FUNDAMENTAL ABSURDITY OF ISLAM
ZETA
Basic postulate:
Koran requires that Muslims should believe and obey Muhammad
As one should believe and obey Allah.
This is the basic absurdity of Islam, as requires that Muhammad who
engaged
In WAR MONGERING and ROBBERY, MURDER, WOMANISING
and PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR,
Should be believed and obeyed on an equal footing with Allah.
WOMANISING:
Primary list of wives and concubines 13.
Secondary list marraiges which did not last: 16
Third list of women Muhammad considered marrying: 7
Koran also at one point forbids Muhammad from taking more wives.
But this did not alter his behavior. He also married the wife of his
adopted son.
Sources:
Ibn Sa'd: Tabaqat
Tabari : ta'rikh ar-Rusul wa 'l-Muluk
WARMONGERING :
Koran allows Muhammad to take a part of the booty from his many
Raids and wars. The first raid conducted by Muhammad was at Naklah.
It took place when all hostilities was strictly forbidden because of
the sacred
Month. This is the first Muslim raid.
Muhammad conducted more than 70 raids and wars in a period
Of 20 years.
References:
Al-Waqidi: Kitab al-Maghazi.
MURDER:
Muhammad bears the responsibility for the murder of:
Asma bint Marwan
Abu Afak
Ka'b b. al-Ashraf.
Muhammad has also advocated the murder of apostates, and dogs.
PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR:
Muhammad is known to have married Aisha when she was 6, and
Consummated the marriage when she was 9. Muhammad used to play with
Aisha
And her dolls, and her child friends. In following Muhammad's behavior
In present day Iran a girl of 9 can be legally be married. The basic
data is
Confirmed by the following references in the public domain.
References:
Prof Nabia Abbott (Turkish muslim): Aisha the Beloved of Muhammad
Prof Magali Morsy (Moroccan muslim): Wives of the Prophet
W M Watt: Encyclopedia of Islam.
H U Rahman: A Chronology of Islamic History.
Bukhari (Hadith collection).
Muslim (Hadith collection).
ZETA
Laurence Evans
The below evil distortion of the Truth will be deleted by anybody who
reads the Quraan with understanding.
http://members.nbci.com/ecotao/theism/index.html
Hamid AzizPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net
ZETA <p60...@teini.com> wrote in message
news:3b0592de...@news1.telia.com...
> FUNDAMENTAL ABSURDITY OF ISLAM
>
> Basic postulate:
> Koran requires that Muslims should believe and obey Muhammad
> As one should believe and obey Allah.
Comment
Muhammad (saw) is obeyed only in so far as he is a messenger of Allah.
This is not difficult to understand.
If a policeman or judge tells you not to steal you obey him because he
represents the Law.
Jews are required to obey Moses and OT. Christians are required to obey
Jesus and the NT.
> This is the basic absurdity of Islam, as requires that Muhammad who
> engaged In WAR MONGERING and ROBBERY, MURDER, WOMANISING
> and PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR,
> Should be believed and obeyed on an equal footing with Allah.
Comment:-
This is your own interpretation.
Many like you who have read the OT made similar remarks about the
Prophet in that book.
>
> WOMANISING:
Comment:-
Your own sick mind again
Marriage, even polygamous ones have never been regarded as evil.
> WARMONGERING :
Comment:-
The Wars were in self-defence of Islam.
It is estimated that fewer people were killed in the campaigns conducted
by
the Prophet than would have been killed in the feuds between Arabs
before
Arabia was united by him.
> MURDER:
Murder refers to killing someone for personal gain.
The Prophet gained nothing. He died without possessions.
> PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR:
> Muhammad is known to have married Aisha when she was 6, and
> Consummated the marriage when she was 9.
Comment:-
Speculation.
In fact he was 13 and 16.
Hostile allegations were made against other Prophets by the prejudiced.
Jesus, for instance, was alleged to have been a homosexual, or a
frequenter of postitutes or a drug taker and so on.
People see what they like and find convenient or find in themselves.
Some people study the Quran and concentrate their mind on the moral and
spiritual
teachings and others like Zeta look for things which they twist and use
as weapons to attack.
Which of these is a better person and benefitting?
ZETA
>
>ZETA <p60...@teini.com> wrote in message
>news:3b0592de...@news1.telia.com...
>> FUNDAMENTAL ABSURDITY OF ISLAM
>>
>> Basic postulate:
>> Koran requires that Muslims should believe and obey Muhammad
>> As one should believe and obey Allah.
>
>Comment
>Muhammad (saw) is obeyed only in so far as he is a messenger of Allah.
>This is not difficult to understand.
Then you are braindead. Statement is: Koran requires Muslims to
obey and believe Allah and Muhammad, on an equal footing. That is
believe a murderer, warmonger, womaniser and a pedophile on an equal
footing with Allah.
>If a policeman or judge tells you not to steal you obey him because he
>represents the Law.
>Jews are required to obey Moses and OT. Christians are required to obey
>Jesus and the NT.
>
>> This is the basic absurdity of Islam, as requires that Muhammad who
>> engaged In WAR MONGERING and ROBBERY, MURDER, WOMANISING
>> and PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR,
>> Should be believed and obeyed on an equal footing with Allah.
>
>Comment:-
>This is your own interpretation.
>Many like you who have read the OT made similar remarks about the
>Prophet in that book.
Basic data are confirmed by the references cited. We are not talking
of OT. Keep that out.
>>
>> WOMANISING:
>
>Comment:-
>Your own sick mind again
>Marriage, even polygamous ones have never been regarded as evil.
Koran strictly admonishes Muhammad's womanising, but to no avail.
>> WARMONGERING :
>
>Comment:-
>The Wars were in self-defence of Islam.
>It is estimated that fewer people were killed in the campaigns conducted
>by
>the Prophet than would have been killed in the feuds between Arabs
>before
>Arabia was united by him.
Most of the wars and raids were "offensive". The gains of the loot
have been formally proportioned in the Koran. The first raid, at
Nakhlah, was an act of pure "terrorism", as he knowingly conducted it
when all hostilities were strictly forbidden according to prevailing
norms.
>> MURDER:
>Murder refers to killing someone for personal gain.
>The Prophet gained nothing. He died without possessions.
Makes you a braindead dumbhead. Murder can also be committed out of
rage, or out of being criticised, etc.
>
>> PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR:
>> Muhammad is known to have married Aisha when she was 6, and
>> Consummated the marriage when she was 9.
>
>Comment:-
>Speculation.
>In fact he was 13 and 16.
6 and 9 are the proper ages. The references cited support it.
<text on Jesus etc deleted, as not relevant here>
>People see what they like and find convenient or find in themselves.
>Some people study the Quran and concentrate their mind on the moral and
>spiritual
>teachings and others like Zeta look for things which they twist and use
>as weapons to attack.
>Which of these is a better person and benefitting?
Obviously dizzily dishonest Aziz has not gained much moral or ethical
values from the Koran. And, as the point was made Muhammad did not
gain much morally or ethically from the message of the Koran.
Womanising, warmongering, murder and pedophilic behavior is a
characristic of "garbage" of mankind.
ZETA
1MAN4ALL
would be ashamed of sending such a post. I think your intention is only to
insult our Prophet with your rather ridiculous accusations. According to
Montgomery Watt, "Of all the world's great men none has been so much
maligned as Muhammad." I think the reason for that is that non-Muslims see
the growth of Islam as a threat to the survival of their own false belief
systems. They cannot attack the message so they attack the messenger. It
is simple as that.
ZETA wrote:
> FUNDAMENTAL ABSURDITY OF ISLAM
>
> Basic postulate:
>
> Koran requires that Muslims should believe and obey Muhammad
> As one should believe and obey Allah.
A Muslim is required to obey the Prophet when his instructions are
relevant to the practice of religion, and not necessarily with mundane
things.
> This is the basic absurdity of Islam, as requires that Muhammad who
> engaged
> In WAR MONGERING and ROBBERY, MURDER, WOMANISING
> and PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR,
> Should be believed and obeyed on an equal footing with Allah.
Stupid accusations which have long been disproved. The Prophet (s.a.w)
said that words of Allah would always supersede his words.
>
> WOMANISING:
> Primary list of wives and concubines 13.
> Secondary list marraiges which did not last: 16
> Third list of women Muhammad considered marrying: 7
> Koran also at one point forbids Muhammad from taking more wives.
> But this did not alter his behavior. He also married the wife of his
> adopted son.
> Sources:
> Ibn Sa'd: Tabaqat
> Tabari : ta'rikh ar-Rusul wa 'l-Muluk
As far as I know, and as reported in the hadith, Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w)
had only eleven wives. There is some disagreement about the actual number,
ranging from eleven to thirteen. Your other statements are not true and
there is no book worthy of mention that would agree with your assessment.
Until he was nearly 50 years old, Prophet Muhammad had only one wife,
Khadija. After her death, he did not have a single wife for three years.
So, if he truly was a womanizer, he could have married as many women as he
liked when he was young or immediately after his wife's death, but he
didn't. Later, all the women that he married were either divorced women or
widows, whom he married either to help them or to establish family
relations with other tribes, for the sake of unity.
>
> WARMONGERING :
> Koran allows Muhammad to take a part of the booty from his many
> Raids and wars. The first raid conducted by Muhammad was at Naklah.
> It took place when all hostilities was strictly forbidden because of
> the sacred
> Month. This is the first Muslim raid.
>
> Muhammad conducted more than 70 raids and wars in a period
> Of 20 years.
>
> References:
> Al-Waqidi: Kitab al-Maghazi.
Al-Waqidi was a writer in Caliph Haroon Rashid's time and is not a good
source because he was accused of unreliability even in his own lifetime.
His book, Kitab al-Maghazi, is about different expeditions that the
Prophet Muhammad took. "Maghazi" means not only raids but also campaigns
or expeditions. Many of the raids that Muslims made were to keep an
economic blockade of the chiefs of Mecca, who had no spared no effort to
persecute and crush the Muslims, and also to defend themselves. How is
this any different than the United States attacking Iraq, almost on a
daily basis, to maintain the no-fly zone and to monitor sanctions?
Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) led his troops in only 28 battles in the eight
years after migration to Medina. There was actual fighting on only nine
such occasions. In all these battles, only 1,014 men were killed, 255
Muslims and 759 of enemy troops. The number of prisoners were 6,564, of
whom all except for two who had committed crimes, all were released.
Before the Muslims migrated to Medina, the Muslims were persecuted for 13
years in Mecca, simply for practicing their beliefs. It was never their
intention to pick up fights with the Meccan chiefs who started
provocation. Furthermore, the intent was never for material gains. As the
Quran made it very clear, "And fight in the way of God with those who
fight against you but do not commit aggression because God does not like
aggression" (Quran 2:190). And it says, "Permission (to fight) has been
granted to those against whom war has been waged because they have been
treated unjustly--these are the people who have been expelled, unjustly
from their homes only because they said, "Our Lord is God," (Quran 22:39).
Muslims also fought those who had broken the treaties that they had made
with the Muslims.
>
>
> MURDER:
> Muhammad bears the responsibility for the murder of:
> Asma bint Marwan
> Abu Afak
> Ka'b b. al-Ashraf.
> Muhammad has also advocated the murder of apostates, and dogs.
That is a total lie. Prophet Muhammad did not kill these people nor he
abetted these crimes. Asma Bint Marwan was killed by a blind Muslim Umair
bin Auf who was closely related to Asma. In fact, after he killed her,
people were very surprised that a blind man could commit murder. When
Umair came to see the Prophet (s.a.w), he asked him if he had killed Asma
to which Umair confessed. The Prophet also knew all the hateful things
that had been written about him by Asma; however, he was saddened to hear
that Asma had been killed. He, nevertheless, was unable to do anything
about it because, at that time, according to the pact of Medina, a person
could only be punished by his own tribal chiefs when the murderer and the
victim belonged to the same tribe, the punishment could only be given by
the tribal elders. Abu Akaf was also killed by a member of his own tribe
whose name has been given as Salim bin Umair. Ka'ab bin Asharaf was killed
by Abu Naila, and again the murdered and the murderer belonged to the same
tribe. Even if Prophet Muhammad wanted to punish these criminals, he had
no power to do so because of special treaties that made each tribe
autonomous.
Killing of Apostates: Islam does not sanction killing of the apostates. In
the Quran, an apostate is threatened with punishment in the afterlife
only. In the Hadith, Bukhari's books have two chapters on this issue and
just the headings speak volumes about the other circumstances that must be
present for an apostate to be punished. The first book is called, Kitab al
muharibin min ahl al-kufr wal ridda (the book of those who fight against
the Muslims from among the unbelievers and the apostates). The second one
is called Kitab istitbat al mu'anideen wal murtaddin wa qitali him (the
Book of calling to repentance of the enemies and the apostates and
fighting with them.) In the first book, permission is given to fight the
apostates who are fighting with the Muslims. The second book deals with
those apostates who have joined ranks with the enemies and are therefore
treated as such. There is no reliable tradition which says that apostates
must be put to death or were put to death at the time of Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w) for simply renouncing his religion. On the contrary, there is a
tradition in which an Arab of the desert came to the Prophet, embraced
Islam and on the second day fever overtook him. Thinking that that his
sickness was the result of his embracing Islam, he came three times to ask
the Prophet (s.a.w) to take back his pledge. The Prophet (s.a.w) refused
each time, so he went away. But he was not harmed (Bukhari 94:47). In
another tradition, a Christian became a Muslim, apostatized and then
converted back to Christianity. He too was not killed (Bukhari 61:25).
Killing of Dogs:Contrary to non-Muslim biased opinion, Prophet Muhammad
did not hate dogs. Montgomery Watt has reported a tradition in which he
has stated, "His [Prophet Muhammad's] kindness extended even to animals,
which is remarkable for Muhammad's century and part of the world. As his
men marched towards Mecca just before the conquest they passed a bitch
with puppies; and Muhammad not merely gave orders that they were not to be
disturbed, but posted a man to see that the orders were carried out." In
another tradition, Prophet Muhammad stated, "A prostitute was forgiven by
Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the
dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with
her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her
because of that (Bukhari 4.054.538)."
>
> PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR:
I have already refuted this false allegation to which you had no answer.
So, by repeating these charges you are doing what other Hindu trolls do in
this newsgroup: engaging in relentless mud slinging hoping some of it
would cling, but it never does.
>
> References:
> Prof Nabia Abbott (Turkish muslim): Aisha the Beloved of Muhammad
> Prof Magali Morsy (Moroccan muslim): Wives of the Prophet
> W M Watt: Encyclopedia of Islam.
> H U Rahman: A Chronology of Islamic History.
> Bukhari (Hadith collection).
> Muslim (Hadith collection).
Even a ten year old would tell you that just because something has come
out of the mouth of a Muslim, it doesn't mean that it is true. References
have to be quoted correctly and in proper context to have any value. Using
only hostile references would produce only false statements, which you
would not be able to defend in the long run. Any meaningful study has to
be done with an open mind and evaluated for accuracy. I hope you would
realize that using the information from web sites that are hostile to
Muslims carries some risk. When they are disproved wrong, you too would
loose credibility. They take things out of context and don't tell you the
whole truth. I am no longer sure if truth is important to you anyway.
>
1man4all
ZETA
wrote:
> I think it is your post which is completely absurd. If I were you, I
>would be ashamed of sending such a post.
Not a surprising statement coming from an obviously "braindead "
individual.
>I think your intention is only to
>insult our Prophet with your rather ridiculous accusations. According to
>Montgomery Watt, "Of all the world's great men none has been so much
>maligned as Muhammad."
And ALL the statements I have made regarding Muhammad's behavior can
be confirmed in the writings and research produced by Watt. And
Muhammad deserves the verdict of truth, i.e. an outright "garbage"
character to be associated with Allah.
>I think the reason for that is that non-Muslims see
>the growth of Islam as a threat to the survival of their own false belief
>systems. They cannot attack the message so they attack the messenger. It
>is simple as that.
Not necessarily. Islam deserves its "absurdity" in what it is, and it
is confirmed by its adherents like you.
Do not bother about "as far as you know", because that is crap. My
statement stands fully supported by the references given. And that is
as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim sources one can
go.
Same as above. My statement stands supported by the references given.
And that is as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim
sources one can go."
>> MURDER:
>> Muhammad bears the responsibility for the murder of:
>> Asma bint Marwan
>> Abu Afak
>> Ka'b b. al-Ashraf.
>> Muhammad has also advocated the murder of apostates, and dogs.
>
>That is a total lie. Prophet Muhammad did not kill these people nor he
>abetted these crimes. Asma Bint Marwan was killed by a blind Muslim Umair
>bin Auf who was closely related to Asma. In fact, after he killed her,
>people were very surprised that a blind man could commit murder. When
>Umair came to see the Prophet (s.a.w), he asked him if he had killed Asma
>to which Umair confessed. The Prophet also knew all the hateful things
>that had been written about him by Asma; however, he was saddened to hear
>that Asma had been killed. He, nevertheless, was unable to do anything
>about it because, at that time, according to the pact of Medina, a person
>could only be punished by his own tribal chiefs when the murderer and the
>victim belonged to the same tribe, the punishment could only be given by
>the tribal elders. Abu Akaf was also killed by a member of his own tribe
>whose name has been given as Salim bin Umair. Ka'ab bin Asharaf was killed
>by Abu Naila, and again the murdered and the murderer belonged to the same
>tribe. Even if Prophet Muhammad wanted to punish these criminals, he had
>no power to do so because of special treaties that made each tribe
>autonomous.
Same crap as above. Muhammad actually rejoiced at the murder of Asma.
Watt notes
>Killing of Apostates: Islam does not sanction killing of the apostates. In
>the Quran, an apostate is threatened with punishment in the afterlife
>only. In the Hadith, Bukhari's books have two chapters on this issue and
>just the headings speak volumes about the other circumstances that must be
>present for an apostate to be punished. The first book is called, Kitab al
>muharibin min ahl al-kufr wal ridda (the book of those who fight against
>the Muslims from among the unbelievers and the apostates). The second one
>is called Kitab istitbat al mu'anideen wal murtaddin wa qitali him (the
>Book of calling to repentance of the enemies and the apostates and
>fighting with them.) In the first book, permission is given to fight the
>apostates who are fighting with the Muslims. The second book deals with
>those apostates who have joined ranks with the enemies and are therefore
>treated as such. There is no reliable tradition which says that apostates
>must be put to death or were put to death at the time of Prophet Muhammad
>(s.a.w) for simply renouncing his religion. On the contrary, there is a
>tradition in which an Arab of the desert came to the Prophet, embraced
>Islam and on the second day fever overtook him. Thinking that that his
>sickness was the result of his embracing Islam, he came three times to ask
>the Prophet (s.a.w) to take back his pledge. The Prophet (s.a.w) refused
>each time, so he went away. But he was not harmed (Bukhari 94:47). In
>another tradition, a Christian became a Muslim, apostatized and then
>converted back to Christianity. He too was not killed (Bukhari 61:25).
Muhammad has advocated the murder of apostates. The related hadiths
are reliable, and the four "schools" of Muslim theology unanimously
agree with that. PERIOD. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
>Killing of Dogs:Contrary to non-Muslim biased opinion, Prophet Muhammad
>did not hate dogs. Montgomery Watt has reported a tradition in which he
>has stated, "His [Prophet Muhammad's] kindness extended even to animals,
>which is remarkable for Muhammad's century and part of the world. As his
>men marched towards Mecca just before the conquest they passed a bitch
>with puppies; and Muhammad not merely gave orders that they were not to be
>disturbed, but posted a man to see that the orders were carried out." In
>another tradition, Prophet Muhammad stated, "A prostitute was forgiven by
>Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the
>dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with
>her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her
>because of that (Bukhari 4.054.538)."
Bukhari also reports that Muhammad has advocated the killing of dogs.
The hadith is considered reliable by Muslim scholars. PERIOD.
>> PEDOPHILIC BEHAVIOR:
>
>I have already refuted this false allegation to which you had no answer.
>So, by repeating these charges you are doing what other Hindu trolls do in
>this newsgroup: engaging in relentless mud slinging hoping some of it
>would cling, but it never does.
The mud sticks. And with VERY GOOD reason. The references given are a
very good foundation for that.
>> References:
>> Prof Nabia Abbott (Turkish muslim): Aisha the Beloved of Muhammad
>> Prof Magali Morsy (Moroccan muslim): Wives of the Prophet
>> W M Watt: Encyclopedia of Islam.
>> H U Rahman: A Chronology of Islamic History.
>> Bukhari (Hadith collection).
>> Muslim (Hadith collection).
>
>Even a ten year old would tell you that just because something has come
>out of the mouth of a Muslim, it doesn't mean that it is true. References
>have to be quoted correctly and in proper context to have any value. Using
>only hostile references would produce only false statements, which you
>would not be able to defend in the long run.
>Any meaningful study has to
>be done with an open mind and evaluated for accuracy.
That is why references were given with care. These are academics,
reliable, and honest. You are obviously not the right person to
evaluate them. In the academic context the the statements stand, and
the references given remain adequate.
>I hope you would
>realize that using the information from web sites that are hostile to
>Muslims carries some risk.
This is out of question.
> When they are disproved wrong, you too would
>loose credibility. They take things out of context and don't tell you the
>whole truth. I am no longer sure if truth is important to you anyway.
The references given are in the public domain. They have not been
disproved. PERIOD.
ZETA
1MAN4ALL
ZETA wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 03:23:53 GMT, 1MAN4ALL <fora...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it is your post which is completely absurd. If I were you, I
> >would be ashamed of sending such a post.
>
> Not a surprising statement coming from an obviously "braindead "
> individual.
Ha Ha. Alhamdullilah, my brain is not dead yet, and my heart still beats for
me. Your mind is probably full of regrets, and your heart beats against you. Am
I wrong?
> >I think your intention is only to
> >insult our Prophet with your rather ridiculous accusations. According to
> >Montgomery Watt, "Of all the world's great men none has been so much
> >maligned as Muhammad."
>
> And ALL the statements I have made regarding Muhammad's behavior can
> be confirmed in the writings and research produced by Watt. And
> Muhammad deserves the verdict of truth, i.e. an outright "garbage"
> character to be associated with Allah.
Not really. What exactly did Montgomery Watt say that confirms your
accusations? Watt was no friend of Islam, nor his writings can be described as
flawless; however, I think, he wouldn't agree with you one bit. I suggest that
you take a look at this web site from which I had quoted from in my previous
post:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html
> Not necessarily. Islam deserves its "absurdity" in what it is, and it
> is confirmed by its adherents like you.
Ah, such mighty praise! LOL.
> >As far as I know, and as reported in the hadith, Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w)
> >had only eleven wives. There is some disagreement about the actual number,
> >ranging from eleven to thirteen. Your other statements are not true and
> >there is no book worthy of mention that would agree with your assessment.
> >Until he was nearly 50 years old, Prophet Muhammad had only one wife,
> >Khadija. After her death, he did not have a single wife for three years.
> >So, if he truly was a womanizer, he could have married as many women as he
> >liked when he was young or immediately after his wife's death, but he
> >didn't. Later, all the women that he married were either divorced women or
> >widows, whom he married either to help them or to establish family
> >relations with other tribes, for the sake of unity.
>
> Do not bother about "as far as you know", because that is crap. My
> statement stands fully supported by the references given. And that is
> as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim sources one can
> go.
Your "references" includes Ms. Abbott whose only qualification is that she is a
Muslim; other than that, nobody has heard of her. The same is true about Magali
Morsi who is not very well known as an expert on Islamic history and theology.
If you see the link that I have posted above, Montgomery Watt would also not
agree with your assessment. HU Rahman's Chronology is available on the internet
and has the following to say, "Apart from Aisha(ra), all the Prophet(saws)'s
other wives were widows and seem to have been chosen for political reasons. For
twenty-five years he was married to his only first wife, Khadija(ra), who was
considerably older than himself. All his remaining marriages took place in his
fifties and after Khadija's death." I should also hastily add that H U Rahman
is a physicist and a mathematician, not an historian or an Islamic theologian,
and his chronology is based on a lot of conjecture. As far as Bukhari and
Muslim are concerned, I have already stated that if you read all the Ahadith on
the subject, the books themselves disprove that Aisha (r.a.) could not possibly
have been six at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w), and the
one hadith that is used as a reference is most likely erroneous.
> Same as above. My statement stands supported by the references given.
> And that is as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim
> sources one can go."
LOL. Are you saying that Ms. Abbot (doesn't sound like a Muslim name to me!),
Magali Morsi, Montgomery Watt, and HU Rahman are the earliest sources of Islam?
You have no idea what you are talking about. I think you have lost this debate
and it's about time you throw in the towel, Ms. Zeta.
> Muhammad has advocated the murder of apostates. The related hadiths
> are reliable, and the four "schools" of Muslim theology unanimously
> agree with that. PERIOD. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
This is totally false. Even in Fiqh (Muslim law), the rule is that for an
apostate to be killed, it must be established that the apostate is proved to be
an unbeliever at war with the Muslims. According to al-Marghinani, "The killing
for apostasy is obligatory in order tp prevent the mischief of war, and it is
not a punishment for the act of unbelief...For mere unbelief does not legalize
the killing of a man."
> Bukhari also reports that Muhammad has advocated the killing of dogs.
> The hadith is considered reliable by Muslim scholars. PERIOD.
I think what you are referring to is the one occasion when Prophet Muhammad
ordered the killing of dogs in Medina as there was an abundance of rabid dogs
in the city who were creating nuisance. This killing was stopped as is reported
in the following Hadith:
"Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) saying:
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to kill dogs, and we
carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman
from the desert. Then Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) forbade their
killing" (Muslim Book 010, Number 3813).
> The mud sticks. And with VERY GOOD reason. The references given are a
> very good foundation for that.
So you are admitting that you are mud slinging? LOL.
> >> References:
> >> Prof Nabia Abbott (Turkish muslim): Aisha the Beloved of Muhammad
> >> Prof Magali Morsy (Moroccan muslim): Wives of the Prophet
> >> W M Watt: Encyclopedia of Islam.
> >> H U Rahman: A Chronology of Islamic History.
> >> Bukhari (Hadith collection).
> >> Muslim (Hadith collection).
>
> That is why references were given with care. These are academics,
> reliable, and honest. You are obviously not the right person to
> evaluate them. In the academic context the the statements stand, and
> the references given remain adequate.
See my comments above about these references.
1MAN4ALL
ZETA
wrote:
>
>
>ZETA wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 May 2001 03:23:53 GMT, 1MAN4ALL <fora...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think it is your post which is completely absurd. If I were you, I
>> >would be ashamed of sending such a post.
>>
>> Not a surprising statement coming from an obviously "braindead "
>> individual.
>
>Ha Ha. Alhamdullilah, my brain is not dead yet, and my heart still beats for
>me. Your mind is probably full of regrets, and your heart beats against you. Am
>I wrong?
Were you not such a dishonest person you would know!
>> >I think your intention is only to
>> >insult our Prophet with your rather ridiculous accusations. According to
>> >Montgomery Watt, "Of all the world's great men none has been so much
>> >maligned as Muhammad."
>>
>> And ALL the statements I have made regarding Muhammad's behavior can
>> be confirmed in the writings and research produced by Watt. And
>> Muhammad deserves the verdict of truth, i.e. an outright "garbage"
>> character to be associated with Allah.
>
>Not really. What exactly did Montgomery Watt say that confirms your
>accusations? Watt was no friend of Islam, nor his writings can be described as
>flawless; however, I think, he wouldn't agree with you one bit.
Count that as your ignorant "idiotery".
ALL the statements I have made regarding Muhammad's behavior are
supported by data provided in Watt's books. e..g he lists his
marraiges, his wars and looting raids, data confirming his pedophilic
behavior, and his complication in murder of poets. That is some 100s
of pages. And that is LOTS AND LOTS of absurdity to go with Islam.
> I suggest that
>you take a look at this web site from which I had quoted from in my previous
>post:
>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html
I did not disagree that Watt could have said that.
>> Not necessarily. Islam deserves its "absurdity" in what it is, and it
>> is confirmed by its adherents like you.
>
>Ah, such mighty praise! LOL.
YES. Absurdity is built into Islam. And the points I have made
regarding Muhammad's behavior support it.
>> >As far as I know, and as reported in the hadith, Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w)
>> >had only eleven wives. There is some disagreement about the actual number,
>> >ranging from eleven to thirteen. Your other statements are not true and
>> >there is no book worthy of mention that would agree with your assessment.
>> >Until he was nearly 50 years old, Prophet Muhammad had only one wife,
>> >Khadija. After her death, he did not have a single wife for three years.
>> >So, if he truly was a womanizer, he could have married as many women as he
>> >liked when he was young or immediately after his wife's death, but he
>> >didn't. Later, all the women that he married were either divorced women or
>> >widows, whom he married either to help them or to establish family
>> >relations with other tribes, for the sake of unity.
>>
>> Do not bother about "as far as you know", because that is crap. My
>> statement stands fully supported by the references given. And that is
>> as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim sources one can
>> go.
>
>Your "references" includes Ms. Abbott whose only qualification is that she is a
>Muslim; other than that, nobody has heard of her.
Could be YOUR "ignorance".
>The same is true about Magali
>Morsi who is not very well known as an expert on Islamic history and theology.
Irrelevant whether she is "well known" or not.
>If you see the link that I have posted above, Montgomery Watt would also not
>agree with your assessment. HU Rahman's Chronology is available on the internet
>and has the following to say, "Apart from Aisha(ra), all the Prophet(saws)'s
>other wives were widows and seem to have been chosen for political reasons. For
>twenty-five years he was married to his only first wife, Khadija(ra), who was
>considerably older than himself. All his remaining marriages took place in his
>fifties and after Khadija's death." I should also hastily add that H U Rahman
>is a physicist and a mathematician, not an historian or an Islamic theologian,
>and his chronology is based on a lot of conjecture.
Crap. Most of it is correct.
>As far as Bukhari and
>Muslim are concerned, I have already stated that if you read all the Ahadith on
>the subject, the books themselves disprove that Aisha (r.a.) could not possibly
>have been six at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w), and the
>one hadith that is used as a reference is most likely erroneous.
There is more than one hadith. And numerous hadiths regarding the
behavior of Muhammad and his household when she went to live with
Muhammad. Playing with toys, playing children's games, Aisha's kid
friends. All in confirmation and in support of the basic data
regarding Aisha's age.
>> Same as above. My statement stands supported by the references given.
>> And that is as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim
>> sources one can go."
>
>LOL. Are you saying that Ms. Abbot (doesn't sound like a Muslim name to me!),
As noted above, take that as "idiotery" on your part.
>Magali Morsi, Montgomery Watt, and HU Rahman are the earliest sources of Islam?
>You have no idea what you are talking about.
Now you confirm your "braindead" status. You do not seem to have even
the faintest idea how these scholars would have got about their work.
>I think you have lost this debate
>and it's about time you throw in the towel, Ms. Zeta.
Isn't that too much eagerness from a "braindead"!
>> Muhammad has advocated the murder of apostates. The related hadiths
>> are reliable, and the four "schools" of Muslim theology unanimously
>> agree with that. PERIOD. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
>
>This is totally false. Even in Fiqh (Muslim law), the rule is that for an
>apostate to be killed, it must be established that the apostate is proved to be
>an unbeliever at war with the Muslims. According to al-Marghinani, "The killing
>for apostasy is obligatory in order tp prevent the mischief of war, and it is
>not a punishment for the act of unbelief...For mere unbelief does not legalize
>the killing of a man."
You do not want to invent FIKH, do you? And, so why would there be
unanimity in FIKH that an adult apostate should be killed?
>> Bukhari also reports that Muhammad has advocated the killing of dogs.
>> The hadith is considered reliable by Muslim scholars. PERIOD.
>
>I think what you are referring to is the one occasion when Prophet Muhammad
>ordered the killing of dogs in Medina as there was an abundance of rabid dogs
>in the city who were creating nuisance. This killing was stopped as is reported
>in the following Hadith:
One occassion? Seem to be your patent "dishonesty". There are several
hadiths.
>"Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) saying:
>Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to kill dogs, and we
>carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman
>from the desert. Then Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) forbade their
>killing" (Muslim Book 010, Number 3813).
>
>> The mud sticks. And with VERY GOOD reason. The references given are a
>> very good foundation for that.
>
>So you are admitting that you are mud slinging? LOL.
As stated the mud IS on Islam. And it is supported by the data derived
from Muslim sources. One does not have to sling it, just drain crap.
Mankind will be better off without it.
>> >> References:
>> >> Prof Nabia Abbott (Turkish muslim): Aisha the Beloved of Muhammad
>> >> Prof Magali Morsy (Moroccan muslim): Wives of the Prophet
>> >> W M Watt: Encyclopedia of Islam.
>> >> H U Rahman: A Chronology of Islamic History.
>> >> Bukhari (Hadith collection).
>> >> Muslim (Hadith collection).
>>
>> That is why references were given with care. These are academics,
>> reliable, and honest. You are obviously not the right person to
>> evaluate them. In the academic context the the statements stand, and
>> the references given remain adequate.
>
>See my comments above about these references.
The crap was noted as crap. Your arguments amount to nothing. The
references cited are "unkown" to you, or "unreliable" without reason,
or just rejected ad hoc. No one has rejected those scholars I have
cited. Besides they build on Islamic sources, and no one is throwing
that.
Now get lost!
ZETA
islamisgrowing2000
Muhammad Asad (Austria)
Statesman, Journalist, and Author
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the author:
Muhammad Asad, Leopold Weiss, was born in Livow, Austria (later
Poland) in 1900, and at the age of 22 made his visit to the Middle
East. He later became an outstanding foreign correspondent for the
Franfurtur Zeitung, and after his conversion to Islam travelled and
worked throughout the Muslim world, from North Africa to as far East
as Afghanistan. After years of devoted study he became one of the
leading Muslim scholars of our age. After the establishment of
Pakistan, he was appointed the Director of the Department of Islamic
Reconstruction, West Punjab and later on became Pakistan's Alternate
Representative at the United Nations. Muhammad Asad's two important
books are: Islam at the Crossroads and Road to Mecca. He also produced
a monthly journal Arafat. At present he is working upon an English
translation of the Holy Qur'an. [Asad completed his translation and
has passed away. -MSA-USC]
In 1922 I left my native country, Austria, to travel through Africa
and Asia as a Special Correspondent to some of the leading Continental
newspapers, and spent from that year onward nearly the whole of my
time in the Islamic East. My interest in the nations with which I came
into contact was in the beginning that of an outsider only. I saw
before me a social order and an outlook on life fundamentally
different from the European; and from the very first there grew in me
a sympathy for the more tranquil -- I should rather say: more
mechanised mode of living in Europe. This sympathy gradually led me to
an investigation of the reasons for such a difference, and I became
interested in the religious teachings of the Muslims. At the time in
question, that interest was not strong enough to draw me into the fold
of Islam, but it opened to me a new vista of a progressive human
society, of real brotherly feeling. The reality, however, of
presentday Muslim life appeared to be very far from the ideal
possibilities given in the religious teachings of Islam. Whatever, in
Islam, had been progress and movement, had turned, among the Muslims,
into indolence and stagnation; whatever there had been of generosity
and readiness for self-sacrifice, had become, among the present-day
Muslims, perverted into narrow-mindedness and love of an easy life.
Prompted by this discovery and puzzled by the obvious incongruency
between Once and Now, I tried to approach the problem before me from a
more intimate point of view: that is, I tried to imagine myself as
being within the circle of Islam. It was a purely intellectual
experiment; and it revealed to me, within a very short time, the right
solution. I realised that the one and only reason for the social and
cultural decay of the Muslims consisted in the fact that they had
gradually ceased to follow the teachings of Islam in spirit. Islam was
still there; but it was a body without soul. The very element which
once had stood for the strength of the Muslim world was now
responsible for its weakness: Islamic society had been built, from the
very outset, on religious foundations alone, and the weakening of the
foundations has necessarily weakened the cultural structure -- and
possibly might cause its ultimate disappearance.
The more I understood how concrete and how immensely practical the
teachings of Islam are, the more eager became my questioning as to why
the Muslims had abandoned their full application to real life. I
discussed this problem with many thinking Mulsims in almost all the
countries between the Libyan Desert and the Pamirs, between the
Bosphorus and the Arabian Sea. It almost became an obsession which
ultimately overshadowed all my other intellectual interests in the
world of Islam. The questioning steadily grew in emphasis -- until I,
a non-Muslim, talked to Muslims as if I were to defend Islam from
their negligence and indolence. The progress was imperceptible to me,
until one day -- it was in autumn 1925, in the mountains of
Afghanistan -- a young provincial Governor said to me: "But you are a
Muslim, only you don't know it yourself." I was struck by these words
and remained silent. But when I came back to Europe once again, in
1926, I saw that the only logical consequence of my attitude was to
embrace Islam.
So much about the circumstances of my becoming a Muslim. Since then I
was asked, time and again: "Why did you embrace Islam ? What was it
that attracted you particularly ?" -- and I must confess: I don't know
of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that
attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure
of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even
now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam
appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are
harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing
is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute
balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in
the teachings and postulates of Islam is "in its proper place," has
created the strongest impression on me. There might have been, along
with it, other impressions also which today it is difficult for me to
analyse. After all, it was a matter of love; and love is composed of
many things; of our desires and our loneliness, of our high aims and
our shortcomings, of our strength and our weakness. So it was in my
case. Islam came over me like a robber who enters a house by night;
but, unlike a robber, it entered to remain for good.
Ever since then I endeavoured to learn as much as I could about Islam.
I studied the Qur'an and the Traditions of the Prophet (peace and
blessings be upon him); I studied the language of Islam and its
history, and a good deal of what has been written about it and against
it. I spent over five years in the Hijaz and Najd, mostly in
al-Madinah, so that I might experience something of the original
surroundings in which this religion was preached by the Arabian
Prophet. As the Hijaz is the meeting centre of Muslims from many
countries, I was able to compare most of the different religious and
social views prevalent in the Islamic world in our days. Those studies
and comparisons created in me the firm conviction that Islam, as a
spiritual and social phenomenon, is still in spite of all the
drawbacks caused by the deficiencies of the Muslims, by far the
greatest driving force mankind has ever experienced; and all my
interest became, since then, centred around the problem of its
regeneration.
From "Islam, Our Choice"
1MAN4ALL
ZETA wrote:
> Were you not such a dishonest person you would know!
Dishonest? What dishonesty have I displayed? LOL.
>
> Count that as your ignorant "idiotery".
I think the word is idiocy.
> ALL the statements I have made regarding Muhammad's behavior are
> supported by data provided in Watt's books. e..g he lists his
> marraiges, his wars and looting raids, data confirming his pedophilic
> behavior, and his complication in murder of poets. That is some 100s
> of pages. And that is LOTS AND LOTS of absurdity to go with Islam.
LOL. You have not quoted a single line from Watt's book, which nobody considers as
an authoritative book on Islam anyway. In the link that I had posted, Watt is full
of praise for Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w). If you don't believe me, read it again.
>
> > I suggest that
> >you take a look at this web site from which I had quoted from in my previous
> >post:
> >http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html
>
> I did not disagree that Watt could have said that.
Yes, you are disagreeing. Read your conclusions and then read Watt's from the link
that I had posted (see above). He states, "In both Meccan and Medinan periods
Muhammad's contemporaries looked on him as a good and upright man, and in the eyes
of history he is a moral and social reformer." He directly contradicts you when he
says, "It is sometimes asserted that Muhammad's character declined after he went to
Medina, but there are no solid grounds for this view. It is based on too facile a
use of the principal that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The allegations of moral defects are attached to incidents belonging to the Medinan
and not the Meccan period, but according to the interpretation of these incidents
given in this book [WATT'S BOOK] they marked no failure in Muhammad to live to his
ideals and no lapse from his moral principles." There you have it.
> YES. Absurdity is built into Islam. And the points I have made
> regarding Muhammad's behavior support it.
Nobody is more absurd than you are, Zeta. Trust me on that one. First you lied to me
that you were not Ariana, and then you were caught red-handed by answering the same
thread by using the two aliases.
> >> >As far as I know, and as reported in the hadith, Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w)
> >> >had only eleven wives. There is some disagreement about the actual number,
> >> >ranging from eleven to thirteen. Your other statements are not true and
> >> >there is no book worthy of mention that would agree with your assessment.
> >> >Until he was nearly 50 years old, Prophet Muhammad had only one wife,
> >> >Khadija. After her death, he did not have a single wife for three years.
> >> >So, if he truly was a womanizer, he could have married as many women as he
> >> >liked when he was young or immediately after his wife's death, but he
> >> >didn't. Later, all the women that he married were either divorced women or
> >> >widows, whom he married either to help them or to establish family
> >> >relations with other tribes, for the sake of unity.
> >>
> >> Do not bother about "as far as you know", because that is crap. My
> >> statement stands fully supported by the references given. And that is
> >> as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim sources one can
> >> go.
> >
> >Your "references" includes Ms. Abbott whose only qualification is that she is a
> >Muslim; other than that, nobody has heard of her.
>
> Could be YOUR "ignorance".
Not at all. Nobody has ever recognized her as a leading scholar on Islam. People
like you are always looking for dirt on Islam and when they find it, they promote it
as if it was some kind of a new revelation.
> >The same is true about Magali
> >Morsi who is not very well known as an expert on Islamic history and theology.
>
> Irrelevant whether she is "well known" or not.
Yes it is. I see a lot of junk books everyday, and it doesn't mean that one should
always treat their authors seriously. Many of these books are then sold in Dollar
stores for a buck.
> >If you see the link that I have posted above, Montgomery Watt would also not
> >agree with your assessment. HU Rahman's Chronology is available on the internet
> >and has the following to say, "Apart from Aisha(ra), all the Prophet(saws)'s
> >other wives were widows and seem to have been chosen for political reasons. For
> >twenty-five years he was married to his only first wife, Khadija(ra), who was
> >considerably older than himself. All his remaining marriages took place in his
> >fifties and after Khadija's death." I should also hastily add that H U Rahman
> >is a physicist and a mathematician, not an historian or an Islamic theologian,
> >and his chronology is based on a lot of conjecture.
>
> Crap. Most of it is correct.
LOL. Your answer has nothing to do with my comments above.
> >As far as Bukhari and
> >Muslim are concerned, I have already stated that if you read all the Ahadith on
> >the subject, the books themselves disprove that Aisha (r.a.) could not possibly
> >have been six at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w), and the
> >one hadith that is used as a reference is most likely erroneous.
>
> There is more than one hadith. And numerous hadiths regarding the
> behavior of Muhammad and his household when she went to live with
> Muhammad. Playing with toys, playing children's games, Aisha's kid
> friends. All in confirmation and in support of the basic data
> regarding Aisha's age.
Well, she was young and she already had been engaged to another man. So, if she
actually married Prophet Muhammad at the age of six, at what age do you think she
got engaged and her engagement was broken? Most people play games all their lives,
(at least I do), and I know many women who keep dolls or a teddy bear in their
house, so that is no proof of age. Of course, Aisha was young lady, but I have
already proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she could not possibly have been six
years old at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w). If you like, I
can post all those arguments again.
> >> Same as above. My statement stands supported by the references given.
> >> And that is as far back in time and reliability with the Muslim
> >> sources one can go."
> >
> >LOL. Are you saying that Ms. Abbot (doesn't sound like a Muslim name to me!),
>
> As noted above, take that as "idiotery" on your part.
LOL. Idiocy, Ms Zeta. Idiocy.
> >Magali Morsi, Montgomery Watt, and HU Rahman are the earliest sources of Islam?
> >You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Now you confirm your "braindead" status. You do not seem to have even
> the faintest idea how these scholars would have got about their work.
Yes, how did they "got about their work"? LOL.
> >I think you have lost this debate
> >and it's about time you throw in the towel, Ms. Zeta.
>
> Isn't that too much eagerness from a "braindead"!
Eagerness for you to throw in the towel? Are we talking kinky here?
> >> Muhammad has advocated the murder of apostates. The related hadiths
> >> are reliable, and the four "schools" of Muslim theology unanimously
> >> agree with that. PERIOD. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.
> >
> >This is totally false. Even in Fiqh (Muslim law), the rule is that for an
> >apostate to be killed, it must be established that the apostate is proved to be
> >an unbeliever at war with the Muslims. According to al-Marghinani, "The killing
> >for apostasy is obligatory in order tp prevent the mischief of war, and it is
> >not a punishment for the act of unbelief...For mere unbelief does not legalize
> >the killing of a man."
>
> You do not want to invent FIKH, do you? And, so why would there be
> unanimity in FIKH that an adult apostate should be killed?
I am not inventing it, and what I told you was from Fiqh itself. A Muslim does not
have to belong to a particular school of thought and unlike Christianity, there are
no official interpretations. Each Muslim is free to choose from any particular
explanation from any of the recognized works on fiqh or to use one's judgment when a
subject has not been dealt with in the shariyyah.
> >> Bukhari also reports that Muhammad has advocated the killing of dogs.
> >> The hadith is considered reliable by Muslim scholars. PERIOD.
> >
> >I think what you are referring to is the one occasion when Prophet Muhammad
> >ordered the killing of dogs in Medina as there was an abundance of rabid dogs
> >in the city who were creating nuisance. This killing was stopped as is reported
> >in the following Hadith:
>
> One occassion? Seem to be your patent "dishonesty". There are several
> hadiths.
Yes, several Hadiths talking about the same event. If you have read Bukhari or Sahih
Muslim, you will notice that there are usually several Ahadith for the same event or
issue, narrated by different people. And as I had indicated below, the Hadith
clearly says that the campaign of animal control in the city of Medina was also
ended by the Prophet (s.a.w). The Prophet's companions were also very kind to
animals. There is also an anecdote in which Abdullah bin Jaaffar once visited a farm
where he saw a slave feeding a dog. Abdallah asked him why he was giving all his
bread to the dog, to which he replied that the dog didn't belong to the farm and had
probably come from far away hoping for some food and he didn't want the dog to have
his effort wasted. Abdallah liked his answer so much that he bought the slave and
the farm, freed him and gave the farm to him as a gift. (See also my previous post
where I had provided couple of Ahadith regarding Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) and your
'best friend.' Given your puking attitude, I would be surprised if even a dog would
befriend you.
> >"Abu Zubair heard Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with him) saying:
> >Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to kill dogs, and we
> >carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman
> >from the desert. Then Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) forbade their
> >killing" (Muslim Book 010, Number 3813).
> >
>
> >> >> References:
> >> >> Prof Nabia Abbott (Turkish muslim): Aisha the Beloved of Muhammad
> >> >> Prof Magali Morsy (Moroccan muslim): Wives of the Prophet
> >> >> W M Watt: Encyclopedia of Islam.
> >> >> H U Rahman: A Chronology of Islamic History.
> >> >> Bukhari (Hadith collection).
> >> >> Muslim (Hadith collection).
> >>
> >> That is why references were given with care. These are academics,
> >> reliable, and honest. You are obviously not the right person to
> >> evaluate them. In the academic context the the statements stand, and
> >> the references given remain adequate.
> >
> >See my comments above about these references.
>
> The crap was noted as crap. Your arguments amount to nothing. The
> references cited are "unkown" to you, or "unreliable" without reason,
> or just rejected ad hoc. No one has rejected those scholars I have
> cited. Besides they build on Islamic sources, and no one is throwing
> that.
These so called "scholars" are nothing more than writers, and usually people like
them are ignored by real scholars and people who know better. It is people like you
who turn them into heroes.
>
>
> Now get lost!
LOL. I will get lost for few days as I am in the process of moving, but I shall
return soon, inshallah.
>