In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen
We have already seen Old Testament Biblical passages which militate against the idea of Original Sin. However, a commentator did bring up Psalm 51:5 as an Old Testament verse to support the idea of the Original Sin. Here is the ESV translation of the said verse:
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
As you can see for yourself, this verse is not teaching the Original Sin, it seems to be about the sinful act of adultery yielding a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship.
However, the NIV translation does seem to teach a branch of the Original Sin (i.e. babies are with sin):
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
So which translation is correct?
Firstly, if the NIV translation (the one teaching Original Sin) is correct then the Bible-believing Christians will have contradictions on their hands. The verses mentioned in the opening article on the topic of Original Sin (Ezekiel 8:4 and 20, 2 Kings 14:6) would be deemed as contradicting Psalm 51:5, thus further discrediting the Bible.
However, in my research of Psalm 51:5 I have found three more verses (from the OT) which seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. The first two go together(Jeremiah 3:25 and Genesis 8:21); they appear to indicate a human only becomes sinful from his/her youth, i.e. at the time of discernment between right and wrong (good and evil). In fact Jeremiah 3:25 indicates humans sin from their youth onwards, thus the idea of Original Sin upon babies seems to be in real question here.
This age of discernment between good and evil appears to be mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16 as well.
See appendix one for these three Bible verses in full.
Going back to Psalm 51:5, which translation is correct?
The NIV translation seems to be in error and appears to be unfaithful as the NASB, ESV and KJV all disagree with the NIV translation. The three aforementioned translations all indicate the child was conceived in sin UNLIKE the NIV which suggests the child was sinful at the time of birth.
New American Standard Bible (NASB):
Behold, I was (A)brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.
King James Version (KJV):
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me
English Standard Version (ESV):
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
So there is NO teaching of Original Sin in this verse! The verse is concerning the sin of adultery; it does not mean the child is born with sin. In fact the verse does not make mention of Adam's sin.
Commentary on Psalm 51:5 refutes the Original Sin
This verse has already been explained by T.W Brents and the explanation denounces the idea of Original Sin:
Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
(Sourced from: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage)
So is the Original Sin mentioned in the Old Testament?
No, the idea of Original Sin seems to be shunned and denounced by the Old Testament authors. We have already realised that Jesus never taught the concept of Original Sin and moreover we see the Gospel accounts (Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) indicate Jesus considered children as innocent (thus refuting Original Sin).
As previously mentioned, the foreign concept of Original Sin first came into existence by a man named Paul. He seems to be contradicting the Old Testament as well as Jesus.
Is the Original Sin moral?
The moral dilemma continues for the Christian who believes in the Original Sin. Why are babies born with sin and thought to be hell-bound if unbaptized? St Augustine was a strong advocate for this idea of Original Sin:
In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve [Augustine, vol 2, p 633].
Thus St Augustine believed babies were born with sin, is this just? Furthermore Augustine believed unbaptized babies went to hell:
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin]
The three new Bible verses which appear to militate against the idea of Original Sin:
Jeremiah 3:25 (English Standard Version)
25(A) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For(B) we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God."
Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version)
21And when the LORD smelled(A) the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again(B) curse[a] the ground because of man, for(C) the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.(D) Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.
Isaiah 7:15-16 (English Standard Version)
15He shall eat(A) curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16(B) For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be(C) deserted
Jochen Katz Continues to Peddle an Internet Hoax about Surah 65:4
At this blog we have already unveiled a few sexual related hoaxes which are being peddled by rogue “Christian” missionaries on the internet; they include the “thighing girls” fabrication, the bestiality hoax and the outrageous necrophilia allegation. Well, we have another rogue “Christian” missionary (Jochen Katz) who is STILL peddling the prepubescent girls hoax – this chap is not exactly Mr Current Affairs as this hoax was denounced many moons ago by many people!
Jochen Katz, for those who are unaware is a “Christian” missionary colleague of the infamous Sam Shamoun – yes, that’s the bloke who made up his OWN Quranic Verse translation to claim Muslims “can have sex with animals”.
Thus it comes as no surprise that Jochen Katz is imputing ANOTHER fanciful sex-related claim on Islam. Katz, is not interested in convincing his audience of “Muslim sex with animals”; Katz is more interested in convincing his fanatical followers that “Muslims can have sex with prepubescent girls.
Jochen Katz is Regurgitating the Same Tired and Failed Arguments
I have denounced a couple of Jochen Katz’s colleagues in this regard in the past, yet Katz seems to be trying to slip under the radar with this outrageous claim. I guess his motto is, if at first you don’t succeed, try again!
Is Jochen Katz Wrong?
Of course Jochen Katz is wrong; I would not be surprised if he KNEW he was peddling misinformation; such is the extent of public refutation and denouncement of his colleagues in the same regard.
Can Muslims have sex with prepubescent girls?
No.
Islamic Law prohibits sex with prepubescent girls a relationship is only acceptable if the female has reached maturity [1]. According to Sharia consummation of a marriage can take place (only) AFTER maturity [1].
The classical scholar Hasan al Basri also taught one cannot do anything of an intimate (sexual) nature with a girl who has not reached puberty. See here for more information on this “sex with prepubescent girls claim” and a subsequent refutation:
Maulana Muhammad Ali in his commentary of the qu’ran comments:
These words, moreover, show that marriage should be performed at the age when a person has attained majority, for the age of marriage is spoken of as being the age of attaining majority (sourced from http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/part_3_c.pdf)
OK, so we KNOW Jochen Katz is wrong but does Katz use any Reasoning?
Katz employs a form of warped “reasoning” on this one. He bypasses the FACT Islamic Law (Sharia) does NOT allow sex with prepubescent girls and proceeds to draw bizarre and unsupported conclusions from a Quranic Verse (65:4), here is a translation of the Verse:
And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him. (HilaliKhan translation of 65:4)
As you can see it is not instructing prepubescent sex – the claim of sex with prepubescent girls comes from the mind of Jochen Katz. To educate Katz and the readers further we will present an audio (by Brother Colin at the ozzycda YouTube page). This audio is more than a year old, it refutes Katz’s hoax. Somebody should have directed him to this audio before he put pen to paper – it would have saved him from looking so dated and inaccurate:
I will also put forward a link to a couple of articles which have ALREADY refuted Jochen Katz’s canard:
Sheikh Moustafa Zayed Educates Jochen Katz and those of his ilk
I will allow Sheikh Moustafa Zayed to explain (perhaps he will circumnavigate Jochen Katz’s shield of fanaticism and get through to him) and the others who cling onto this malicious polemic in attempts to demonise Prophet Muhammad, Islam and all Muslims):
The most important rule as to marriage of females as per the majority of Muslim scholars is that the female had reached puberty and that she can mentally carry the responsibility of marriage.She has to be physically and mentally able to fulfil the duties of marriage…why was the Prophet waiting to consummate the marriage for three years? The answer is simple; for Aisha to reach the acceptable combination of conditions for her to be accepted as a wife. [5]
Logic Argues Against Jochen Katz
Even the one who lacks knowledge in this regard can still realise Katz is speaking through a hole in his hat. IF Katz was correct and Muslims could have sex with prepubescent girls then we would have a history of these sexual cases which spans volumes and centuries, we would also have a very long list of scholars stating this act to be permitted; we don’t have anything of such nature. The fact that we don’t have this “history” shows Katz up for the hoaxer he is.
Bringing a Hadith and a Jesus Scholar to Educate the Merchant of Hoaxes named Jochen Katz
If Katz had done some serious study he would KNOW it is thought the Jews at the time of Jesus conducted marriages similar to their Arab brethren; that is to say that they betrothed the young girl whilst she was immature and then waited for her to attain maturity before consummating the marriage [2][3][4]
So, if this is case Jochen Katz’s “man-god” (Katz believe Jesus was both god and man at the same time) gave tacit approval to this phenomenon. Moreover in Islam once the girl has reached maturity she then decides whether to approve of the marriage, if she does then the marriage is consummated:
Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent." Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage." (Bukhari: Book 9: Volume 86: Hadith 101)
It is clear old Jochen Katz is looking silly; nobody of a rational disposition will view what he presented as credible – especially in the light of what has already been presented. However, I have some more egg to smear of Jochen Katz’s face – at this blog we like to be thorough and kicking a bloke whilst he is down is the norm.
Jochen Katz Makes a Song and Dance about Maududi’s Tafsir and is Deceptive to boot!
Katz quotes a snip from footnote 13 (Tafhim al-Qur'an by Maududi):
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible
Having Realised Katz is Misinformation Central we Realise he is Dishonest
Jochen Katz is deceptive in this regard as he omits the (crucial) preceding portion of the footnote. Before quoting the entire footnote and unveiling Katz’s deceptive ways we can discuss Maududi’s Tafsir. Firstly, if Maududi claimed sex with prepubescent girls is allowed (I don’t believe he did) then he would be rejected as ALL four schools of Jurisprudence prohibit the practice. In fact the Sunnah dictates to us that contracting a marriage with a prepubescent girl prior to her attaining puberty is permissible BUT to live with and consummate the marriage (prior to maturation) is unacceptable [2], [3], [4]
Did Syed Abul A'ala Maududi Claim Sex with Prepubescent Girls is allowed?
Jochen Katz, disingenuously, gives the impression Maududi did. In defence of Maududi it would be wise to do the honest and wise action; that is to quote the ENTIRE footnote, something Katz failed to do.
However, before doing so it would be wise to state Maududi would have been well aware of the Sunnah and the four schools of Fiqh (Jurisprudence), thus it is extremely unlikely he would have claimed the Verse taught having sex with prepubescent girls is permitted
A case of context and Katz taking advantage of Ambiguity
Here is the ENTIRE footnote
They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.
The girl who is divorced in the state when she has not yet menstruated and then she starts having the menses during the waiting-period, will reckon her waiting-period from the same menstruation and her waiting-period will be reckoned just like the woman who menstruates regularly.
Do you notice the first paragraphed (conveniently omitted by Katz)? Maududi gives a number of reasons why the female may not have menstruated. So Katz, there is a context and ambiguity to the snippet you showcased.
Sadly, Katz takes advantage of the ambiguity and his partial quoting in order to suggest Maududi is speaking about sex with prepubescent girls. It is not entirely clear who Maududi was referring to, Katz does not care. One would imagine, in the light of Islamic Jurisprudence, it refers to the females who have not menstruated for OTHER reasons. Katz had access to the COMPLETE footnote yet chose not to quote it; he withheld it from his reader’s attention in order to misdirect them into his thought path.
Serious Truth Seeker?
It gets worse as Jochen Katz, if he was a serious truth seeker would have immediately ran to Maududi’s commentary of Surah 4 in order to ascertain his position on orphan maturity (see footnote 10 of his Tafsir):
Two conditions of puberty and capability have been laid down for the return of their property to the orphans. As to the application of the first condition, there is consensus among the scholars of law, but in regard to the second condition there is some difference of opinion. Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that if the orphan lacks capability when he reaches the age of puberty, his guardian may wait for a maximum period of seven years, and then he must return this property to him whether he shows signs of capability or not. But Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad and Imam Shaf'i are of the opinion that capability is a pre-requisite for .the return of his property to the orphan. Probably these latter scholars were inclined to the opinion that the case of such a person should be referred to a Muslim judge, who would himself arrange for the management of the property of the one who has not acquired capability of management.
Maududi was accepting of the fact that PUBERTY was a condition for orphans to be deemed responsible for their property, thus by the way of implication this leads us to believe Maududi would have been in line with ALL schools of Jurisprudence in saying prepubescent sex is NOT allowed.
Again, in the interest of kicking a carcass we shall look at Katz’s conclusion in some detail.
Jochen Katz’s fanciful conclusion dissected
Katz states:
Syed Abul A'ala Maududi (1903 - 1979) was a highly respected scholar of Islam. He was well aware of the criticism of child-marriages that is levelled also at Islam but he clearly says Muslims cannot reject and forbid something that the Qur'an has permitted.
The parents’ contracting a marriage of their child to a man is allowed in Sharia but sex prior to maturation is not allowed. Katz displays his ignorance and/or inconsistency as Geza Vermes taught Jews at the time of Jesus undertook a similar practice [6]. In fact it is thought Mary and Joseph had a similar union, thus Jesus gave tacit approval to such a practice. I get the feeling Katz was more interested in bashing Muslims rather than “edifying” the church. Katz gives us an insight into his debauched and troublesome thought-pattern:
In other words, the Qur'an endorses explicitly that (usually much older) Muslim men can marry eight or nine or ten year old girls, have sex with them, then divorce them and – after a waiting period of three months – other (older) Men men can marry them, and have sex with them. That would be a traumatic experience for any girl. (And, potentially, this could be repeated several times without violating Islamic law.)
Crikey! Firstly, Muslims are not allowed to have sex with prepubescent girls and the girls who have had marriages contracted to an older man do not reside with the potential husband until she has matured and then SHE gets to choose whether she wants to go ahead with the marriage or not (see the Hadith cited earlier). Thus Katz’s conclusion is far fetched and rather disturbing – he was playing to his fanatical audience in an effort to shock. He certainly has shocked us with his deceptive, inconsistent and unlearned ways. Here Katz goes on the offensive against a straw man which he wrongly perceives to be Sharia:
Certainly, this alone should be a sufficient reason to reject Sharia as the law for any country, to object strongly against the introduction of Sharia law in not traditionally Muslim countries, and for enlightened Muslims to campaign for its restriction or replacement in countries where Sharia is currently the basis of national law.
Katz has argued against sex with prepubescent girls and wrongly imputed an instruction of such a practice on Sharia. The irony is twofold; Katz is against sex with prepubescent girls, so too is the ACTUAL Sharia (not the straw man he ignorantly presents). The second bout of irony comes into play as it is thought Jesus (pbuh) gave tacit approval to such unions, it is even thought the mother of Jochen Katz’s “god-man” (he believes Prophet Jesus was god incarnate) was involved in such a union.
Irony is best served with a slice of humble pie. Jochen have a rethink. By the way; Sharia means “law” thus it is a redundancy for you to coin the term “Sharia law”. The irony continues:
However, manipulating the text to cover up what it really says is not acceptable.
Katz thinks Muslims have been “manipulating” the texts. The only ones manipulating texts are Jochen Katz and his buddies. Katz came forward with a preconceived notion that “Muslims are allowed to have sex with prepubescent girls) and he adopted desperate means in order to make this tired and refuted argument resonate with his fanatical support. Sad. It gets sadder as Katz’s colleague has made up his OWN Quranic translations in order to support his fallacious and crazed arguments in the past. Does Katz want to talk about manipulating texts with a straight face?
Genuine progress can only be made on the basis of knowledge and truth and dealing with the facts.
Oh, the irony continues to flow! Like I say, Jochen Katz’s material is old hat and he is sounding like a stuck record; I guess even his small fanatical following are tiring of his regurgitated and tired arguments.
Message to serious Christians
People like Katz should not receive any of your money; it is clear they are fellows of hate and have no regard for honesty; all the while they give the church a bad name.
Jesus would never support Katz and those of his ilk. Do not give him or his site any cash!
Message to Jochen Katz (and any Christian who is tired of “missionary” hoaxes and wants the Truth)
Jochen, this is not the way to behave. You are not behaving in a Christ-like manner. Muslims are the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Would you like to become a brother of Jesus? If yes please become a Muslim today; at the moment you are wasting your life immersed in anti-Muslim bigotry. Do not reject your Creator (the Creator of Jesus, Muhammad and all of us): http://www.ediscoverislam.com/
[1] Yasir Qahdi’s QA session in The Quran and Orientalists
[2] Explanation of Muslim by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207 Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a girl of nine years old.’... And Malik and Shafii and Abu Hanifa said: ‘The limit for that (consummation) is her (the female’s) capability for (sexual) intercourse.’ Dawudi said: ‘And Aisha then had physically matured well indeed’.” (see muhaddith.org)
[3] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 176-177
[4] Sahih Al Bukhari 1/551, Talqih Fuhum Ahlil-Athar, p10
[5] The Lies About Muhammad, Moustafa Zayed, 2010, pg 333
[6] Jesus the Jew, by Geza Vermes, 1973, William Collins sons and Co Ltd, pages 219-222
The concept of Original Sin is indeed amongst one of the most problematic in Christian theology. Not only is it NOT found in the Old Testament but Jesus never taught this foreign belief either. The suspicious origin of this belief is further highlighted by parts of the Bible which seem to be contradicting the Original Sin concept – amazing!
This post will consist of two parts; firstly a short video by BeholderGuard highlighting the passages in the Bible which seem to counter the concept of Original Sin, and secondly the Bible verses in question will be quoted and commentary added as well as further discussion being put forward in order to help the reader to realise the concept of Original Sin is not one taught by God, Jesus or any Old Testament Prophet (it is taught by a man who never met Jesus, named Paul)
BeholderGuard’s video presentation on the belief in Original Sin
Why is the Original Sin not in Genesis?
You would expect an author who believes in the Original Sin to make mention of it when referring to the results of Adam’s sin; in the Bible this would be in Genesis (Genesis chapter 3). However, this belief of Original sin is not only absent in Genesis but the entire Old Testament fails to mention it, thus the Prophets never taught this foreign belief (the same applies to Prophet Jesus)
Is the Original Sin concept Biblical?
It is neither in the Old Testament nor in the Gospel accounts. Paul introduces this concept in Romans:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned Romans 5:12 (also see 1 Cor. 15:22 and Rom. 5:17-19).
So is it Biblical? It depends on your definition of "Biblical". If you allow the teachings of Paul to be included in the Bible then the concept of Original Sin is indeed Biblical (albeit somewhat contradictory to earlier portions of the Bible). If you disregard Paul’s teachings then the concept of Original Sin is unbiblical. It is a very taxing conundrum the Christian is facing. The Old Testament certainly offers Paul no help but piles on the misery by militating against the belief in question
The Old Testament Contradicts Paul’s concept of Original Sin
As BeholderGuard mentions; Ezekiel 18 is key in this regard.
For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die Ezekiel 18:4
Also:
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Ezekiel 18:20
Ezekiel 18 clearly shows each individual is responsible for their own sin. Surely the foreign belief of Original Sin is confusing in the light of Ezekiel 18.
2 Kings refutes the idea sin is passed onto posterity
Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins." 2 Kings 14:6
Clearly dying for your own sins indicates you are not responsible or lumbered with your forefather’s sin. Again, the question is asked; if God really wanted us to believe in Original Sin then why have this verse and Ezekiel 18 in the Bible?
A departure from the Bible: Original Sin is problematic as it seems unfair
Why should an innocent baby be born with Original Sin? Christians do believe all are unclean (including babies), Saint Augustine:
No one is clean, not even if his life be only for a day (A dictionary from Biblical tradition in English literature, p.577)
Jesus Refutes Paul’s idea of Original Sin?
However, things get even more confusing as Paul’s belief is shot down by Jesus himself; Jesus intimates children are innocent:
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16)
Conclusion
The Original Sin is amongst the most problematic beliefs a Christian adopts – it is clearly a product from Paul’s devices. The Christian is left with the dilemma of why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine and why does he appear to contradict Paul.
A video for Christians: Muslim Preaches the Truth of Islam
(please listen and take what is beneficial from this video)
Addendum
Does Psalm 51:5 teach the Original Sin?
No.
We have already seen Old Testament Biblical passages which militate against the idea of Original Sin. However, a commentator did bring up Psalm 51:5 as an Old Testament verse to support the idea of the Original Sin. Here is the ESV translation of the said verse:
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
As you can see for yourself, this verse is not teaching the Original Sin, it seems to be about the sinful act of adultery yielding a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship.
However, the NIV translation does seem to teach a branch of the Original Sin (i.e. babies are with sin):
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
So which translation is correct?
Firstly, if the NIV translation (the one teaching Original Sin) is correct then the Bible-believing Christians will have contradictions on their hands. The verses mentioned in the opening article on the topic of Original Sin (Ezekiel 8:4 and 20, 2 Kings 14:6) would be deemed as contradicting Psalm 51:5, thus further discrediting the Bible.
However, in my research of Psalm 51:5 I have found three more verses (from the OT) which seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. The first two go together(Jeremiah 3:25 and Genesis 8:21); they appear to indicate a human only becomes sinful from his/her youth, i.e. at the time of discernment between right and wrong (good and evil). In fact Jeremiah 3:25 indicates humans sin from their youth onwards, thus the idea of Original Sin upon babies seems to be in real question here.
This age of discernment between good and evil appears to be mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16 as well.
See appendix one for these three Bible verses in full.
Going back to Psalm 51:5, which translation is correct?
The NIV translation seems to be in error and appears to be unfaithful as the NASB, ESV and KJV all disagree with the NIV translation. The three aforementioned translations all indicate the child was conceived in sin UNLIKE the NIV which suggests the child was sinful at the time of birth.
New American Standard Bible (NASB):
Behold, I was (A)brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.
King James Version (KJV):
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me
English Standard Version (ESV):
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
So there is NO teaching of Original Sin in this verse! The verse is concerning the sin of adultery; it does not mean the child is born with sin. In fact the verse does not make mention of Adam's sin.
Commentary on Psalm 51:5 refutes the Original Sin
This verse has already been explained by T.W Brents and the explanation denounces the idea of Original Sin:
Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
(Sourced from: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage)
So is the Original Sin mentioned in the Old Testament?
No, the idea of Original Sin seems to be shunned and denounced by the Old Testament authors. We have already realised that Jesus never taught the concept of Original Sin and moreover we see the Gospel accounts (Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) indicate Jesus considered children as innocent (thus refuting Original Sin).
As previously mentioned, the foreign concept of Original Sin first came into existence by a man named Paul. He seems to be contradicting the Old Testament as well as Jesus.
Is the Original Sin moral?
The moral dilemma continues for the Christian who believes in the Original Sin. Why are babies born with sin and thought to be hell-bound if unbaptized? St Augustine was a strong advocate for this idea of Original Sin:
In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve [Augustine, vol 2, p 633].
Thus St Augustine believed babies were born with sin, is this just? Furthermore Augustine believed unbaptized babies went to hell:
Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin]
The three new Bible verses which appear to militate against the idea of Original Sin:
Jeremiah 3:25 (English Standard Version)
25(A) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For(B) we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God."
Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version)
21And when the LORD smelled(A) the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again(B) curse[a] the ground because of man, for(C) the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.(D) Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.
Isaiah 7:15-16 (English Standard Version)
15He shall eat(A) curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16(B) For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be(C) deserted
Some Islamophobes try to portray Muslims as Nazis; this is far from the case. In fact there are a number of heart-warming stories of Muslims coming to the aid of Jews during Nazi occupations. Sadly, these stories are buried under right-wing (anti-Muslim) propaganda.
Recently I received a link to a CNN report of Albanian Muslims supporting the Jews against the Nazis; I was unaware of such Muslim heroism in Albania, I was aware of Muslims in North Africa coming to the aid of Jews during the second World War – hence I did some digging around and came across Robert Slatoff’s work. He describes the story of a mayor in Tunisia giving refuge to sixty (60) Jewish escapees (from slave labour camps) and thus saving them from Nazi design. Saltoff also tells the story of Khaled Abdul-Wahhaab, who saved a Jewish girl from Nazi rape.
New exhibition tells of how Albanian Muslims risked their lives to save Jewish people – the rabbi states the Albanian Muslims did this out of religious obligation – food for thought for the Islamophobes who want to demonise Muslims
With rising anti-Muslim sentiment across the country, an untold story is raising greater awareness about the Muslim faith and the teachings of the Quran. That awareness comes from an unlikely source: a small Jewish congregation in Creve Coeur.
Temple Emanuel is premiering a groundbreaking exhibit of photos that reveals Albanian Muslims who saved 2,000 Jews during World War II. It's a story you've likely never heard. It is a story told through the faces of Albanian Muslims who risked their own lives to live by a code of faith and honor called Besa.
A clip of Robert Saltoff telling the story of Muslim heroes helping Jews during Nazi occupation
Author and Middle East policy expert Robert Satloff duscusses several stories of assistance North African Arabs offered to Jews during the Holocaust.
Robert Satloff talks about "Among the Righteous."
Satloff revisits the Holocaust to document the role that Arabs played in saving Jews, as a way of helping to bridge the divide among Arabs and Jews. Satloff, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, calls his book "part history, part travelogue, part memoir" - Politics & Prose
TAGS: Jews, Arabs, Muslims Rape, Murder, nazis, hitler, men, women, children, genocide debate, antisemitism, semitic, world war 2 holocaust , robert slatoff, did muslims help hitler, concentration camps, peace coexistence love, abnsat, walid shoebat, ted, pastor, joseph rajm, evil, atheism, catholicism, gas chambers, north africa
Never heard of him? Me too, till I saw him drop a few clangers on Samar Gorial’s show on ABNSat . This “Christian” missionary worked himself into a frenzy of hatred; a frenzy which apparently culminated into Usama Dakdok spouting a foul word*. Yes, we bring you ANOTHER scandal from an ABN show. Why do some fundamentalist Christians keep us so busy with their debauched and money-hungry ways?
Who is Usama Dakdok?
He is from Egyptian stock and functions out of “thestraightway” ministry. His claim to fame is his “translation” of the Quran - which he is selling on his site for a whopping £24.95 dollars. For those in the know concerning classical Arabic; Usama Dakdok is far from qualified to translate such a text. I guess his lack of expertise and study has not stopped him from entering such an enterprise; I wonder if it as financially lucrative as he first imagined.
If you have bought his translation, which he styles as the only “true” translation then you have well and truly been duped. Dakdok does not fit ANY of Von Denffer’s educational requirements for translating the Quran in English.
Here is Usama Dakdok Demonstrating his Ineptness via Video (warning bad language):
The Synopsis of Usama Dakdok’s address to Shadeed Lewis on ABN’s “Jihad Exposed”
I know the show seems to have a bizarre title but let’s leave that for now and concentrate on the foul mouth of Usama Dakdok. On the show he is confronted by a caller (MDI’s Shadeed Lewis) and Dakdok just goes off the handle.
Was Usama Dakdok possessed?
Really? Have a look at the footage yourself. He starts calling all Muslims deceivers, loses his composure and is generally ranting and raving whilst insulting Islam and Muslims.
Usama Dakdok’s bigotry, insults and bad language*
Dakdok suggests, in his shaky English, all Muslims following the Quran are Jihadists and ALL Muslims are demons, he calls Allah (God) and the Prophet deceivers.
In the end it appears as though Dakdok called Lewis an “a**” whilst strangling his expression (LATER CLARIFIED AS "ASK" BY DAKDOK, SEE BELOW). The other guest (Anjem Choudry) on the show accuses Usama Dakdok of “barking like a dog”; such was Dakdok’s crazed manner!
The big evangelical con
Does Usama Dakdok really want to be taken seriously as a translator? Nobody in the academic community considers him to be credible and those in the lay community have realised the man seems to have some real issues which point him out to be the charlatan the academic community consider him to be.
*Usama Dakdok contacted me, on the bad language issue he said: "You have accused me of speaking foul language and I assure you that I never have or never will use any foul language. If you listen carefully to the video you posted you will hear that the word I said was "ask" not "a**" as you claimed."
NOTE: I believe Usama Dakdok's explanation as I received a comment from an individual claiming Dakdok said "let's ask" and not "this ask", his accent is pretty heavy at times. Nevertheless, he did not use bad language. Thus we can disregard that particular critique.
I do notice he refrained from commenting on the rest of the outburst; he called all Muslims "demons" and went on a general insult spree!
My thanking the commenter:
Ahh yes...it makes sense now. If the "this" is "lets" then it makes sense. I have listened to it a few times to check for your explanation and it seems to hold water. For that reason I will private the video; and reupload an edited one.
I really appreciate your fairness. May Allah reward you with more good
Peace
Absurd: Kamal Saleem’s 17 million Iranians converted to Christianity last year
Kamal Saleem has the glass of scrutiny firmly fixed upon him, he knows this. Despite knowing this he climbs aboard Samar Gorial's English show on ABN (Aramaic Broadcasting Network) and he blunders spectacularly by presenting outrageous Christian propaganda that the most gullible fundamentalist will baulk at.
The alleged former terrorist, Kamal Saleem, whilst asking for support (money) from his Christian audience threw in a few stun grenades (pun intended) and certainly stunned me into action; I have no idea if anybody was stunned to empty their bank accounts to ABNSat through Saleem’s Christian propaganda.
What Propaganda?
Kamal Saleem claimed, with a straight face, that 17 million Iranians converted to Christianity last year! Somebody needs to tell him Press TV, in January 2010 (this year), stated the figure of Christians in Iran is between 100,000 and 300,000 – that is less than half a million. Clearly our friend Kamal was presenting misinformation. Where he got this bout of propaganda from is beyond me. Care to explain, Kamal?
Even Christians disagree with Kamal Saleem’s unsupported claims
Worthy Christian News, in June of this year (2010) estimated the Christian population to be at least 100, 000 [1]. The figure is not even half a million. Also Wikipedia have it down as three hundred thousand; again, not even half a million [3].
Kamal Saleem presents another “difficult to believe” claim
He claims the number of Muslims converted to Christianity last year is a staggering 60 million! This is a bin load of rubbish too. It is notoriously difficult to gain an accurate estimation when it comes to conversions but the figure that generally gets banded about is that of about 2.5 million (two and a half million) conversions to Christianity each year from ALL faiths, globally [2]. Clearly, Kamal Saleem’s figure is implausible and hugely unsupported.
Did Kamal Saleem REALLY make these far fetched claims?
Yes, he did blow us away with these claims (terrorism pun intended). I have the video evidence, have a look for yourself
It appears Kamal Saleem is being presented as the “new Ergun Caner”. Last night I came across a YouTube video labelling him a fake “Ex Muslim”; the video by 1MoreMuslim took us through some of Kamal Saleem’s blunders.
For those who are unaware, Ergun Caner was claiming to be an “ex-Muslim” yet he made glaring errors in his pronouncements on Islam and has recently been removed from his post at Liberty University.
I noticed Kamal Saleem has TWO conversion stories?
Maybe Kamal Saleem converted to Christianity TWICE? Or, more realistically, our friend Kamal has been caught telling tales. They always say; if you are going to lie, make sure you have a good memory. It will be interesting to see if Kamal Saleem comes through the current scrutiny unscathed (terrorist pun intended) or as a fraud
The last thing the Church wants right now is another charlatan being excommunicated
Will Kamal Saleem stand up to close scrutiny?
Here is 1MoreMuslim’s first video investigating Kamal Saleem. Kamal really does not look or sound like a former terrorist. I would really like him to answer for the discrepancies is this video (he even claims to be a hafiz by reading the Quran three times):
[1] Ref Stefan J. Bos, Chief International Correspondent. A BosNewsLife/Worthy News Investigation) http://www.worthynews.com/8364-breaking-news-iran-crackdown-on-national-protestant-movement-members-detained-exclusive
[3]Number of Christians in Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran
Appendix
A snip from Wikipedia with regards to the difficulty of putting figures on conversions:
Statistics for rates of conversion are the most difficult to gather and the least reliable: they are often distorted by social taboos such as the ban on apostasy in Islam, sometimes amplified by governments and policies at social institutions like universities[3][4] or the reporting of commitments where the individual does not persist. This means that a lot of the data on growth of religions is derived from birth and immigration rates.
There are a large number of people who self-identify themselves as associated to a specific religion, but who are not religiously active. If, for example, asked to choose between Christianity and other religions they would say they were Christians; if asked to choose between Christianity, other religions and "Not religious", they would say "Not religious". This may make categorization difficult.
Recently we unearthed Walid Shoebat’s “mark of the beast” hoax and now we have just discovered a further scandal in the Shoebat household. Allow me to introduce Walid Shoebat’s son, Theodore Shoebat (Ted Shoebat), with the potty-mouth-scandal. Having just turned my glass of scrutiny towards Walid Shoebat, I had NO idea Ted Shoebat even existed. Here is Ted Shoebat’s shocking language on a Christian satellite station; the Christian host (ABNSat’s Samar Gorial) is left gob-smacked:
Of course, we already know Ted is the son of his infamous father but our readers may not be aux fait with Ted Shoebat’s aspiration of emulating and even out-doing his father:
"Dad you think you are a marked man, that will be nothing compared to me.”
Ted is clearly looking for a whole load of condemnation and limelight; his language has certainly found him a spot of controversy and condemnation. It has also led us to further investigate Shoebat Jnr.
A Book at the Age of 16?
Ted Shoebat seems to have penned a book at the age of 16. Who decide to publish it? Walid Shoebat’s pals. Who decided to edit it? Nobody, the grammatical and spelling errors in the blurb serve as sufficient evidence Ted Shoebat’s writing skills are hardly authorship material. Whatever happened to the days when people would undertake serious study before penning a book – like father like son? Walid Shoebat’s misguided and ignorant “mark of the beast” presentation seems to have set a shoddy standard many missionaries are following.
Ted’s Book is In Satan’s Footsteps (published by Top Executive Media) - Theodore is in Walid’s Footsteps
It appears Theodore Shoebat is espousing wacky and paranoid conspiracy theories, I guess Walid Shoebat must have taught him the art of selling a book to the gullible fundamentalist Christian brigade is to inject some sensational conspiracy theories.
“Apparently the book advances the thesis that Islam, Darwinism and Mormonism are part of a grand conspiracy against Christianity” [1]
A word of advice to Theodore; don’t follow the misleading and shoddy ways of your father, Walid Shoebat. In short, don’t follow the footsteps of your father.
Walid Shoebat is Making Money with Theodore?
“All are invited to dine with Walid and his son, Theodore Shoebat, to hear more of Walid’s message concerning the Islamic agenda for Christians and the United States of America. And what actually is a “prophesy dinner”? … Admission is $35.00 per person including a dinner of carved roast beef plus dessert.” [1]
$35 dollars a pop? Hmmm, I think I will give events of this nature a miss.
TAGS: abnsat abn pastor george sam shamoun david wood samar gorial dr bassim gorial bassam debate fund raiser james white alpha and omega acts17apologetics walid shoebat mark of the beast hoax arab aramaic broadcasting network christian prince vivaldi science civilisation terrorism fake fraud exposed news and views jihad brother hamoudy lies shadeed lewis mdi kamal salim arrogant egyptian arabic usama dakdok refuted donations donate con money paypal credit debatetv cp christian prince christianprince investigateislam answeringislam.com answeringchristinity articles papers biography deception takiya ali sinna radio iron sharpens iron mosquewatch Joel Richardson
Christian Missionary Insults a Muslim over the Internet!!!
Hold your horses folks...keep your cash firmly in your wallets and purses.
I recently viewed a promotional video for Sam Shamoun's website; it was asking for financial assistance. However, it may well have been in the same browser session that I came across Sam Shamoun's outrageous insult - Shamoun called his debate opponent a "dog".
This is yet another disturbing episode in Sam Shamoun's "career" as an internet "Christian" apologist. It serves as the latest set back and Shamoun only serves to repulse mild-mannered and religious folk away from him and his enterprises.
Proof?
Now you may be asking for proof for this latest outburst. Fear not I have Shamoun's latest bout of Islamophobia in the form of a screen shot (view fig 1)
In order to grasp the full extent of the equation the gentleman (Jibreelk) on the end of Sam Shamoun malicious typing is well reputed and is indeed a fine representative of his community and his IslamDunkTV project. Sadly, bullies such as Sam Shamoun do exist on the internet and operate in the form of trolling and traducing upstanding individuals.
We are indeed all our brother's keepers and thus we should round on Shamoun in the form of sharp rebuke and any responsible individuals who still have ties with Shamoun should certainly reconsider and/or publicly rebuke Sam Shamoun
Fig 1 shows Sam Shamoun talking to his friend KeithTruth; the conversation contains Shamoun's distasteful comment. Please note "shamounian" is Sam Shamoun's username on YouTube, thus "shamounian" is Sam Shamoun. Click on the image to enlarge it.
Here is a snippet from the conversation between Sam Shamoun and his colleague KeithTruth.
KeithTruth alerts Shamoun to Jibreelk's refutation material (Sam Shamoun and Jibreelk have been locked in debate over the past few weeks).
KeithTruth (1 day ago) Spam Marked as spam Hey Sam, jibreelk just released his response to the last refutation of him. watch?v=i3JuYkD7nNQ
Sam Shamoun seems to lose his rag and seems to bail out of the debate - he instructs his colleague, Keith, to takeover. I guess Sam has ran out of steam. Sam, it was meant to be a debate between you and Jibreelk and somehow you have managed to bail out despite your self-promoting rhetoric
shamounian (1 day ago) Spam Marked as spam Thanks brother. And please do make sure you refute that dog. Let me know if you need any assistance for your debates.
Fig 2 is another screen shot of Shamoun's insult. Click on the image to enlarge
Conclusion
Sam Shamoun has had another outrageous outburst. Shamoun believes he has the Holy Spirit dwelling within him, in addition, Shamoun also believes this indwelling HolySpirit is none other than God. Quite how Shamoun expects us to believe this in the light of all his crazy comments is beyond us.
If you are an associate of Sam Shamoun you should rethink your relationship with this chap. Sadly, there are a number of disingenuous "Christian" missionaries who do not act in the interest of the Chruch but act out their hateful, ego-driven and ignorant agendas.
PLEASE think before giving cash to folk like Sam Shamoun.
There is no need to dress this up. Have a listen to this video and ask yourself whether Sam Shamoun has any business being taken seriously...he well and truly has egg on his face. Why do ABNSat employ the unlearned, unsophisticated and disingenuous?
Please go to your local Islamic centre to learn about Islam...do not go to anti-Muslim bigots such as Sam Shamoun who have a hidden agenda of distortion and misguided grabs for fame and fortune.
Did you know Muslims believe Jesus and Moses as great Prophets of God?
Did you know Muslims believe in One God and Muhammad as the last Prophet of God?
If anybody knows if Shamoun draws an official salary from his written work or stints on ABN please let me know. I was reluctant to claim so (despite strongly believing he does get paid by ABN) as there was little to no evidence of such transactions.
I doubt Shoebat and co come at no cost...
If you know...then email me (that includes you Pastor Joseph :)
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com Form the church to the mosque. Christians are converting to Islam.
Tags: Debate night, ABNSAT, ABN, Aramaic Broadcasting Netowork, Tony Costa James White Walid Shoebat Jesus or Muhammad show, News and Views, David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi, Farhan, Nadir Ahmed, Anjem Choudry, Choudhry, Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Alpha and Omega ministries, Zacharia Anani, Ergun Caner, Fakes, Fraud, Scandal, Imam, Church, Mosque, muslims
A new video of an Israeli soldier belly-dancing around a bound and blindfolded female Palestinian prisoner was aired last night on Israeli television. The clip -- screened late on Monday by the private Channel 10 television -- shows a soldier gyrating to rhythmic drumbeat of an Arabic track as the woman, who is wearing a headscarf, huddles against a wall, her hands bound in front of her and her eyes bound with a white cloth.
The soldier, who is wearing sunglasses and grinning broadly, repeatedly brushes up close to the woman who has a Hebrew speech bubble coming out of her mouth reading "Allahu Akbar".
The footage was aired on an Israeli television channel on Monday night, prompting immediate condemnation from officials in the Jewish state.
The Israeli army promised to launch an immediate investigation.
"The IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) condemns actions of the kind presented in the clips," the army spokesman's office said in a statement. "The clips do not attest to the norm but, rather, only to the exception from the norm." The footage came just six weeks after the emergence of photographs showing another Israeli soldier humiliating her prisoners.
The Israeli military was forced to apologise after Eden Aberjil, a reserve officer, posted photographs on the Facebook website of herself in uniform striking a series of provocative poses beside bound and blindfolded Palestinian prisoners.
Ms Aberjil defended her actions, insisting that they represented "something that happens every day in the army
For us Westerners; it does appear much of the happenings in Palestine are indeed going unreported or under-reported when it comes to abuses of Palestinians and the second class status the Palestinians are suffering at the hands of the Israeli settlers.
This segment of news reporting is based on eye-witness accounts (according to Mike Hanna) of Israeli settlers ransacking a mosque in Beit Fajjar (West Bank); a portion of it was set alight and the walls of the mosque was subjected to graffiti. In fact this type of attack is not unprecedented, this type of vandalism and disrespect has happened in the past too.
The Israeli Defence Force did state they will investigate the incident. The report showed burnt copies of the Quran and scorch marks to the mosque floor as well as graffiti.
Beit Fajjar is close to Bethlehem as well as a large Jewish settlement. It seems as though a group of Jewish settlers from the nearby settlement are suspected of being the perpetrators of this crime.
If Americans Knew
The video description does include a website which aims to educate Americans as to what is really occurring in Palestine-Israel (If Americans Knew)
It is the goal of If Americans Knew to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue, and on our power -- and duty -- to bring a resolution. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Did you know Muslims believe in Moses and Jesus as great Prophets of God?
If you would like to learn more about Islam please visit this site: http://www.ediscoverislam.com/
It appears some people are slow learners; David Wood of Acts 17 appears to be amongst the slow learners. Wood has recently been repeating his malicious claims of Islam allowing sex with prepubescent girls. Those who are familiar with this issue will now begin to move away from the idea of him being ignorant and move to the idea of him being disingenuous.
I have ALREADY explained this issue to him via a debate which can be viewed here, thus he has no excuse for his continual propagation of falsehood.
David Wood, once again combines two Verses from the Quran (33:49 with 64:5) and comes up with a conclusion NO school of thought ever entertained. All four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence disallow sex with prepubescent girls. I have previously discussed this claim here
Look, this is OLD territory and David Wood knows he has been thoroughly refuted and embarrassed in the past; so much so that he was found to be DISTORTING Tafsir literature see here.
Wood’s conflation of (33:49 and 64:5 from the Quran) and his subsequent erroneous conclusions have been dealt with here.
Jesus Gave Tacit Approval?
Before moving onto a new Hadith he has incorporated into his repertoire I will remind you the famous Jesus scholar Geza Vermes suggested the Jewish practice at the time of Jesus was that of marrying girls prior to puberty and once they had reached the biological sign (puberty) marriage would be consummated [5]. A similar practice took place in Arab societies of the past. Both Jesus and Muhammad never prohibited such practices; however, Islam will only allow consummation when the female is physically capable. This was explained to David Wood previously, so we are in fact going over old ground.
He has added this into the following Hadith repertoire
Sahih al-Bukhari 5236—“Narrated Aishah: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida . . . So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) . . . should be treated in this respect.”
Here is another (more detailed) Hadith I found:
Narrated 'Aisha: Once I saw Allah's Apostle at the door of my house while some Ethiopians were playing in the mosque (displaying their skill with spears). Allah's Apostle was screening me with his rida' so as to enable me to see their display. ('Urwa said that 'Aisha said, "I saw the Prophet and the Ethiopians were playing with their spears.") (Book 8, Hadith 445)
Firstly, David Wood tries to get us to believe the Hadith cited proves Aisha was prepubescent at the time of consummation (and living with the Prophet). This could not be further from the truth.
This Hadith is referring to the time prior to consummation - Aisha had not begun living with the Prophet at this time. The marriage was formally drawn when Aisha was six and then consummated in the year 1 AH in Madinah after a period of roughly three years [1] [2]. Aisha having reached puberty at the time of consummation is confirmed by the classical scholars [3]
Again, the question is asked WHY did the Prophet wait for three years before consummating the marriage? Surely, if he thought having sex with prepubescent girls was allowed then he would not have waited three years. Obviously he waited for her to reach physical and mental maturity.
Going back to the Hadith the Islamophobe cites; it is referring to time during the wait for her to reach maturity – an acceptable condition for consummation. Sadly David Wood, hides this from his readers
I will allow Sheikh Moustafa Zayed to explain (perhaps he will get through to the slow learners out there; the ones who cling onto this malicious polemic in attempts to demonise Prophet Muhammad, Islam and all Muslims):
The most important rule as to marriage of females as per the majority of Muslim scholars is that the female had reached puberty and that she can mentally carry the responsibility of marriage. She has to be physically and mentally able to fulfil the duties of marriage…why was the Prophet waiting to consummate the marriage for three years? The answer is simple; for Aisha to reach the acceptable combination of conditions for her to be accepted as a wife. [4]
Like I say, Wood’s material is old hat and he is sounding like a stuck record; I guess even his small fanatical following are tiring of his regurgitated and tired arguments.
Please do visit the links presented above to ensure Wood’s disingenuous ways do not mislead you. If you are a supporter of the Acts 17 group then you need to have a long hard rethink.
David Wood’s partner, Nabeel Qureshi, is a slow learner too - he repeats misinformation here
There are other materials out there to aid the truth seeker on this subject. I’m sure you have had enough with ill-informed anti-Muslim characters. Here is an expert, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf speaking on the topic of Mohammad’s marriage to Aisha and educating us all in a very noble and erudite fashion. Do not be fooled by the charlatans on the internet who waste their lives spreading falsehood about Islam!
[1] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 176-177
[2] Sahih Al Bukhari 1/551, Talqih Fuhum Ahlil-Athar, p10
[3]Explanation of Muslim by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207 Aisha said: ‘Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) engaged me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was a girl of nine years old.’... And Malik and Shafii and Abu Hanifa said: ‘The limit for that (consummation) is her (the female’s) capability for (sexual) intercourse.’ Dawudi said: ‘And Aisha then had physically matured well indeed’.”
[4] The Lies About Muhammad, Moustafa Zayed, 2010, pg 333
[5] Jesus the Jew, by Geza Vermes, 1973, William Collins sons and Co Ltd, pages 219-222
Appendix
Qur’an 65:4 (Hilali-Khan)—And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their period), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death] . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is until they lay down (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.
Qur’an 33:49 (Hilali-Khan)—O you who believe! When you marry believing women, and then divorce them before you have sexual intercourse with them, no 'Iddah [divorce prescribed period, see (V.65:4)] have you to count in respect of them. So give them a present, and set them free i.e. divorce, in a handsome manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix 2
It appears David Wood's partner has also been informed on this issue in the past by 1MoreMuslim...yet it appears Qureshi has not passed the info onto Wood.
1moremuslim said... A week ago, I have sent references to Nabeel Qureshi, about the evolution of age of consent in the west, through the centuries. Take for example, at the end of 19th century, in Delaware (US), the age of consent was 7 year old!!! Nabeel Qureishi replied my email saying : " Interesting, thanks". We see here that he was not interested at all.
The missionaries will not give up their "best" tools against Islam, they don't have other solid arguments to persuade the less educated masses. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
