Christian apologist, James White, highlights what he perceives to be the biggest problem Christian apologists are facing. White believes it to be a disconnection with the local church. As an outsider who regular looks into Christian apologetics’ ministries I reckon White has a point when he refers to Christian apologists who have become “apologetics disasters” – some of these disasters are catalogued on this very blog.
However, a lack of attachment in the church is not the biggest obstacle Christian apologists are facing. James, as an apologist, should know this!
The two biggest problems Christian apologists are facing are thus:
Christianity itself – the product they are working with is dysfunctional - noticeably dysfunctional. It comes as no surprise to see Christian apologists struggle in the field whilst regurgitating inadequate arguments from apologetics manuals from a bygone era. This is all they have to work with.
To give you a quick example, the Gospels are obviously unreliable and errant. Prior to Von Tischendorf’s find in the 1800’s, Christians believed the last portion of Mark was the inspired word of God. After this find, we now realise it’s a forgery!
Simple, if you need folk to hunt down manuscripts in order to pluck out forgeries your Gospels are unreliable – the possibility of further significant manuscript finds still haunts Christian apologists. Please do keep in mind we have not even mentioned the irreconcilable contradictions between the Gospels when describing the SAME event or the noticeable evolution of Christianity from Mark to John (Mark is a Gospel which does not present Jesus as divine but John does present Jesus as divine).
Dishonesty – Christian apologetics is riddled with dishonest folk, thus lay people distrust Christian apologetics. Ergun Caner is the highest profile dishonest casualty in apologetics. It took a Muslim, Mohammad Khan, to blow the whistle on Caner’s dishonesty. Other notable dishonest folk within Christian apologetics include Kent Hovind, Jack Chick, Sam Shamoun, Father Zakaria Botros, David Wood, Robert Morey and Pastor Joseph Najm.
Book: James White on Islam
Sexism: A reason to change the Bible?
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Friday, 7 March 2014
Christian asks Muslim a question about Mark 3:35
Answer:
Does it faithfully record the words of Jesus?
We must remember that scholars believe Jesus (p) did not speak Greek thus the 4 Gospels which modern-day Christians have in their New Testament cannot be attributed to Jesus (p). We must also keep in mind the lack of reliability of the 'Gospels' in the NT - these books were scribed by unauthorised and unknown people (thus the truth-seeker cannot accept any quotation these books attribute to Jesus - would you trust a medical book which is of unknown authorship?). Before, moving on I want to explain what I mean by 'unauthorised'. Jesus never saw nor sanctioned these 4 Gospels in the NT. A number of 'Gospels' were penned after the ministry of Jesus - all of which Jesus never saw nor sanctioned. We are not sure how many Gospels were penned but the Church ended up choosing 4 of these Gospels which we find in the modern-day Bibles to this day.
On top of this the writings of the unknown and unauthorised writers of these Gospels were tampered with during the copying process. Christian evangelical scholars admit chunks of text have been added to these books. They are not sure whether other parts of their 'Gospels' are forgeries or not. For them, any part of their Gospels could be shown to be an addition (forgery) with a new manuscript find tomorrow:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-question-for-melissa-cain-travis.html
We have established the nature of the Gospels in the NT to be untrustworthy.
So why is Mark 3:35 so interesting?
Think about it, it's a quote attributed to Jesus (p) which rather interestingly clearly shows Jesus not to be God and the trinity to be a false belief:
Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother. [NIV]
Think about it, here Mark is showing Jesus is not God. Ponder upon this. In my view this is one the most problematic verse in the Gospels for the staunch Trinitarian.
If you have thought about it, God and Jesus (p) are shown to be 2 distinct beings (not the same being) AND it's teaching Jesus has spiritual brothers and sisters - of course God does not have brothers and sisters (spiritual or otherwise).
For those who have reflected on it further still you will realise it's effectively ordering people to be MUSLIMS (Muslim = one who submits to the Will of God) and that Muslims are the borthers and sisters of Jesus (p)!
Here is my previous discussion on Mark 3:35 which may add something to this post:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/jesus-has-muslim-brothers-sisters-and.html
Recommended for all Christians:
Christians having dreams and becoming Muslims
Convert to Islam
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Muslims Wanting Russell Crowe's 'Noah' Movie Banned - The Muslims are at again - respecting the Prophets (pbut)
Egypt’s top Islamic body says ‘Noah’ film should be banned
Al-Azhar institute says ‘Noah’ violates Islam by portraying a prophet.
CAIRO - Egypt's top Islamic body said on Thursday the big budget Hollywood biblical epic "Noah" starring Russell Crowe was irreligious and should not be screened in the country.Al-Azhar institute, one of the region's main Sunni Muslim authorities, said the movie, slated to open in Egypt on March 26, violated Islam by portraying a prophet.The film has already angered some Christian institutions in the United States, with Crowe's reportedly unconventional portrayal of Noah.
Al-Azhar can play an advisory role on censoring movies and books in Egypt, but does not have the final say.Portraying a prophet "contradicts the stature of prophets and messengers... and antagonises the faithful," the institution said in a statement.Egypt's censorship board must approve any movie before it is shown, but it was not immediately clear whether it has approved "Noah" yet
From: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=64680
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html
CAIRO - Egypt's top Islamic body said on Thursday the big budget Hollywood biblical epic "Noah" starring Russell Crowe was irreligious and should not be screened in the country.Al-Azhar institute, one of the region's main Sunni Muslim authorities, said the movie, slated to open in Egypt on March 26, violated Islam by portraying a prophet.The film has already angered some Christian institutions in the United States, with Crowe's reportedly unconventional portrayal of Noah.
Al-Azhar can play an advisory role on censoring movies and books in Egypt, but does not have the final say.Portraying a prophet "contradicts the stature of prophets and messengers... and antagonises the faithful," the institution said in a statement.Egypt's censorship board must approve any movie before it is shown, but it was not immediately clear whether it has approved "Noah" yet
From: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=64680
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html
Thursday, 6 March 2014
Was Buddha a Prophet of Allah? - Q&A - Abdur-Raheem Green
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Argument against Adam's creation from dust is refuted by Hassan Abdillah
Some anti-Islamic apologists go so far as to claim that the claim that God created man out of Adam is unscientific, since dust or clay is nothing more than sillica and aluminum, but we find such elements only in trace elements in the human body. This argument however is easy to refute...
Read the rest here:
http://emergentapologia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/adams-creation-from-dust.html
Read the rest here:
http://emergentapologia.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/adams-creation-from-dust.html
Is the trinity in the Old Testament? Jews and Christians must read and watch!
This is old ground. We have already learned – via Christian scholarship – the Trinity is not in the Old Testament. Sadly, some neo-Trinitarian Christians insist the trinity is in the Old Testament – one such being a Christian zealot calling himself Keith Truth (Keith Thompson).
We showed Keith Thompson a clip where the Christian scholar William Lane Craig confirmed the Trinity is not in the Old Testament yet this zealot proclaimed Dr Craig was “wrong”.
You Decide – a Christian fundamentalist Vs Scholarship
Who do you want to believe; a young Christian zealot on the internet or scholarly authority?
Well, alongside William Lane Craig, Dr Laurence Brown and Harper Collins’ Encyclopaedia we have Bart Ehrman and James White to also tell us the trinity is not present in the Old Testament – the former mocks the argumentations of the neo-Trinitarian Christians who wrongly claim the Trinity is present in the Old Testament.
Dr James White on the Trinity
James White, as an evangelical Christian apologist from Alpha and Omega Ministries, believes the Trinity is revealed after the Old Testament but before the New Testament is written:
One of the most important truths to grasp about the Bible’s revelation of the Trinity is that the truth of the Trinity is revealed primarily in acts of God — specifically, in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell the church. The greatest proof that God is Triune is found in the ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God and in the coming of the Spirit. These events took place between the writing of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament contains predictions and glimpses of what comes into clear view only in the ministry of Christ recorded in the New Testament. In the same way the Trinity is revealed before the writing of the New Testament so that is written by Trinitarians for Trinitarians. [Loving the Trinity by James R. White, Christian Research Center]
Dr Laurence Brown on the Trinity
Dr Laurence Brown does not believe the Trinity is in either the Old or New Testament
Rabbi Tovia Singer on the Trinity
To represent those who follow the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Jews) we can refer to Rabbi Tovia Singer who does not see any Trinity in the Old Testament.
Dr William Lane Craig on the Trinity
Dr Craig is a renowned Christian apologist and scholar, who upon reading the Old Testament, does not see any Trinity therein.
Professor Bart Ehrman on the Trinity
Professor Bart Ehrman mocks the manner at which some Christians promote the idea there is a trinity in the Old Testament. Ehrman does teach us the absence of the Trinity in the Bible has troubled Christian theologians for centuries. In fact, Ehrman teaches us there is no trinity in the ENTIRE Bible and the only reference to the trinity was the 1 John 5:7-8 forgery. Daniel B. Wallace writes:
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold [The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 by Daniel Wallace]
Conclusion
We could present more evidence against the claims of the Christian zealot (Keith Truth) but it would simply be a case of striking the carcass and I am beginning to worry that Keith will continue going against logic and scholarship regardless of the evidence against him.
The fact remains, the Trinity is not in the Old Testament according to honest scholarship and logical reading of the Old Testament.
Perhaps the real reason why we are seeing a glut of Christian fundamentalists absurdly claiming to possess “air tight” arguments for the Trinity being present in the Old Testament is due to the recognition of the confusion surrounding the Trinity:
For many Christians, the Trinity is an abstract principle, a confusing and difficult doctrine that they believe, although they are not really sure why in their most honest moments [Loving the Trinity, James R White, Christian Research Center]
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
We showed Keith Thompson a clip where the Christian scholar William Lane Craig confirmed the Trinity is not in the Old Testament yet this zealot proclaimed Dr Craig was “wrong”.
You Decide – a Christian fundamentalist Vs Scholarship
Who do you want to believe; a young Christian zealot on the internet or scholarly authority?
Well, alongside William Lane Craig, Dr Laurence Brown and Harper Collins’ Encyclopaedia we have Bart Ehrman and James White to also tell us the trinity is not present in the Old Testament – the former mocks the argumentations of the neo-Trinitarian Christians who wrongly claim the Trinity is present in the Old Testament.
Dr James White on the Trinity
James White, as an evangelical Christian apologist from Alpha and Omega Ministries, believes the Trinity is revealed after the Old Testament but before the New Testament is written:
One of the most important truths to grasp about the Bible’s revelation of the Trinity is that the truth of the Trinity is revealed primarily in acts of God — specifically, in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell the church. The greatest proof that God is Triune is found in the ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God and in the coming of the Spirit. These events took place between the writing of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament contains predictions and glimpses of what comes into clear view only in the ministry of Christ recorded in the New Testament. In the same way the Trinity is revealed before the writing of the New Testament so that is written by Trinitarians for Trinitarians. [Loving the Trinity by James R. White, Christian Research Center]
Dr Laurence Brown on the Trinity
Dr Laurence Brown does not believe the Trinity is in either the Old or New Testament
Rabbi Tovia Singer on the Trinity
To represent those who follow the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Jews) we can refer to Rabbi Tovia Singer who does not see any Trinity in the Old Testament.
Dr William Lane Craig on the Trinity
Dr Craig is a renowned Christian apologist and scholar, who upon reading the Old Testament, does not see any Trinity therein.
Professor Bart Ehrman on the Trinity
Professor Bart Ehrman mocks the manner at which some Christians promote the idea there is a trinity in the Old Testament. Ehrman does teach us the absence of the Trinity in the Bible has troubled Christian theologians for centuries. In fact, Ehrman teaches us there is no trinity in the ENTIRE Bible and the only reference to the trinity was the 1 John 5:7-8 forgery. Daniel B. Wallace writes:
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold [The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 by Daniel Wallace]
Conclusion
We could present more evidence against the claims of the Christian zealot (Keith Truth) but it would simply be a case of striking the carcass and I am beginning to worry that Keith will continue going against logic and scholarship regardless of the evidence against him.
The fact remains, the Trinity is not in the Old Testament according to honest scholarship and logical reading of the Old Testament.
Perhaps the real reason why we are seeing a glut of Christian fundamentalists absurdly claiming to possess “air tight” arguments for the Trinity being present in the Old Testament is due to the recognition of the confusion surrounding the Trinity:
For many Christians, the Trinity is an abstract principle, a confusing and difficult doctrine that they believe, although they are not really sure why in their most honest moments [Loving the Trinity, James R White, Christian Research Center]
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Hamza Tzortzis VS. Professor Peter Simons - Debate Review
Hamza Tzortzis did a great amount of preparation for this debate and offered arguments for the existence of God. This is a must watch for Atheists. The inner conscious is a sign of the existence of God.
Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Muslims and other theists can appreciate the good work done by the Muslim speaker, Hamza Tzortzis
Do not deny the existence of your Creator
www.ediscoverislam.com/
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
tags iera, rationalizer Richard dawkins adnan Rashid professor Kraus dawah man, London dawah movement sheikh haitham why islam
Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Muslims and other theists can appreciate the good work done by the Muslim speaker, Hamza Tzortzis
Do not deny the existence of your Creator
www.ediscoverislam.com/
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
tags iera, rationalizer Richard dawkins adnan Rashid professor Kraus dawah man, London dawah movement sheikh haitham why islam
For the UMPTEENTH time the Quran does not allow sex with prepubescent girls - Islamophobes take notes and stop spamming!
This is really sad. Really sad and pathetic. Some fundamentalist Christians read and regurgitate the already-refuted claims of Christian fundamentalists who attack Islam for the purpose of evangelism. Of course not all Christians are involved in these vicious campaigns of propaganda but sadly there are a number of Christian fundamentalists who have taken to either producing lies or spamming lies about Islam for purposes of politics and/or evangelism.
Recently my blog has been spammed by a Christian fundamentalist with the exact same claims that this blog has already addressed and debunked. Before going over OLD ground again here are a couple of shady internet Christian missionaries who the spammer follows, check them out making the SAME claim and shown to be corrected by scholars:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/sharia-does-not-allow-sex-with-pre.html
The spammer is desperate for people to believe Muslims can have sex with prepubescent girls - perhaps that's a lie he works assiduously because he wants to detract attention from Islam's true monotheism being compared to his mysterious trinitarian views and/or his desire to paint Muslims as savages due to his political leaning.
The irony is, the spammer's claims have indeed been debunked before. The exact same commentary has been explained in 2010 on this very blog. Perhaps he missed it or has a bad memory. Here is the blog post which in it's entirety (incidentally enough it was addressing a Christian missionary called Jochen Katz - I would not be surprised if the spammer ran with Katz's already-refuted material due to him not being up to date and not realising it was an old lie spun by Jochen Katz):
Jochen Katz Continues to Peddle an Internet Hoax about Surah 65:4
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:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/10/david-wood-of-acts-17-apologetics-up-to.html
Maulana Muhammad Ali’s commentary of the Quran debunks the claim of “prepubescent sex”
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:
http://ozzycda.blogspot.com/2009/04/women-in-islam.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/part_3_c.pdf
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/
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/09/forgiveness-in-islam-and-christianity.html
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
References
[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
Recently my blog has been spammed by a Christian fundamentalist with the exact same claims that this blog has already addressed and debunked. Before going over OLD ground again here are a couple of shady internet Christian missionaries who the spammer follows, check them out making the SAME claim and shown to be corrected by scholars:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/sharia-does-not-allow-sex-with-pre.html
The spammer is desperate for people to believe Muslims can have sex with prepubescent girls - perhaps that's a lie he works assiduously because he wants to detract attention from Islam's true monotheism being compared to his mysterious trinitarian views and/or his desire to paint Muslims as savages due to his political leaning.
The irony is, the spammer's claims have indeed been debunked before. The exact same commentary has been explained in 2010 on this very blog. Perhaps he missed it or has a bad memory. Here is the blog post which in it's entirety (incidentally enough it was addressing a Christian missionary called Jochen Katz - I would not be surprised if the spammer ran with Katz's already-refuted material due to him not being up to date and not realising it was an old lie spun by Jochen Katz):
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:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/10/david-wood-of-acts-17-apologetics-up-to.html
Maulana Muhammad Ali’s commentary of the Quran debunks the claim of “prepubescent sex”
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:
http://ozzycda.blogspot.com/2009/04/women-in-islam.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/part_3_c.pdf
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/
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/09/forgiveness-in-islam-and-christianity.html
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
References
[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
Muslim High School Boys, Girls and the Prom (Advice)
The Prom Problem
Being a Muslim at a public high school comes with its own set of challenges. One of the biggest problems in high school that we all are faced with is: Prom.
It doesn't help that popular culture has propagated the idea of Prom as being an extremely crucial event of high school life. Prom itself can play a huge role in teenage movies and fictional/reality shows, with some as old and iconic as Back to the Future and Never Been Kissed, to more recent movies like Mean Girls and Napoleon Dynamit, to the latest Glee episodes, to Disney's latest movie and attempt to corrupt the children of the world. Pop culture also reinforces the stereotype of the cool kids attending Prom while the losers are sitting on the sidelines, too lame to get a date to go with.
I'm writing this post in order to help any young Muslim students struggling with the Prom season to figure out whether or not Prom is for them.
Let's face it: Prom is a huge deal.
For some reason, Prom seems to be a huge deal here in the US (and possibly schools in other countries have a similar dance/social event). We hear things like “Prom is the milestone of senior year,” or “Prom is one of the best experiences of high school.” We keep hearing these ideas over and over and we begin to believe them.
As if seeing Prom repeatedly on the big screen wasn't bad enough, just being on a high school campus during “Prom season” can be another form of torture for the young Muslim faced with the dilemma of attending Prom. The student government spends months upon months planning for Prom and this event is one of the most hyped up of the whole year. There are rallies and assemblies devoted to making people excited to go to Prom. Everyone is buzzing with the latest gossip about who is going with who, who is asking which girl out in what cute and creative way, and what drama has arisen in the process.
The girls are talking about what dresses they will be wearing and where they are getting their hair and make-up done. The high school class anxiously follows the Prom Court and looks forward to seeing a friend be crowned as Prom Queen or Prom King, or an extremely disliked classmate not being crowned. There is so much excitement that builds up on campus, it's hard not to get sucked in to the topic of Prom and start feeling excited too, especially when it's the only thing that everyone keeps talking about.
It comes to a point where it seems as if 4 years of your high school life really does culminate in the one evening of Prom. It also may come to the point where you really want to go and don't want to miss out. But how can you decide on whether or not going to Prom is something that should be a part of your high school experience?
Arguably, when looked at from a purely Islamic perspective, it is pretty black and white what a person's decision should be about Prom. However, we don't always go by or see the logic in what we know Islam or our parents say. Maybe there is another process that we must go through on our own as young adults which takes Islamic principles and our parents' preferences into account to some degree, but is largely an independent and individual decision.
To go or not to go? That is the question!
There are many things that you should consider. I have used reflections from my own experiences in high school (Class of 2009!!) and reflections from experiences of other brothers and sisters I know through the Muslim Student Union (MSU) and other organizations.
We all agreed that Prom is an extremely conditional thing which is very relative to your specific high school and group of friends. There is a lot of gray area that you will have to wade through, so I hope that the advice we can give your from our experiences help you in making your big decision.
First things first, stop and ask yourself these main questions:
What does Prom really mean? What good will going to Prom do for me? What bad will going to Prom do to me? What will I miss if I don't go? What will I gain by not going?
Make sure you have stopped and seriously asked yourself and really thought about these things.
Here are the top 3 reasons that I found to be the most compelling for those debating about going to Prom.
1. Everyone is doing it and I don't want to be left out.
After being in high school with the same class for 4 years, you've learned that it's all about going with the flow and doing what everyone else is doing. That isn't necessarily a bad thing or a good thing, but it can definitely influence the decisions that you make. Sometimes being Muslim and having a strange name that even your fellow Muslim classmates refuse to pronounce correctly is hard enough, and our goal can turn into laying low and sticking out as little as possible.
It may be hard to explain yourself to 400 classmates, especially when you don't have a group of Muslim peers who will do the same. If you're all alone, it can become very difficult to keep telling people over and over again that you aren't going to Prom “because of my religion” or “because it's against my religious beliefs.”
I was pretty much all alone and was one of the 5 Muslims who graduated in my class. I was open with my close friends and they didn't even really need to ask why I wasn't going to my Prom. However, with people who were more like acquaintances, coming up with a response that made me feel comfortable was a little harder. In my case, I would simply say “I'm busy that day and I don't feel like going anyways” and alḥamdulillāh it turned out to be completely true because my masjid's Youth Group was taking a huge rock-climbing trip the day of my senior Prom so I had that as a valid excuse. Rock-climbing beats Prom any day!
One thing that I learned the hard way in high school was that I am a Muslim and I will always be a Muslim. That means I will always be different from my classmates no matter what I do. As soon as I started realizing that and stopped trying to fit in and stopped caring about what others thought of me, I was able to come to terms with my Muslim identity and embrace my faith. For me, it was a gradual and side-by-side, grueling process. All of the mistakes that I made and struggles I went through in high school truly tested me and shaped me into the person I am today. My experiences in high school gave me the conviction that I have in my deen today. (I am not saying to go out there and do a bunch of stupid things and make bad decisions. Learn from the experiences of those who came before you and don't fall into the same problems.) But maybe going to Prom isn't something that you think is opposed to your Muslim identity.
A really important thing to truly reflect on is how many of the people that you went to high school with will be a part of your life after high school? Do you think that your relationships with all of these people you know will continue once you are all off to different colleges? In my experiences and in others,' no one really cares about anyone from high school and everyone pretty much forgets and gets over everyone else. There are only a handful of friends that you will keep and stay in contact with, otherwise the rest of the people you know will become distant memories. It may seem like your graduating class is so special and that you will be so sad to leave everyone, but you'll get over it in no time inshā'Allāh and then look back and think that you were being incredibly dumb the whole time – trust me.
Another thing that many people said is that going to Prom isn't as huge of a deal as it used to be. Many people don't go to Prom for various reasons, not just the losers who can't manage to find dates. Maybe Prom is lessening in its importance and it's not that big of an event at your school.
2. I am just going with my friends.
Some of us will go to Prom just to hang out and share this once in a lifetime experience with our friends. You might not be in it to go with a date or to dance with anyone from the opposite sex. You might not even go to dance at all and will be chilling in a separate arcade type section. If this is the case, if Prom isn't a big deal, was there another place to go and hang out with your friends somewhere else? Maybe going to Prom is something you consider to be a social event in which you can uphold your principles and values. Maybe Prom is just a way for you to get a little dressed up, take some pictures, and be at an event with your whole class. If this is what you are thinking when making your decision about going to Prom, also see if there are any alternative hang outs or things you can do in a different place.
See if Prom really is the only and the best place for you to hang out with your friends and have an amazing and memorable time.
It is also important to see whether or not you feel comfortable discussing these sorts of decisions with your friends and whether or not they respect your principles and values (even if your non-Muslim friends have to relate a little to your Islamic beliefs). How valuable is their friendship to you if you can't feel comfortable and can't trust them? We all know how important having good company is.
3. I won't do anything wrong. I just want to see what Prom is all about.
We think that we are extremely strong in the face of temptation and immune to falling into questionable practices. The truth is that we have to take into consideration the environment we are in and that we shouldn't be the ones who are testing ourselves with things, we should leave that up to Allāh.
There is a story of when the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) was a child and was in a situation where he was about to do something just to check it out. He went into the city where there was a wedding and music playing. Right before he was exposed to the gathering, he became so sleepy he fell asleep and didn't wake up until the next morning. He went back again the next day and the same thing happened again. We see that Allāh had protected him from entering into an environment in which questionable things were happening. Allāh had kept his Prophet (peace be upon him) safe and pure. Sometimes our curiosity gets the best of us and we just don't want to feel like we're missing out on anything.
If you've set ground rules for yourself, or even if you and your parents have sat down and set ground rules with one another, that is a great start. But really consider the environment that you will submerge yourself into. Will you fall into that sort of “mob mentality” and start compromising things you had promised yourself, your parents, or even Allāh that you would not do? Is it really going to be that easy to stay within your own boundaries if a song that you love comes on or if the person you've had a crush on for the whole year asks you to dance with them? Will you be able to stand firmly upon your rules when no one else around you is following them? Will coming to Prom with all of your rules in place make you feel even more left out than never coming to Prom in the first place would have made you feel? At least for me, when I know I am disobeying Allāh, or my parents, or by being in a place that I shouldn't be, I freeze up and can never have a good time.
With all of these rules you may have set for yourself, will you really even be able to have the “full” Prom experience or enjoy yourself? Back in my day (I'm saying this as if I am now old, I'm just afraid at how fast kids are “growing up” and pushing the limits these days), there was a huge debate and controversy about “freak dancing”/”freaking”. Take a second and think about the phrases used to describe that kind of dancing. Yeah…gross. Would seeing your classmates, maybe people you even respect or admire in some ways, engaging in strangely perverted, shameless, and to be blunt, animalistic mating-like actions be something that you would be okay with to just stand and watch?
Or could you ignore it even if you tried? What about the fact that some kids will show up drunk or high, or will be getting drunk or high afterwards? Is that something you'd be comfortable or feel safe about? Will seeing all of this serve as a string of constant reminders about why you maybe had doubts about attending Prom in the first place?
You might have gotten permission to attend the dance, but what about an after-party? Are your parents okay with you being out really late or all night long? What happens at after-parties? Will the party be mixed? Is the whole Prom experience even about Prom in the first place, or does the fun part really not start until the after party? And what about the whole idea of Prom night being all about having sex? This is the night to prove your manliness or that even a good girl can “give it up,” and the pressure is there to some degree no matter how conservative the person is. Maybe your group of friends isn't one that is into that kind of stuff, but what about the fact that this notion that has arisen out of Prom?
It is important to think about what kind of environment you are putting yourself into by attending Prom or any Prom after-party. Is the amount of risk of falling into doing something bad by placing yourself into an environment like this truly worth it? Will you even manage to have a good time when you're in this sort of environment?
Advice
- Weigh the pros and cons of going to Prom after considering all of the information above.
- Talk to other Muslim students/youth in your area that you trust and look up to.
- Ask your parents for their thoughts and be honest with them. Listen to your parents and don't make going to Prom a big deal if they aren't letting you go.
- Make sincere du‘ā’ to Allāh to do what is the best for you and to always protect you.
- Evaluate your group of friends. Determine what kind of relationship you will have with them after graduation.
An important thing to note is that Proms are different from school to school and that going to a Prom might not necessarily be too wrong.
I pray that this has helped you make a decision and/or come to terms with a decision that you have made or one that has been made for you.
**Quick Advice to Parents
- Are you overreacting? Don't make this a bigger problem than it is. Don't take your child wanting to attend Prom as a failure of your parenting.
- Be open with your child and talk to them. Get an idea of where they are coming from. Prom might not be as bad as it seems.
- Make sure you give your child enough breathing room and don't make them feel as if you are smothering them or forbidding them. The tactic of forcing your children to do things and being “too strict” can really backfire.
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
Fifa: Christian and Muslim womenallowed to wear hijab and Sikh men allowed to wear turban during football matches
Players will now be able to wear a hijab or turban during football matches, according to the sport's governing body.
Football's world governing body FIFA has authorised the wearing of head covers for religious purposes during matches.
That will allow female Muslim players who wear a hijab in everyday life to cover their heads during matches as well. FIFA added that male players will also be authorised to do so following a request from the Sikh community in Canada.
http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/football/2014/03/fifa-allows-hijab-turban-players-20143113053667394.html
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Football's world governing body FIFA has authorised the wearing of head covers for religious purposes during matches.
That will allow female Muslim players who wear a hijab in everyday life to cover their heads during matches as well. FIFA added that male players will also be authorised to do so following a request from the Sikh community in Canada.
http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/football/2014/03/fifa-allows-hijab-turban-players-20143113053667394.html
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Assassination and Prophet Muhammad? (p)
The unsavoury mix of bigoted Christian fundamentalists/missionaries and other internet critics of Islam make much out of the episode concerning Ka’b Ibn Al Ashraf’s (alternatively spelled as Kab/Kaab Bin Al-Ashraf) assassination by the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (p), this post offers the ENTIRE story rather than the hybrid of half-baked ‘information’ and nutty Islamophobic propaganda put forward by Christians and other critics of Islam.
If you are one of these folks who gains his/her information concerning Islam from unqualified Christian fundamentalists and/or other critics this may be a little too informative for your liking. However, if you are somebody who genuinely wants to gain a sincere understanding on the assassination of Ka’b Ibn Al Ashraf then this post is geared towards your needs.
The post comprises of excerpts from the world renowned Sheikh Al Mubarakpuri, the American scholar Sheikh Mustafa Zayed’s comments on the subject and a detailed audio lecture by Dr Bashar Shala as well as additional comments in the way of summary and perspective.
Who was Ka’b Ibn Ashraf?
Ka’ bin Ashraf was the most resentful person among the Jews with Islam and the Muslims, he was the most intent on inflicting harm on Allah’s Messenger (p), and the most zealous advocate of waging war against him. He belonged to the Tai’ but his mother was from Banu Nadeer. He was a wealthy man known for his handsomeness, and a poet living in luxury in his fort south east of Madinah at the rear of Banu Nadeer’s habitations. [1]
Dr Bashar Shala on the Killing of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf
What did Ka’b ibn al Ashraf do to deserve being killing?
Dr Shala teaches us of the open hatred and animosity Ka’b bin al Ashraf had against Muslims despite having signed a non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. Poets, back then in Arabia, were propaganda tools. After the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, Ka’b ibn al Ashraf began to insult Prophet Muhammad and Islam as well as inciting violence against Muslims in order to instigate a war with the intent to wipe out the nascent Muslim community. The last stage of Ka’b’s propaganda campaign was to insult the honor of Muslim women.
Sheikh Al Mubarpakpuri writes on Ka’b Al Ashraf’s incitement to war and his general propaganda campaign:
On hearing the news of Badr, he [Ka’b] got terribly frustrated and swore that he would prefer death to life if the news was true. When this was confirmed he wrote poems satirizing Muhammad (p), praising the Quraish and enticing them against the Prophet (p). He then rode to Makkah where he started to activate the fire of war, and kindle the resentment against the Muslims in Madinah…[2]
…He then returned to Madinah to start a fresh campaign of slanderous propaganda that took the form of obscene songs and amorous poems with a view to defaming the Muslim women. At this stage, the situation became unbearable and could no longer be put up with. [3]
Ka’b bin al Ashraf broke the treaty
Dr Bashar Shala mentions the treaty which Ka’b broke included stipulations such as:
1. Jews should be one nation with Muslims
2. Muslims and Jews should advise and protect each other
3. They should have goodness in their treatment of each other.
4. If Muslims are being fought by an enemy then the Jews should side with the Muslims
Yet Ka’b Ibn Al Ashraf BROKE the treaty to such an extent that he sided with the enemies of the Muslims and proceeded to incite a war against the Muslims in order to completely annihilate Muslims!
Dr Shala asks, did Kaab ibn al Ashraf deserve to be killed? The answer he gives is yes. Simply based on the treaty and the fact that Ka’b was inciting war against the Muslims as well as insulting the honor of their women folk.
War and Deceit? Tricking Ka’b and Christian bigots
Dr Bashar Shala does explain the reason behind the necessity to trick Kab ~ 10-11 min stretch.
Some American Christian bigots on the internet make a melodramatic play on the account that the Muslims tricked Ka’b in order to gain the opportunity to kill him. These bigots typically miss that this was within the theatre of war and Ka’b lived in a fort which was heavily defended by guards/servants, hence the tactic of tricking Ka’b into a false sense of security to get him out in the open. During times of declared war, misleading the enemy is accepted by ALL nations including Christian America. The critics’ inconsistency is outlined by Moustafa Zayed:
All martial arts and war tactics are about deceptive techniques to maximize chances for massive blows to the enemy and achieving victory. But when it comes to Muslims it’s crying about moral absolutes vs. expediency. [4]
Why not fight Ka’b rather than assassinate him?
Why not then fight Ibn Al Ashraf in a battle man to man and face to face like the Muslims and the Quraysh did? The reason is that a leader of the hypocrites like Ibn Al Ashraf never attended the battles, yet he publicly plotted and pushed for conspiracies to annihilate the Muslims, only from the safety behind closed doors. [5]
Islamophobic Propaganda: Killed a POET in a curb against freedom of speech!!!
From the information within Dr Bashar Shala’s lecture we learn the manner in which critics portray the incident is misleading to say the least. Robert Spencer is scolded by Sheikh Mustafa Zayed for such misreporting:
Another piece of misinformation is that [Ka’b] Ibn Al Ashraf was only just a poet! Is the author [Robert Spencer] saying that to make it a freedom-of-speech crime? Maybe he is! [6]
…What the author didn’t tell you about our peaceful, just voicing-his-opinion poet, is that he was one of the provokers of the infidels in Mecca that directed the torture, the starvation and the killing of early Muslims, and specifically was one of the leading instigators to push Quraysh and its leaders to go and destroy the Muslims in the battle of Uhud. [7]
…Our lovely poet was one of the conspirators. In Islamic law and any fair law for that matter, if someone gave himself the right to take your life, then he had given you the right to take his same instant in self-defense…not to mention that Ibn Al Ashraf had committed suicide by putting a “wanted” sign over his head when he violated the honorable reputation of the Muslim wives. [8]
A bonus: miracle of healing
Typically the critics miss the healing miracle of the Muslim who was wounded during the assassination of Ka’b bin Al Ashraf:
The group of men came back after fulfilling their mission. One of them Al-Harith bin Aws was wounded by mistake with the swords of his men, and was bleeding badly. When they reached Baqi’ Al-Gharqad, they shouted “Allah is Most Great”. The Prophet (p) heard them and realized that they had killed the enemy of Allah. As they saw him, he said: “Cheerful faces are yours.” In reply, they said: “And yours, O Messenger of Allah.” They handed the head of the tyrant over to him. He entertained Allah’s praise for their success. He then applied his saliva to Al-Harith’s wound and it healed on the spot. [9]
The Bible and Christian Hypocrisy
Many of these critics are Christian missionaries and/or Christian bigots who feign offense at such an incident. Sadder still, these Christians do this despite knowing of the violent teachings within the Old Testament which would propel these Christians into the realms of inconsistency (hypocrisy). I’m sure Christians and Muslims can think of their own Bible verse (s) (involving killing) which would illustrate the point of inconsistency, here is one which does it quite adequately despite not even involving death:
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. [Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NIV]
If our Christian friends can accept the amputating of a woman who helps her husband in a fight with another man by attacking her husband’s assailant via a ‘low blow’ then they can certainly accept the killing of a poet who broke a peace treaty whilst attempting to incite the enemy to destroy Muslims!
Conclusion
The killing of Kab bin al Ashraf was not simply the killing of a “poet”. Sadly, we are being misinformed by Christian “experts” with dubious agendas of conversion and propaganda.
[1] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 287
[2] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 287
[3] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 287
[4] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 193
[5] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 193
[6] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 192
[7] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 192
[8] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 193
[9] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 289
Related:
A Christian called Silas being badly scolded by Sami Zaatari on this issue
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_2.htm
New Testament studies for Christians
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/New%20Testament
A Jewish Tribe executed by Muslims?
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/07/truth-about-banu-qurayza-jews-killed-by.html
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
If you are one of these folks who gains his/her information concerning Islam from unqualified Christian fundamentalists and/or other critics this may be a little too informative for your liking. However, if you are somebody who genuinely wants to gain a sincere understanding on the assassination of Ka’b Ibn Al Ashraf then this post is geared towards your needs.
The post comprises of excerpts from the world renowned Sheikh Al Mubarakpuri, the American scholar Sheikh Mustafa Zayed’s comments on the subject and a detailed audio lecture by Dr Bashar Shala as well as additional comments in the way of summary and perspective.
Who was Ka’b Ibn Ashraf?
Ka’ bin Ashraf was the most resentful person among the Jews with Islam and the Muslims, he was the most intent on inflicting harm on Allah’s Messenger (p), and the most zealous advocate of waging war against him. He belonged to the Tai’ but his mother was from Banu Nadeer. He was a wealthy man known for his handsomeness, and a poet living in luxury in his fort south east of Madinah at the rear of Banu Nadeer’s habitations. [1]
Dr Bashar Shala on the Killing of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf
What did Ka’b ibn al Ashraf do to deserve being killing?
Dr Shala teaches us of the open hatred and animosity Ka’b bin al Ashraf had against Muslims despite having signed a non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. Poets, back then in Arabia, were propaganda tools. After the Muslim victory at the battle of Badr, Ka’b ibn al Ashraf began to insult Prophet Muhammad and Islam as well as inciting violence against Muslims in order to instigate a war with the intent to wipe out the nascent Muslim community. The last stage of Ka’b’s propaganda campaign was to insult the honor of Muslim women.
Sheikh Al Mubarpakpuri writes on Ka’b Al Ashraf’s incitement to war and his general propaganda campaign:
On hearing the news of Badr, he [Ka’b] got terribly frustrated and swore that he would prefer death to life if the news was true. When this was confirmed he wrote poems satirizing Muhammad (p), praising the Quraish and enticing them against the Prophet (p). He then rode to Makkah where he started to activate the fire of war, and kindle the resentment against the Muslims in Madinah…[2]
…He then returned to Madinah to start a fresh campaign of slanderous propaganda that took the form of obscene songs and amorous poems with a view to defaming the Muslim women. At this stage, the situation became unbearable and could no longer be put up with. [3]
Ka’b bin al Ashraf broke the treaty
Dr Bashar Shala mentions the treaty which Ka’b broke included stipulations such as:
1. Jews should be one nation with Muslims
2. Muslims and Jews should advise and protect each other
3. They should have goodness in their treatment of each other.
4. If Muslims are being fought by an enemy then the Jews should side with the Muslims
Yet Ka’b Ibn Al Ashraf BROKE the treaty to such an extent that he sided with the enemies of the Muslims and proceeded to incite a war against the Muslims in order to completely annihilate Muslims!
Dr Shala asks, did Kaab ibn al Ashraf deserve to be killed? The answer he gives is yes. Simply based on the treaty and the fact that Ka’b was inciting war against the Muslims as well as insulting the honor of their women folk.
War and Deceit? Tricking Ka’b and Christian bigots
Dr Bashar Shala does explain the reason behind the necessity to trick Kab ~ 10-11 min stretch.
Some American Christian bigots on the internet make a melodramatic play on the account that the Muslims tricked Ka’b in order to gain the opportunity to kill him. These bigots typically miss that this was within the theatre of war and Ka’b lived in a fort which was heavily defended by guards/servants, hence the tactic of tricking Ka’b into a false sense of security to get him out in the open. During times of declared war, misleading the enemy is accepted by ALL nations including Christian America. The critics’ inconsistency is outlined by Moustafa Zayed:
All martial arts and war tactics are about deceptive techniques to maximize chances for massive blows to the enemy and achieving victory. But when it comes to Muslims it’s crying about moral absolutes vs. expediency. [4]
Why not fight Ka’b rather than assassinate him?
Why not then fight Ibn Al Ashraf in a battle man to man and face to face like the Muslims and the Quraysh did? The reason is that a leader of the hypocrites like Ibn Al Ashraf never attended the battles, yet he publicly plotted and pushed for conspiracies to annihilate the Muslims, only from the safety behind closed doors. [5]
Islamophobic Propaganda: Killed a POET in a curb against freedom of speech!!!
From the information within Dr Bashar Shala’s lecture we learn the manner in which critics portray the incident is misleading to say the least. Robert Spencer is scolded by Sheikh Mustafa Zayed for such misreporting:
Another piece of misinformation is that [Ka’b] Ibn Al Ashraf was only just a poet! Is the author [Robert Spencer] saying that to make it a freedom-of-speech crime? Maybe he is! [6]
…What the author didn’t tell you about our peaceful, just voicing-his-opinion poet, is that he was one of the provokers of the infidels in Mecca that directed the torture, the starvation and the killing of early Muslims, and specifically was one of the leading instigators to push Quraysh and its leaders to go and destroy the Muslims in the battle of Uhud. [7]
…Our lovely poet was one of the conspirators. In Islamic law and any fair law for that matter, if someone gave himself the right to take your life, then he had given you the right to take his same instant in self-defense…not to mention that Ibn Al Ashraf had committed suicide by putting a “wanted” sign over his head when he violated the honorable reputation of the Muslim wives. [8]
A bonus: miracle of healing
Typically the critics miss the healing miracle of the Muslim who was wounded during the assassination of Ka’b bin Al Ashraf:
The group of men came back after fulfilling their mission. One of them Al-Harith bin Aws was wounded by mistake with the swords of his men, and was bleeding badly. When they reached Baqi’ Al-Gharqad, they shouted “Allah is Most Great”. The Prophet (p) heard them and realized that they had killed the enemy of Allah. As they saw him, he said: “Cheerful faces are yours.” In reply, they said: “And yours, O Messenger of Allah.” They handed the head of the tyrant over to him. He entertained Allah’s praise for their success. He then applied his saliva to Al-Harith’s wound and it healed on the spot. [9]
The Bible and Christian Hypocrisy
Many of these critics are Christian missionaries and/or Christian bigots who feign offense at such an incident. Sadder still, these Christians do this despite knowing of the violent teachings within the Old Testament which would propel these Christians into the realms of inconsistency (hypocrisy). I’m sure Christians and Muslims can think of their own Bible verse (s) (involving killing) which would illustrate the point of inconsistency, here is one which does it quite adequately despite not even involving death:
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity. [Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NIV]
If our Christian friends can accept the amputating of a woman who helps her husband in a fight with another man by attacking her husband’s assailant via a ‘low blow’ then they can certainly accept the killing of a poet who broke a peace treaty whilst attempting to incite the enemy to destroy Muslims!
Conclusion
The killing of Kab bin al Ashraf was not simply the killing of a “poet”. Sadly, we are being misinformed by Christian “experts” with dubious agendas of conversion and propaganda.
[1] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 287
[2] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 287
[3] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 287
[4] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 193
[5] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 193
[6] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 192
[7] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 192
[8] The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed, p 193
[9] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p 289
Related:
A Christian called Silas being badly scolded by Sami Zaatari on this issue
http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_silas_2.htm
New Testament studies for Christians
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/New%20Testament
A Jewish Tribe executed by Muslims?
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/07/truth-about-banu-qurayza-jews-killed-by.html
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Shk Haitham Al Haddad The Qu'ran A Concise History and the Compilation of the Quran
If you want to learn more about the history of the Quran and its compilation feel free to view the presentations by Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad.
History of Compilation of The Qur'an - Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad - Sabeel Study Retreat
History of Compilation of The Qur'an - Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad - Sabeel Study Retreat
Arab Christians and Assyrian Christians MUST read...
 |
| Ancient Cairo Church |
Sadly, there is a huge volume of Arab/Assyrian Christian Islamophobes on the internet; these people are propaganda merchants to say the least.
I’m sorry but when I hear the usual Islamophobic sentiment of “Muslims are ordered to kill all disbelievers” emanate from Arab/Assyrian Christians I simply roll my eyes and think all his/her carping is self-refuting; why did these “barbarous Muslims” spare you and your families – a question which rocks their anti-Muslim propaganda!
I could go further and point to the 5-15 million Coptic Christians in Egypt [1] – all alive and kicking despite Muslims having ruled Egypt since 641 CE [2]
Oh the irony, ISLAM saved Arab and Assyrian Christians – Islamophobes eat your hearts out!
Of course, the very reason why Muslims had not killed or forcefully converted their Arab/Assyrian Christian forefathers is because of ISLAM:
Whoever killed a Dhimmi will never smell Paradise [Sahih Bukhari, No 3166]
Prophet Muhammad also said said:
“Verily whoever oppressed a Dhimmi (a non-Muslim under Muslim rule), took from his rights, or took from him unjustly, then I am his opponent on judgment day…” [Ibn Hajar al Aslam, Muwafaqat al Khabar, Number 184/2] (Sourced from Mustafa Zayed’s Book Refutation of Robert Spencer)
*Dhimmi refers to “A non-Muslim living under the protection of an Islamic government” [Hilali/Khan's Glossary from their Translation of the Holy Quran]
Why were these folk not forcefully converted – Islam forbade it! [There is no compulsion in religion (see Quran 2:256)]
So, if the Islamophobic depictions of Muslims were true, our Arab/Assyrian Christian friends would not exist. The reason why they were not exterminated or forced into Islam was due to ISLAM’S tolerance.
Arab Christians less credible in the business of Islamophobia
I guess this is one of the reasons why Arab/Assyrian Islamophobes are afforded less credence in the West in comparison to Western Islamophobes. I mean, why aren’t the Arab/Assyrian Christians making as much cash out of Islamophobia as Western Islamophobes – after all, Islamophobia is a business…
Eradicating the Christian faith?
John Taylor Caroline confirms Muslims COULD have eliminated Christianity if they so wished BUT they did NOT:
But we have not heard – under Islamic rule – about any attempt to force non-Muslim communities to accept Islam, or about any organized oppression to eradicate the Christian faith. If the Muslim Caliphs had chosen the above two plans they would have swept Christianity with the same ease that Ferdinand and Isabella swept the Islamic faith out of Spain… [3]
Hmm, if Muslims are as bad as the Arab Christian Islamophobes are making out, then why did they not opt for a holocaust or a forced conversion on mass? The answer is ISLAM.
Eastern Churches testify to Islam’s tolerance
Yep, read it and weep, Islamophobes:
The eastern churches in Asia were already separated from the rest of the Christian world which was not to support them in any way considering them heretics of the religion. Therefore the sheer existence of these churches today is in itself a strong evidence of the general tolerance of Islamic governments towards them (Sir Thomas Walker Arnold) [3]
UPDATE: I have just been alerted to an excellent article by Adnan Rashid of the Hittin Institute which covers this issue extensively. An excerpt concerning the Egyptian Christians:
Egypt saved from the Chalcedonian persecution:
The same seems to have taken place in Egypt where, according to Dionysius, the Coptic Patriarch submitted Egypt voluntarily to the Muslims:
‘We have found in the tales and stories of Egyptians that Benjamin, the Patriarch of the Orthodox in Egypt at the time, delivered the country to the Arab general Amr b. al-As out of antipathy, that is enmity, towards Cyrus, the Chalcedonian (Byzantine) Patriarch in Egypt.’[12]
This enmity, however, was due to the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Egypt at the hands of the Byzantine Church. John of Nikiou (690 CE), who was a Coptic bishop in Nikiu (Egypt), confirmed the testimony of Dionysius:
‘When Muslims saw the weakness of the Romans and the hostility of the people to the emperor Heraclius because of the persecution wherewith he had visited all the land of Egypt in regard to the orthodox faith at the instigation of Cyrus the Chalcedonian Patriarch [in office 631/2-41], they became bolder and stronger in the war…And people began to help the Muslims.’[13]
And in some cases the Egyptians refused to fight the Muslims at all [14]. One must keep in mind that these are contemporary Christian sources testifying that the Muslims were actually being helped by the Egyptian Orthodox Coptic Christians to put the Chalcedonian Byzantine Christian persecution to rest. Alfred J. Butler, a leading authority on the history of Egypt, believed that the Muslim arrival benefited both Christian factions by enabling them to live in peace together under the Islamic protection:
‘After all that the Copts had suffered at the hands of the Romans and the Patriarch Cyrus, it would not have been unnatural if they had desired to retaliate upon the Melkites [the Romans]. But any such design, if they cherished it, was sternly discountenanced by ‘Amr, [the Muslim conqueror of Egypt] whose government was wisely tolerant but perfectly impartial between the two forms of religion. Many facts might be cited in proof of this contention…So that the two forms of Christianity must be imagined as subsisting side by side under the equal protection of the conquerors.’[15]
It is evident from the testimonies cited above that the Muslims came as a mercy for the wider Egyptian population. The Coptic Christians in Egypt were also a target for the Byzantine terror and it was this terror which caused the Copts to join the Muslims against their co-religionists. ‘Amr bin al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with him) had established a peaceful abode for all parties and this he did by implementing the Shariah Law in Egypt. Thus the real operation “Enduring Freedom” was accomplished successfully in the land of Pharaohs.
(Emphasis is mine - Yahya Snow)
You can (and should) read the ENTIRE article here - entitled A 7th Century War On Terror
Summary
We can see why Arab and Assyrian Islamophobes are taken with a pinch of salt as they go off on their spiel against Muslims. I invite you to move away from hatred and obfuscation by discussing the genuine objections to the Bible and the Trinity Muslims are advancing. Sly games of mud slinging are not helpful to anyone.
[1] Copts in Egypt constitute the largest Christian community in the Middle East, as well as the largest religious minority in the region, accounting for an estimated 10% of Egyptian population (Wikipedia)
[2] A Chronology of Islamic History 570-1000 CE, Ta-Ha Publishers Limited, p72
[3] Mustafa Zayed’s The Lies about Muhammad, How you were deceived into Islamophoia, 2010, p285
Muhammad and Jesus (p)
Christian Missionary Pastor converts to Islam
Bible: Muslims are blessed
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Never mind discussing it, do you even know what his religion is? Imam Moustafa Zayed
When I was asked in a lecture at a New Jersey school about the perception of terrorism in Islam, my immediate answer was, “it’s only a matter of focus”. I explained this by saying that FBI statistics – which you usually never see published – show that Muslims are ranked #9 in committing what is categorized as terrorist attacks. Yet not only that the average, news-following educated American does not even know the number one group committing these crimes in this statistic, let alone the top eight groups, but the only focus and the only thing he or she probably hears in the media is what some insane or violent Muslims have done.
The easiest example to show the sheer oppression against Muslims in our media is the suicide attack of tea-party member Joe Stack, when he smashed a plane into a federal building in Texas, killing himself. Of course if he was Muhammad Stack, you would have seen TV coverages of how his grandparents ate their Biryaani fifty years ago in Pakistan. In the case of Joe Stack, however, his religion never mentioned, let alone discussed. A second example is Jared Lee Loughner, who shot and killed 12 people in cold blood, including a Congresswoman.
Again, to date, I do not know his religion nor the fact that anyone discussed it. I’m not claiming that their religions committed these terrorist crimes, yet its exactly my point. Had they been Muslims, the culprit would have automatically been verses from Quran or a quotation of the last prophet of God, prophet Muhammad PBUH. Worse, the claim that the above-mentioned terrorists were just insane is more insane in itself. Take the terrorists of September 11th: does anyone out there think that they are sane? Is it that the more people you kill indiscriminately and in cold blood, the wiser and more stable you become only if you were a Muslim? What really made my blood boil was when a local TV anchor stated that, after intense investigations, the Colorado AMC theater attack was not categorized as a terrorist attack. Did the meaning of the word “terrorist” change to “picnic” when I was asleep? Did that coward shoot candy balls at the innocent movie goers? Was that cotton candy smoke he used? Or was he just spraying them with red cranberry juice? Will any of the innocent movie-goers live and look at life in the same way again? Will they even be able to sleep the same? Will most of the American movie-goers be watching the silver screen or the exit door just in case it opens and somebody walks shooting from the outside? Oh, but no matter how much he shoots and kills, he’s not a terrorist!
As an American, with whatever limited power and energy that I have, I will voice my opinion in which ever circles that I can, by stating that these dark ages insane officials who allow the sales of hundreds of finger-sized bullet magazines and their machine guns on the internet for anyone to buy in quantity are not only the real terrorists but absolute traitors who betray and kill their countrymen every single day (there are 32 Americans gunned down every day).
Where were our law enforcement agencies tracking the sales of killing machines and killing gears to the terrorist over the internet? Killing machines that were enough to wipe out an entire species of dinosaurs? My humble guess is that they were too busy tracking Somali cab drivers internet searches that might bring down the world.
Article from:
http://theliesaboutmuhammad.com/?m=201207
Miracles performed by Prophet Muhammad (p):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/did-prophet-muhammad-p-perform-miracles.html
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)