Friday, 3 September 2010

Responding to Turretinfan’s probing on the Islamic view of the Gospels

Turretinfan presented a few probing questions concerning Imam Shabir Ally’s ideas pertaining to the Gospels as well as his “Christological evolution” theory with relation to the Gospels.

Of course I cannot answer for Imam Shabir Ally and nor am I attempting to but having planned to review the Shamoun-Ally debate in the near future I will add some insight of my own which may expand upon TurretinFan’s understanding with regards to the Islamic position and even Imam Shabir’s position. I also do this to depart from some of the yaa-hoo brigade of Christian apologists on the internet who I have recently been rebuking – TF certainly seems to be respectful and a serious thinker contrary to some of the Christian folks I have had the displeasure of countering of late

TF asked a few questions so I will respond with a few answers as well as questioning of my own.

TF begins by giving us a succinct summary of Imam Shabir’s claims:


Shabir Ally argues that Mark is the first gospel and the other three gospels show evidence of a progressive trend, with John having the "highest" Christology. Indeed, he sometimes even accuses the other synoptic gospels of omitting words or changing words that are found in Mark so as to move toward divinizing Jesus.

I do want to add in the way of explanation to our Christian readers, who may be taken aback by Imam Shabir’s thoughts, a quick explanation to add some flesh to the over-arching point of the progressive trend within the Gospels as a whole. Imam Ally has strong argumentation to back his ideas up; the Gospel of Mark has NO teachings of Jesus divinity and nor does it have a teaching of incarnation – simply put, Jesus is NOT God and has the profile of a human being (a Prophet) within the Gospel of Mark.

Why is this so significant?

As taught by Bart Ehrman the Gospels were written as separate documents and were not reliant upon other Gospels – they were meant to be read individually. Coupling this fact with that of the Gospel of Mark being the EARLIEST of the four Gospels we realise a conclusion quite profound

The reason behind the significance is that this points to early Christians (as well as the author of Mark) NOT believing in the Trinity, incarnation or divine-sonship of Jesus. This sounds very much Islamic as Islam teaches Jesus to be a Prophet rather than divine.

In the way of intellectual honesty I would state the virgin birth is not mentioned in the Gospel of Mark either

I have analytically combed through the Gospel of Mark with an Islamic comb and I am of the conclusion much of it is very much Islamic in nature.

Now, if your (Christian) EARLIEST source material NEVER mentions anything to do with the incarnation or “divinity” of Jesus then you have problems within Christianity as key theological teachings of Christianity are thrown into further doubt.

As a matter of fact the incarnation ONLY appears in the Gospel of John which is distinct from the Synoptics and is the most theologically evolved; not to mention the dubious nature of the alleged “quotes” attributed to Jesus within this Gospel. So we are now back to Imam Shabir’s ideas of evolution – ideas which make perfect sense in my view

I hope this gives the Christian reader some impetus for further study and TF some extra insight in order to aid his grasping of Imam Shabir’s argumentation

TF asks: So what is Shabir Ally's theory regarding what happened to the Muslim Injeel ("gospel")? That seems to be a tricky problem for Shabir Ally. Why on Earth would the Word of God be completely lost while various revisions of a false gospel be maintained?


Good question TF but as a Christian this question is problematic for yourself and is simple for a Muslim. How so? Well, open up your Bible and note Jesus preached the Gospel and all your four Gospels were NOT sanctioned nor EVER seen by Jesus – they came into existence AFTER Jesus departed from this world. Thus it is clear your four Gospels are not the Gospel of Jesus so I ask TF to answer his own question. It is a VERY tough question for a Christian; one which will bring one closer to Islam, God Willing.

I would also ask TF to produce the Q Gospel? Can he do this? No. He may lay claim to it being a “theoretical Gospel” but logic dictates a strong argument for the sayings Gospel (Q) being in existence at the time of “Matthew” and Luke. Where is it?

Why would the word of God be lost according to a Muslim? Well, Muslims believe the Prophets of the past (those before Muhammad) were sent to their respective people during those respective times and thus any Scriptures left behind after the passing of the said Prophets would NOT be guaranteed safeguard by God. Thus scriptures were corrupted and lost as God did not take responsibility to their preservation.

This belief manifests itself today as the Quran mentions the Suhuf of Abraham and mankind do not have these Scriptures today. In short, not having the Scriptures of past Prophets is not an issue for Muslims as we believe we are NOT meant to have them and the ONLY Scripture which we have in its entirety is the Quran.

In fact, ironically, the Bible backs the Muslim belief up:

Where is the Gospel of Jesus (I don’t see it in the Bible)

Where is the Suhuf of Abraham?

The Bible also points to the lying pens of the scribes (Jeremiah 8) thus indicating scriptures were manipulated, altered and ultimately lost – this sounds very much in agreement with Islam

Our friend TF queries further:

Also, why would the earliest Christians have attempted to preserve all four gospels, if they were simply revisions of one another - or if the Christology of Mark were too low? To put it another way, if Matthew were really just an editing of Mark, why wouldn't Mark just be thrown away or suppressed?

That is a good question posed by TF on the superficial level. However, the question does not negate the lack of Christology within the Gospel of Mark; this is the main point which can not be circumnavigated by a question of intent which effectively amounts to a red herring

Why did the Christians hold on to the Old Testament as the Christology within this document is lacking? In fact the Old Testament is at odds with the New Testament and contradiction plus confusion is impossible to avoid – just look at Marcionism.

In addition, I’d like to remind TF many Gospels were indeed lost (refer to the Lost Scriptures by B. Ehrman)

TF: There is really not a consistent theory of the textual transmission that makes sense from the Muslim standpoint. Basically, the Christians have to become experts at eliminating the true Word of God (such that it goes out of mention immediately, and none of the proto-Muslims are able to preserve even one copy of the Injeel), but for some reasons the Christians don't eliminate Matthew, Mark, and Luke (or any of them) but maintain them.

TF again asks a fine question. I do believe a thought out Muslim view of textual transmission is very much in line with textual criticism and modern scholarship.

TF is adamant Christians preserved Gospels. This is far from the case – where is “Q”? Surely Q is of more historical (and dare I say theological) value than the four passion narratives you have within your possession today? What about the 17 non-canonical Gospels Ehrman lists in his Lost Scriptures?

Our response to TF’s questioning and statement-making can conclude with a quick thought on why there are only four Gospels:

The earliest Christians don't even try to hide them - we find references to the four-fold gospel quite early in the patristic literature: Irenaeus died 202 and referred to the fact that the gospels are four in number, and argues that they cannot be more or fewer than four.

This is getting close to the heart of the matter now, TF. On whose authority do you rigidly stick to four Gospels? Did Jesus say four? Did James say four? Who said four?

This is indeed the type of questioning that comes with a powerful statement – pondering upon this should be done alone and in a serious fashion.

I throw in a further caveat of editing of the Bible, who told you the Church has authority to edit the Bible? Edits have indeed taken place through scribal error, forgery insertion (
and even forgery removal!) not to mention the unending “apocrypha” saga.

NOTE: This was a quick response, I do plan to do more short written responses to individuals in the future to help switch tack vis-a-vis this blog

Email suggestions: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Appendix 1

Some encouragement to convert to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/08/assyrians-and-arab-christians-please.html

The Brothers of Jesus: Who are they?
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/jesus-teaches-muslims-are-right/

Which incarnation? I personally feel both beliefs of incarnation are gateways to paganism:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/08/two-incarnations-god-became-dove.html

51 comments:

Anonymousing said...

hehe i see yahya disabled comments...wow yahya your whole life must be sitting in front of your blog anticipating when some information might squeeze through that is honest. good one.

Anonymousing said...

FIRST PART OF TWO PARTS FOR ALI (this post ‘magically disappeared’ from before)

Ali said: 3 muslims became christians? no i'm guessing it's christians again, practicing philippians 1:18

Ok Ali, i have already chuckled a few times at seeing you go on about Philippians 1:18, so finally I’ll let you in on a little secret known as context:

Phi 1:12-21 RSV

“I want you to know, brethren, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ;

and most of the brethren have been made confident in the Lord because of my imprisonment, and are much more bold to speak the word of God without fear.

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel;

the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment
.

18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I shall rejoice.

For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

Anonymousing said...

FIRST PART OF TWO PARTS FOR ALI (this post ‘magically disappeared’ from before) CONT.

What Paul is saying here [Phil 1.18] is that there are some preachers whom are preaching in order to afflict Paul whom is imprisoned for preaching and converting people to Christ. Paul is their competition, and since he is in prison his competition is being vocal and persistent in their preaching knowing this will cause Rome more unrest and leave Paul with a harsher penalty.

Paul says clearly in the passage you keep quoting that it is their MOTIVES which are false, but yet Paul cannot condemn them since he knows EVERYTHING coming out of their mouths concerning Lord Jesus is 100 PERCENT BONA FIDE TRUTH! And for THAT he REJOICES! Christ’s name is on EVERYONE’S LIPS!

This outweighs the motives the preachers have towards their competition, namely Paul, and Paul again clearly states he cares more about Jesus being preached than his wellbeing, it is a beautiful passage. Kind of like what happened with Acts 17 recently and their vocal “supposedly” Christian critics (where there really any?), but not really (cuz their persecution compared to Paul’s persecution was a cakewalk).

Maybe I can make it easier for you. Say you meet a really pretty girl that you want to get to know better and you ask her for her phone number and meet her up one day over coffee. During conversation it comes up that she is NOT a Muslim.

Now let me ask YOU: wouldn’t you preach allah to her, and wouldn’t your motive for preaching be because you want to be with her and not because of your zeal for allah or Islam?

Of course it would, because any other way you would have never preached or even spoken to her. The whole reason you preached is because of YOUR motive to be with her. Would you be saying anything false about Islam or Allah (as you understand it because of your reason for preaching to her? Of course not, your motives might be false but what you say can still be true! Geez!

Anonymousing said...

Yahya said: There is no hadith of cross-dressing.

Let’s put ourselves in an objective position. Look at this from a few feet off the ground. I want to investigate both the person of Jesus and Muhammad. I will use the Christian sources to look at Jesus, which would entail the whole Bible, and i will use Islamic sources, such as authentic hadith (that any true orto-Muslim must accept) and the Quran, for Muhammad.

My goal is to collect all the passages in which a potential nonbeliever can attack the sexuality of either the person of Jesus or Muhammad.

This is what we have, from Yahyas wonderfully written article, about Jesus:

Nothing, but I will give a few “common” attacks: “beloved apostle John” ???? Lol? Ummmm....“Jesus kissing Judas and saying where do you go”?????? Lol...hmmmm...now why would anyone think Jesus was gay? Oh wait, they don’t!

Anonymousing said...

Notice the urgency of such a polemic on the side of Muhammad, notice how many passages can be used to question and potentially discredit Muhammad with, yet Yahya has a wonderful polemic about Jesus which is supposedly *helping the Christians* . Really? Who would have thought, besides maybe Yahya.

I mean Yahya, you don’t know how much it will mean to me if ill see, right below the Jesus article: 100% Percent Proof Muhammad was NOT gay. But that’s if you ever actually get around to talking about Facts About Islam, or these cross dressing hadiths, which I know you probably won’t.

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller? I think CNN has it handled. There are many *higher* authorities other than yourself working to discredit and destroy them, like comedians, news networks, politicians, society.

Yet Yahya spends his time writing about how Jesus wasn’t gay. Has Yahya no shame? Is there a cap to his level of bold faced hypocrisy?

Anonymousing said...

WOW! MY POST WAS ERASED AGAIN!

HERE IT IS, AGAIN:

This is what we have, from my very limited and time constrained research, on Muhammad:

Mishkat Al Masabih, Fitan, “The Fine Qualities of the Prophet’s Wives”:

Umm Salama’s party spoke to her telling her to ask God’s messenger to say to the people, “If anyone wishes to make a present to God’s messenger, let him present it to him wherever he happens to be.” She did so and he replied, “Do not annoy me regarding ‘A’isha, for inspiration has not come to me when I was in any WOMAN’S GARMENT but ‘A’isha’s.”

Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2442:

They asked her and she said, “He did not say anything to me.” They said to her, “Speak to him until he speaks to you.” He went around to her and she spoke to him. He said to her, “Do not injure me regarding 'A'isha. The revelation does not come to me when I am in the GARMENT of any woman except 'A'isha.” She said, "I repent to Allah from injuring you, Messenger of Allah.”

Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393:

So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, .”

Anonymousing said...

Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 3941:

Um Salamah mentioned this to the prophet but would not respond to her. She repeated it a second time but he still would not respond to her, but on the third time he said, “O Um Salama! Do not hurt me with Aisha; for by Allah, the inspiration did not descent on me while I was IN THE COVERINGS (lihaf) of any of you (women) except Aisha.”

Sahih collection of Muslim, Book 031, Number 5984:

She sought permission to get in as he had been lying with me IN MY MANTLE… The wives of Allah's Apostle then sent Zainab b. Jahsh, the wife of Allah's Apostle… She, however, lost temper very soon but was soon calm. Allah's Messenger permitted her to enter as she ('A'isha) was along with Allah's Messenger IN HER MANTLE, in the same very state when Fatima had entered

Sahih collection of Muslim, Hadith Number 4472:

The wives of the prophet sent Fatimah, the daughter of the prophet, to him and she requested permission to enter while he was lying down on my bed (wearing) IN (fee) MY ROBE (Mirt). He gave her permission to enter… who requested permission from the prophet to enter while he was with Aisha IN (fee) HER ROBE (Mirt) and in the same state that Fatimah found him in.

So the above hadith are pretty self explanatory while the tradition is widely attested to and authentic. But recently I came upon this “teething” hadith which I think is worth mentioning. I do not know the context or authenticity of this hadith (yet) but the immediate context is very shocking:

Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan": "I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)

She also said, "On a later day we requested a wet nurse for him (Ali) but he refused her breast so we called for Muhammad – pbuh – WHO PLACED HIS TONGUE IN ALI’S MOUTH and he fell asleep. This is the way it was as Allah willed it."


So on Muhammad's side we have sucking on tongues and lips of Ali and putting on Aisha’s clothing. We have absolutely nothing on Jesus’ side.

WoW.

Anonymousing said...

Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 3941:

Um Salamah mentioned this to the prophet but would not respond to her. She repeated it a second time but he still would not respond to her, but on the third time he said, “O Um Salama! Do not hurt me with Aisha; for by Allah, the inspiration did not descent on me while I was IN THE COVERINGS (lihaf) of any of you (women) except Aisha.”

Sahih collection of Muslim, Book 031, Number 5984:

She sought permission to get in as he had been lying with me IN MY MANTLE… The wives of Allah's Apostle then sent Zainab b. Jahsh, the wife of Allah's Apostle… She, however, lost temper very soon but was soon calm. Allah's Messenger permitted her to enter as she ('A'isha) was along with Allah's Messenger IN HER MANTLE, in the same very state when Fatima had entered

Sahih collection of Muslim, Hadith Number 4472:

The wives of the prophet sent Fatimah, the daughter of the prophet, to him and she requested permission to enter while he was lying down on my bed (wearing) IN (fee) MY ROBE (Mirt). He gave her permission to enter… who requested permission from the prophet to enter while he was with Aisha IN (fee) HER ROBE (Mirt) and in the same state that Fatimah found him in.

So the above hadith are pretty self explanatory while the tradition is widely attested to and authentic. But recently I came upon this “teething” hadith which I think is worth mentioning. I do not know the context or authenticity of this hadith (yet) but the immediate context is very shocking:

Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan": "I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)

She also said, "On a later day we requested a wet nurse for him (Ali) but he refused her breast so we called for Muhammad – pbuh – WHO PLACED HIS TONGUE IN ALI’S MOUTH and he fell asleep. This is the way it was as Allah willed it."


So on Muhammad's side we have sucking on tongues and lips of Ali and putting on Aisha’s clothing. We have absolutely nothing on Jesus’ side.

WoW.

Anonymousing said...

And Yahya censored Anonymous in this post:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=248234931266550822&postID=6348859031632157844

because Anonymous refuted Jalal Abu al Rab’s unworthy article.

Ok, well tis 'bout time for Jesus or Muhammad? and I took this night off 'specially for that!

Maybe you guys should stop being such cowards and actually call in to present your objections like a particular ex-Muslimah shawty did before she converted. Or are you just too scared because, unlike her, being a bit older and wiser you know you cant defend your prophet?

Cheers.

(BTW I’ll be around again to look at the dilemma Turretin presents but from a quick glance Yahya doesn’t seem to address it).

aNONYMOUsing said...

UNBELIEVABLE! GUESS I CAN JUST WAIT AND SEE IF YAHYA APPROVES COMMENTS FROM ME WHICH I JUST READ ON HIS BLOG, BUT NOW ARE GONE.

UNBELIEVABLE!

Anonymousing said...

Ibn said: “ [they say] Muhammad(saw) was a womanizer. Now one idiot says that Muhammad was homosexual. He can't be both

Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P. Also, I stumbled upon some Islamic texts which seemed to indicate that somewhere along the way Muhammad was literally accused of homosexuality by the pagans, but I am not positive about this and it will take more research on my part to confirm it.

Anonymousing said...

Ibn said: Anonymousing's vacuous claims. Jalal Abu Al Rub already wrote an article about it years ago

The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point, not the meaning of ‘thawb’ or that ‘thawb’ can refer to men’s clothes also - all that is fine and dandy but it doesn’t address the cross dressing or help Muhammad’s position. It could have been a burka or a waist covering or any other piece of clothing, but that does not matter since the hadith clearly states that Muhammad put on a WOMANS garment. The author of that article also misses the point that ‘mirt’ refers to clothes people wore to bed, and not bed coverings (which I can proof with hadith). The article was long, pointless, and didn’t refute anything. I call those types of articles “confidence talks”.

Besides all that, the hadith which I quoted presupposes that Muhammad would wear other women’s (pl) clothing when it states “IN A WOMAN’S GARMENT (fee thawb imra’ah) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” It is implicit that wearing women’S (pl) clothes was a practice Muhammad engaged in – multiple and different women are implied by the plurality (ie. ‘any other’ or ‘except that of’). Context matters. Jalal did not even touch this far in his article.

again:

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

Anonymousing said...

ahhhh good yahya!

thanks for that! I used a screen recorder since i noticed you messing with my comments!

now i will post this on youtube and let everyone see for themselves what a liar and censor you are!

ahhhh cameras sure do come in handy dont they?

Anonymous said...

nice...ill be reading

Anonymous said...

BUT YAHYA! IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO ANSWER WHY DID YOU ASK?! LOL

Both Ibn and Yahya:

A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).

I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.

What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.

Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

Anonymous said...

GOD LOVES YOU YAHYA DONT DO THIS ANYMORE

BUT YAHYA! IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO ANSWER WHY DID YOU ASK?! LOL

Both Ibn and Yahya:

A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).

I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.

What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.

Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

Anonymous said...

BUT YAHYA! IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO ANSWER WHY DID YOU ASK?! LOL

Both Ibn and Yahya:

A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).

I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.

What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.

Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

Anonymous said...

BUT YAHYA! IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO ANSWER WHY DID YOU ASK?! LOL

Both Ibn and Yahya:

A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).

I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.

What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.

Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

Yahya Snow said...

@anonymousing

Who are you talking to?

All I see is a load of comments from you which make no sense at all.

Blogger is slow in doing its thing today; please chill out and stop accusing people of censorship as it has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with blogger

As the Americans say...chill

1moremuslim said...

"Irenaeus died 202 and referred to the fact that the gospels are four in number, and argues that they cannot be more or fewer than four."


Do you know why Irenaeus said that the Gospels must be four, not less not more? Because the Church has four pillars!!! Genius theologian!!!

Anonymousing said...

Both Ibn and Yahya:

A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).

I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.

What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.

Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

Anonymous said...

Both Ibn and Yahya:

A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).

I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.

What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.

Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

maratsafin said...

@anonymousing a big fail at philippians 1:18,yes context is good, but paul lets it be known he dosent care how christ is preached.
btw seriously learn arabic before quoting hadiths but my guess is that it is just a copy and paste job from either AI or some other anti-islam website.also why on earth do you quote the old testament law? that law was cursed remember? in jesus's blood you can do whatever you like. also as for the sources for jesus'slife, what do you have exactly? 3 gospels which are more or less the same and only recount his last years and even then very vaguely and as for johns gospel,well thats not even woth going into since its so unrelaible.
The more you think about it the more it becomes apparent why many christians ministers give up believeing in jesus altogether because as a life story there is nothing there. people like irenaeus make it worse by thinking jesus lived until 50!!!

beowulf2k8 said...

Islam is disproven because the Koran teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. Where'd Mohammed get that from? From Matthew chapter 1. Where'd Matthew get it from? He made it up on the basis of a lying and purposeful misinterpretation of Isaiah 7.

Now then, o ye people of the Koran, why did you not believe us when we showed you that your book is not of Allah? Repent and turn from serving a book written by a deceived illiterate, and serve Allah in truth! (i.e. be a Deist)

For indeed, Matthew bases his claim that Jesus was born of a virgin on Isaiah 7:14 "Behold the LORD himself will give you a sing: a virgin will conceive and bear a son" and Mohammed follows Matthew's blunder.

But in Isaiah 7 the prophecy is not about Jesus, nor about any long distant future time (o people of the book and people of the Koran give heed, for we speak truth) but is about when two kings who live in Isaiah's own time will be defeated.

Ahaz is being attacked by Pekkah son of Remaliah king of Israel who is based in Samaria, and by Rezin king of Syria bases in Damascus. And he fears greatly (as you should fear, ye people of the Koran).

And Isaiah is sent by Yahweh to tell him not to fear for the kings will not defeat him, but he does not believe. And Isaiah gives him a chance to choose a sign to prove that God will protect him from these kings, but he refuses to choose a sign.

So Isaiah says, "Behold the LORD himself will give you a sign: a virgin shall conceive and bear a son" -- this is not Jesus, this is not Isa -- for what is the sign about??

He says further if you continue reading in Isaiah 7:15-16 that between the birth of this virgin-born child and the time he comes to a knowledge of good and evil the two kings (then alive) will be defeated by Assyria!!!

"For before this child knows to choose good and refuse evil, the land you hate will be deserted by both its kings, for I will shave the land close with a hired razor, the king of Assyria"

The sign is when the two kings will be defeated, in Ahaz and Isaiah's only time!!!!!!!! And in chapter 8, Isaiah declares that God declared to him that the promised child was a child born before his very eyes, Mahershalalhashbaz!!!!!!

You are decieved then, o people of the Koran, as much as the people of the book are, for Isa was not the child promised to be born of a virgin, but Mahershalalhashbaz who was born much earlier was the child!!!!!

Your Koran is written by an illiterate and you are on the path to Jehennam!!!!!! Repent ye of your obstinance against God, and your idiocy!!!!

beowulf2k8 said...

subscribing

beowulf2k8 said...

Mohammed was so illiterate he thought that Miriam the daughter of Amram (sister of Moses) and Miriam the Mother of Isa were the same!!!! Way to bridge a gap of at least 2000 years with illiteracy!

At length she brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!"....(vs 34 Such is Isa, son of Mary...)
-- Sura 19:27-28...34

And Mary, the daughter of `Imran, who guarded her chastity,....
-- Sura 66:12

beowulf2k8 said...

Mohammed was so illiterate he thought that Miriam the daughter of Amram (sister of Moses) and Miriam the Mother of Isa were the same!!!! Way to bridge a gap of at least 2000 years with illiteracy!

At length she brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!"....(vs 34 Such is Isa, son of Mary...)
-- Sura 19:27-28...34

And Mary, the daughter of `Imran, who guarded her chastity,....
-- Sura 66:12

Ali said...

you want to debate on philippins 1:18 then lets go. i've refuted sevral christians on this.
verse 1:18 is INDEPENDENT of the other verses. depending on whatever translation you use, Paul 100% allows the use of "FALSE MOTIVES". He says it doesn't matter if you use true motives OR false, if Christ is preached then he REJOICES. simple as that. you don't fool me. philippians 1:18 commands the use of cheating, decieveing and lying to win people to paul's delusions.

i alrady know the context. AGAIN the verse is INDEPENDENT of others since Paul says IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW christ is preached.

Ali said...

paul CLEARLY says it doesn't matter what method you choose. it may be FALSE, or it may be true. in the end christ has to be preached. that s the moral of the verse.

beowulf2k8 said...

I have no need to defend Paul's statement in Philippians 1:18 as a Deist, but since you clearly are misinterpreting it I will do so anyway. He is in prison and what he is talking about is made clear from verse 16:

"some preach Christ out of contention rather than sincerely, seeking merely to add affliction to my imprisonment"

It is in this context of speaking about those who preach Christ only to add affliction to his imprisonment (i.e. they preach Christ to make Paul mad, as if Paul didn't want anyone but himself to preach Christ) that Paul says in verse 18:

"So what? Regardless, Christ is preached, whether out of false motives or true, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice."

If they preach Christ just to make Paul mad as if Paul wanted only himself to preach Christ then Paul wants them to know that it does not make him mad and that he does not want to be the only one preaching Christ.

beowulf2k8 said...

This would be like if Mohammed was in prison and a bunch of guys went out preaching Islam just because they thought it would make Mohammed mad for them to preach it rather than him or while he could not do so and Mohammed said "I'm fine with it." That's all that's really being said here by Paul.

Ali said...

i haven't misinterpreted anything.
Clearly you are saying Paul doesn't mind the use of "FALSE MOTIVES".
How else do you explain the countless christian lies? All because of his verse.

Ali said...

again, read the first part of phil 1:18. Paul says it DOESN'T MATTER what motive you use, false or true, the important thing is christ is preached. you yourself misinterpreted the verse 1:15. Paul speaks of those who preach christ in jealousy, like being false apostles, enemies and such. i have no clue how your example is related.

Ibn said...

I almost missed Anonymousing's response to my points.

Anonymousing:Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P

Are you kidding me? You just afforded a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with other men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't. Thus your argument from analogy fails. Moreover, even if we assume that Muhammad(saw) was attracted to both men and women, it still wouldn't count as homosexuality on his part because as a sexual orientation "homosexuality refers to an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to people of the same sex; it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." (wikipedia) Of course, Muhammad(saw) didn't exhibit any of those qualities which is why no sane, rational person has ever charged him with homosexuality. You've already lost the debate Anonymousing, but because you are an idiot, I'll embarrass you further.

Anonymousing: The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point, not the meaning of ‘thawb’ or that ‘thawb’ can refer to men’s clothes also - all that is fine and dandy but it doesn’t address the cross dressing or help Muhammad’s position. It could have been a burka or a waist covering or any other piece of clothing, but that does not matter since the hadith clearly states that Muhammad put on a WOMANS garment. The author of that article also misses the point that ‘mirt’ refers to clothes people wore to bed, and not bed coverings (which I can proof with hadith). The article was long, pointless, and didn’t refute anything. I call those types of articles “confidence talks”.

Just because Muhammad(saw) would drape himself with a robe (which as Jalal pointed out can be worn both by men and women) doesn't NECESSARILY or SUFFICIENTLY constitute evidence of homosexuality. In fact, taking into account what I wrote earlier, the probability that his wearing a garment is indicative of homosexuality is even lower. And if his intentions were not homosexual in nature, it gives credence to the probability that his putting on a robe was not an act of cross dressing either.

In conclusion, the rational man has no good reason for believing that Muhammad(saw) was a crossdresser or a homosexual. Case closed! Next!

Ibn said...

I almost missed Anonymousing's response to my points.

Anonymousing:Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P

Are you kidding me? You just afforded a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with other men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't. Thus your argument from analogy fails. Moreover, even if we assume that Muhammad(saw) was attracted to both men and women, it still wouldn't count as homosexuality on his part because as a sexual orientation "homosexuality refers to an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to people of the same sex; it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." (wikipedia) Of course, Muhammad(saw) didn't exhibit any of those qualities which is why no sane, rational person has ever charged him with homosexuality. You've already lost the debate Anonymousing, but because you are an idiot, I'll embarrass you further.

Anonymousing: The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point

Just because Muhammad(saw) would drape himself with a robe (which as Jalal pointed out can be worn both by men and women) doesn't NECESSARILY or SUFFICIENTLY constitute evidence of homosexuality. In fact, taking into account what I wrote earlier, the probability that his wearing a garment is indicative of homosexuality is even lower. And if his intentions were not homosexual in nature, it gives credence to the probability that his putting on a robe was not an act of cross dressing either. What probably could be the reason why Muhammad(saw) covered himself with his wife's robe? Perhaps he was a poor man who could not afford ROBES or he could but did not out of humility. As Athar Hussain writes in his book, The Message of Muhammad, "His blanket had several patches. [Tirmidhi] He had very few spare clothes"

Additionally, "when Prophet Muhammad was the ruler of whole of Arabic, when he had the choice to live a life of opulence and luxury, he chose to live a life of an ascetic in spirit yet performing all the duties of family, society and nation. its recorded that if some wealth came to his possession in the morning, by sunset he would distribute them among the needy. he demonstrated how to live in this world and at the same time above it"

The Prophet(saw) is also reported to have said, "O God, grant me life as a poor, cause me to die as a poor and resurrect me in the company of the poor .." His wife asked him why he said that, and he replied: Because the poor will enter the garden of bliss before the rich. Do not turn away a poor man, even if all you can give is half a date. If you love the poor and bring them near you, God will bring you near Him on the Day of Great Resurrection. (recorded in Al-Tirmidhi book of Prophetic tradition)

Given that a crossdresser wears all types of woman's clothing whereas the Prophet(saw) wore only a robe (which can also be worn by a man) belonging to his wife (even that he did not do all the time), and given that the Prophet(saw) was too poor and humble to buy new clothes and his existing clothes were mostly tattered, the probability he wore Aisha's robes because of homosexuality is highly improbable.

In conclusion, the rational man has no good reason for believing that Muhammad(saw) was a crossdresser or a homosexual. Case closed! Next!

Ibn said...

I almost missed Anonymousing's response to my points.

Anonymousing:Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P

Are you kidding me? You just afforded a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with other men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't. Thus your argument from analogy fails. Moreover, even if we assume that Muhammad(saw) was attracted to both men and women, it still wouldn't count as homosexuality on his part because as a sexual orientation "homosexuality refers to an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to people of the same sex; it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." (wikipedia) Of course, Muhammad(saw) didn't exhibit any of those qualities which is why no sane, rational person has ever charged him with homosexuality. You've already lost the debate Anonymousing, but because you are an idiot, I'll embarrass you further.

Anonymousing: The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point

Just because Muhammad(saw) would drape himself with a robe (which as Jalal pointed out can be worn both by men and women) doesn't NECESSARILY or SUFFICIENTLY constitute evidence of homosexuality. In fact, taking into account what I wrote earlier, the probability that his wearing a garment is indicative of homosexuality is even lower. And if his intentions were not homosexual in nature, it gives credence to the probability that his putting on a robe was not an act of cross dressing either. What probably could be the reason why Muhammad(saw) covered himself with his wife's robe?

Ibn said...

Continued:

Perhaps he was a poor man who could not afford ROBES or he could but did not out of humility. As Athar Hussain writes in his book, The Message of Muhammad, "His blanket had several patches. [Tirmidhi] He had very few spare clothes"

Additionally, "when Prophet Muhammad was the ruler of whole of Arabic, when he had the choice to live a life of opulence and luxury, he chose to live a life of an ascetic in spirit yet performing all the duties of family, society and nation. its recorded that if some wealth came to his possession in the morning, by sunset he would distribute them among the needy. he demonstrated how to live in this world and at the same time above it"

The Prophet(saw) is also reported to have said, "O God, grant me life as a poor, cause me to die as a poor and resurrect me in the company of the poor .." His wife asked him why he said that, and he replied: Because the poor will enter the garden of bliss before the rich. Do not turn away a poor man, even if all you can give is half a date. If you love the poor and bring them near you, God will bring you near Him on the Day of Great Resurrection. (recorded in Al-Tirmidhi book of Prophetic tradition)

Given that a crossdresser wears all types of woman's clothing whereas the Prophet(saw) wore only a robe (which can also be worn by a man) belonging to his wife (even that he did not do all the time), and given that the Prophet(saw) was too poor and humble to buy new clothes and his existing clothes were mostly tattered, the probability he wore Aisha's robes because of homosexuality is highly improbable.

In conclusion, the rational man has no good reason for believing that Muhammad(saw) was a crossdresser or a homosexual. Case closed! Next!

References
http://www.mysticsaint.info/2008/02/poverty-of-prophet.html

Ibn said...

This is actually the first part of my response to that idiot Anonymousing.

I almost missed Anonymousing's response to my points.

Anonymousing:Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P

Are you kidding me? You just afforded a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with other men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't. Thus your argument from analogy fails. Moreover, even if we assume that Muhammad(saw) was attracted to both men and women, it still wouldn't count as homosexuality on his part because as a sexual orientation "homosexuality refers to an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to people of the same sex; it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them." (wikipedia) Of course, Muhammad(saw) didn't exhibit any of those qualities which is why no sane, rational person has ever charged him with homosexuality. You've already lost the debate Anonymousing, but because you are an idiot, I'll embarrass you further.

Anonymousing: The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point

Just because Muhammad(saw) would drape himself with a robe (which as Jalal pointed out can be worn both by men and women) doesn't NECESSARILY or SUFFICIENTLY constitute evidence of homosexuality. In fact, taking into account what I wrote earlier, the probability that his wearing a garment is indicative of homosexuality is even lower. And if his intentions were not homosexual in nature, it gives credence to the probability that his putting on a robe was not an act of cross dressing either. What probably could be the reason why Muhammad(saw) covered himself with his wife's robe?

Continued...............

Ibn said...

How come the first part of my rebuttal is not appearing, even after posting it several times?

Ibn said...

Its annoying that I have to start all over again.

Anonymousing: Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P.

Are you kidding me? You just offered a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't. Thus, in terms of analogy you have failed to establish that he was a homosexual. Further, we read in the wikipedia entry on homosexuality as an orientation, refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Given that Muhammad's lifestyle was unlike the lifestyle of either homosexuals, bisexuals or any other aberrant orientations you can think of, it is incredibly irrational to believe he was anything other than a heterosexual.

Anonymousing: The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point.

Just because the Prophet(saw) wore a robe belonging to Aisha doesn't necessarily constitute as cross dressing, especially when you consider that his lifestyle unlike that of a gay man's.

Continued............

Ibn said...

Just to be safe, I'm posting the first again

Its annoying that I have to start all over again.

Anonymousing: Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P.

Are you kidding me? You just offered a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't. Thus, in terms of analogy you have failed to establish that he was a homosexual. Further, we read in the wikipedia entry on homosexuality as an orientation, refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Given that Muhammad's lifestyle was unlike the lifestyle of either homosexuals, bisexuals or any other aberrant orientations you can think of, it is incredibly irrational to believe he was anything other than a heterosexual.

Anonymousing: The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point.

Just because the Prophet(saw) wore a robe belonging to Aisha doesn't necessarily constitute as cross dressing, especially when you consider that his lifestyle unlike that of a gay man's.

Continued............

Ibn said...

Its annoying that I have to start all over again.

Anonymousing: Are you kidding me? Of course he can. For example: Tiberius engaged in both homosexual activity and womanizing. The Sodomites did too :P.

Are you kidding me? You just offered a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't. Thus, in terms of analogy you have failed to establish that he was a homosexual. Further, we read in the wikipedia entry on homosexuality as an orientation, refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions primarily to" people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Given that Muhammad's lifestyle was unlike the lifestyle of either homosexuals, bisexuals or any other aberrant orientations you can think of, it is incredibly irrational to believe he was anything other than a heterosexual.

Anonymousing: The individual responsible for that article is confused and doesn’t understand the point. Muhammad was putting on AISHAS ‘thawb’, he was putting on a WOMANS ‘thawb’. That is the point.

Just because the Prophet(saw) wore a robe belonging to Aisha doesn't necessarily constitute as evidence cross dressing, especially when you consider that his lifestyle unlike that of a gay man's.

Continued............

Yahya Snow said...

@ibn

Sometimes blogger works like that

If you posted it should show up sooner or later

PS, CHECK IF YOU INSERTED THE CORRECT VERIFICATION CODE

Yahya Snow said...

Folks...

I've just figured the problem out.

Blogger now has aint-spam facilities and thus any comments which are sent multiple times are automatically sent to the spam filter.

I have rescued a whole bunch of comments from the spam filtee. Please remember they will not wind up in the spam section if you do not post them more than once.

I know blogger can be difficult at times but please post it once and wait - it should show up immediately on posts which are not older than 5 days as there is automatic approval on such posts

Thanks

beowulf2k8 said...

"Are you kidding me? You just afforded a self defeating argument from analogy. The Sodomites had sex with other men as did Tiberius. Muhammad(saw) didn't."

Or maybe Muhammed did. How do you know? Did you have a spycam in Mohammad's bedroom?

beowulf2k8 said...

"Just because the Prophet(saw) wore a robe belonging to Aisha doesn't necessarily constitute as evidence cross dressing, especially when you consider that his lifestyle unlike that of a gay man's."

It would make him an effeminate. And cross-dressing simply means exactly that, wearing a woman's clothes. Cross-dressing doesn't mean homosexual per se. But as to Mohammed's sexuality, whether he was bi or homo or not, he was a child molester who had sex with 6 year old girls, so he's burning in hell right now.

sam1528 said...

beowulf2k8,

'..Or maybe Muhammed did. How do you know? Did you have a spycam in Mohammad's bedroom?..'

The argument works both ways. How do you know Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a homosexual? You had a spycam in his bedroom?

Come on , give us historical evidence to support your claim.

sam1528 said...

beowulf2k8 ,

'..he was a child molester who had sex with 6 year old girls..'

Huh?? When did Prophet Muhammad(saw) had sex with 6 year old girls? Where? When? How?

I know? I know! .... from your imagination.

Ali said...

it amazes me so much, why christians have a habit of ignoring muslim responses. they continue to bring up refuted material. ignorance is a major drug.
the only child molesting i see is by priests and NO MANY of these are NOT catholic. see my blog under the tag "Sex crimes". strange thing is, many of these priests who raped children brought biblical evidence with them. i believe a research showed 5% of priests (i think this was ONLY in North America) have some sort of attraction to children. and again they have biblical evidence, plus the holy spirit guiding them.

mike said...

Asalaamu alaykum, Yahya..
These people can continue to lie all they want and malign our Beloved Prophet, may peace be upon him, the funny thing is they fail to acknowledge that people are running from Christianities failed theology and disastrous theological sources as if htey are running from fire. Less and less Americans believe in the Trinitarian doctrine. Good luck defending the undefendable you looney toons..

Anonymousing said...

yahya

how come these these comment "problems" pop up so frequently on your blog?