Muslims claim that Muhammad's second marriage, to Sawda, an elderly and uncomely divorced woman, was purely based on altruistic trait of Muhammad. Is that true? Not at all, if we have to believe Islamic literature...
Introduction: According to Muslims, Muhammad’s marriage to Sauda bint Zam’a, his second wife, was an act of compassion for a woman, who did not possess much beauty and was older in age (some narrations put her age in her fifties). Is this, in fact, what happened regarding this marriage? I investigate this matter in this present article.
What do Muslims say regarding Muhammad’s marriage to Sawda?
Wiki Islam quotes Ibn Kathir:
“Sawda bint Zam’a, may Allah be pleased with her had been the first woman to immigrate to Abyssinia in the way of Allah. Her husband ha died and she was now living with her aged father. She was middle-aged, rather plump, with a jolly, kindly disposition, and just the right person to take care of the Prophet’s household and family. So Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave permission to Khawla to speak to Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and to Sawda on the subject. Khawla went straight to Sawda and said, “Would you like Allah to give you great blessing, Sawda?” Sawda asked, “And what is that, Khawla?” She said, “The Messenger of Allah has sent me to you with a proposal of marriage!” Sawda tried to contain herself in spite of her utter astonishment and then replied in a trembling voice, “I would like that! Go to my father and tell him that.” Khawla went to Zam’a, ad gruff old man, and greeted him and then said, “Muhammad son of Abdullah son of Abdul Muttalib, has sent me to ask for Sawda in marriage.” The old man shouted, “A noble match. What does she say?” Khawla replied, “she would like that.” He told her to call her. When she came, he said, “Sawda, this woman claims that Muhammad son of Abdullah son of Abdul Muttalib has sent me to ask for you in marriage. It is a noble match. Do you want me to marry you to him?” She accepted, feeling it was a great honor. Sawda went to live in Muhammad’s house and immediately took over the care of his daughters and household, while Aisha bint Abu Bakr became betrothed to him and remained in her father’s house playing with her dolls.”
Here, we can read between the lines and see why Muhammad married Sawda. His first wife, Khdija, had just died, and he needed some woman to help take care of the kids, and provide him with meals. Sawda was an easy target. She was a Muslim and an older woman that will have a hard time finding a husband. There was no love involved. Muhammad had no strong sexual desires for her, but being an older woman, he saw that she can take care of his household and children. Sex-wise, she was no more than a “filler”, till he gets a hold of the young child Ayesha.
Wikipedia on-line presents the following quote about Sawda:
“After Sawda’s menopausal, she offered to give her turn of Muhammad’s conjugal visits to the youthful Aisha.”
Is this the truth?
The above quote is actually a blatant lie by a Muslim trying to put Muhammad in good light with regard to Sawda.
Here is my proof from Ibn Kathir:
“Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn 'Abbas said, “Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, `O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to A’ishah.’ And he did, and later on Allah sent down,
﴿وَإِنِ امْرَأَةٌ خَـفَتْ مِن بَعْلِهَا نُشُوزاً أَوْ إِعْرَاضاً فَلاَ جُنَاْحَ عَلَيْهِمَآ﴾
(And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no sin on them both) Ibn Abbas said, “Whatever (legal agreement) the spouses mutually agree to is allowed.” At-Tirmidhi recorded it and said, “Hasan Gharib”. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that A’ishah said that when Sawdah bint Zam`ah became old, she forfeited her day to A’ishah, and the Prophet used to spend Sawdah’s night with A’ishah.
Summary of our findings: Muhammad married Sawda, because he needed some woman to take care of his daughters and cook him meals. Sex-wise, Sawda was only a “filler” till he got a hold of the little girl; Ayesha. When Sawda got old, Muhammad wanted to get rid of her by divorcing her. He just wanted to dispose of her. She was in need of economic support in her old age. So, she pretty much begged him not to divorce her. In return, he had Sawda’s night free for the younger Ayesha.
So, was Muhammad’s marriage to Sawda a great act of altruism? Hardly! Ineed, not at all. As soon as he had his hand on Aisha, he was ready to dump her.
——————————————————————————
Supplementary Hadith about Sawda being a heavy woman in her old age
Malik’s Muwatta’-Book 20, Number 20.40.131:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that Sawda bint Abdullah ibn Umar, who was in the household of Urwa ibn az-Zubayr, set off walking between Safa and Marwa when doing either hajj or an umra. She was a heavy woman and she began when everybody was leaving after the isha prayer, and she still had not completed her circuits when the first call was given for subh, but finished them between the two calls to prayer.
If Urwa saw people doing circuits on riding beasts he would tell them in very strong terms not to do so, and they would pretend to be ill, out of awe of him.
Hisham added, "He used to say to us about them 'These are unsuccessful and have lost.'"
Malik said, "Someone who forgets say between Safa and Marwa in an umra, and does not remember until he is far from Makka, should return and do say. If, in the meantime, he has had intercourse with a woman, he should return and do say between Safa and Marwa so as to complete what remains of that umra, and then after that he has to do another umra and offer a sacrificial animal."
Malik was asked about someone who met another man when doing say between Safa and Marwa and stopped to talk with him, and he said, "I do not like anyone to do that."
Malik said, "If anyone forgets some of his tawaf or is uncertain about it and remembers only when he is doing say between Safa and Marwa, he should stop the say and complete his tawaf of the House apart from that about which he is certain. After that he prays the two rakas of the tawaf, and then begins his say between Safa and Marwa."
Comments (43)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by fineliving56 , September 22, 2010
Something happen yesterday I would never have thought it would ever happen …I was visited by two officers from home land security office and the problem was my frequent visits on islamic web sites for prolonged periods of time that was the implied reason for the visit but the reason presented was anti American post was left on pro islamic site on my computer and it was full of cussing words ……my chock was not what happened …..it was the amount of information that collected about me and my family and all my history since I have leaved here in US………of course I explained of my being ax muslim and the research and the reading I have been doing on my own realign and I showed them all the anti Islamic web sites I have been visiting in my computer to prove the opposite of the officers's charge also I told of the love I feel for America and my posts here proves it …….they understood and they apologized …..I know they might read this post but I feel I have nothing to hide ….I wrote this because I wonted to confirm that the real freedom of speech is gone for ever since 9/11 in US….we are being watched and spied on specially if you have an arabic name to add to the pile ….do not get me wrong …..I am not complaining ...I am glad they are doing their job and I told them so …..too bad they are watching the wrong person .
written by Aloke Kumar Nath , September 23, 2010
Fineliving56,
that is incredible,
at least it shows they are monitoring the situation.
I wonder if they will knock on my door.?
They will be suprised when they read all the doc i have, is there an offence for defaming islam?
just kidding.
I would extend my sincere love to you for leaving islam. May God reward and protect you. I have a middle eastern name my self,
but i think they all know exactly where I stand.
Its good in a way because i am sure radical muslim people also visit the sites,
and some of them leave evil, evil threatening messages.
Daniel Pipe and others get threats almost daily.
Anyways keep typing and expose this draconian evil doctrine.
that is incredible,
at least it shows they are monitoring the situation.
I wonder if they will knock on my door.?
They will be suprised when they read all the doc i have, is there an offence for defaming islam?
just kidding.
I would extend my sincere love to you for leaving islam. May God reward and protect you. I have a middle eastern name my self,
but i think they all know exactly where I stand.
Its good in a way because i am sure radical muslim people also visit the sites,
and some of them leave evil, evil threatening messages.
Daniel Pipe and others get threats almost daily.
Anyways keep typing and expose this draconian evil doctrine.
written by duh_swami , September 23, 2010
Sorry you had to experience that, but it exposes the intimidation and climate of fear that the US gov under Obama is creating...
It's interesting how DHS can find you and all about you, but can't seem to locate the owners of Islamic hate and smear sites...If they show up at my door, they are not welcome, and I will not be nice...
It's interesting how DHS can find you and all about you, but can't seem to locate the owners of Islamic hate and smear sites...If they show up at my door, they are not welcome, and I will not be nice...
written by Reed Wilson , September 23, 2010
Thank you Ibn Kammuna. You are highlighting all the rubbish which Muslims believe.
Your write, “Here is my proof from Ibn Kathir”. Can Ibn Kathir be a proof? Why ibn Kammuna is not a proof then? Ibn Kammuna can refer Ibn Kathir and other hadith reporters. These reporters have not even bothered giving a source of their information.
Neither Kammuna nor hadith people are eye witnesses or belong to the period of Muhammad’s lifetime. Former is after 14 hundred years and latter after 5 hundred after the demise of Muhammad.
Yes I agree that Muslims do claim and believe what you write. On what basis do they believe and claim is a mystery. It is not important for religion. Believing in wives of the messenger and their ages is not a requirement.
What is worth considering is the message of God the humanity received through the messenger? We can freely discuss the demerits and merits of the message.
Your write, “Here is my proof from Ibn Kathir”. Can Ibn Kathir be a proof? Why ibn Kammuna is not a proof then? Ibn Kammuna can refer Ibn Kathir and other hadith reporters. These reporters have not even bothered giving a source of their information.
Neither Kammuna nor hadith people are eye witnesses or belong to the period of Muhammad’s lifetime. Former is after 14 hundred years and latter after 5 hundred after the demise of Muhammad.
Yes I agree that Muslims do claim and believe what you write. On what basis do they believe and claim is a mystery. It is not important for religion. Believing in wives of the messenger and their ages is not a requirement.
What is worth considering is the message of God the humanity received through the messenger? We can freely discuss the demerits and merits of the message.
written by duh_swami , September 23, 2010
What is worth considering is the message of God the humanity received through the messenger? We can freely discuss the demerits and merits of the message.
It has been considered and rejected by sane people...The merits of Islam are few if any, what there are of value could be written on a half a page...The rest of Uthman's work only carries demerits...
It has been considered and rejected by sane people...The merits of Islam are few if any, what there are of value could be written on a half a page...The rest of Uthman's work only carries demerits...
written by Ibn _Kammuna , September 23, 2010
Brother, there is nothing good in Islam or Muhammad. Muhammad was an evil beast. The "good teachings in Islam" are not good because they came from Islam or Muhammad. They are good because they are common sense. Isn't it common sense to take care of your parents, help those who are in need? Do we need a beast like Muhammad to tell us that?
There is nothing good in Islam, None whatsoever.
There is nothing good in Islam, None whatsoever.
written by duh_swami , September 23, 2010
So what is the intended end result of Allah's message to mankind, delivered dribbles at a time by Allah's messenger Gabriel to the human messenger Mohammad...?...Is there a goal in Allah's mind...What is it?
written by duh_swami , September 23, 2010
'There is nothing good in Islam, None whatsoever'.
Your opinion is based on 'a bad tree cannot produce good fruit', which is true enough...My opinion is that religious praying in general is not bad, that devotion to one God is not bad, that helping the poor is not bad...that inner struggle jihad, is not bad...
Religious praying becomes perverted when the prayer, prays for something material for himself, or for god to destroy his enemies and other corruptions...
Devotion to one God becomes perverted when humans try to figure it out, and use it for personal gain. God is one...as soon as humans try to explain it, god becomes many...Allah is just one of the false gods invented by this process...
Inner struggle jihad should occasionally produce a person of higher conscience and spiritual advancement...The reason it does not is it is perverted by perverted prayer and devotion...and the influence of Mohammad and Quran...
Devotion, prayer, inner struggle (meditation), is common in many religions...
These ideas are what would be on the first half page, without the perversions...The rest of the Quran should be discarded...
If Muslims stuck by those three, and discarded the rest of the Quran, we would have no problem with Islam...Of course, they are not going to do that, so the problems continue...
Your opinion is based on 'a bad tree cannot produce good fruit', which is true enough...My opinion is that religious praying in general is not bad, that devotion to one God is not bad, that helping the poor is not bad...that inner struggle jihad, is not bad...
Religious praying becomes perverted when the prayer, prays for something material for himself, or for god to destroy his enemies and other corruptions...
Devotion to one God becomes perverted when humans try to figure it out, and use it for personal gain. God is one...as soon as humans try to explain it, god becomes many...Allah is just one of the false gods invented by this process...
Inner struggle jihad should occasionally produce a person of higher conscience and spiritual advancement...The reason it does not is it is perverted by perverted prayer and devotion...and the influence of Mohammad and Quran...
Devotion, prayer, inner struggle (meditation), is common in many religions...
These ideas are what would be on the first half page, without the perversions...The rest of the Quran should be discarded...
If Muslims stuck by those three, and discarded the rest of the Quran, we would have no problem with Islam...Of course, they are not going to do that, so the problems continue...
written by duh_swami , September 23, 2010
I replied as to why I said that about Islam, but the electronic editor ate it...Maybe it will appear later...
written by proudest kafir , September 23, 2010
Hmm may be,just may be.
As to fine living, surprised to know that you had visitation from hell workers. May be oh bow mama is sending these angels of hell to appease the pisslamists? Good you have left pisslam inspite of knowing that yoiu shall never enter in to a holy(Un) communion with 72 virgins,28 boys and 6 year old girls.You indeed are a good human being inspite of early islamic piss influence.Keep it up
As to fine living, surprised to know that you had visitation from hell workers. May be oh bow mama is sending these angels of hell to appease the pisslamists? Good you have left pisslam inspite of knowing that yoiu shall never enter in to a holy(Un) communion with 72 virgins,28 boys and 6 year old girls.You indeed are a good human being inspite of early islamic piss influence.Keep it up
written by Mirza Ghalib , September 24, 2010
AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE, NOBODY EVER NOTICED.
Thank you Ibn Kammuna for revealing one more face of the multifaceted beast.
We are taught in India that Muhammad married so many widows not for sex, but to gave protection by marrying them. As for as widows are concern, it gives us an image of old women with silver hairs, wrinkles on their faces, aged and also very elderly appearance. So muslims feel so proud of him towards his humanity.
Whereas he was quite opposite to humanity.As soon as the demise of Khadija ( A powerful lady, who kept Muhammad totally under her control) he felt like a freed prisoner. As a first step he want to get rid of his children (Still we are not sure who is the father of those children), and also need somebody to take care of his household, so that he can freely spent his time running behind the young virgins and 6year old children. So the poor Sowda become the first victim of his notorious carrier.
A year back when I read Muhammad’s biography, these things striked me. I felt pity on this unpaid servant Sowda and wished to share this truth to the readers. Thank you for writing this very important article, which reveals one more hidden secret of our “PLAYBOY”, which is usually unnoticed by the common man.
Thank you Ibn Kammuna for revealing one more face of the multifaceted beast.
We are taught in India that Muhammad married so many widows not for sex, but to gave protection by marrying them. As for as widows are concern, it gives us an image of old women with silver hairs, wrinkles on their faces, aged and also very elderly appearance. So muslims feel so proud of him towards his humanity.
Whereas he was quite opposite to humanity.As soon as the demise of Khadija ( A powerful lady, who kept Muhammad totally under her control) he felt like a freed prisoner. As a first step he want to get rid of his children (Still we are not sure who is the father of those children), and also need somebody to take care of his household, so that he can freely spent his time running behind the young virgins and 6year old children. So the poor Sowda become the first victim of his notorious carrier.
A year back when I read Muhammad’s biography, these things striked me. I felt pity on this unpaid servant Sowda and wished to share this truth to the readers. Thank you for writing this very important article, which reveals one more hidden secret of our “PLAYBOY”, which is usually unnoticed by the common man.
written by Machmoed , September 24, 2010
You wrote: A year back when I read Muhammad’s biography, these things striked me.
It would strike any sane individual. That brings us to the conclusion that muslims who read this and still believe or call themselfes muslims are not sane. They are insane (arabic: inasi kameel should be insane camel)
It would strike any sane individual. That brings us to the conclusion that muslims who read this and still believe or call themselfes muslims are not sane. They are insane (arabic: inasi kameel should be insane camel)
written by Reed Wilson , September 24, 2010
To duh-swami, you write, "So what is the intended end result of Allah's message to mankind, delivered dribbles at a time by Allah's messenger Gabriel to the human messenger Mohammad...?...Is there a goal in Allah's mind...What is it?
Quran replies:
"And this, too, is a divine writ which We have bestowed from on high, a blessed one: follow it, then, and be conscious of God, so that you might be graced with His mercy". (6:155)
"BEHOLD, from on high have We bestowed upon thee this divine writ, setting forth the truth for [the benefit of all] mankind. And whoever chooses to be guided thereby, does so for his own good, and whoever chooses to go astray, goes but astray to his own hurt; and thou hast not the power to determine their fate". (39:41)
"VERILY, this Qur'an shows the way to all that is most upright, and gives the believers who do good deeds the glad tiding that theirs will be a great reward; and [it announces, too,] that We have readied grievous suffering for those who will not believe in the life to come".(17:9-10)
"O MEN! We have now bestowed upon you from on high a divine writ containing all that you ought to bear in mind will you not, then, use your reason? (21:10)
Hence, indeed, We made this Qur’an easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart? (54:17)
"THIS IS A MESSAGE unto all mankind. Hence, let them be warned thereby, and let them know that He is the One and Only God; and let those who are endowed with insight take this to heart!" (14:52)
Quran replies:
"And this, too, is a divine writ which We have bestowed from on high, a blessed one: follow it, then, and be conscious of God, so that you might be graced with His mercy". (6:155)
"BEHOLD, from on high have We bestowed upon thee this divine writ, setting forth the truth for [the benefit of all] mankind. And whoever chooses to be guided thereby, does so for his own good, and whoever chooses to go astray, goes but astray to his own hurt; and thou hast not the power to determine their fate". (39:41)
"VERILY, this Qur'an shows the way to all that is most upright, and gives the believers who do good deeds the glad tiding that theirs will be a great reward; and [it announces, too,] that We have readied grievous suffering for those who will not believe in the life to come".(17:9-10)
"O MEN! We have now bestowed upon you from on high a divine writ containing all that you ought to bear in mind will you not, then, use your reason? (21:10)
Hence, indeed, We made this Qur’an easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart? (54:17)
"THIS IS A MESSAGE unto all mankind. Hence, let them be warned thereby, and let them know that He is the One and Only God; and let those who are endowed with insight take this to heart!" (14:52)
written by Reed Wilson , September 24, 2010
To Ibn _Kammuna
'There is nothing good in Islam, None whatsoever'.
What is your mechanism to know that? Adith, Tareekh Tabri, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Kathir etc. Time and again it has been established on this site that these so called sources are not reliable.
Ibn Kathir is so voluminous. After reading all that, in the end he writes that he was not sure what he was writing is truth. What a big joke!! I salute the wits of Ibn Kathir and lament on the people who refer him and believe him.
'There is nothing good in Islam, None whatsoever'.
What is your mechanism to know that? Adith, Tareekh Tabri, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Kathir etc. Time and again it has been established on this site that these so called sources are not reliable.
Ibn Kathir is so voluminous. After reading all that, in the end he writes that he was not sure what he was writing is truth. What a big joke!! I salute the wits of Ibn Kathir and lament on the people who refer him and believe him.
written by Reed Wilson , September 24, 2010
To Machmoed. Your "It would strike any sane individual. That brings us to the conclusion that muslims who read this and still believe or call themselves muslims are not sane. They are insane (arabic: inasi kameel should be insane camel)".
There I agree with you and have been saying time and again. This is all trash that they are believing. Not only believing they are proud of all that. They are voilent if you contradict.
They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.
There I agree with you and have been saying time and again. This is all trash that they are believing. Not only believing they are proud of all that. They are voilent if you contradict.
They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.
written by Reed Wilson , September 24, 2010
To Machmoed. Your "It would strike any sane individual. That brings us to the conclusion that muslims who read this and still believe or call themselves muslims are not sane. They are insane (arabic: inasi kameel should be insane camel)".
There I agree with you and have been saying time and again. This is all trash that they are believing. Not only believing they are proud of all that. They are voilent if you contradict.
They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.
There I agree with you and have been saying time and again. This is all trash that they are believing. Not only believing they are proud of all that. They are voilent if you contradict.
They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.
written by Reed Wilson , September 24, 2010
Love story is a sacred thing. We dont like to see loving others, become jealous. become villians and write scholarly articles against love of others.
This is our instinct. I am student of behavorial science and can not explain much.
This is our instinct. I am student of behavorial science and can not explain much.
written by lw1 , September 24, 2010
'They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.' Your previous sentence was -- 'They are voilent (violent) if you contradict.' Do you believe that all the Muslims(most of them disqualified by you) and non-muslims who have violence directed against them resulting in different injuries and even death feel that nothing bad is being done to them?
written by fineliving56 , September 24, 2010
Ha Ha …..you say …I shall never see the inside of Janna and it's 72 virgins and 28 pearly boys …..as a woman I have no interests in neither of them I wonder what Allha has in store for us women ….oh yaa ...I remember ,in Janna we still have to be wives to our husbands in the same time THEY GO OFF HAVING ALL KIND OF FUN WITH 72 VIRGINS ..[if you call it fun ] NOW THAT IS NOT FAIR …well…we are talking about Allah after all
written by leigh , September 24, 2010
finelivings- well its Mohammad's idea of heaven so of course the houris(not numbered) appear in the quran- "Allah" seems obsessed with them is he not?)- such a fine message from Allah- rampant fornication in heaven(well for men at least) and the betrayal of marriage that Jesus taught- one man and one woman..
written by proudest kafir , September 24, 2010
Sorry my mistake.You are an ex muslimah.Since you have left the message of pimp allah in the gutter , where it rightfully belongs, I bless you with company of a dozen incredible,smart, handsome,intelligent,caring hunks! Enjoy the life and be a free bird!
written by fineliving56 , September 25, 2010
lol…..thanks for the advise …but the ship has sailed
written by Archpagan , September 25, 2010
Islam got respectability in India through utter falsehood. In the History books taught in Government sponsored schools, only Khadija Bibi is mentioned as Muhammad's wife, as if he had no other wife. According to idiotic writers of such history, Islam rapidly spread in Asia because it is very simple to practice and there is no role of priestly class in it. If praying five times a day is simple, what is complex then? If there is no role of priestly class in Islam, who are the Maulavis and Imams? Now, I feel like kicking the rascal whose History book I used to mug.
written by Reed Wilson , September 25, 2010
To Archpagan. “Islam got respectability in India through utter falsehood”. India is an ancient civilization. It is difficult to agree that utter falsehood can be believed there. Is this your assessment about your elders?
Muhammad had more than one wife according to Quran. It is not significant to know the number, the ages etc.
Maulavis and Imams are clever people. They create vacancy. It is done in all the religions
Muhammad had more than one wife according to Quran. It is not significant to know the number, the ages etc.
Maulavis and Imams are clever people. They create vacancy. It is done in all the religions
written by Reed Wilson , September 25, 2010
Thanks Machmoed. I don’t find any internal evidence that my Bible contains the Gospel (Injeel) as New Testament because:
1.There are four Gospels and twenty three other chapters in NT.
2.Luke begins with saying that many have taken to draw up account.., meaning to say that there could be more than four Gospels.
3.Mark says quoting Jesus Christ is saying: “For whoever wants to save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it”.(8:35)
4.Mark10:29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
What is this gospel mentioned at 3 and 4, the gospel of Mark or combination of all gospels?
On 14th this month I posted on other thread(Magistic Allah5) and requested Clement to help me. He did not help so far.
written by leigh , September 25, 2010
10.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
So 4 "gospels" (actually books- gospel is greek for good news, not book) in the Bible before at and after Mohammad's time) and allah tells Muslims to ask Christians whats in them!
Questions for allah- did you know there were 4 books in the New Testament about Jesus at the time of Mohammad-? Why do some of your followers say the "gospel" is one book and it was lost when you should have known- as a deity of even some knowledge, that "gospel" is not a book but a phrased summary of the import of those particular books of the Bible, Matthew Mark Luke and John? Assuming you had the opinion there was only one book about Jesus (there was the New Testament!) you didnt name the book "in your own book. Either you assumed it was known to Mohammad at the time or worse you didn't know the name of the (allegedly) one book about Jesus in the New Testament. If the former why didnt your followers name/identify that("single") book in any original Islamic writings of the time? Since Muslims are fond of quoting from John 14 I assume John is the gospel allah was referring to? Do your Muslim followers believe that? If you could speak/ read Greek(personally I think you could only speak /read a form of Arabic, odd when many of " your creation" can read/write/speak more than one language...) would you have written 10:94 allah?
For those of your followers who blindly hold to the one book theory about Jesus I think you should confess to them that you couldn't preserve the (alleged)single book about Jesus-so 10:64 is an empty boast... not a competent deity really are you? Of course allah, if there is one "book" about Jesus it is the New Testament! Did you mean that?
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
So 4 "gospels" (actually books- gospel is greek for good news, not book) in the Bible before at and after Mohammad's time) and allah tells Muslims to ask Christians whats in them!
Questions for allah- did you know there were 4 books in the New Testament about Jesus at the time of Mohammad-? Why do some of your followers say the "gospel" is one book and it was lost when you should have known- as a deity of even some knowledge, that "gospel" is not a book but a phrased summary of the import of those particular books of the Bible, Matthew Mark Luke and John? Assuming you had the opinion there was only one book about Jesus (there was the New Testament!) you didnt name the book "in your own book. Either you assumed it was known to Mohammad at the time or worse you didn't know the name of the (allegedly) one book about Jesus in the New Testament. If the former why didnt your followers name/identify that("single") book in any original Islamic writings of the time? Since Muslims are fond of quoting from John 14 I assume John is the gospel allah was referring to? Do your Muslim followers believe that? If you could speak/ read Greek(personally I think you could only speak /read a form of Arabic, odd when many of " your creation" can read/write/speak more than one language...) would you have written 10:94 allah?
For those of your followers who blindly hold to the one book theory about Jesus I think you should confess to them that you couldn't preserve the (alleged)single book about Jesus-so 10:64 is an empty boast... not a competent deity really are you? Of course allah, if there is one "book" about Jesus it is the New Testament! Did you mean that?
written by duh_swami , September 26, 2010
These comparisons of Islam and Christianity and the focus on Jesus, is boring...This site is not about Jesus...ISLAM-watch...Not Jesus watch...The Bible and Jesus have nothing to do with the Quran or Islam, except by theft...Does the Quran ever mention Jesus by name? Three times...2:87...2:136...and 2:53...
The last one is interesting...
2:53...Yusuf Ali Those apostles We endowed with gifts, some above others: To one of them God spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honour); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If God had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, after clear (Signs) had come to them, but they (chose) to wrangle, some believing and others rejecting. If God had so willed, they would not have fought each other; but God Fulfilleth His plan.
What is the 'holy spirit'? Who are the 'WE' that strengthened him with it?
Since 'The Holy Spirit', is decidedly Christian, is Allah quoting the Bible?
When certain religious people get strengthened by the 'Holy Spirit', they talk in tongues and roll on the floor...Did Jesus do that? No, but Mohammad did...
Maybe Reed can enlighten me about these questions...
The last one is interesting...
2:53...Yusuf Ali Those apostles We endowed with gifts, some above others: To one of them God spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honour); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If God had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, after clear (Signs) had come to them, but they (chose) to wrangle, some believing and others rejecting. If God had so willed, they would not have fought each other; but God Fulfilleth His plan.
What is the 'holy spirit'? Who are the 'WE' that strengthened him with it?
Since 'The Holy Spirit', is decidedly Christian, is Allah quoting the Bible?
When certain religious people get strengthened by the 'Holy Spirit', they talk in tongues and roll on the floor...Did Jesus do that? No, but Mohammad did...
Maybe Reed can enlighten me about these questions...
written by Reed Wilson , September 26, 2010
Thank you 'leigh' for discussing my post at good deal. I am afraid my curiosity is not answered. It is rather misunderstood.
I want to confirm which gospel was referred in Mark. I in no way I want to undermine Bible or New Testament or Old Testament. Quran says people of Injeel should follow Injeel. To me, it does require some enquiry.
I want to confirm which gospel was referred in Mark. I in no way I want to undermine Bible or New Testament or Old Testament. Quran says people of Injeel should follow Injeel. To me, it does require some enquiry.
written by Reed Wilson , September 26, 2010
To duh-swami. You misunderstood me. I am not the one who compares religions or faiths. I keep on repeating that the message of God is one and it should be only one which was deliered by all the messeengers of God..
As for 'We' is concerned, it wrong translation or regal pleural. I think 'I' should be used instead of 'We'.
Yes, the Holy Spirit, is decidedly Christian. English translators have borrowed this from Bible. In Quran it is ruhul qudus, which means Gabrael.
Sorry swami, I cannot 'enlighten' you any more.
As for 'We' is concerned, it wrong translation or regal pleural. I think 'I' should be used instead of 'We'.
Yes, the Holy Spirit, is decidedly Christian. English translators have borrowed this from Bible. In Quran it is ruhul qudus, which means Gabrael.
Sorry swami, I cannot 'enlighten' you any more.
written by Reed Wilson , September 26, 2010
To IW1. You write "Do you believe that all the Muslims(most of them disqualified by you) and non-muslims who have violence directed against them resulting in different injuries and even death feel that nothing bad is being done to them?
I will condemn that.
I will condemn that.
written by duh_swami , September 26, 2010
Reed...I keep on repeating that the message of God is one and it should be only one which was deliered by all the messeengers of God..
And others and myself keep repeating that you are wrong...but it really is a useless endeavor...In psychiatry, there is this diagnosis of 'fixed' delusions'...
There is nothing anyone can say or do that will convince the so afflicted, that the FBI/CIA or the devil, are not after him...or many other kinds of fixed delusions...Many of these delusions are of religious nature...Once a believer thinks they have God and the universe figured out, or they totally accept what a book says, their delusions become fixed in cement...This is Reed Wilson...
Completely cemented in, and unreachable without a sledge hammer...
But he should not feel alone in that, it's an individual thing of human nature, many people are afflicted like that, and they are not all Muslims...
Reasoning with 'some' Christians is sweat producing...Since Christianity has no sharia law to keep everyone marching in a straight line, the number of Christians
who are stuck in cement is lower than in Islam, where 100% are stuck...
Reed is just stuck a little tighter than most...
And others and myself keep repeating that you are wrong...but it really is a useless endeavor...In psychiatry, there is this diagnosis of 'fixed' delusions'...
There is nothing anyone can say or do that will convince the so afflicted, that the FBI/CIA or the devil, are not after him...or many other kinds of fixed delusions...Many of these delusions are of religious nature...Once a believer thinks they have God and the universe figured out, or they totally accept what a book says, their delusions become fixed in cement...This is Reed Wilson...
Completely cemented in, and unreachable without a sledge hammer...
But he should not feel alone in that, it's an individual thing of human nature, many people are afflicted like that, and they are not all Muslims...
Reasoning with 'some' Christians is sweat producing...Since Christianity has no sharia law to keep everyone marching in a straight line, the number of Christians
who are stuck in cement is lower than in Islam, where 100% are stuck...
Reed is just stuck a little tighter than most...
written by Reed Wilson , September 26, 2010
To duh swami. I wrote " I keep on repeating.. just to defend myself. I do not compare religions and give verdict that such and such religion is better.
'In psychiatry, there is this diagnosis of 'fixed' delusions'...
What is to be done with such cases?
'In psychiatry, there is this diagnosis of 'fixed' delusions'...
What is to be done with such cases?
written by duh_swami , September 26, 2010
What is to be done with such cases?
If the fixation is with Islam, chemical restraints...drugs...and physical restraints...strapped down to the bed...That won't get rid of the fixations, but it keeps the fixated from hurting themselves or others...Art therapy (finger painting) seems to have a positive effect...The Saudi's use it in their terrorist rehab centers...The main thing is to never let the fixated read the Quran...especially after dark...it has a tendency to cause them to have a psychotic break...
If the fixation is with Islam, chemical restraints...drugs...and physical restraints...strapped down to the bed...That won't get rid of the fixations, but it keeps the fixated from hurting themselves or others...Art therapy (finger painting) seems to have a positive effect...The Saudi's use it in their terrorist rehab centers...The main thing is to never let the fixated read the Quran...especially after dark...it has a tendency to cause them to have a psychotic break...
written by Machmoed , September 28, 2010
Views of Buddha:
1. If God is the maker of all living things, then they all should have to submit to His power silently. They have to be like the vessels produced by the potter, without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can they all practice virtue?
2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no such thing as sorrow or calamity or evil, for all the pure and impure deeds must come from Him.
3. If that is not the case then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.
4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.
5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?
6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.
7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.
According to Einstein:--
"If this being (God) is omnipolent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an Almighty Being?
"In giving out punishments and rewards, He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?"
1. If God is the maker of all living things, then they all should have to submit to His power silently. They have to be like the vessels produced by the potter, without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can they all practice virtue?
2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no such thing as sorrow or calamity or evil, for all the pure and impure deeds must come from Him.
3. If that is not the case then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.
4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.
5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?
6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.
7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.
According to Einstein:--
"If this being (God) is omnipolent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an Almighty Being?
"In giving out punishments and rewards, He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to him?"
written by duh_swami , September 28, 2010
I'm more of a Buddhist than I thought...
#4. is similar to the I AM THAT I AM of the Bible...Pure existence...Pure existence does nothing but everything is potential in it...Like an ocean at rest, glass smooth, still, an ocean of possibilities waiting for the 'spirit to move across the waters' and create waves...Each wave is it's own event but it is connected to all other waves/events, this is 'I AM'...An event rises out of the ocean, peaks and returns...Pure existence experiences itself by means of I AM...
This 'spirit' or wind, is called 'God' by religious people...What it really is, no one knows, and all explanations fall a little short...
None of this explains human behavior, like physics, it is neither moral or immoral...
God is not 'moral'...It is not up to 'God' to bestow morality on humans...It is up to humans to bestow morality on God...Islam totally fails in this respect...
#4. is similar to the I AM THAT I AM of the Bible...Pure existence...Pure existence does nothing but everything is potential in it...Like an ocean at rest, glass smooth, still, an ocean of possibilities waiting for the 'spirit to move across the waters' and create waves...Each wave is it's own event but it is connected to all other waves/events, this is 'I AM'...An event rises out of the ocean, peaks and returns...Pure existence experiences itself by means of I AM...
This 'spirit' or wind, is called 'God' by religious people...What it really is, no one knows, and all explanations fall a little short...
None of this explains human behavior, like physics, it is neither moral or immoral...
God is not 'moral'...It is not up to 'God' to bestow morality on humans...It is up to humans to bestow morality on God...Islam totally fails in this respect...
written by lw1 , September 28, 2010
In your reply entitled 'Violence' you quoted only part of what I wrote. I wrote, quoting you -- 'They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.' - which you did not write, so you did not have to answer it. I had continued 'Your previous sentense was -- 'They are voilent(violent) if you contradict.' Do you believe that all Muslims (most of them disqualified by you) and non-muslims who have violence directed against them resulting in different injuries and even death feel that nothing bad is being done to them?'
You end with 'I will condemn that.' Why don't you condemn it now rather than sometime in future?
But the more important point is you gave only partial quote and left out the sentense 'They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.' Leaving out the above sentence is misleading because it contradicts my rhetorical question 'Do you believe that all the Muslims (most of them disqualified by you) and non-muslims who have violence directed against them resulting in different injuries and even death feel that nothing bad is being done to them?' I condemn that NOW.
You end with 'I will condemn that.' Why don't you condemn it now rather than sometime in future?
But the more important point is you gave only partial quote and left out the sentense 'They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.' Leaving out the above sentence is misleading because it contradicts my rhetorical question 'Do you believe that all the Muslims (most of them disqualified by you) and non-muslims who have violence directed against them resulting in different injuries and even death feel that nothing bad is being done to them?' I condemn that NOW.
written by Reed Wilson , September 29, 2010
To IW1. I condemn violence. Violence in its all manifestations is condemnable.
By "I will condemn it" I mean "I condemn that Now". I condemn that Now with all vehemence at my disposal.
By "I will condemn it" I mean "I condemn that Now". I condemn that Now with all vehemence at my disposal.
written by lw1 , September 29, 2010
By giving only partial answer you are still misleading. Your quote 'They are not doing bad to anybody other than themselves.' -- referring to violence by Muslims(even if you disqualify most of them as being Muslim).That statement is not true and you don't want to accept that and have not answered that.
Thank you for accepting that when you say 'I will condemn it' ,it was a mistake and you really meant 'I condemn that NOW.'
Thank you for accepting that when you say 'I will condemn it' ,it was a mistake and you really meant 'I condemn that NOW.'
written by proudest kafir , September 29, 2010
by force (islam) or fraud (christianity) will only bring in a cretain number of reluctant customers in to the fold.Over a period of time these neo converts realise the futility of joining these clubs with diminishing returns.bThen the problem starts.Its happening in India and in many places in the west they are debaptising the children. I am quite aware of many bible thumpers here and hope have not hurt their fragile sentis.
written by Machmoed , September 29, 2010
You wrote: As for 'We' is concerned, it wrong translation or regal pleural. I think 'I' should be used instead of 'We'.
We is used by kings and queens in the past and some still do it and it's a majestic title. Nahnu is the arabic word and it's we in englisch. No mistranlation there. Like in Nahnu naqussu aleika ahsana alqasasi....etc wich means: We show/give you the best of stories/examples etc.
We is used by kings and queens in the past and some still do it and it's a majestic title. Nahnu is the arabic word and it's we in englisch. No mistranlation there. Like in Nahnu naqussu aleika ahsana alqasasi....etc wich means: We show/give you the best of stories/examples etc.
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
Mohammed was an ego centrical mad man.