jesus is a Prophet of God, period. His ministry was not completed, and he will return and complete it.

from David Wood: (Obfuscation #1) “Thus, Jesus spent approximately 33 years, from his birth to his ascension, preaching Islam to the children of Israel.”

Jesus knew the Torah better than the doctors of Jewish law, and this is what he taught the Torah, and the book he brought, the Injeel (The Good News), not the Quran, but the message was the same. He was not teaching the Islam of our Quran, he was teaching the pure religion of Judaism, which is “Islam”. The author David Wood wants to mislead people by this purposeful misdirection.

from David Wood:“FACT #2: The Qur’an states that Jesus won a number of followers.

(Obfuscation #2) “Since Jesus spent his entire life preaching an early form of Islam,…”

Again David Wood, the author of the web page referred to, attempts to obfuscate and confuse people as if Jesus were preaching other than the Torah and the Injeel…sorry, David Wood, Jesus was not teaching an “early form of Islam.”

(Obfuscation #3) “If the Qur’an is correct, then Jesus converted at least some of the children of Israel to Islam.”

There is no conversion from and to, observant Jews were “Muslims” already, by the definition of it, they submitted their wills to God. Jesus is a Jew, and he taught the faith of Judaism, and from the Injeel which he brought with him, another revealed book. This only seems to be considered a problem for “apologists” in the mind of David Wood.

from David Wood:(Obfuscation #4) “FACT #3”: If there were first-century Jews who converted to Islam at the preaching of Jesus, they didn’t last very long."

Through this entire section David Wood proves he knows nothing of the concept of Islam and true faith. When it is said that Abraham was a Muslim, it does not mean he followed the Quran and our way of worship…he followed his way of worship which was pure Tawheed…he was neither Jew nor Christian, but submitted his will to God. David Wood seems to be stretching to try and pin the definition of “Muslim” to what he sees and hears today.

Sorry Charley, no blue ribbon….well, rather Sorry “David”.

FACT #4: The Qur’an states that Allah deceived people into believing that Jesus had died on the cross.

Again more of the same, from David: “According to the Qur’an, Jesus was able to convert at least some Jews to Islam.”

And then this pure garbage from David Wood: “Allah Spreads the False Religion He Accidentally Started”

It is in the tafseer the explanation of how the followers of Christ split into three factions immediately after his ascension. It was human decisions that ended up causing the differences.

from David Wood:(Obfuscation #5) “FACT #5”: The Qur’an states that Allah helped spread Christianity." “Once God had caused belief in Jesus death and resurrection, he then worked diligently to aid the Christians in spreading their false message:”

This author David Wood’s spin on this concept above is entirely out of context with what followed.

The rest of David Wood’s article is a pure op ed on his opinions, and not based in any fact...a very sad attempt to spin and warp a message to fit his meaning.

Heidei, if this David Wood is the caliber you seek to follow in guidance about what Islam teaches I am sorry for you...you need a new teacher.

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 21, 2008 2:03 PM

ABDULLAH: "So who is defining [one man and one woman] as the standard of marriage?"

Our Judeo-Christian ethic, something you wouldn't understand.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 21, 2008 2:10 PM

ABDULLAH: "In Islam, for those who abide by it, we understnad and enforce that no one can be forced to enter into or stay in a marriage they no longer want to be in."

RESPONSE: Tell that to the Muslim woman who cannot remarry if divorced without losing custody of her children. If she loves her children - as most women do, she has no other recourse but to remain in a loveless marriage.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 21, 2008 2:14 PM

(Long Sigh)...

Abdullah,

First of all, you have cherry picked and taken things from that article out of context. So, let's being the healthy debate, shall we?

ABDULLAH-from David Wood: FACT #1: The Qur’an states that Jesus was a messenger of Allah and a prophet of Islam.

Jesus is a Prophet of God, period. His ministry was not completed, and he will return and complete it.

(Obfuscation #1) “Thus, Jesus spent approximately 33 years, from his birth to his ascension, preaching Islam to the children of Israel.”

Jesus knew the Torah better than the doctors of Jewish law, and this is what he taught the Torah, and the book he brought, the Injeel (The Good News), not the Quran, but the message was the same. He was not teaching the Islam of our Quran, he was teaching the pure religion of Judaism, which is “Islam”. The author David Wood wants to mislead people by this purposeful misdirection.

Clearly, Abdullah, you felt that including the suras provided in the article from YOUR Koran were not important. So, I will finish your half hearted effort, ok? Folks, here is the context from the Koran:

(from the article)David Wood-"Surah 19 tells us that Jesus began preaching Islamic theology the moment he was born:

From Koran"And the throes (of childbirth) compelled [Mary] to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten! Then (the child [i.e. the infant Jesus]) called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you; And shake towards you the trunk of the palmtree, it will drop on you fresh ripe dates: So eat and drink and refresh the eye. . . . Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet; And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live; And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed; And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.[2]"

Also, you failed to include ALL of that "obfuscation":

(from the article)David Wood-Jesus continued to preach the message of God throughout his life, until he was taken to heaven. According to the Qur’an, the Gospel that Jesus brought was no different from the message of the prophets before him. Jesus, a servant and prophet of God, preached Islam:

From Koran"The same religion has He Established for you as that Which He enjoined on Noah—That which We have sent By inspiration to thee—And that which We enjoined On Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain Steadfast in Religion, and make No divisions therein.[3]"

From Koran "[Jesus] was no more than A servant: We granted Our favour to him, And We made him An example to the Children of Israel. . . . When Jesus came With Clear Signs, he said: “Now have I come To you with Wisdom, And in order to make Clear to you some Of the (points) on which Ye dispute: therefore fear Allah And obey me. For Allah, He is my Lord And your Lord: so worship Ye Him: this is A Straight Way.”[4]

David Wood:Thus, Jesus spent approximately 33 years, from his birth to his ascension, preaching Islam to the children of Israel. Prior to his apparent crucifixion, his preaching was moderately successful, as the conversion of some of his listeners indicates.

ABDULLAHfrom David Wood:“FACT #2: The Qur’an states that Jesus won a number of followers.

(Obfuscation #2) “Since Jesus spent his entire life preaching an early form of Islam,…”

Again David Wood, the author of the web page referred to, attempts to obfuscate and confuse people as if Jesus were preaching other than the Torah and the Injeel…sorry, David Wood, Jesus was not teaching an “early form of Islam.”

Right, but that is not what your Koran teaches you, now is it? Again, from the Koran:

(from the first sura provided in this post) "Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet; And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer"

Also, Abdullah, this comment that you made makes NO sense, whatsoever, especially in the wake of reading this article:

"[Jesus] taught the Torah, and the book he brought, the Injeel (The Good News), not the Quran, but the message was the same. He was not teaching the Islam of our Quran, he was teaching the pure religion of Judaism, which is “Islam”."

This, again, proves that Islam is not only all over the place, but is contradictive - how DOES it feel to be so very contradictive? I mean, if Judaism is "pure Islam", then why does the Koran emphasize, and re-emphasize, the replacement of Judaism and Christinaity, if Judaism is in fact "pure Islam" with the Islam of your Koran? Do you not see how absolutely obsurd and circular that argument is??? In fact, come to think of it, this is a lot of what this article is about...

Anyway, again, if anyone here wants to read this article, please see this link:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deceptive_god.htm

Posted by: Heidi J at November 21, 2008 3:44 PM

(Long Audible Sigh)

Heidi,

There is a critical failure in your thinking as well as David Wood’s thinking about what the meaning is of Islam. You as well as David Wood have a problem in understanding what “Muslim” means.

All prophets of God were Muslims, they submitted their wills to that of God and did as they were ordered and lead people by the messages that God gave to them, some were given books and many were not. They were Muslims, they are Muslims, they remain Muslims.

Those who follow a Prophet are Muslim, whether Jews and Christians and others…all human beings that followed their respective Prophets in their time and their messages in their time were Muslims (those who submitted their wills to that of God).

It is something you may not be able to ever understand.

God is not held to the dictates of space and time, nor restricted by anything, and thus there are things you will not ever understand because of this.

Yes, every person who was obedient to and followed the orders of their Prophet were Muslims.

Since the revelation of the Quran there have been people in this age, the last 1,400+ years, who have followed their Prophet and the Message he was sent with and we are Muslim.

“I mean, if Judaism is "pure Islam", then why does the Koran emphasize, and re-emphasize, the replacement of Judaism and Christinaity, if Judaism is in fact "pure Islam" with the Islam of your Koran? Do you not see how absolutely obsurd and circular that argument is???”

We believe that you hold today is neither the pure message that Moses nor the pure message that came with Jesus. That’s about as clear as I can state it.

I hope you have a great weekend.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 21, 2008 4:25 PM

Oh, People.

All Prophets were either Jewish or Christian. John the Baptist being the LAST Prophet.

There are no Muslim prophets, including Mohammed, the obvious Con Man who never prophesied anything.

There were no Muslims until Mohammed in the early 7th century AD. Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham, with Judaism, with Jesus, or with Christianity. That's why Muslims are NEVER mentioned in The Bible, except for this warning from Jesus, the Son of God: "Beware of false prophets that come after me." That's Mohammed.

The "Slave to allah" here is 100% brainwashed by a Con Man Warlord. The "Truth" is something he will never be able to understand. He has a brain the size of a rodent's.

I'm a Brainwashed Numbskull, Abdullah Mikail, a convert to Evil (Islam).

Posted by: darcy at November 21, 2008 5:22 PM

The Koran is a hoax written by Warlord Mo. It's a mishmash of idiotic mumbo-jumbo, with plagiarisms from The Bible thrown in to give legitimacy to it's lies and deceit.

Anyone who thinks the Koran is legitimate has mish-mash mumbo-jumbo for brains. Like Abdullah.

Posted by: darcy at November 21, 2008 5:32 PM

Darcy:

Could not agree more (about the historic references you offered, anyway). However, please note, I was referring to, or offering a rebuttal to the Islamic belief, and absurd teaching of the Koran that Jesus and Judaism are umbrellaed by Islam! That's nuts! My other point is that Islam is so chock full of contradictions, the page I linked to as a "case in point" gesture, that even Abdullah could not explain in any clear, concise or with any historic pretext the teachings of the Koran NOT being ridiculous and false. My main point, though, is that we can know and see that Allah is not the Judeo-Christian God that is in the teachings of the Torah and Bible for one very simple reason: the belief that God had deceived his people. There are no other accounts in the Torah or Bible of God deceiving his people! It is, again, absurd to think that he would. Afterall, Satan is the author of confusion...

And, yes, I was going to also refer to the Book of Revelations that talks about the multitude of false prophecies/prophets to show themselves as the end of times nears.

Posted by: Heidi J at November 21, 2008 5:35 PM

From the Illustious hierophant of superior knowledge Abdullah M.: Those who follow a Prophet are Muslim, whether Jews and Christians and others...

Well that's a new one...so the word 'muslim' means follower of a prophet, any prophet...What does the word 'Mohammadan' mean?

That would mean that not all muslims are Mohammadans, but all Mohammadans are muslims...

Ok, I will buy a dollars worth of that...Christians and Jews are muslims, but not Mohammadans...The rest of the muslims are Mohammadans...Sounds about right...

I always suspected that many muslims worshipped Mohammad...Now I know which ones...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 21, 2008 5:40 PM

The litmus test...Knowing what you know about Mohammad, if he was alive today, would you buy a used car from him? Or even a slightly abused camel?

Let the buyer beware...slightly abused Mohammadan camels are not all their cracked up to be...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 21, 2008 5:53 PM

How are extra-marital relationships "recognized" under British law, as Siddiqi says?
And is he right to assume that extra-marital relationships are not considered "abhorrent"? Has he checked on that with the wives whose husbands are unfaithful? And has he asked me, just the man in the street, as it were?

An Anglican minister, of all people, tried to tell me that polygamy was "no worse" than what Western men do with their serial relationships and affairs. But then most Anglicans are keen on moral relativism; they will excuse anything. I shot him down in flames of logic and Biblical references until he retreated.

I could write a book about the sadness and misery in polygamous marriages I have heard about, especially of the children.

The very idea of homosexual marriage was bound to open up this particular can of worms. As usual, Western smart-alec tolerance and "progressivism' are the first weapons these people pick up to use to further their agenda.

Posted by: PG at November 21, 2008 7:04 PM

All prophets of God were Muslims, they submitted their wills to that of God and did as they were ordered and lead people by the messages that God gave to them, some were given books and many were not. They were Muslims, they are Muslims, they remain Muslims....Those who follow a Prophet are Muslim, whether Jews and Christians and others…all human beings that followed their respective Prophets in their time and their messages in their time were Muslims (those who submitted their wills to that of God)....Yes, every person who was obedient to and followed the orders of their Prophet were [sic] Muslims [sic]....We believe that [sic] you hold today is neither the pure message that [sic] Moses nor the pure message that came with Jesus. That’s about as clear as I can state it.

And this embedded condescension:

It is something you may not be able to ever understand....God is not held to the dictates of space and time, nor restricted by anything, and thus there are things you will not ever understand because of this.

Actually, we understand what you are saying quite well. And it has nothing to do with the deity transcending space and time. We understand clearly that it is wrong. Where is your archeological proof that anything you have posited above is true? Be specific.

While waiting, let's presume you never will. Mohammad fabricated his "religion" from rhetorically tortured bits and pieces of Judaism and Christianity, as well as from pagan religion and tribal customs. The preserved decontextualized fragments were collated in a stupefying lack of order, then redacted at least twice. It is this loss of content and context lifting it out of time and setting, that produces imperspicuousness, ambiguity, susceptibility to situational semantic reinterpretation, and false sense of mystical signification you attribute it. This could all be forgiven, perhaps, IF you could validate it with real, hard facts about its purported pre-Mohametan existance. However, instead you write duplicitously about it, having learned well the lessons of your master. Paraphrasing, "it is the same message as before", except it is the message specific "for the time in which it was given". Abdullah, it is EITHER the same message, or it is NOT, and WE don't have to have an epiphany to resolve YOUR dilemma. YOU do.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 21, 2008 8:45 PM

From above: God is not held to the dictates of space and time, nor restricted by anything...

That may be true, but it is not Allah. Allah is the Lord of Matter and is restrained by it.

The word 'God' is not a name, it is a title,

The word 'Allah' is not a title, it is a name.

When Moses asked God his name, he evaded the name issue by saying I AM THAT I AM, which is not a name, it means, existence is existence, pure existence...Singular...

I AM THAT I AM is God 'not held to the dictates of space and time'...This has no name because God, pure existence, is formless and nameless, and is not a 'thing'.

Allah,is a name, is a duality, known, not formless and nameless, He wrote a book...

All 'things' have names...Things are stuck in matter...All evil happens in matter, and Allah is it's Lord...Allah is not God...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 21, 2008 9:58 PM

Concerned Citizen: Well written. With you completely. My compliments.

Abdullah Mikail is a true believer, which is to say he is tedious, unconvincing (except to other true believers and some weak-minded sorts looking ineptly and pathetically to have life explained to them in packaged form) and, in effect, brain-washed. Factually challenged too, as you so clearly indicated. Such folk inevitably have to appeal to a secret knowledge that they possess, a gnostic understanding that the uninitiated, the ignorant, like you and I, are devoid of. So predictable. So tiring. So wrong. Hard to believe such rubes exist but they do by the bushel full.

Posted by: Wellington at November 21, 2008 10:39 PM

duh-swami

I'm sorry, but as a Christian I'd disagree with you about matter. It isn't evil in and of itself. it isn't the cause of evil. It isn't the creation of some evil demiurge. Those who, like me, follow the Hebrew and Christian scriptures believe that YHWH is lord and creator of EVERYTHING - including earth, air, fire, and water; lord of bodies, of space and time. (Look up 'the song of the three young men'.

C S Lewis: "God [i.e. YHWH] *likes* matter: he invented it". See Genesis 1 for why Lewis would say that (and note that at the climax of the story it is after God has created man and woman that he says not merely that 'it is good' but 'it is very good').

Madeline L'engle, in her marvellous novel 'The Wind Through the Door', has one character who is a Cherubim, who puns on 'matter' (verb: to 'matter' to someone) and 'matter' (substance, material) in order to speak of how he manifests himself - "I matter to you'.

Ever read Charles Williams? Early in his magnificently idiosyncratic church history, 'The Descent of the Dove', he excoriates the very common gnostic idea that 'matter' (the realm of time and space, bodies and objects) is in and of itself, qua material, evil, is a very ancient gnostic idea; that concept utterly alien to the thought-world of the Bible, to the Hebrew or the Christian scriptures.

The doctrine of the Incarnation and of the Resurrection is in essence an affirmation - and a restoration - of the original goodness of the Creation, of the Creature. I'd recommend David Bentley Hart, "The Beauty of the Infinite" for some magnificent expositions of this very same point.

When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary the Jewish girl, 'you will conceive in your womb and bear a son', he was probably speaking or at least thinking in Hebrew - in which the word for 'womb' maqom is also the word used for the Holy of Holies. When he tells her 'the spirit of the most high will overshadow you' the word 'overshadow' echoes the term used to describe the cloud of the divine glory overshadowing the tabernacle in the wilderness; Mary, the Jewish woman, *becomes* for nine months (in unimaginable intimacy with the infinite-personal God) the living equivalent of the burning bush, and of the tabernacle or the temple.

In Dorothy L Sayers' play, 'The Man Born to be King', she gives Mary these words, to one of the Magi, concerning the Incarnation: "*this* is the only thing that has ever really happened".

I've always remembered these words from a sermon, which sum up what Christians, at least, believe: 'In Jesus Christ the second person of the Trinity took human flesh once and for all and for ever'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 21, 2008 11:00 PM

I'm sorry, but as a Christian I'd disagree with you about matter. It isn't evil in and of itself. it isn't the cause of evil.

I didn't say that, I said all evil 'happens' in matter. If evil does not happen in matter, where does it happen?

All evil concepts happen in a humans head. Matter has grades, from gross to refined, even thoughts are matter. Matter is subject to change...YHVH is not. Some people have said that God is in the space between your thoughts. Based on the idea that thoughts are matter, but the space between them is not.

I AM THAT I AM means 'Existence is Existence', pure existence. There is no evil there because there is no matter. Everything in existence exists in matter, only God as I AM THAT I AM, or YHVH, exists outside that.

If this is not the case, then God is reduced to a 'thing', which is my point about Allah.

Allah is not YHVH...

At any rate this is a huge subject with lots of spokes in the wheel...all of them worth examining... :)

Posted by: duh_swami at November 22, 2008 10:46 AM

Posted by: Concerned Citizen [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 21, 2008 8:45 PM

“Abdullah, it is EITHER the same message, or it is NOT,”

First of all CC, I don’t have a dilemma, but thanks for the emotive sympathy…”sniff,” I am touched…look at me, I am getting all emotional.
: )

For clarity, it is the same message: There is One God and only One God, there is heaven, there is hell, there is a day of judgment, you will be judged by God and it will be either heaven or hell for you eternally. Period.

That is the basic message and it has never changed.

So then, Concerned Citizen, let us consider your position. You say Mohammad fabricated it, gathered up fragmented pieces and parts of a previous revelation and then reassembled them, then had to have them reassembled.

Well, you are not the first to take this erroneous position and the Quran itself answers your challenge with one of its own:

Surat Al Yunus 10:38, 39

38 Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"

39 Nay, they charge with falsehood that whose knowledge they cannot compass, even before the elucidation thereof hath reached them: thus did those before them make charges of falsehood: but see what was the end of those who did wrong!

The challenge has been there for over 1,400 yeas and those who were the masters of the Arabic language at the height of its usage failed miserably to rise to that challenge. It is still open for those who speak the degenerated common Arabic of today…yes, this challenge will never be breached if the masters of classical Arabic couldn’t approach it.

The Quran is preserved for 1,400+ years unchanged, period.

And, as it always has, today it is memorized so precisely that a Hafiz, a person who memorized the whole Quran, can hear any subtle mistake one makes in the recitation even if it is only the erroneous pronunciation of a single character. It is written down only as a utilitarian means for distribution.

CC you said, “IF you could validate it with real, hard facts about its purported pre-Mohametan existance [sic].”

I don’t need to validate it…you asked for me to validate it for YOU.

There are a number of miracles that support it and prove its validity for us today:

The speed of light equation embedded in it, the description of the pulsar and the black hole, the stages of birth, the natural science of clouds and rain, the description of and existence of deep ocean saline magnetic waves in a realm of the sea so deep you cannot see your own hand if you stretched it out before you…etc.

But you asked for Archaeological proof, didn’t you?

The defeat of the Persians by the Romans being predicted in a precise time frame of between 6 to 9 years from the verses reveled that described it. That is only one. That validates it.

There were a number of miracles that happened during the life of Mohammad that proved his credentials as a Prophet as well, and these are documented in the Hadiths, but you want stand alone irrefutable proof right?

Well, let me offer that you be judged by the same standard, prove Jesus fed 5,000 people from a single basket of fish, archaeologically, please. Can you? Are you seeing the weakness in your argument, your position? Trusting in miracles we did not see first hand is a matter of faith.

CC you said “And this embedded condescension:” Is just a plain fact.

Your idea of god fits in a box and can be constricted to both space and time and fatigue.

No, that is not God.

Now the gymnastics that took place in this paragraph are noteworthy:

CC You wrote, “The preserved decontextualized fragments were collated in a stupefying lack of order, then redacted at least twice. It is this loss of content and context lifting it out of time and setting, that produces imperspicuousness, ambiguity, susceptibility to situational semantic reinterpretation, and false sense of mystical signification you attribute it.”

[It was fun to read, was it as fun to write? : ) ]

1) Fragments – It is not fragmented, it only seems that way to you.

2) Lack of order – it is ordered you just do not perceive of it.

For your points one, two, and five (below –5 most importantly) consider:

Surat Al Furqan 25:32

32 Those who reject Faith say: "why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.

3)“Redacted at least twice" – The Uthmani script added harakat for proper pronunciation outside of Meccan Arabia. An original Uthmani Quran exists in Istanbul it is the oldest one I know of written down less than 40 years after the Death of Mohammad.

4)“Loss of content (?)” – nothing has been lost. This is a confirmation, what is not confirmed by it we neither accept nor reject.

5)“Context lifting out of time and setting” – If you ever want to truly learn anything of value from the reading of the Q’uran I feel this is most important thing. Understanding the scene setting and the reality surrounding the revelation of each verse is integral.

6)“Perspicuousness” – Many verses are of this nature, and true there are some that are of seemingly ambiguous nature but are really of meanings that we do not yet understand. Imagine trying to describe the fact that light has a speed to a seventh century desert Arab who measures things by Camel speed…yeah, you’d get real far pointing out the verses to him that derive the speed of light equation. Just as that miracle would be to him, some meanings are still hidden and human knowledge is always behind that contained in the Quran.

[p.s. Don't you just love fifty dollar words?]

7)“susceptibility to situational semantic reinterpretation” - Such is life. There is no “John 3:16” silver bullet “one size fits all” verse that covers all situations from a single position. Sorry. : (

Your argument is not new, it is the same old, recycled argument of the rejector, it will be reused over and over again until the end:

Surat Al-Anaam, 6:91

91 No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)" Say: "Who then sent down the book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "(Allah) (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.

Suffice to say, your religion is yours, and mine is mine, I will not follow yours and you will not follow mine. You pray and I will pray, you wait, and I will wait, God will judge between us who has been the truthful and who has been the liar.

I have great respect for any student of knowledge who seeks the truth, and I respect most those people of faith who want to talk about their own faith and what they believe, thus it is said in the Quran to invite in the best means and have mutual respect for people of faith.

Do not presume to tell others about a faith you yourself do not understand and have not studied well…that is the most odious condescension there is. Note, I don’t delve into the books of other faiths in an attempt to smear them and their beliefs or to pick fights with them. I talk about my book and my faith, and let others tell me what they believe. Where our mutual faiths disagree that is the matter of faith.

We are all creations of God and will return to Him to be judged.

I sincerely hope you all have the best weekend of your lives.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 22, 2008 12:37 PM

Posted by: Wellington at November 21, 2008 10:39 PM

Wellington,

If you and I overhear two people discussing plasma and magnetic vortices and temperatures and pressures of such extreme that the plasma simply precipitates right through the solid wall of the container holding the material…I am sure we neither one could follow all of what they were saying.

Does this too fall into your category of “a secret knowledge that they possess, gnostic understanding that the uninitiated, the ignorant, like you and I, are devoid of?”

No. It simply means we have not studied their field of specialty as much as they have in order to allow us to follow what they are saying.

We would both need to understand all of the physics behind what composes the plasma to understand how it could possibly just have precipitated through the solid walls of the container without damaging any of it…in fact, without even showing any physical change in the make up of the container whatsoever.

But how did they know it happened?

The material in the container after the experiment was less than what existed prior to the test, they came up with their hypothesis, ran all the numbers, and proved to themselves what actually happened.

Would you and I accept their proof at face value? Doubtless.

But it doesn’t make them any less truthful…it only proves how little you and I know about their science.

“So predictable. So tiring. So wrong. Hard to believe such rubes exist but they do by the bushel full.”

And the feeling is reciprocal…that there would be scoffing rubes like you, almost laughing at their own ignorance and finding external means to justify their remaining in it.
Reject all you want, but be responsible in what you say, and why you say it. Don’t project your lack of knowledge onto me as if I were trying to hide in some “secret knowledge” that is unattainable by you…no, it is easily attainable by you, you simply refuse to learn it.

For some advice and wisdom from one of the forebears in what I assume is your faith, read this:

“Your greatness is measured by your kindness: your education and intellect by your modesty; your ignorance is betrayed by your suspicions and prejudices, and your real caliber is measured by the consideration and tolerance you have for others.” William J. H. Boetcker

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 22, 2008 2:23 PM

Abdullah,

My you are an industrious busy-bee, always trying to dilute your challenge and create illusion of victory with mere keystroke volume.

Yes, you of all people have many dilemmas. You are infected with the Islamic dualism virus that allows retention of contradictory views without cognitive dissonance.

It is NOT the same message (which even you at once deny and affirm).
1) It is not the same God. Read Drurie, "Revelation?" I've given the link before.
2) It is not the same heaven, or hell. Your heaven is for fornication, your hell is predominantly for sexist disposition of women and the political opponents of Mohammad.
3) It is not the same judgment. Christian judgment is already decided. It is the verification, not the practice of it.

Responding to your challenge:

1) Surat Al Yunus 10:38. Regarding its form, Christoph Luxenberg demolished any allusion to Classical Arabic perfection in the Qur'an. Vis-à-vis its content, that is, "Bring a Sura" that is its better, easy. The entire Bible.
2) Surat Al Yunus 10:39. "see what was the end of those who did wrong!" I think the demise of the Ottoman empire and the Caliphate itself is a sufficient ridicule of this, although other remedies are readily available. Would you like to compare historic poverty rates? Disease? Mortality?

The Quran is preserved for 1,400+ years unchanged, period.

You are truly ignorant of your faith's historicity. Read Ibn Warraq's "The Origin of the Koran".

And, as it always has, today it is memorized so precisely that a Hafiz, a person who memorized the whole Quran, can hear any subtle mistake one makes in the recitation even if it is only the erroneous pronunciation of a single character.

And a fly can smell feces from a mile away. What is your point?

The speed of light equation embedded in it, the description of the pulsar and the black hole, the stages of birth, the natural science of clouds and rain, the description of and existence of deep ocean saline magnetic waves in a realm of the sea so deep you cannot see your own hand if you stretched it out before you…etc.

Farces and backprojection, similar to "Bible Code" frauds. Puhleeze.

But you asked for Archaeological proof, didn’t you?

Yes, and "archaelogy" in this sense would mean your belated production of those pre-Mohametan artifacts and manuscripts which support your contention that the Judaic and Christian faiths were Islamic in character. Mohammad admitted he brought no confirming miracles. You call him a liar. I accept your assessment.

It is not fragmented, it only seems that way to you.

You call the sira and the hadith liars. I accept your assessment. At Abu Bakr's request, Zayd ibn Thabit collected the ayat from "leaves of the date, and white stones, and the breasts of people that remembered it, till I found the last part of the chapter entitled Tauba (Repentance), with Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari, and with no other person." If you discount that as fragmented distribution, then you truly have a disdain for the meanings of words.

Lack of order – it is ordered you just do not perceive of it.

I perceive its malarrangement fine, and so do scholars of Islam (you, sir, are not, unless perhaps dissembling constantly). http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Chronological_Order_of_the_Quran. Many similar chronological renderings are available. Do your own homework.

The Uthmani script added harakat for proper pronunciation outside of Meccan Arabia. An original Uthmani Quran exists in Istanbul it is the oldest one I know of written down less than 40 years after the Death of Mohammad.

Sorry, dissembler. Leaving aside the redaction of the "Satanic Verses", Abu Bakr's commission was first, which was passed to Umar, then Hafseh. Uthman produced his recension and distributed it, destroying rival texts. These were not trivial distinctions, nor were they without controversy, nor were they uncritically accepted by all. According to Ibn Abi Dawud, in his Kitab al-Masahif (Book of the Codices), Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven changes to the Uthmanic recension. There is proof of in a letter between the Caliph ‘Umar II ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz and the Emperor Leo III the Isaurian.

Loss of content (?)” – nothing has been lost. This is a confirmation, what is not confirmed by it we neither accept nor reject.

The content lost was the contextual information required for comprehension and any serious interpretation of the Qur'an, supplied by the ahadith and the sira. Please try to keep up, Abdullah. Your circular reasoning above ("what is not confirmed") does not extricate you.

Context lifting out of time and setting” – If you ever want to truly learn anything of value from the reading of the Q’uran I feel this is most important thing. Understanding the scene setting and the reality surrounding the revelation of each verse is integral.

Exactly my point, which is why the Qur'an is so accomodating to sacralized taqiyya and dissembling. You use this yourself, to your simultaneous earthly profit and eternal damnation.

Your argument is not new, it is the same old, recycled argument of the rejector, it will be reused over and over again until the end

Of course, because neither you nor any before you have refuted it. Why change what works? Pre-Mohametan archaelogy, please??? Waiting....

Suffice to say, your religion is yours, and mine is mine

Yet another example of your bifurcated, irresolvable "logic". They are the same, except they are not. Put up or shut up. Prove that tahrif (corruption) of the Jewish and Christian texts occurred as first promulgated by Ibn Hazm. You can't. It was just a naked assertion swallowed whole by gullible Mohametan lemmings.

Do not presume to tell others about a faith you yourself do not understand and have not studied well

Then discontinue your ineffectual da'wa and thread derailing until you study up some more. Capiche?

I don’t delve into the books of other faiths...Where our mutual faiths disagree that is the matter of faith.

No, much of it can be adjudicated in the historical record and the rest tested by the disciplines of philosophy and ethics. Islam fails.

We are all creations of God and will return to Him to be judged.

In your duplicity, you will consider this arrogant, but you do the same ("we have the final revelation"). You are right, here. You WILL fall in line to be judged, but not with His sheep.

I do, however, sincerely hope that you find the salvation of Jesus Christ, without whom you and yours have no spiritual hope of meeting Yahweh on favorable terms. Try "delving into the books" of the real faith. The falsehood and lack of historicity of yours will become quite "perspicuous".

Oh, and don't forget your weekend project: Prove tahrif (corrupted) the generally accepted Jewish and Christian texts, by production of pre-Mohametan archaelogical and manuscript evidence of Judaic and Christian textual vorlages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc., or very much preferably, original classical Arabic, the preferred language of Allah) that are consonant with Islamic theological doctrine and narratives where the current accepted texts differ.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 22, 2008 2:44 PM

Abdullah,

Boetcker? You quote Boetcker? Don't you have any Islamic sages to quote? Do any share his generosity?

But thanks for bringing this back on topic (though don't forget your homework):

Multiculturalism is a pleasant façade, a nice fiction. To truly be one people, there must be one ethic, one morality, and one set of rules. Camaraderie, commonality, common purpose, common vision. Multiculturalism, as a paradigm, is merely the attempt to redefine the virtue of selflessness into a sappy, suicidal mush, that is, a word game played towards an end. It is the opposite of unity, which is a virtue; therefore, it is an anti-virtue. It is the Trojan horse of ideological disarmament towards appeasement and demographical conquest, a false dilemma of moral and cultural equivalence. We need not fall further victim to it than we already have. Start by divesting your children of it.

Neither is tolerance of asymmetric, antiquated human relationship styles a virtue. It is preening, self-excusing moral impotence in full sober view of repeals of gender equality and human dignity. Tolerance is not a morally neutral term. The proper usage of the term "tolerance" means appropriate acceptance of differences based on moral neutrality, not the inappropriate acceptance of recycled mediocrity or even evil as justified by the mere existence of the difference. The correct word to be using, in this case is "complicity".

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 22, 2008 2:54 PM

Also, to quote Wellington, your recurrent physics metaphors are "So predictable. So tiring. So wrong." (One may observe a physical phenomenon and be unable to explain it. That is not the same as the phenomenon not occurring, and therefore not requiring explanation.) This juvenile rhetorical flavoring of your retreats into "unexplainable mysticism" is quite unbecoming.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 22, 2008 4:04 PM

P.S. You still owe me on the "Bunche Report".
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023455.php

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 22, 2008 8:00 PM

UK Sharia judge calls for legal recognition of polygamous marriages
..........................

I am enraged, but hardly surprised. I knew this would happen sooner or later, with the suicidally unwise allowing of Shari'ah courts in Britain. I have not put much stock in Jack Straw's casual assertion that no one need worry about these courts because British common law would always be predominant.

more:

To compare consensual relationships with forced ones, whether physical or emotional coercion is used, is completely misguided....
..........................

Well, yes--beautifully put.

Jdamn wrote:

Furthermore, polygyny is so evil and destructive that, even if it is not practiced, the family unit is simply null and void just by virtue of it being a possibility.
..........................

Good point. I heard Nonie Darwish speak last year about polygamy, and how it warped the lives of her mother and female relatives and friends. Even when polygamy was not practiced, it was always a possible threat, and affected the lives of all married women. They all feared its introduction.

I agree with you both--it does render the family unit null and void. This is one of the things I always think of--along with all the other Islamic domestic horrors such as child marriage, forced marriage, legalized abuse of wives and children, snap divorces (for husbands only, of course), and "honor killings"--whenever Muslims talk about sacred Islamic "family values".

more:

The bodies of the Knights Templar were surely spinning under their effigies last night, as someone they would have regarded as an infidel delivered a lecture within the walls of Temple Church entitled "Family Law, Minorities and legal Pluralism: Should English Law give more Recognition to Islamic Law?".
..........................

This is not just someone whom the Knights Templar "would have regarded as an infidel"--this is a representative of the very enemy that these knights had traveled a thousand miles to defend Christendom against--and many died in that service and had their bodies shipped back home to this church in casks.

That a Shari'ah judge is expounding on plans for the Islamization of Britain in this very church is nothing less than a desecration of these defenders' memory.

Posted by: gravenimage at November 22, 2008 9:18 PM

duh-swami

check out the Jewish interpretations of the Name. It can mean 'I am that I am'; it can also mean 'I will be where I will be'; and don't forget that He also tells Moses, 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. Yeshua/ Jesus habitually addresses Him as 'Abba, Father'; not a formal term but an intimate term; the Biblical relation of humans with god is not of relationship with an 'It' or a 'That', but an relationship with a Person; 'I-Thou'. The Jews say 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'; Christians say, 'the God and Father of Jesus/ Yeshua the Christ'.

Jews interpret the scene at Sinai - the people of Israel addressed by YHWH from the mountain crowned with fire and cloud - as...a marriage, under the chuppah, the canopy. G-d says: 'will you do this?', and the people say, 'yes we will'. There is a call and a response.

The god of the Hebrew and Christian Bible - of Hebrew and Christian experience in history - is both transcendent and immanent; he is personal, relational, calling even the stars by their names (for more on that, see Franz Rosenzweig, 'The Star of Redemption', or Abraham Heschel, or David Bentley Hart, whom I've mentioned above, or Jacques Ellul, especially 'The Humiliation of the Word' and 'The Meaning of the City' - unfortunately Ellul's essay 'Les Trois Piliers du Conformisme/ the Three Pillars of Conformity', contrasting the Biblical concept of god, with the Muslim concept of god, ' has not yet been translated from French, but he makes the same point).

When Bilquis Sheikh in Pakistan placed a Bible and a Koran side by side and addressed god in these words - "which of these books tells me the truth about You?" - a quiet voice answered: "in which of these do you call Me 'Father'?" She chose the Bible, and became a Christian. (see the book, 'I Dared to Call Him Father').

Traditional Christian theology locates the origin of evil in the spiritual realm, not the material realm; in the corrupted will, whether human or angelic. Evil is not 'necessary'; evil is 'historic'. Good is original and final; evil is neither original nor necessary nor final. 'Nothing is evil in the beginning', says Tolkien's Gandalf - for Tolkien was a good Catholic.

Hart places the biblical worldview entirely outside of - separate from - the Apollonian-Dionysian quarrel. It is sui generis. All procrustean attempts to fit the intractable and irreducible historic particularity of Israel, and of Yeshua of Nazareth, into any other philosophical or 'spiritual' framework, are doomed to fail. The cat just won't go into the bag. That is the scandal of Israel, with Christianity also; that they resist all attempts to spiritualise them away, to turn them into any kind of abstraction, to remove the personal.

Here's Spengler, writing in 'First Things', October 2007,

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6040

describing Rosenzweig's account of the biblical view of revelation and divinity:

“In an authentic confession of faith,” he [Rosenzweig] argues, “there always is this testimony, namely that one’s personal experience of love must be more than the experience of just one individual;

that He whom the soul experiences in its love cannot be simply an illusion or a self-deception of the beloved soul, but that He actually lives.”

'And so God “achieves through the witness of the believing soul a tangible and visible reality beyond Hiddenness, beyond his Hiddenness, which he possessed in a different way in heathendom.”

'By the same logic, Islam’s confession of faith cannot be a confession of faith at all:

“Islam’s confession, ‘God is God,’ [says Rosenzweig] is no confession of faith, but a confession of non-faith [ein Unglaubensbekenntnis].

'It confesses in this tautology not a revealed God, but a hidden one. Nicholas of Cusa says rightly that a heathen, indeed an atheist, could profess the same.”

'Revelation, according to Rosenzweig, occurs through the soul’s awareness of God’s love, and human individuality arises from the soul’s response to being loved. '"

Benedict XVI, before becoming Pope, wrote a whole long essay that was, essentially, a splendid riff on that last paragraph (about revelation and the response to love).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 22, 2008 9:57 PM

Posted by: Concerned Citizen [CC] at November 22, 2008 2:44 PM

CC “always trying to dilute your challenge”

I agree we delve too much into too many diverse points in each exchange.

Then let us call you to a single simple one.

CC “Farces and backprojection, similar to "Bible Code" frauds. Puhleeze”

A single subject you attempt to blow off and marginalize, but when it can be proven beyond a doubt? Where does your arrogant ignorant scoff put you then?

Pulsars, Black Holes & Singularity

Surat Al Tariq

The Piercing Star, The Morning Star (***the second is an error in translation of meaning)

1 And the heaven and the "Knocker" (Tarek in Arabic)

2 How could you know about the "Knocker"?

3 The piercing star (Thakeb in Arabic).

The Arabic word "Thukb" means a hole; "Thakeb" means the one who makes the hole. The Quran is describing a knocking star that makes a hole.

Neutron stars are remnants of exploded stars. As more matter falls into a neutron star its mass increases; and as its mass increases its gravity increases. A point will be reached where gravity would have grown so much that not even light could escape, thus a black hole forms.

Most neutron stars discovered today are in the form of radio pulsars. They are called radio pulsars because they emit radio waves. We can simply connect a radio telescope to a loud speaker and hear a pulsar. Pulsars sound like someone persistently knocking.

So in short, we can hear a pulsar knock; and if matter continues to fall into this pulsar a black hole will eventually form. Muslims say that this is what Allah says.

The Quran describes a star by "The one who knocks" and comments “how could you (Mohammad) know about the knocking star? And further says that it is "The one who makes a hole".

Now that you should be able to understand the meaning of the words in Arabic and the context re-address your scoff: “Puhleeze”

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

***Yusuf Ali, among others, translated the meaning of what he understood the “piercing star” to be, and mistakenly attributed the reference to Venus the “morning star” which was what he saw as the brightest “star” in the sky….it does not mean that. Thakeb – the one that makes the hole, the one that pierces.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali

1. By the Sky and the Night-Visitant (therein);-
2And what will explain to thee what the Night-Visitant is?-
3(It is) the Star of piercing brightness;-

Marmaduke Pikthal
1 By the heaven and the Morning Star
2 Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!
3 The piercing Star!

Mohammad Habib Shakir
1 I swear by the heaven and the comer by night;
2And what will make you know what the comer by night is?
3The star of piercing brightness;

Feel free to add others...it's the same two words "Thukb" "Thakeb"

AM

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 23, 2008 5:12 PM

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 22, 2008 2:44 PM

"Oh, and don't forget your weekend project: Prove tahrif (corrupted) the generally accepted Jewish and Christian texts, ..."

This I address only because you invited me to it. This is a pre-existing, Pre-Mohammad, Biblical text written in the "original" Greek. It is posted on line for the world to see.

http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2008/07/worlds-oldest-b.html
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

This Bible is apparently one of the oldest surviving “original” Greek texts with the complete New Testament in it.

“Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. The Bible obviously is not the King James version (started in 1604 and first published in 1611). This Bible is important to Christian scholars for many reasons. For one, it makes no mention of the resurrection.”

Care to explain that the central tenant of your faith, the resurrection, and the fact that it does not exist in one of the oldest original Greek versions?

Your turn CC...

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 23, 2008 5:38 PM

Concerned Citizen,

And then can you explain this:

One hundred contradictions in the Bible:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/fundamentals/100_contradictions.html

“A brief discourse cannot discuss all the contradictions of the Bible; but to deal with about a hundred of them should and will enable you to draw your own conclusions as to the doctrine of inspiration, and the sincerity or intelligence of the orthodox clergy.”

And then we can discuss how the above problems were amended in the subsequent eight major revisions to the Book, the plethora of differing versions of the text, the numerous “Bibles” with entirely different books...etc.

Sir the list goes on and on..."Can I get a witness" to the truth?

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 23, 2008 5:40 PM

Concerned Citizen

And you still owe me, remember? Iraqi Jews blown up by Zionist terrorist gangs:

Naeim Giladi, wikidepia him.

http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol31_issue2_1998.pdf

http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html

Read his story and respond to it.

I am still hunting the original Special UN Report to Ralph Bunche.

My post to you about Irgun members confessing to the assassination of the Count Folke Bernadotte irrefutably corroborates the opening paragraph part of the report itself.

"The UN Report Prepared in 1948 for Ralphe Bunche, New UN Commissioner to Palestine".

"Foreword: In view of the tragic assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte by identified Jewish terrorists on September 17 of this year, the following report has been prepared for the use of Dr. Bunche, Count Bernadotte's immediate replacement."

That is 'touche" #1.

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 23, 2008 6:05 PM

Pulsars, Black Holes & Singularity...Feel free to add others

No, thanks. The latitude demonstrated in your own choices of English translations shouldn't give you any comfort. I will not dignify this topic with further response than to pass on a link to blog entries at faithfreedom.org where a more patient poster has addressed these claims. http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6713 Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:06 am

Please (puhleeze). You've usually been better than this. This is a recourse into desperate fantasy, especially if your fantasy included a hope I would be impressed. "Christianity" includes many who base their faith on such retrospective eisogesis. I do my best to stay away from such. I suggest you do the same if you wish to maintain respect here.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 23, 2008 7:10 PM

This is a pre-existing, Pre-Mohammad, Biblical text written in the "original" Greek.

This is not what I requested of you. You were asked to produce pre-Mohametan archaeology and manuscripts supporting Islamic vorlages of Judaic and Christian doctrines and narratives to support your adherence to the Ibn Hazm era allegation of deliberate systematic corruption Judaic and Christian texts. Instead, you submit a Christian manuscript used to produce most "modern" (Alexandrian, "Critical Text") translations of current Christian scriptures, with an accompanying half-truth slur ("For one, it makes no mention of the resurrection.”).

Facts for you:

Codex Vaticanus may actually be older than Sinaiticus. Codex Sinaiticus may be the oldest extant copy of the entire Christian New Testament, but there are older copies of ALL of the individual books (except perhaps Revelation). Codex Sinaiticus does indeed contain many accounts of the resurrection. What you mistakenly refer to is the fact that Sinaiticus contains the short ending of Mark’s Gospel, which still mentions the resurrection, but does not include the resurrected Jesus himself. The authenticity of these twelve verses has been questioned since at least the 3rd century and their omission does not affect Christian history or doctrine in any significant way, unless you happen to be an Appalachian snake-handler.

Also, the Alexandrian texts are far less numerous than the Byzantine majority texts, and enjoy their popularity with current translations only because their recent "rediscovery" tickles the fancy of academics and publishers.

Try again. Or perhaps respond to the actual question. Your attempt to cast an aspersion on the resurrection failed; however, your actual assignment is much broader. Your turn...

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 23, 2008 7:35 PM

Abdullah,

One hundred contradictions in the Bible

We obviously both can play this game:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

If you request a specific apologetic to one or two, I will accomodate, then you will reciprocate with responses from my choices from the Qur'an.

Otherwise, you are wasting my time to request I give a career-length dissertation on all pot-shots taken at the Bible.

My question is much more basic. If Islam is the consonant successor of the prior two monotheisitc faiths, then surely you can readily prove that by producing pre-Mohametan archaeology and manuscripts supporting Islamic vorlages of Judaic and Christian doctrines and narratives.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 23, 2008 7:42 PM

Posted by: Concerned Citizen [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 23, 2008 7:10 PM

Pulsars & Black holes

One little word and you crumble?

You are unable to address one simple word in Arabic that is evidence of the scientific significance of the description of a star in the Quran.

What good is any further discussion if you cannot accept the simplest form of the simplest proof...one word?

Must I offer up one syllable to get a response?

You complain when I try to address too much at once...you waffle and concede without even trying to answer when I simplify it as much as I possibly can...what gives?

When you can take as well as you give contact me again.

(Audible sigh)

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 23, 2008 7:51 PM

Abdullah,

My post to you about Irgun members confessing to the assassination of the Count Folke Bernadotte irrefutably corroborates the opening paragraph part of the report itself.

You have a dazzlingly broad understanding of the word "irrefutably". Perhaps you missed my ridicule of your source after you gave it:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023455.php#c598022

Regarding your request of my "response" to your Iraqi Jew article, I have only two comments. One, for disclosure, I did not read them in their entirety. Two, you overestimate my deference to all things Jewish, and my susceptibility to being emotionally swayed by individual event revelations. My personal position on Jewish-Islamic conflicts is primarily political, and not particularly eschatological (I am a "partial preterist").

In conclusion, if this is the level of discourse we are sinking to, I'm going to have to bail. I've enjoyed our previous exchanges, and have learned several things from you. My request of you is quite fundamental. Islam either existed prior to Mohammad, or it did not. If it did, there has to be some documentation of it. I've not found it. If you have, please share.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 23, 2008 8:21 PM

One little word and you crumble? You are unable to address one simple word in Arabic that is evidence of the scientific significance of the description of a star in the Quran.

How pathetic. Crumble? You don't even supply an eggshell to "crumble". You expect ANYBODY to be impressed with that? I'll take your obfuscation to represent your refusal to address my request, and I'll assume that archaelogy represents the Achille's heel of Islamic apologetics. Sad. I thought it went deeper than that.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 23, 2008 8:26 PM

Concerned Citizen

An Addendum:

"We obviously both can play this game:"

I went there and read, the only contradiction was the author's own understanding of what he or she was referring to.

The author knows the "contradictions" they posted can be easily resolved by a cursory investigation from any Muslim, as I found this disclaimer very telling:

"If you are able to resolve to your own satisfaction the Qur'an problems presented here, then probably you will be able to understand that Christians can with a similar effort explain to their own satisfaction most of the difficulties in the Bible."

One simple point, the nature of Muslims.

They as well as you can not reconcile that there is a Muslim in any and every age that there was a prophet from Adam all the way down history to Mohammad.

The author seems to be confused about what a "Muslim" is...thinking there are different ones that trump the others as to "who was the first." and that the word only applies to those like myself, the adherents to the Quran.

Much like the person in ignorance who would argue: Yaweh, Elloheim, Allah, God are not the same!

When there is and has always and only ever was One God...by whatever name the human beings referred to God, there has only ever been One God and God knows Who God Is.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 23, 2008 11:15 PM

Concerned Citizen,

If you wish to discuss further I am game. Let us not boil down to casting about insults …apologetics, the old standard smear? It is almost as worn out as “Islamofascists.”

I prefer it to be professional in nature...without the usual petty jabs…although sometimes fun, they are never really useful or productive.

I can allow you are not equipped to discuss Arabic linguistics and I'll pass on that one…I also apologize, as I did not intend to appear condescending, as well as not as you characterized me in “thinking I would impress.” Kind of brings to mind the old quip from “Spies like us.” Chevy Chase and all…I need not say more.

Yes, your reference to those discussing the "spread out like a table cloth" verses was illuminating to the fact that those people have jumped to the wrong conclusion about the actual meaning of the verses.

Look at the globe. Do you see how the land mass ends and the seas begin? How is it spread out? Are there folds in the land where the rivers may run to the sea?

Now draw a line at the edge of any continent.
The mere fact that you can draw a line at the edge of the land mass shows you it has a limit...i.e. it is not a spheroid...it is spread out like a carpet with an edge at the sea.

I enjoy the exchanges with you very much, as they teach me about you as well as myself.

Care to continue on for the sake of mutual discovery?

You seem well versed in your own book, so let us go there for your archaeological proof.
Your Archaeological proof you wanted is the Kaaba...it was built by Abraham and Ishmael, Psalm 84 mentions Baca (Mecca) and the well (of Zam Zam.)

In Deuteronomy, some say this is Moses predicting the arrival of Mohammad:

2And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.”

Perhaps you can clarify otherwise.
As well as from Habbuk
“…and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.”

These are some of the verses that come from your Bible that some believe predict the arrival of Mohammad.

And some further still say that Jesus himself who fortold Mohammad:

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Please enlighten me your understanding of these.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 23, 2008 11:42 PM

Abdullah,

They as well as you can not reconcile that there is a Muslim in any and every age that there was a prophet from Adam all the way down history to Mohammad.

That is not my burden to reconcile. You claim that "there is [sic] a Muslim in any and every age". If so, surely there is evidence. A shard of pottery, a vessel, a plate, an engraving, papyrus, velum, parchment...anything? Anything that corroborates that your faith is as "old" as you claim? Anything? There are clear variations in the narratives, clear doctrinal differences...was none of it ever written down in the original "Islamic" version and preserved? Anything?

Much like the person in ignorance who would argue: Yaweh, Elloheim, Allah, God are not the same!

Any sane person performing a cursory inspection of the profiles will readily determine that Yahweh and Allah are not the same. From a review (Muehlenberg) of Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? by Mark Durie, CityHarvest Publications, 2006.

If we simply study the attributes of God alone, we see a huge set of differences between the two. The total and utter transcendence of Allah is perhaps his key attribute in Islam. The God of the Bible is certainly transcendent, but he is equally immanent, something totally foreign to Islam. The creator of the universe can also stoop to our level, interact with us, and establish a relationship with us. We can even call God father. This is quite alien to Muslim thinking. No Muslim can speak of a close and loving relationship with Allah, let alone call him father. Other differences abound. Consider the holiness of God, which may be the primary attribute of God in the biblical revelation (if one attribute can be singled out above the others – a contentious point!). Durie points out that Allah is only twice described as holy in the Quran. The Bible by contrast presents this theme hundreds of times. Or consider the love of God. In the Quran, the love of Allah is clearly conditional, based on what men do, and determined by the arbitrary will of Allah. In contrast, the biblical concept of love is consider[ed] to be a gift of grace, lavishly bestowed upon mankind. Many other differences can be mentioned.

(Read the book, it's much better.)

Pope Benedict XVI also made this clear in the Regensburg address:

...not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.

Many of your co-religionists understood what he meant, and fomented murderous riots worldwide.

But let's be clearer: Infinite holiness cannot harbor capriciousness. Your god is not my God.

Please enlighten me your understanding of these.

1) I see no pre-Mohametan evidence that Abraham built the Kaaba. This would be a Qur'anic tradition, and archaelogical evidence demonstrates numberous qiblas during and after the time of Mohammad.
2) Transmogrifying Baca into Mecca would be desperate.
3) Gramatically, the verses quoted contain reflexive references to God himself. In Deuteronomy 33:2, the repetitive pronoun "he" and the possessive "his" refer to the antecedant "LORD" (LORD=YHVH, Lord=Adonai). Where you are leading with Sinai, Seir, and Paran, is addressed elsewhere. Quoting Yoel Natan, The Jewish Trinity:

Obviously, the Muslim interpretation is contradicted not only by geography, but also by the OT and NT narratives.

Similarly in Habakkuk 3:3.
4) The Paraclete ("Comforter") of John 16:7, is the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Christian Trinity (not Allah, Mary, Isa), the Ruach HaKodesh of the Tanakh. You've taken nearly a classical dispensationalist eschatological view here. When Jesus used the second person (singular or plural) in direct response to someone standing directly in front of him, he meant by "you" the "you" to whom he was speaking.

It is good to see you actually trying. But I requested pre-Mohametan archaeological and manuscript evidence consonant with Islamic doctrines and narratives, where they DIFFER from the currently accepted Judaic and Christian texts.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 24, 2008 1:01 AM

(Sorry about the formating error on item #4 above)

Regarding manuscripts:

We can significantly streamline this if you could avoid manuscript comparisons which merely demonstrate Mohammad's understanding of "Christianity" as containing gnostic, Ebionite, Manicheist, various Mariamite, and other heretical corruptions, and especially Qur'anic attributions of error as mainstrean within Christianity that historically weren't the case (i.e. a false Quranic claims against Christianity). Let me clarify by example: if you find as your proof a heterodox Mariamite manuscript claiming the Christian's Trinity was composed of God, Mary, and Jesus, which is in opposition to ancient orthodox Christian texts, then you would be merely illuminating a Qur'anic error. If, on the other hand, the Qur'an merely reports a Christian heresy (without assigning it to all Christians) which is not consonant with Islamic docrine, that only demonstrates Mohammad's familiarity with such. Neither of these will prove for you the existence of a pre-Mohametan proto-Islam, transiently followed by its recipients, and then rejected and revised into the current format. The important element is to locate any vorlage of a section of Judaic or Christian text which Islamic authorities have declared tahrif, showing where early Christians or Jews changed the text from an Islamophilic rendering (no I don't yet have a master list; if you do, please share).

The above pre-supposes that you won't attempt to demonstrate a) that a given heresy was the dominant faith at the time of Mohammad, subsequently "reformed" after Ibn Hazm 300 years later, or b) that Mohammad was speaking only to a limited subgroup of Jews or Christians, i.e. the heretics from whom he learned the credal errors (which would imply that his imprecations applied selectively to them alone).

You will, of course, have to circumnavigate early scholars of Islam known to have supported the lack of change of the Tawrat and Injeel, including Ibn al-Layth, Ibn Rabban, Ibn Qutayba, Al-Ya'qubi, Al-Tabari, Al-Baqillani, and Al-Ma'sudi, as well as consider your own defenses of Mohammad that have attributed his judgments to utilizing the Hebrews' own laws of the against them. This may complicate your chronology somewhat. Ibn Hazm's claims, which became mainstream within Islam, were circa 10th century C.E.

Further restrictions, but I think you will readily accept these:
3:78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
4:46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "We hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
5:13. But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them — barring a few — ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.
2:75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you? — Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.
2:58-59, 7:161-2. And remember it was said to them: "Dwell in this town and eat therein as ye wish, but say the word of humility and enter the gate in a posture of humility: We shall forgive you your faults; We shall increase (the portion of) those who do good." But the transgressors among them changed the word from that which had been given them so we sent on them a plague from heaven. For that they repeatedly transgressed.
(Yusuf Ali)

Believe it or not, I am trying to make your load easier.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 24, 2008 2:22 AM

Concerned Citizen,

Thanks for further entertaining this:

CC You asked: “But I requested pre-Mohametan archaeological and manuscript evidence consonant with Islamic doctrines and narratives, where they DIFFER from the currently accepted Judaic and Christian texts.”

So you want me to dig into the texts find the word that was changed and say ‘Aha! I told you!”
I don’t see that as even useful, but I’ll look into it since you asked…I don’t have much hope in finding it since I don’t speak or read Greek, and there is no original copy available in Aramaic, which I also do not speak.

That is the caveat to this problem of understanding what was originally spoken by Christ, what was recorded 70 to 99 years later in Greek, and then what passed through the filter of time, the council of niuceas 325 AD and all the way up to what you hold to day.

Suffice to say the monotheistic nature of the message has been changed, yet tracing the changes would be beyond us both, unless you are well versed in Greek, and that still leaves the original Aramaic unknown.

The strength we have in the final message is the original text is preserved, and the richness of meaning in the Arabic is still recited as it has always been.

We’ll carry on this conversation, and I’ll see if I can find the “smoking gun” you have asked for.

Your reference to 5:13:

"they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them — barring a few — ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind."

(An Aside, note that even here Allah calls out to the believer to forgive and overlook the faults of even those among the Jewsish clergy that corrupt the message purposely. Interesting...)

To continue, I can not find the previous “uncorrupted version” to refer you too that contains the name of Ishmael, but we need only to look into Abraham's vision and the fact that he was to sacrifice “his only son."

It follows empirically that there must have been switching of the names as only at one time in history did Abraham have an “only son” and it was Ishmael, who was something like thirteen years senior to his younger brother Isaac.

Genesis 22:2

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Genesis 22:16

And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Tafsir of Ibn Kathir

“(So We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing boy.) This child was Isma`il, peace be upon him, for he was the first child of whom glad tidings were given to Ibrahim, peace be upon him, and he was older than Ishaq. The Muslims and the People of the Book agree, and indeed it is stated in their Book, that Isma`il, peace be upon him, was born when Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was eighty-six years old, and Ishaq was born when Ibrahim was ninety-nine years old. According to their Book, Allah commanded Ibrahim to sacrifice his only son, and in another text it says his firstborn son. But here they falsely inserted the name of Ishaq. This is not right because it goes against what their own Scripture says. They inserted the name of Ishaq because he is their ancestor, while Isma`il is the ancestor of the Arabs. They were jealous of them, so they added this idea and changed the meaning of the phrase "only son'' to mean `the only son who is with you,' because Isma`il had been taken with his mother to Makkah. But this is a case of falsification and distortion, because the words "only son'' cannot be said except in the case of one who has no other son. Furthermore, the firstborn son has a special status that is not shared by subsequent children, so the command to sacrifice him is a more exquisite test.”

Until :

“(I saw the horns of the ram when I entered the House ﴿i.e., the Ka`bah﴾, and I forgot to tell you to cover them up; cover them up, for there should not be anything in the House which could distract the worshipper.)''' Sufyan said, "The horns of the ram remained hanging in the House until it was burned, and they were burned too.'' This offers independent evidence that the one who was to be sacrificed was Isma`il, peace be upon him. The Quraysh had inherited the horns of the ram that Ibrahim sacrificed, and they had been passed down from generation to generation, until the Messenger of Allah was sent. And Allah knows best.”

Note from AM: So the horns of the ram hung in the Kaaba until the fire destroyed it. The house has been flooded a few times and rebuilt as well. The foundation has always remained.

Your reference to 4:46 is something you would understand had you read the Quran in the order in which it was revealed and made note of the time the verses were revealed. At the time this was revealed the Jews would say the word “Ra'ina” “with a twist of their tongues” changing the meaning of the Arabic word Ra'ina which means “be careful, listen to us, we listen to you” yet the word they spoke was actually an insult. The Muslims were cautioned not to use the word “Ra'ina” anymore because of this and to rather say something else.

According to Al-Zamakhshari and Ibn Kathir:

“Other exegetes understood ra'ina to be a bilingual pun, but they either did not know or did not offer to explain its meaning in the foreign language. Al-Zamakhshari states that it "... has the sound of a Hebrew or Syriac word that was used as a curse, and it [sounded like] ra'ina. They would ridicule the religion and laugh at the Apostle of God [by] speaking loaded words intending to insult and abuse but appearing as if respecting and honoring him."(58) Ibn Kathir writes: "They pretend they are saying [the common Arabic meaning] 'Listen to me! (ra'ina sam'aka)' when they said ra'ina, but they [really] mean 'foolishness' (al-ru'una)(59) as they cursed the Prophet."(60)”

And by the way, “Durie points out that Allah is only twice described as holy in the Quran.”

Durie has just been proven false, becasue Allah is referred to as Holy in Quran three times here:

Surat Al-Hashr, 59:23
Surat Al-Jumua, 62:1
Surat Al-Baqara, 2:30

And Holy also means Blessed, and here Allah is referred to as Blessed ten more times for a total of at least 13 times:

Surat Al-Araf, 7:54
Surat Al-Mumenoon, 23;14
Surat An-Noor, 24:61
Surat Al-Furqan, 25:1
Surat Al-Furqan, 25;10
Surat Al-Furqan, 25:61
Surat Ghafir 40:64
Surat Az-Zukhruf, 43:85
Surat Ar-Rahman, 55:78
Surat Al-Mulk 67:1

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 24, 2008 12:17 PM

I will be a bit longer in responding; have to pay some bills before the holidays.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 25, 2008 10:25 PM

Abdullah,

So you want me to dig into the texts find the word that was changed and say ‘Aha! I told you!” I don’t see that as even useful

The larger question being raised, is why haven't Muslims of posterity seen it as useful? Where are the Muslim museums of antiquities that catalog the pre-Mohametan artifacts justifying for unbelievers the Qur'anic narratives? Surely, this was not seen a mere jahiliyya?

what was originally spoken by Christ, what was recorded 70 to 99 years later in Greek

Other sources say as early as 25 years later. I have stated I am a partial preterist, and believe that the internal evidences of John's revelation lobby for a Neronic dating (pre-70 AD).

Suffice to say the monotheistic nature of the message has been changed

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion. You've previously stated a preference for Judaism, because you find the tawhid more consonant with Islam. I would suggest you read Athanasius, On the Incarnation, to understand the Christian position on Trinitarian monotheism, the treatise that effectively ended any significant internecine conflicts on this issue.

The strength we have in the final message is the original text is preserved

Except for the problems previously discussed (redactions, Christoph Luxemburg's work).

It follows empirically that there must have been switching of the names as only at one time in history did Abraham have an “only son” and it was Ishmael, who was something like thirteen years senior to his younger brother Isaac.

The Child of Promise according to the Tanakh, with manuscripts thousands of years old, was the child to be born to the elderly,menopausally barren Sarah. You will likely find this offensive, but Ishmael was an illegitimate child, born to Hagar, because Sarah waivered in her belief in God's promise.

I found a genealogy of Mohammad per Ibn Hisham, as follows:

This book contains the life of the Apostle of God: Muhammad was the son of Abd Allah, son of Abd-ul-Muttalib, son of Hashim, son of Abdu Manaf, son of Qusay, son of Kilab, son of Hakeem, son of Kaab, son of Luayy, son of Ghalib, son of Fihr, son of Malik, son of Qays, son of Kinanah, son of Khuzaymah, son of Mudrikah, son of Ilyas, son of Mudhar, son of Nizar, son of Maad, son of Adnan, son of Udd, son of Muqawwam, son of Nakhour, son of Tahir, son of Yarub, son of Yashyub, son of Nabit, son of Ismail (ishmael), son of Ibrahim, the Friend of God, son of Tarikh, son of Nakhour, son of Sarukh, son of Rau, son of Falih, son of Hud, son of Salih, son of Arphakhshad, son of Sham, son of Nuh/Noah, son of Lamekh, son of Matushalakh, son of Akhanukh, - who, as is believed, was the prophet Idris, the first prophet, and the first who wrote with the reed, - son of Aded, son of Mahlaleel, son of Kaynan, son of Anoush, son of Shays, son of Adam, to whom may God be gracious!

Again, this is centuries after Mohammad, and the source material is not given (not in the Qur'an). The Bible gives the sons of Ishmael:

(Gen. 25: 13-15) the son's of Ishmael were Nebajoth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, and Massa, Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah.

It is unclear to me which would be the corollary of "Nabit"; I presume Neba-joth or Naphish? If this is of such great significance, establishing Mohammad as in the lineage of Ishmael, the Islamically purported true Intent of the Sacrifice, one would expect that this lineage would have been better documented than a reference centuries AFTER Mohammed. Curiously, why is Ishmael's claim to being the Intent of the Sacrifice not documented in pre-Mohametan archaelogy? This was to be the pinnacle of all history, correct? Also, if Ishmael was the lineage of the consummation of all prophethood, why was it that the sons of Isaac, whom you would apparently describe as usurpers, whom you would claim produced edited forgeries of the very words of God in the Tanakh, why was it that that the sons of Isaac were the ones blessed with prophets, inspired writings, and divine favor? Where is the comparable history of Ishmael? Is there no trace of his achievements?

Regarding your references to the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:

This child was Isma`il, peace be upon him, for he was the first child ...

I saw the horns of the ram when I entered the House...

Ibn Kathir was post-Mohametan. It would be unclear when this legend developed because of this. If these horns were in the Kaaba for millenia, surely there is a pre-Mohametan reference.

And by the way, “Durie points out that Allah is only twice described as holy in the Quran.” Durie has just been proven false, becasue Allah is referred to as Holy in Quran three times here: Surat Al-Hashr, 59:23 Surat Al-Jumua, 62:1 Surat Al-Baqara, 2:30

I've read your references, and I presume the quibble is over the object of "holy" in 2:30. I don't think this alters the scale of emphasis, however. Hundreds of references in the Bible, compared to 2 or 3 in the Qur'an, is the difference between essence and mere assignation. Also, according to The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, by Mahmoud Ayoub (SUNY Press, ISBN 087395727X, 9780873957274)

On Surat Al-Baqarah 87, pg 125 Commentators have differed concerning the meaning of the word qudus (holy); according to some it means purity and to others, blessing. Tabarsi relates, on the authority of Hasan al-Basri, al-Rabi’ ibn Anas, and ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd that “al-qudus is God, the Exalted . . . al-qudus and al-quddus are the same” (see Q. 54:23; Tabarsi, I, pp. 348—349: see also Tabari, H, pp. 319—323; and Ibn Kathir, I, pp. 214—215.

For reference:

Blessing

1. The act of one that blesses.
2. A short prayer said before or after a meal; grace.
3. Something promoting or contributing to happiness, well-being, or prosperity; a boon.
4. Approbation; approval: This plan has my blessing.

Holy

1. Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.
2. Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered: a holy book.
3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.
4. Specified or set apart for a religious purpose: a holy place.
5. Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct: a holy pledge.
6. Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence: The pursuit of peace is our holiest quest.
7. Informal Used as an intensive: raised holy hell over the mischief their children did.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Clearly, these words, in English, do not have the same meaning. Apparently, according to the ulema, even the word qudus does not exactly mean "holy" in the JudaeoChristian sense.

I understand it is claimed that there are something of the order of 120,000 candidates for "prophet" in Islam. What prophets were in the line of Ishmael, and what "book" did they bring, or did Allah leave them without witness? Perhaps one of them spoke more to Allah's holiness.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 27, 2008 12:59 PM