Opponents of Death Penalty should read this!!!

[usman11]

Yorubaland,  first off, you opening comment "But where lies the truth if your posts were to be compared with those of Waziri? " make absolutely no sense.

Secondly, be kind enough to reproduce every post of mine that were copied and provide the links where they were copied from.

I am well aware that this is a common tactic of very defficient Muslims who rather than engage people head on in a difficult discuss, would cut corners and make irresponsible accusations with the aim of discrediting someone.  Is this all you have to offer? What a shame!!!!!!

[mallamt]

1.  You indicated that whenever you try correcting me I say you hate me.  Can you kindly let us (me) know how many times constitutes "whenever"?  Also may you remind let us (me) know  the context I used the term "hate" when refering to what you have said? I am assuming you are an honorable person who would not make accussations or comments that are not grounded in facts, so it will be important for us (you and I) to clear the questions I have raised or else it will be like you are just churning out factless comments.

Okay let me speak factually as you demanded. On a certain Thursday the 31 of March 2005 you wrote the following for the simple reason that I tried to correct you on the use of correct semantics depicting the menace of begging in Hausa land:

Now what part of my explanation is it that _waziri_ does not understand? or is it just his utter disgust for me that makes him respond in the manner that he does (that is without thinking)? I assume that _waziri_ is an educated adult who would not stoop soo low to make silly and childish comments just because they do not like an individual.

Mallamt is this not enough evidence that you jump to the claim of hate when I corecct you? If you dare dispute this I will supply more evidences again. I really wonder why sam kai baka da wayo ko kadan.

_waziri_
I am still waiting for your response as indicated in your positing if I dare dispute you,you will provide more evidence.  Please be a man of your words and provide them.  If you do not be humble enough to appologise and accept it was a careless statement or else the implication will be that you were lying.[/b]

[Dave_McEwan_Hill]

Gentlemen.
This topic is getting very ill-tempered and is not addressing any the issues that have been raised.

[_Waziri_]

Besides, everything you put up here were copied from somewhere, they are not yours originally, I came across the articles 10+ years back. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

I personally think Usman11's arguments were anitiquated ones. I have come across them since when I was very young in religious studies. Needless to say that his emotional attachment to them to the point of blindly sticking to them in the presense of superior explanation shows it in broad daylight that he did not form them, he only stumbled across them.

Muslims everywhere regardless of sectarian differences do not consider adopted sons to be equal to biological sons, which was the moral drawn from the incident as recorded in the Qur'an. Any way prejudices die hard.

Yoruba Land,

I learnt that you were at the headquarters yesterday but you did not call me. Please learn to allow us be acessing you at our convinience or whenever you come around you look for us. Hope d whole family is fine.

Thank you once again.

Waziri

[_Waziri_]

Waziri I await this thread that attends to Amin's request on my humble self

Usman, my arguments to that effect were artculated in the many past threads I urged you to read earlier which you did not agree to. But then in the of newer discoveries I intend to rephrash them and put them up at least to refresh my memory and  make it easy for me to help out.

[lionger]

Now unto lionger:

You said I made wrong assumptions just because the line of argument I took in the other thread was different from this one but in reality  is not quite true that I made wrong assumptions or my  opinions 'metamorphosed'  to something else in the sense that there is always many ways we can argue the invalidity of the story even from a technical point of view and that was what I tried pointing at up there.

Really, so this was your purpose all along? Well all fine and good; as long as you back it up with thorough scriptural analysis. But rather than doing that, you resort to making wrong unnecessary assumptions, and here you are making the same mistake again!

We can not substantiate in anyway that the woman was caught "in the very act of adultery" as Kig James Version put it without a man. This must be a false claim which Jesus will not succomb to. it is only when we stretch the argument we can take it to the Roman laws of the then which I had time to do then.

The emphasized part is yet another example of the many wrong assumptions you have made. Why are you still stuck rigmarolling in legal technicalities? I see you did not carefully read my previous post. Read the scripture for yourself and see what I mean:
John 8:11
Jesus declared, "Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."
What sin, Waziri? What life of sin is Jesus telling the woman to abandon? Does Jesus think she did commit adultery? Does this verse not dismiss your argument?

But simple as it is if you have to believe the Pharisees on the charge of adultery against that woman you then will have to believe in their claim that "In the Law, Moses commanded us(THEM) to stone such women. " Then you will no longer have problem of the issue of who is to execute the laws of God again. Do you get it?

The scriptural establishment of woman's guilt is not based oh the Pharisees' accusations alone! Where in any of my posts did I say that? As I have already shown, you can believe the narrator, apostle John, and you can believe the words of Jesus.

Secondly, I do not dispute the fact that in the Law God commanded that adulterers be puinshed by death, so what is your point? My point is, Waziri, that God sometimes chooses to show mercy, as He does to David, and he has every right in doing so.

[_Waziri_]

Secondly, I do not dispute the fact that in the Law God commanded that adulterers be puinshed by death, so what is your point? My point is, Waziri, that God sometimes chooses to show mercy, as He does to David, and he has every right in doing so.

Oh sorry I my thinking was you still want to find WHO should execute the punishment. As regards to the argument that God is may choose to show mercy, we Muslims believe so even without the story of David. It is the reason why in our codes it is emphasised that only those caught with ventilating evidence should be punished. Even then we insist that the judge must create execuses for them. It is when they fail to come out of it clean that will be punished. And those who do it in secrecy are encouraged to ask for the mercy of God in their prayers and must not tell anyone.

In all the Islamic legal theory, punishments regarding adultery are only meant to paint a picture of a heinous crime that should always be avoided.

[usman11]

Very well, since the commentaries above were stumbled on and none of my thinking, that is fine. However, maybe you Waziri can use your superior argument to explain away this article written by a muslim. Please use as much superior argument as possible. I am just want you take on this, and please note that the writter did reference the koran and hadith to support his point. Please feel free to do same.

Sorry for the length of the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Syed Kamran Mirza

Adoption in Islam:  
Islam prohibits adopting children. Period. Adoption in the technical sense is not allowed in Muslim Shriah law. This is because Allah does not like this gesture of adopting orphan children. Muhammad Rushed Ridha states, "Allah prohibited adoption in Islam and annulled all the judgements pertaining to adoption. The most important one of which was the prohibition of the wife of the adopted son to the fostering father as though he is the natural father. So Allah commanded his prophet to marry Zainab Bint Jahsh in order to abolish pagan custom (Fatawa al-Imam)." Al-sabuni states, "As to Zainab Bint Jahsh, the Messenger of Allah married for no higher wisdom than to abolish the heresy of adoption (A-sabuni)."  

I don't know, how in the world Allah could dislike such noble deeds. I am not sure what percentage of Muslims actually knows this divine law. I do admit that I never knew this and, I was stunned when I first learnt this from a real Mullah. How and why was this noble custom among human being prohibited? We shall learn this history later in this essay.  

Pre-Islamic Arab Custom: Adoption of orphan/helpless child was a very popular and moral practice amongst pre-Islamic Arabs. By adopting orphan/helpless child, they used to consider adopted child as their own. And they used to pass onto them the adopter's genealogy and name, his investment of them with all the rights of the legitimate son including that of inheritance and the prohibition of marriage on grounds of consanguinity.  

Post-Islamic Custom: The all-wise legislator of Islam willed to undo the above mentioned Arab practice of adopting children. The divine legislator willed to give the adopted son only the right of a client and co-religionist. For that reason a verse was revealed: "God did not make your adopted son as your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim. God's word is righteous and constitutes true guidance. (Q.33: 4)." It follows from this revelation that the adopter may marry the ex-wife of his adopted son and vice-versa. Thus Muhammad married Zainab in order to provide a good example of what the All-wise legislator was seeking to establish by way of rights and privileges for adoption. In this regard God further said: "After a term of married life with her husband, We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son provided that wife has already been divorced. That is God's commandment which must be fulfilled (Q.33: 37)." Who, among the Arabs, could implement this noble legislation and thereby openly repudiate the ancient traditions? The truth is, however, that Muhammad was the exemplar of obedience to God; his life was the implementation of that which he was entrusted to convey to mankind. His life constitutes the highest ideal, the perfect example, and the concrete instance of his Lord's command (M.H. Haykal, page-296-297).

Those who are Muslims and are obedient to the Qur'an will not have adopted sons.


Muhammad's Marriage to Zainab Bint Jashsh  

Muhammad's marriage to Zainab, who was the wife of his adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad. The dissimulators said, "Muhammad prohibits the wives of the son while he himself marries the wife of his son Zaid." These incidents are not in harmony with the ethics and conventions that Muhammad introduced to mankind, as Muslims claim. Abdullah Ibn Umar narrated: "We have always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad." Abdullah Ibn Umar said, "We only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men' was revealed.""  

Historical views: There are many conflicting stories about this scandalous happening and all these stories are based on Sahih Hadiths and Muslim biographies and books. It is worthwhile to quote here what Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari said concerning this story:  

Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, "The Messenger of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha's house seeking him. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, 'Where is Zaid?' He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zainab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a housedress, but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, 'He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.' The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zainab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did that. The heart of the Prophet was filled with admiration for her He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: 'Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.' When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, 'You asked him to come in, didn't you?' She replied, 'I bade him to, but he refused.' He said, 'Have you heard [him say] anything?' She answered, 'When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, "Praise be to God who disposes the hearts." ' Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, 'O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zainab. I can leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Hold on to your wife.' Zaid said, 'O Messenger of God, I will leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Keep your wife.' So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with `A?isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted, he smiled and said, 'Who will go to Zainab to tell her that God wedded her to me from heaven?' The Messenger of God recited; 'Thus you told someone whom God had favoured and whom you yourself have favoured: "Hold on to your wife." ' `A?isha said, 'I heard much about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, "For sure she will boast over this with us." ' Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God, hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some silver jewellery that she was wearing."


More help from Allah:  

So, this charge that the dissimulators, among others, leveled against Muhammad (pbuh) necessitated the revelation of more Qur'anic verses:

(Sura al-Ahzab  Q.33: 40): "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but [he is] God's Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. God is Aware of everything!"  

(Sura al-Ahzab  Q.33: 37): "We married her off to you so that there would be no objection for believers in respect to their adopted sons' wives once they have accomplished their purpose with them. God's command must be done!"  

In the verse (33:37) there is stated a particular purpose for this revelation and action of Muhammad. It is not for himself, but it is for the future of the Muslim community. It is so that in future there may not be a problem if anybody (father-in-law) wants to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son. ?We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son.? Without adoption, there cannot be any adopted son either. Therefore, the explicitly stated reason for the revelation of this verse does not exist. Muhammad himself dissolved the original adoption of Zaid when the above revelation came. Also, it is a mystery why in the world, any father-in law will need to marry his adopted son's wife.

 

Critical (Orientalist) version:  

Muhammad fell in love with Zainab, daughter of Jahsh, while she was the wife of Zayd bin Harithah, his own adopted son. Once, when he passed by the house of Zayd in the latter's absence, he was met by Zainab wearing clothes which exposed her beauty. Muhammad's heart was inflamed. It is reported that when his eyes fell upon her, he exclaimed, "Praise be to God who changes the hearts of men" and he repeated this expression at the time of his departure from her home. Zainab heard him say this and noticed desire in his eye. Zainab proudly reported this happening to her husband. Zayd immediately went to see the Prophet and offered to divorce his wife. Muhammad answered, "Hold to your wife and fear God." Thereafter, Zainab was no longer a docile wife and Zayd had to divorce her. Prophet Muhammad married Zainab Bint Jahsh who was his daughter-in-law. That was definitely taboo in pre-Islamic Arabia, and the Prophet of Islam lifted this taboo in order to satisfy his own lust and fulfill his own desire. They also relate that when Muhammad saw her she was half-naked, that her fine black hair was covering half of her body, and that every curve of her body was full of desire and passion. Others relate that when Muhammad opened the door of the house of Zayd the breeze played with the curtains of the room of Zainab, thus permitting Muhammad to catch a glimpse of her stretched out on her mattress in a nightgown.

 

Apologetics views:  

Muhammad Husain Haikal, for one, in the course of "refuting" the claims of V. Vacca in the Encyclopaedia of Islam regarding Zainab, speaks about a "glorious deed" of Muhammad, which the orientalists and missionaries have turned into a romance. He says, "As to Zainab Bint Jahsh, who has been wrapped up by orientalists and missionaries in an imaginary picture of romance and infatuation, true history judges that [Muhammad's act with] her was one of the glorious deeds of Muhammad. Being the perfect example of faith, he applied to her the Hadith that says, 'Man's faith is not made perfect till he loves for his brother what he loves for himself'.

Apologists conclude that it is one of the truly great facets of Muhammad's personality. It proves beyond question that Muhammad was the perfect exemplar of his own legislation, especially of such laws as were intended to replace the tradition and customs of pre-Islamic Arabia. He was the exemplar of the new system that God revealed through him as a mercy and guidance to mankind.

On the other hand, Arab custom and tradition demanded that the adopted son inherit from his adopted father, like the latter's legitimate children. And since this custom too was the object of Muhammad's attack, his choice of Zayd as the spear point of the first reform, would actually make of him -- if he were prepared to give up the inheritance to which Arabian custom gave him title -- the spearhead of another Islamic legislation prohibiting inheritance to any but the blood heirs and relatives of the deceased. This indeed furnished the revelation: "No believer, whether man or woman, has the freedom to choose otherwise than as God and His Prophet have resolved in any given case. To do so is to disobey God and His Prophet, to err and fall into manifest misguidance (Q.33: 37)?  

 

Comments:  

There is a considerable moral problem with such a self-serving revelation. It is quite clear that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was attracted to Zainab before Zaid divorced her and it might well have been the true reason for the divorce itself. And Qur'anic verses do make clear that there was something going on before Zaid divorced Zainab. The entire melodrama: Zaid's divorce of Zainab, Muhammad's marriage with Zainab and subsequent revelations of several Qur'anic Ayats from Allah to purify this scandalous happening is something to ponder very seriously. There is more in this strange story. That this action is immoral and this revelation/justification of it self-serving and not fitting for a true word of God is an important aspect, but not a contradiction within the Quran - even though contradicting the true character of God, who is moral purity. Prohibiting adoption is no way a moral action. Prohibitions of alcohol drinking, smoking, gambling, sorceries, killing, etc., could be a moral action. But why was there prohibition of adoption?

To summarize, the logical difficulty is that Allah (?) causes a scandal and then sends Gabriel to officially justify the scandalous action of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with Qur'anic revelations is morally incorrect and too much of a coincidence.  

Some after thoughts: Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) cannot get away from the culpability of this salacious behavior of his with Zainab. If he had this forthrightness in his mind, he would have vigorously fight with his conscience and not allow this marriage to go through. But the reality was quite the opposite. He had surrendered to his passion and thus had marred his "unblemished" character. If all the Muslims in the present-day world follow Muhammad's inglorious example, seduce theirs daughter-in-law, and then cause a divorce and then to add insult to the injury marry her, what would happen then? Just think the consequences. In more enlightened society if a man does what Mohammad (pbuh) did with Zainab he would be looked up as a lascivious character. Not all the Qur'anic Ayats of this world will be able to change that. To have faith is one thing, but to have a blind faith is another matter, altogether!

[_Waziri_]

Very well, since the commentaries above were stumbled on and none of my thinking, that is fine. However, maybe you Waziri can use your superior argument to explain away this article written by a muslim. Please use as much superior argument as possible. I am just want you take on this, and please note that the writter did reference the koran and hadith to support his point. Please feel free to do same.

The bolded and underlined portion of the quote above referred please. Why do you think the authour of this piece was a Muslim? Does this  confirm the truth that all what you have been putting up regarding this story was just a a matter of copy and paste?

Usman11, it appears like you greatly underestimate the potentials of the people you are taking on in this debate. I will discuss this article after your evidence of the Islamic background of its author. But one thing I want to make clear before then is the truth that all the sources quoted by this author were books I have read and in some cases reviewed years back. So I will prefer to discuss the veracity of the authors claim with the author himself not the person who only copies and pastes. Please try if you can and bring him up on board or find away of passing across my critique of his uninformed position that quotes a piece of history material full of perharps and maybe thinking that it was a Hadith.

[usman11]

Waziri, you are such a loser.  You speak from both sides of your mouth depending on what position of discuss favors you.  Here was what you said when I came on board and made my first contribution to this thread:


Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:36 am    Post subject:  



For Usman11,

You have a very nice submission there but I provide below some links that can give you the full backgroud of the item of this discourse here. Have a wonderful reading session as I wait to here from you:

http://www.hausafulani.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=154

http://www.hausafulani.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=125

Thank you once again

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you recall that? In case you do not, please refresh your brain by going back to page 1 of this thread, and you'll see it there plainly.
After your commendation of my post, I responded with a follow up, and here was what you said regarding my second contribution;



Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:55 am    Post subject:  

Usman11,

Interesting comment you have there. But as you said you always enjoy researching so I will beseech you to like try to read everything in those links and finally give me your final accessment of the issue. It is then we can build up on the discussion. As you can see you have only responded to one claim by EMTL up there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if you knew I was copying and pasting all along as you claim later, why didn't you make that revelation known right away?  You guys seem to enjoy shifting position and claiming ignorance all in one. Kind of reminds me of when certain portions of the Koran that encourages the Worship of Allah's daughters were abrogated and explained away by the Prophet that he was deceived by the Devil.

Yes, those comments above are yours.....so how come your position shifted now to that of discrediting my contributions which you liked just a few weeks ago? Some of you Muslims are simply sore losers as I mentioned earlier. When an argument presents a serious challenge to you, especially when it involves the so called Prophet of Allah, you run and employ all dubious tactics to silence your opponet, if not by killing them, then by discrediting them.  I have news for you brother, i am just warming up. You may travel to hell and back and come up new accusations, I am just warming up. I intend to show anyone reading that Mohammed could never have been a messenger of God as he claimed, and believe me Waziri after several posting are made (they will contain references taken from your Koran and hadith, in detail) it will leave enough doubt in the minds of people here, and they'll begin reviewing their commonly held beliefs about the Prophet.

In case you have not noticed, myadudu is already having serious questions because he notices grave inconsistencies in your theology in relationship to the Christians. Here was his question:

"My question on this will be, if Islam derives all of it's epistemology from the Torah and the Gospel, then why do we reject the divinity of Christ when the Bible makes that abundantly clear? I do understand there are some aspects of the Bible which we must accept otherwise we are not genuine believers. But how do we define what is acceptable to Islam and what is not?"

If you are as smart as you think you are, you will realize that this is a man beginning to question with logic, the information that has been fed to him all along, and what he has been taught isn't making much sense anymore once critically analyzed.  Here is his dilemna, on one hand, Muslims are taught never to be friends with Christians and Jews.  They are taught that the Christian Bible is corrupted source of religious information, yet he is taught that..." Islam derives all of it's epistemology from the Torah and the Gospel".  Here the interesting part of his question Waziri,

" then why do we reject the divinity of Christ when the Bible makes that abundantly clear? I do understand there are some aspects of the Bible which we must accept otherwise we are not genuine believers. But how do we define what is acceptable to Islam and what is not?"

I read your simplistic response to his very important question, and sir, you goofed again.  Your response was to simply reject the portions that the Koran rejects.  How bright is that? It is the Korans position that creates the conflict that is brewing up inside him.  Bottomline, and whether you Waziri and even Myadudu accepts it or not, he (myadudu) has done what Islamists fear the most, and that is to ASK QUESTIONS.

So if you are thinking I am going to fold, pack up and leave this site, you have something else coming Waziri.  It is not a do or die affair, no, but I am here for the long haul, so get used to it.

I have posted an article by a Muslim author on this site where the Character of your dearly beloveth prophet (SAW) was scrutinuzed. The article contains factual quotes from the hadith, and even passages from the Koran, all documented. Rather than refute them, or explain them, you are here taking shots at the author and the article. Which is it Waziri, are those accounts false? Are those accounts by Omar and Bakari false?

[usman11]

Mariyah the Sex Slave of the holy Prophet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sayed Akbar


The following is Muhammad?s scandalous love affair with Mariyah the Copt who was one of the prophet?s wives? maids. Muhammad slept with her without any ceremony, which caused uproar among his wives and finally was settled by Divine intervention. This story is recorded in an authenticated Hadith and is reported by Omar.

This Hadith is describing the reason for the revelation of verse 66: 4 of Quran. The verse says:

?If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.?

Omar explains that these two women were Hafsa and Ayesha who became disrespectful of the prophet causing him grief until he thought of divorcing all of his wives. Here is the full story.

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

I had been eager to ask 'Umar about the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet regarding whom Allah said (in the Qur'an saying): If you two (wives of the Prophet namely Aisha and Hafsa) turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes) (66.4), till performed the Hajj along with 'Umar (and on our way back from Hajj) he went aside (to answer the call of nature) and I also went aside along with him carrying a tumbler of water. When he had answered the call of nature and returned. I poured water on his hands from the tumbler and he performed ablution. I said, "O Chief of the believers! ' Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said:

'If you two return in repentance (66.4)? He said, "I am astonished at your question, O Ibn 'Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa."

Then 'Umar went on relating the narration and said. "I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in 'Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back. She said, 'Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.' What she said scared me and I said to her, 'Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.' Then I dressed myself and went to Hafsa and asked her, 'Does any of you keep Allah's Apostle angry all the day long till night?' She replied in the affirmative. I said, 'She is a ruined losing person (and will never have success)! Doesn't she fear that Allah may get angry for the anger of Allah's Apostle and thus she will be ruined? Don't ask Allah's Apostle too many things, and don't retort upon him in any case, and don't desert him. Demand from me whatever you like, and don't be tempted to imitate your neighbor (i.e. 'Aisha) in her behavior towards the Prophet), for she (i.e. Aisha) is more beautiful than you, and more beloved to Allah's Apostle.

In those days it was rumored that Ghassan, (a tribe living in Sham) was getting prepared their horses to invade us. My companion went (to the Prophet on the day of his turn, went and returned to us at night and knocked at my door violently, asking whether I was sleeping. I was scared (by the hard knocking) and came out to him. He said that a great thing had happened. I asked him: What is it? Have Ghassan come? He replied that it was worse and more serious than that, and added that Allah's Apostle had divorced all his wives. I said, Hafsa is a ruined loser! I expected that would happen some day.' So I dressed myself and offered the Fajr prayer with the Prophet. Then the Prophet entered an upper room and stayed there alone. I went to Hafsa and found her weeping. I asked her, 'Why are you weeping? Didn't I warn you? Have Allah's Apostle divorced you all?' She replied, 'I don't know. He is there in the upper room.' I then went out and came to the pulpit and found a group of people around it and some of them were weeping. Then I sat with them for some time, but could not endure the situation. So I went to the upper room where the Prophet was and requested to a black slave of his: "Will you get the permission of (Allah's Apostle) for Umar (to enter)? The slave went in, talked to the Prophet about it and came out saying, 'I mentioned you to him but he did not reply.' So, I went and sat with the people who were sitting by the pulpit, but I could not bear the situation, so I went to the slave again and said: "Will you get he permission for Umar? He went in and brought the same reply as before. When I was leaving, behold, the slave called me saying, "Allah's Apostle has granted you permission." So, I entered upon the Prophet and saw him lying on a mat without wedding on it, and the mat had left its mark on the body of the Prophet, and he was leaning on a leather pillow stuffed with palm fires. I greeted him and while still standing, I said: "Have you divorced your wives?' He raised his eyes to me and replied in the negative. And then while still standing, I said chatting: "Will you heed what I say, 'O Allah's Apostle! We, the people of Quraish used to have the upper hand over our women (wives), and when we came to the people whose women had the upper hand over them..."

'Umar told the whole story (about his wife). "On that the Prophet smiled." 'Umar further said, "I then said, 'I went to Hafsa and said to her: Do not be tempted to imitate your companion ('Aisha) for she is more beautiful than you and more beloved to the Prophet.' The Prophet smiled again. When I saw him smiling, I sat down and cast a glance at the room, and by Allah, I couldn't see anything of importance but three hides. I said (to Allah's Apostle) "Invoke Allah to make your followers prosperous for the Persians and the Byzantines have been made prosperous and given worldly luxuries, though they do not worship Allah?' The Prophet was leaning then (and on hearing my speech he sat straight) and said, 'O Ibn Al-Khatttab! Do you have any doubt (that the Hereafter is better than this world)? These people have been given rewards of their good deeds in this world only.' I asked the Prophet . 'Please ask Allah's forgiveness for me. The Prophet did not go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to 'Aisha, and he said that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Mariyah). When twenty-nine days had passed, the Prophet went to Aisha first of all. She said to him, 'You took an oath that you would not come to us for one month, and today only twenty-nine days have passed, as I have been counting them day by day.' The Prophet said, 'The month is also of twenty-nine days.' That month consisted of twenty-nine days. 'Aisha said, 'When the Divine revelation of Choice was revealed, the Prophet started with me, saying to me, 'I am telling you something, but you needn't hurry to give the reply till you can consult your parents." 'Aisha knew that her parents would not advise her to part with the Prophet . The Prophet said that Allah had said:--

'O Prophet! Say To your wives; If you desire The life of this world And its glitter, ... then come! I will make a provision for you and set you free In a handsome manner. But if you seek Allah And His Apostle, and The Home of the Hereafter, then Verily, Allah has prepared For the good-doers amongst you A great reward.' (33.2 'Aisha said, 'Am I to consult my parents about this? I indeed prefer Allah, His Apostle, and the Home of the Hereafter.' After that the Prophet gave the choice to his other wives and they also gave the same reply as 'Aisha did."

The above Hadith is significant as it contains two important historic points. First it reveals, by Omar?s own admission, that ?Ansari women had the upper hand over their men?. Even if we consider that to be an exaggeration, it is clear that women in Medina had more rights and authority than their Quraishy counterparts. Mecca, the home of the Quraish tribe, where Omar and Muhammad came from was a religious hob. People living in religious towns are more bigots than those living in other cities. Religion has always played a role in subjugating women and taking away their human rights. So it is natural that women in Mecca were more subdued than those living anywhere else in Arabia and especially Medina that was a more cosmopolitan city having civilized nations like Jews and Christians as its inhabitants. Omar and Muhammad?s wives enjoyed this emancipating atmosphere and were starting to exercise their relative freedom. This attitude, of course, did not sit well with the two misogynist men of Mecca, namely Omar and Muhammad and as this Hadith demonstrates, they were angry of their wives newfound liberties and rebelliousness.

The importance of this Hadith is in the fact that it proves that women prior to Islam had much more freedom, which was taken away from them by Muhammad and his misogynistic khalifas. It becomes clear that the deplorable status of women in Islam is not a divine verdict but a reflection of how women were treated in Mecca 1400 years ago.

The fact that there is so much emphasis in Quran and in Ahadith about the importance of women being obedient to their husbands is indeed an indication of Muhammad?s own desire to control his young and rebellious wives. (See Q. 4: 34)

The other important point of the above Hadith is that it reveals yet another sexual scandal of the prophet.

One-day Muhammad goes to his wife?s house Hafsa the daughter of Omar and finds her maid Mariyah attractive. He sends Hafsa to Omar?s house, telling her that he wanted to see her. When Hafsa leaves, Muhammad takes Mariyah to bed and has intercourse with her. Meanwhile Hafsa, who finds out that her father was not expecting her, returns home much sooner than expected, and to her chagrin finds her illustrious husband in bed with her maid.

She becomes hysteric and forgetting the station of the prophet she shouts and causes a scandal. The prophet pleads with her to calm down and promises not to sleep with Mariah anymore and begs her also not to divulge this secret to anyone else.

However, Hafsa would not control herself and relays everything to Ayisha who also turns against the prophet and jointly with his other wives cause him much anguish. So the prophet decides to punish all of them and not sleep with any one of his wives for one month. Depriving one?s wives sexually is the second grade of punishment recomendedn in Quran. The first level is admonishing, the second level is depriving them of sex and the third level of punishment is beating them. Q. 4: 34.

Of course when a man decides to punish a wife with sexual deprivation he can satisfy himself with his other wives. But Muhammad?s anger had made him make the oath not to sleep with any of them for one month. That of course would have been too much of hardship for the beloved messenger of God (peace be upon his immaculate soul), therefore God in his mercy came to the aid of his prophet and revealed the Surah Tahrim (Banning). In this Surah Allah rebukes Muhammad for being hard on himself and for depriving himself from what he really likes and has been made lawful for him, in order to please his wives.

This is the text of the Surah Tahrim: Q. 66: 1-5.


1. O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which All?h has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And All?h is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2. All?h has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And All?h is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.
3. And (remember) when the Prophet (SAW) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and All?h made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (All?h) has told me".
4. If you two (wives of the Prophet SAW, namely 'Aishah and Hafsah turn in repentance to All?h, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet SAW likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, All?h is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.
5. It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to All?h), believers, obedient to All?h, turning to All?h in repentance, worshipping All?h sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for All?h's sake), previously married and virgins. ?

Comment:

Although Muhammad gave his word to Hafsa, not to have sex with her maid he could not resist the temptation. Especially now that he had taken another oath not to sleep with all of his wives. It was a difficult situation and no one but Allah could help him. Well, nothing is impossible when you are the prophet of Allah. Leave everything in the hands of the Almighty and let him take care of it. And that is exactly what happened. Allah himself intervened and gave him the green light to follow his heart's desire. In the Surah Tahrim God licensed his beloved prophet to have his flings and not pay attention to his wives. What can a prophet ask more? Allah was so concerned about Muhammad's carnal pleasures that he even allowed ALL MEN to break their oaths as a bounty. Alhamdulillah! AllahuAkbar! Subhanillah. Isn't Allah great?

It is also worthy of mention that Muhammad who came to know that Hafsa did reveal the secret to Aisha, lied to her by pretending that it was Allah who told him so (Ayat 3) while he actually learned it from Ayisha. But of course Muhammad is not the author of Quran. It is Allah himself who is lying for his prophet.

In reaction to the above verses, Ayisha, who was not only young and pretty but also clever, is reported to have said to Muhammad, "Your God indeed rushes in coming to your aid!"


The above story must have been also embarrassing for Muhammad?s followers even when they gobbled mindlessly everything he told them. So they made other hadithes to explain those verses of Quran that were already explained by Omar.



Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3496:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrated that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) used to spend time with Zainab daughter of Jahsh and drank honey at her house. She ('A'isha further) said: I and Hafsa agreed that one whom Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) would visit first should say: I notice that you have an odour of the Maghafir (gum of mimosa). He (the Holy Prophet) visited one of them and she said to him like this, whereupon he said: I have taken honey in the house of Zainab bint Jabsh and I will never do it again. It was at this (that the following verse was revealed): 'Why do you hold to be forbidden what Allah has made lawful for you... (up to). If you both ('A'isha and Hafsa) turn to Allah" up to:" And when the Holy Prophet confided an information to one of his wives" (lxvi. 3). This refers to his saying: But I have taken honey.

Also Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3497:

The existence of the above Hadith and its difference with the one narrated by Omar reveals yet another fact that the companions of Muhammad were willing to lie, (as Muslims are today) to preserve the image of their prophet from blemish. It would be foolish to accept the excuse of drinking honey to justify those Ayat. First of all honey does not smell bad. But above all it is inconceivable that a trivial incident like drinking honey could cause such an upheaval in the household of the prophet to the extend that he decides to divorce all of his wives or to punish them for one month by not sleeping with them. Could such an insignificant incident like drinking honey provoke so much uproar that the creator of this universe had to intervene with a warning to Muhammad?s wives that Muhammad would divorce all of them and He (Allah) would give him virgin and faithful wives? This explanation is absurd unless honey is the code for something else that the prophet (peace be upon his immaculate soul found with Mariyah)

[mallamt]

I am surprised with the amount of ignorance displayed by some people in their "logical" discussion on the issue of Jesus and the adulteress in the bible.  People have saide so much about logic and research in a discussion that it amazes me how absent it is in some of the "logical" arguments.  One would have thought that to take a position or present a logical discussion of this nature first the context of events would have been studied, because anything else is just baseless and ignorant ramblings.  It is actually unscientific and silly to just take bits and pieces of an event and conclude on the participants without understanding who the participants are what was the context of the event.

I believe the following issues/person must first be understood first in this discussion before we start trying analyse or conclude on actions and people in the story of Jesus and the adultres. 1) The Mosaic Laws 2) Pharisees 3) Jesus.

THE MOSAIC LAWS
A lot of reference has been made to the mosaic laws in the discussion support death sentence for acts of adultery in christianity (I suppose here people are coming to this conclusion because the story is in the bible) while also suggesting that Jesus broke Gods law by allowing the adulteress go.  But before we can go on discussing what Jesus should have done or not done when he was tempted we must as ourselves what is the origin of the law (mosaic), that is to say, where is it from and why was it made and who was it for.

The mosaic laws came through moses (Deut 5:5,27,28)(and I suppose muslims here are in agreement with christians as to the origins of the mosaic laws, that is, it is from God, so it is safe to say we know and agree on where it is from.  The next issue that needs our attention then is why was is made or given.  First according to the bible, the jews where the chosen people of God (Duet 7:6,7)and were the only people who had the knowledge of God and worshiped Him (Ex 5:17; Ps 48:3; Ps 96:5, 115:3,4). However they often displeased God because of their disobedience and sins (Num 14:11; 25:3; Duet 32:15-28).  I have given biblical references and a further study of these references will reveal the utter calamity and disobedience of the time by the jews.  From this diobedience of the jews then, we will be able to understand why God issued the laws.  Now then I suppose the question of who the mosaic laws were for should be easy now - the jews! and no other person/nation (Lev. 26:46; Ps 78:5).

I also find that some people either out  ignorance fail to see or understand that there is a difference between tradition/custom and the laws of God in this discussion.  In very simple terms tradition/custom are those practices passed on from one generation to another and has nothing to do with Gods laws.  In several instances we have seen situations where certain customary practices conflict with Gods laws and it was common even with the jews (Jer 44:17; Ezek 20;18,21,30; Mark 7:3,4).  I really find it embarassing that some people here try to even argue about the existance of the difference!! They should do their homework first before coming here to mislead people!!!

On the issue of mosaic law from the biblical perspective it is irrefutable to say that the laws were from God through moses and was directed only to the jews at that time, furthermore, christianity had not started then as we know Christ had not come to earth.  So it is utter rubbish and complete nonsense bourne out of ignorance to try and ascribe the mosaic laws to christians.

THE PHARISEES
Much have been said about the pharisees here in the story of Jesus and the adulteress.  Again we see ignorance creeping up in some of the postings where people try to suggest that the pharisees were ordained by God to mete out judgement/purnishement on those who broke the law. But who are the pharisees? The Pharisees first appeared in the second century B.C. They appear to have originated from a group called the Hasidim (God's loyal ones). By about 135 B.C. they were known as Pharisees (the separated ones). The Pharisees had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Torah which was God's gift to Israel. Throughout His ministry, Jesus was openly opposed to the Pharisees. He denounced them publicly for their hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, and evil ways.
The law was intended to enable the Israelites to live righteous lives. But the Pharisees had corrupted the law. Disregarding any ethical considerations and being devoid of mercy, they imposed an intolerable burden of legal observance upon the common people. Life for the Jews became slavery to the legal precepts invented by the experts of the law.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being careful to appear righteous on the outside, while inside they were full of greed and wickedness. John the Baptist in the book of Mattew called them ...."brood of vipers" in fact, the pharisee spirit is often what is referred to as the religious spirit.

Anyway now we understand who the pharisees are, since they were known to be pretenders and Jesus could see their hearts is it then possible that some of them that wanted the stoning of this woman actually committed adultry with her?  Then does the "...he who is without sin let him cast the first stone....." make sense to us? Is it possible that Jesus knew more about her accussers and His statement went into their hearts and they suddenly realised He (Jesus) knew what nobody else knew and with each seeing this and knowing this they drop their stones fearing that they may be exposed and the same fate visited onto them?

JESUS
Jesus in this story gave an insight of the central messages of His ministry - grace!!  For we are not saved by works (remember the pharisees) but by grace through Christ.  So it does not matter how much good works you have done if your heart is not clean you remain unclean in Gods kingdom.  It is very important to note that in the story and throughout His ministry in the bible, Jesus did not say the laws were wrong or they should not be obeyed, He Himself obeyed them, in fact what Jesus did was affirm the laws.  However, in affirming the laws Jesus came with grace.


THE TEXT
Let us go back to the text that brought us here to this discussion Jn 8:2-11
In verses 3-5 we see the accussation and the reference to the laws of moses, but what we know according to the scritptures is that the woman has been given to adultry, but no mention of a male partner.  The mosaic laws then specifically required the MAN an WOMAN to be stoned to death.  This attempt to tempt Jesus and make Him either break the mosaic laws or break roman laws by carrying out the execution or discredit Himself and act against His own teachings backfired with His response.  First we see justice here at work, because the law required that the MAN and WOMAN be stoned, so could it be that the man was one of the accussers or even one of the pharisees and Jesus knew that?  When Jesus responded in verse 7 could it then be Jesus knew something about the accussers and they also realised that as indicated earlier?  And knowing the background of the pharisees was this possible?  Verse 10-11 shows us the grace which the gospel have been talking about.

WHO JUDGES MAN ON GODS LAWS
Theocratic rule lasted until the appointment of kings according to scriptures.  And God choose leadership and communicated directly with leadership.  Judgement during that time was from God even though executed by man, because God communicated directly with man (Num9:8-11, 15:34,35; 27:5-11) and it is only God who has the prerogative of mercy to those who break His laws (Num 14:20; Duet 9:18-20).  God had direct contact with man that was the only reason man could implement Gods purnishment.  So the question of who implements Gods laws remains only God, not even when man implemented purnishment base on Gods law did man judge based on Gods laws, guilt was only declared by God not man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I qouted only from the bible because the story of Jesus and the adulteress was culled from the bible and to show that all it needs is more study of the bible before making "logical" arguments that are ilogical and based on ignorance.

[mallamt]

I am surprised with the amount of ignorance displayed by some people in their "logical" discussion on the issue of Jesus and the adulteress in the bible.  People have saide so much about logic and research in a discussion that it amazes me how absent it is in some of the "logical" arguments.  One would have thought that to take a position or present a logical discussion of this nature first the context of events would have been studied, because anything else is just baseless and ignorant ramblings.  It is actually unscientific and silly to just take bits and pieces of an event and conclude on the participants without understanding who the participants are what was the context of the event.

I believe the following issues/person must first be understood first in this discussion before we start trying analyse or conclude on actions and people in the story of Jesus and the adultres. 1) The Mosaic Laws 2) Pharisees 3) Jesus.

THE MOSAIC LAWS
A lot of reference has been made to the mosaic laws in the discussion support death sentence for acts of adultery in christianity (I suppose here people are coming to this conclusion because the story is in the bible) while also suggesting that Jesus broke Gods law by allowing the adulteress go.  But before we can go on discussing what Jesus should have done or not done when he was tempted we must as ourselves what is the origin of the law (mosaic), that is to say, where is it from and why was it made and who was it for.

The mosaic laws came through moses (Deut 5:5,27,28)(and I suppose muslims here are in agreement with christians as to the origins of the mosaic laws, that is, it is from God, so it is safe to say we know and agree on where it is from.  The next issue that needs our attention then is why was is made or given.  First according to the bible, the jews where the chosen people of God (Duet 7:6,7)and were the only people who had the knowledge of God and worshiped Him (Ex 5:17; Ps 48:3; Ps 96:5, 115:3,4). However they often displeased God because of their disobedience and sins (Num 14:11; 25:3; Duet 32:15-28).  I have given biblical references and a further study of these references will reveal the utter calamity and disobedience of the time by the jews.  From this diobedience of the jews then, we will be able to understand why God issued the laws.  Now then I suppose the question of who the mosaic laws were for should be easy now - the jews! and no other person/nation (Lev. 26:46; Ps 78:5).

I also find that some people either out  ignorance fail to see or understand that there is a difference between tradition/custom and the laws of God in this discussion.  In very simple terms tradition/custom are those practices passed on from one generation to another and has nothing to do with Gods laws.  In several instances we have seen situations where certain customary practices conflict with Gods laws and it was common even with the jews (Jer 44:17; Ezek 20;18,21,30; Mark 7:3,4).  I really find it embarassing that some people here try to even argue about the existance of the difference!! They should do their homework first before coming here to mislead people!!!

On the issue of mosaic law from the biblical perspective it is irrefutable to say that the laws were from God through moses and was directed only to the jews at that time, furthermore, christianity had not started then as we know Christ had not come to earth.  So it is utter rubbish and complete nonsense bourne out of ignorance to try and ascribe the mosaic laws to christians.

THE PHARISEES
Much have been said about the pharisees here in the story of Jesus and the adulteress.  Again we see ignorance creeping up in some of the postings where people try to suggest that the pharisees were ordained by God to mete out judgement/purnishement on those who broke the law. But who are the pharisees? The Pharisees first appeared in the second century B.C. They appear to have originated from a group called the Hasidim (God's loyal ones). By about 135 B.C. they were known as Pharisees (the separated ones). The Pharisees had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Torah which was God's gift to Israel. Throughout His ministry, Jesus was openly opposed to the Pharisees. He denounced them publicly for their hypocrisy, spiritual blindness, and evil ways.
The law was intended to enable the Israelites to live righteous lives. But the Pharisees had corrupted the law. Disregarding any ethical considerations and being devoid of mercy, they imposed an intolerable burden of legal observance upon the common people. Life for the Jews became slavery to the legal precepts invented by the experts of the law.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for being careful to appear righteous on the outside, while inside they were full of greed and wickedness. John the Baptist in the book of Mattew called them ...."brood of vipers" in fact, the pharisee spirit is often what is referred to as the religious spirit.

Anyway now we understand who the pharisees are, since they were known to be pretenders and Jesus could see their hearts is it then possible that some of them that wanted the stoning of this woman actually committed adultry with her?  Then does the "...he who is without sin let him cast the first stone....." make sense to us? Is it possible that Jesus knew more about her accussers and His statement went into their hearts and they suddenly realised He (Jesus) knew what nobody else knew and with each seeing this and knowing this they drop their stones fearing that they may be exposed and the same fate visited onto them?

JESUS
Jesus in this story gave an insight of the central messages of His ministry - grace!!  For we are not saved by works (remember the pharisees) but by grace through Christ.  So it does not matter how much good works you have done if your heart is not clean you remain unclean in Gods kingdom.  It is very important to note that in the story and throughout His ministry in the bible, Jesus did not say the laws were wrong or they should not be obeyed, He Himself obeyed them, in fact what Jesus did was affirm the laws.  However, in affirming the laws Jesus came with grace.


THE TEXT
Let us go back to the text that brought us here to this discussion Jn 8:2-11
In verses 3-5 we see the accussation and the reference to the laws of moses, but what we know according to the scritptures is that the woman has been given to adultry, but no mention of a male partner.  The mosaic laws then specifically required the MAN an WOMAN to be stoned to death.  This attempt to tempt Jesus and make Him either break the mosaic laws or break roman laws by carrying out the execution or discredit Himself and act against His own teachings backfired with His response.  First we see justice here at work, because the law required that the MAN and WOMAN be stoned, so could it be that the man was one of the accussers or even one of the pharisees and Jesus knew that?  When Jesus responded in verse 7 could it then be Jesus knew something about the accussers and they also realised that as indicated earlier?  And knowing the background of the pharisees was this possible?  Verse 10-11 shows us the grace which the gospel have been talking about.

WHO JUDGES MAN ON GODS LAWS
Theocratic rule lasted until the appointment of kings according to scriptures.  And God choose leadership and communicated directly with leadership.  Judgement during that time was from God even though executed by man, because God communicated directly with man (Num9:8-11, 15:34,35; 27:5-11) and it is only God who has the prerogative of mercy to those who break His laws (Num 14:20; Duet 9:18-20).  God had direct contact with man that was the only reason man could implement Gods purnishment.  So the question of who implements Gods laws remains only God, not even when man implemented purnishment base on Gods law did man judge based on Gods laws, guilt was only declared by God not man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I qouted only from the bible because the story of Jesus and the adulteress was culled from the bible and to show that all it needs is more study of the bible before making "logical" arguments that are ilogical and based on ignorance.

[_Waziri_]

So if you knew I was copying and pasting all along as you claim later, why didn't you make that revelation known right away?[/u]  You guys seem to enjoy shifting position and claiming ignorance all in one. Kind of reminds me of when certain portions of the Koran that encourages the Worship of Allah's daughters were abrogated and explained away by the Prophet that he was deceived by the Devil.

The underlined portion of your submission referred. Usman11, courtesy demand that I treat you with maximum respect and politeness when you joined this forum. And that was why I had to encourage you by seeing how you made "very nice" postings. Even though I diosagreed with the contents of what you said and referred you to other discussions we held here.

Yes, those comments above are yours.....so how come your position shifted now to that of discrediting my contributions which you liked just a few weeks ago?

I didn't do that cos I thought you would stop the attitude of copying and pasting with half knowledge of what the truth is. But unfortunately you did not stop, boxing me into saying what I did not want to say earlier.

Imagine some person who is not aware of the existence of Talmud and Midrash in Jewish literature trying to discuss judaism with all claims of expertise?

Imagine a person who tries discussing Nigerian constitution but does not know about how that constitution provides for inclusion of traditional religious laws?

Imagine a person discussing Islam but could not distinguish between a historical account and a Hadith in the Muslim thought?

Some of you Muslims are simply sore losers as I mentioned earlier. When an argument presents a serious challenge to you, especially when it involves the so called Prophet of Allah, you run and employ all dubious tactics to silence your opponet, if not by killing them, then by discrediting them.

Where is the challenge? is it in your copy and paste attitude? If there is any challenge is for you to try to tell the truth and stop ascribing the writings of non-Muslims to Muslims in order to garner cheap victory. Work for your success, read hard and present real challenges.

I have news for you brother, i am just warming up. You may travel to hell and back and come up new accusations, I am just warming up.

You may roast up(not only warm up) if you so wish but your attitude and prersentations here have already shown how you do not have the expertise to take me on any subject of debate under the earth. You are too cheap an intelectual todler for me to handle.

I intend to show anyone reading that Mohammed could never have been a messenger of God as he claimed,

If only you can achieve that without being a COPYCAT.

In case you have not noticed, myadudu is already having serious questions because he notices grave inconsistencies in your theology in relationship to the Christians. Here was his question:

Myadudu asks questions which he believes I can provide answers to, which ofcourse I rose to his expectations adressing them since time. That was why he asked me and got the answers. He also asked me to adress an issue of disagreement between him and Maqari which I intend doing. He is quite satisfied with my methodology and so he comes to me. If only you would realise this and ask questions where you do not know things it would have served you better rather than COPYCATTING.

Bottomline, and whether you Waziri and even Myadudu accepts it or not, he (myadudu) has done what Islamists fear the most, and that is to ASK QUESTIONS.

Asking questions are what have made this forum great! Many of our discussions here are a product of querstions asked here or elsewhere. Even threads I referred you too earlier were filled with questions asked by both Muislims and Non-Muslims to which I rose to their expectations by adressing those questions.

So if you are thinking I am going to fold, pack up and leave this site, you have something else coming Waziri.  It is not a do or die affair, no, but I am here for the long haul, so get used to it.

The more you stay here the more we inject the culture of dicipline - we here are known with- into you. You will come to see that our debates  are meant to increase one another in knowledge rather than defeat or win an argument. But if you should resort to ridicule and namecalling we will definately shut you up. We have effective ways of silincing nuisances and mischiep makers.

I have posted an article by a Muslim author on this site where the Character of your dearly beloveth prophet (SAW) was scrutinuzed. The article contains factual quotes from the hadith, and even passages from the Koran, all documented. Rather than refute them, or explain them, you are here taking shots at the author and the article. Which is it Waziri, are those accounts false? Are those accounts by Omar and Bakari false?

Soft paddle, Usman11, had it been you  admittted that you did not tell the truth when you claimed the author was a Muslim, I would have gone ahead to discuss the article, which no forumnite used to this forum will doubt my capabilities and ever green claims of the ability to dextrously do just that. But the problem is you did not appear sincere no just or even truthful in your claims. You are not also versed in the subject you try to handle save for your dogmatic attachments to antiquated arguments.

Tell me for God sake how can a fruitful reminicence come out from your kind of discussion. Get serious Usman11, bring the authors of these articles here so that we can discuss with them to discredit their claims or forget and nurse your half measured truth out of Hausafulani.com domain.

[usman11]

Waziri, Mr. Artifical intelligence, your ignorant ramblings bore me silly.
Again, the majority of contributors have already concluded that your celebrated intelligence is nothing but the desperate cry from a depraved fool for attention. You constantly advertise your percieved logic, however, when logical reasoning is presented to you, you disappear and resurface later with a no brainer of an argument.

When I refreshed your confused mind with your own words of commendation to my posts, your response (which is dumb as usual) was that you were being nice. So let me get this, you were being nice to someone "copying and pasting materials"? How foolish of you. I guess that is logical for you.

You have ways to silence people like me because I post the truth about your so called false prophet? What are you going to do Waziri? Declare Fatwah on me? Go right ahead...that was exactly what your beloved Prophet did to all those who called him out for what he truly was, a fraud.
Mallamt talks about the pretencious Pharisees. These people should have been Muslims. There really is no difference between Pharisees and Muslims if one makes a comparion. Both are hypocrites.

Waziri, if you like bribe the administrator to block my posts....it would further confirm what everyone says about Muslim and how free expression and truth is disallowed.

Myadudu did not ask you questions because he thought you could provide answers...why would he? He's not that stupid. You duck and disappear for days whenever a question is presented to you, so why would any right thinking person ask you such important and obviously troubling questions? Truth is, your response was stupid than originally imagined. You adviced someone who noticed very fundamental flaws in Islamic theology to discard what the Bible says if it is in conflict with the Koran. To any reader of both books, one is very quick to realize that the Koran is cheap copycat of the Bible. The only difference between both books is that the Koran edits portions of the Bible that Mohammed rejected for reasons best known to him. But here is more example of Mohammed's kindness:

Oh, one more thing, please note, the Koran and hadiths are referenced in this material narration. So if you disbelieve the source, feel free to look it up yuourself and argue with yourself if you like:



Bakari:

In the history of the Arabs that predates the arrival of Islam, never before had there been such wars, certainly none on the scale and magnitude of those that were instigated by Muhammad the founder of Islam. Previous battles in Arabia had mainly centered on tribal differences and were confined to bouts of squabbling with some fights. With the introduction of Islam came not only war, but also an unrelenting genocide and terror that would quickly become integral components in furthering Islam?s expansionism.  

The early years of Muhammad?s prophetic carrier, in his native town Mecca, were peaceful. After 13 year of preaching no more than 70 or 80 people had embraced his cause. Not all of them were able fighting men. That explains why those early years were peaceful. Muslims did not have the strength to fight. However soon after Muhammad migrated and settled in Medina, and the Arab population of that town accepted his religion, he began invading and looting first the merchant caravans and then the human settlements to survive and to provide for his followers who had accompanied him and because of their lack of expertise had a difficult time finding employments in Medina.  

The fifth year of hijrah (migration to Medina) was an eventful year. That was the year that Muslims fought the famous war of the ditch against the Meccans and soon after that they surrounded the Jewish quarter of Bani Qaynuqa of Medina who were a prosperous population of goldsmiths and blacksmiths and after confiscating their properties (vineyards and homes) and belongings (jewelry and arms) they were banished from their ancestral home. After that he set his sight on another Jewish tribe, the Bani Nadir. He did a similar thing to them. He killed their leaders and many of their able-bodied men and after confiscating their properties and much of their wealth, expelled the rest from Medina. In neither of these cases the Jews offered any resistance. They were taken by surprise and simply surrendered under the superior forces of Muhammad?s men.  

Emboldened by his victories over these weaker, non-combative and non-threatening people who agreed to give up their wealth in exchange for their lives and goaded by an insatiable greed and his lust for power this self styled messenger of Allah then set his eyes upon other Jewish tribes of Arabia living outside of Medina. This time it was the turn of Bani al-Mustaliq.  

Bukhari, the great biographer of Muhammad, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq in the following story (Hadith)  

"Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.? Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:    



This same Hadith is recorded in the Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292, which validates the claim of its authenticity.  

Muhammad molded his religion after Judaism and had great expectations that the Jews would be the first to heed his call. Nevertheless, to his chagrin, the Jews had no interest in his religion and he never forgave them for that. You cannot reject a narcissist without invoking his rage. Muhammad was so upset that he changed the direction of the Qiblah (the direction towards which the Muslims pray) from Jerusalem to Kaaba, which at that time was just a temple of idols and said Allah transformed the Jews were transformed into apes and swine because of their transgression (Q. 5:60) and (Q. 2:65). Muhammad made the Jews the scapegoat to rally his followers around himself. He was an expert of that old trick known as ?divide n? conquer?.  The Arabs of Medina were generally a bunch of illiterate folk with little skills and often poor who made their living by working in the vineyards of the Jews and rendering other services to them. They where originally immigrants from Yemen while the Jews were the masters of trades and the owners of the lands who had called Medina home, for 2000 years. They were easy targets.  Prowling their wealth and making more money by enslaving their women and children and distributing them among the poor Arabs while giving them the assurance that killing their masters and bread givers is not only ethical but also sanctioned by God proved a very lucrative enterprise for Muhammad, one that would change his fortunes, and set this new religion on its eventual path of war and military conquests.  

Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.  

 

The following quote from an Islamic site states:  

"The news of the advance of Muslim forces had already reached Haris. In panic, his men deserted him and he himself took refuge in some unknown place. But the local population of Muraisa took up arms against the Muslims and rained showers of arrows in a sustained manner. The Muslims launched a sudden and furious attack and routed the enemy, who suffered huge casualties and nearly 600 were taken prisoners by the Muslims. Among the booty there were 2,000 camels and 5,000 goats.
   The prisoners of war included Barra, the daughter of Haris, who later on became Hazrat Juwairiyah, the consort of the Holy Prophet. According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers. Hazrat Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him "0' Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation". The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet (sallal alaho alahie wasallam) paid the amount of ransom and married her.?  

 

The above is the story how Muhammad married Juwairiyah as recorded by Muslim historians. Interestingly Muhammad makes his Allah praise him with verses such as the following: "And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Quran 68:4). and  ?Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Quran 33:21). The question that begs an answer is; was he really the standard of sublime morals and good example to follow?  

First he attacks a population without warning and only because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. Is this behavior befitting of a messenger of God? The narrator says,  ?According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.? As we read the history of Islam, we see this WAS indeed the prevailing practice of the Muslim Mujahedin, throughout the bloody history of Islam. Yet the question remains unanswered. Is this how a messenger of God should behave?  In another place Muhammad called himself the mercy of God for all the worlds 21:107 . What is the difference between this ?mercy of God? and a ruthless marauding gangster and a tyrant? If Muhammad were not the ?mercy of God? and if he were not ?a good example to follow?, how else would he have then behaved?  

If this was the prevailing practice of the Arabs, couldn?t the messenger of God change it? Why engage in such a barbaric practice at all?  Did he not say that his is the example to follow? Why should a man with such a claim behave in so brutal a fashion? Was he merely following the customs of his people or was he attempting to set an example for them to follow?

It is very clear that Muhammad was not "moved" by compassion but by lust. Muhammad did not set free Juwairiyah because he felt sorry for her. He was a man incapable of such feelings. He wanted Juwairiyah for himself. And this is the man 1.2 billion people follow as the perfect example and a messenger of God.

Unlike what most people may think, Muhammad?s intentions were not to convert people to his religion. His real aim was power, wealth and domination. Religion was just the pretext he used to subdue and conquer those he first sought to have dominion over. He weighed each case differently and considered its financial benefits. In most cases it was more profitable if the people did not convert to Islam, but killed and their belongings taken as spoils of war and their wives and children enslaved and soled with huge profits. This could bring sudden wealth to this ?messenger of God? that otherwise he could not have. If people were given the choice they could have feared defeat and the harsh consequences and they could have accepted Islam. This would have impeded Muslims of looting them, which meant loss of profit. That is why Muhammad did not deem appropriate to warn the Bani Mustaliq just as he never warned his other victims but attacked them by surprise.  

Muslim, another biographer of Muhammad narrates:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.?  Book 019, Number 4292:  



Muslim warriors carried on this sunnah (examples set by Muhammad) after his death.

When a Muslim army invaded a town, they would not allow anyone to convert to Islam for three days.  During these three days they could kill as many men as they liked, pillage their properties, then rape and enslave their women and children. Only after a town had been decimated and all the young women and children that could be sold as slaves were captured would the brutal campaign of Islamization, with its brutal mandate that all must convert or die, began.  However the Jews and the Christians were given protection to live provided they pay a penalty tax called Jizyah and enter into dhimmitude. Dhimmi means protected. But the dhimmis had to pay a hefty jizyah for their protection.  This Jizyah was the source of livelihood of the Muslims who through it were able to live like parasites off the labor of the dhimmis. The following Hadith, reported by Bukhari, records the source for this practice based on the admonitions of Muhammad toward the dhimmi:  

Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) "  Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:      


Continuing the story of Juwairiyah, Aisha who accompanied the prophet on this expedition related:

"when the prophet-peace be upon him- distributed the captives of Banu Almustaliq, she (Barrah) fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qyas. She was married to her cousin, who was killed during the battle. She gave Thabit a deed, agreeing to pay him nine okes of gold for her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her. She came to the prophet-peace be upon him-, to ask for his help in the matter. As soon as I saw her at door of my room, I took a dislike to her, for I knew that he would see her as I saw her. She went in and told him who she was, the daughter of al-Harith ibn Dhirar, the chief of his people. She said: "you can see the state to which I have been brought. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit, and have given him a deed for ransom, and I have to come to ask your help in the matter.' He said: 'would you like something better than that? I will discharge your debt, and marry you.' she said: 'yes. O then it is messenger of Allah! Done.' he replied.?  http://66.34.76.88/alsalafiyat/juwairiyah.htm

This story ends any further arguments about to the real motives of Muhammad in marrying only the young and beautiful women. As it can be seen Muhammad murders the husband of Juwairiyah, who was also her cousin. Captivated by her beauty, he offers to free her, but only on the condition she marry him. After having come to Muhammad to plead for his help, this self declared Messenger of God, this self proclaimed ?mercy of God for humanity?, this self styled ?example to follow? by all the Muslims presents her with a most unwelcome choice, for whose price is that she must surrender her freedom.  What other choice could there possibly be for her?  Muslims apologetics insists that most of Muhammad?s wives were widows. They try to give the impression Muhammad married them as an act of charity. However as it becomes clear these women were young and beautiful. If they were widows, is because Muhammad murdered their husbands. Juwairiyah was just 20 years old then while Muhammad was 58.  

 

Interestingly, the name of Juwairiyah was originally Barra (Pious). Apparently Muhammad did not like this name and so changed her name to Juwairiyah. Even the two Zeinabs who were his wives were previously called Barra and he changed their names as well to Zeinab, It would appear the Prophet had some guilt in becoming sexually intimate with women that were called ?Pious?. These seemingly incidental incidents reflect a certain hitherto humanity, a conscience, if you will, to his character, and perhaps hint at his own real, but hidden religiosity. Muhammad was certainly convinced of his own cause. However his understanding of reality was distorted as he had difficulty to distinguish between what is real and what is imagined. In fact Muhammad was more motivated by fear and superstitions than by conscience and ethics.  

                       

The rest of the story of Juwairiyah is mixed with half-truths and exaggerations, in the manner that have tainted most of the Hadiths. We read:

It is said that when the Prophet-peace be upon him- departed from the raid with Juwairiyah and was at Dhuljaysh, he entrusted her to one of the Ansar and went forward to Madinah. Her father, al-Harith, discovered that she was held captive and went back o Madinah, bringing his daughter's ransom. When he reached al-Aqia, he looked at the camels he had brought as her ransom and admired the two of them greatly, so he hid them in one of the passes of al-Aqia. Then he came to the Prophet-peace be upon him- dragging the camels behind him, and told him: "My daughter is too noble to be taken as a captive. Set her free by this ransom." the Prophet-peace be upon him- replied: "Isn't it better that we let her choose her self?" that is fair enough," said al-Harith. He came to his daughter and said: "This man is letting you chose so do not dishonor us!" "I choose Allah's messenger," she replied calmly. "What a disgrace!" he exclaimed.

The Prophet-peace be upon him-, then said "where are two camels which you have hidden in al-Aqia in such -and- such a pass?" al-Harith exclaimed: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that you Muhammad are the messenger of Allah! For none could have know of this but Allah."

Ibn-i-S'ad in his 'Tabaqat', states that the father of Juwairiyah paid her ransom amount, and when she became free, the Holy Prophet married her. As a result of this marriage a11 the prisoners of war numbering about 600 were freed by the Muslims as they did not like that any member of the family in which the holy Prophet was married, be made a slave."  



It is hard to determine which part of these stories is true and which part is not. However, what is not so difficult to notice are the many contradictions contained within the main storyline. For instance, we read that Muhammad paid the ransom to Thabit the captor of Juwairiyah, and then married her after freeing her. Then we read that Hairth, the father of Juwairiyah also paid the ransom to set her free.  As to the claims of Muhammad having some sort of psychic power, that empowered him to know or tell certain things in advance, for instance knowing certain information such as the whereabouts of camels, we can safely conclude that these claims are false. On many occasions Muhammad demonstrated precisely the opposite, and proved that he was by no means psychic, let alone prescient, as he failed to discern or to obtain through divine blessings the information he so desired. For instance, when he raided Khaibar, he tortured the treasurer of that town, even to the point of death, just so he could extract from him the information that would lead to the whereabouts of the city?s treasures.  

It is important to understand the character of the Arab peoples. In this particular instance it was the Arabs who exhibited higher moral standards than their prophet. They released the relatives of Juwairiyah after they learned that Muhammad had married her. Muhammed was devoid of common decency, of having or showing even a hint of the virtues reflective of a moral leader.  Without any empathy for those whose misfortune it was to become his victim.  

Muslims claim that Juwairiyah became a very devout believer and would spend all of her days praying. The source of this claim can be found in the book Usud-ul-Ghaba. There the author writes that whenever the Prophet used to come to Juwairiyah he would find her praying, then when he would return at a later time he still found her praying. One day he said to her: ?Shall I tell you few words, if you say them they will be heavier in the scale than what you have done? You say: 'subhaana allahe 'adada khalqihi, subhana allahe ridhaa nafsehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe,subhana allah midadda kalimaatihi.' (Praise Allah as many times as number of his creatures, and as much as pleases him, and as much as the weight of his throne, and as much as the ink for his words).  

One wonders why Muslims spend 5 times a day praying and waste that much man hours unproductively when they have such a simple and unbeatable formula to praise Allah?    

Let us look at this situation from a more realistic perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of a young woman who has just fallen into the lot of a murderer of her husband who also happened to be her cousin!  As relatives, they grew up together. They were more than just husband and wife. They were first playmates, then lovers and  companions for life.  If you were a woman in Juwairiyah?s situation, how would you feel about the killer of your husband and many of your relatives and loved ones? Suppose further you don?t have anywhere to go to. Without any viable options for escape, your only choice would be to surrender as a sex slave to this old man, one who is the king of his people and has plenty of money or to be given away to one of his soldiers. Under whose captivity would you rather be?  I believe the answer is clear. Juwairiah had no choice but to accept Muhammad?s offer to marry her. Now what would any woman do if such an old man as this came to her for sex or company? She probably would devise a survival ploy. That is what Juwairiyah did. Any time she noticed Muhammad is coming, she pretended that she was busy praying, hoping that he would leave her and go to his other wives to satisfy his wretched lust. Yet, as we see, Muhammad was a cunning old man. He soon prescribed a sentence and told her that this ?will be heavier in the scale? than praying all day long, robbing her from excuses to shun him when he desired her.