Zainab's Honey, Ayesha Jealousy, GREAT PROPHET's Vow, Secret and Divorce threat in QS At Tahrim 66:1-5
donie
> On Oct 25, 6:10 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2. So when his wives hinted at it, he vowed that
> he would never again use honey.
========underlined===============
> in zainab's place and he liked the honey that was
> served to him.
============underlined==================
> Messenger used to stay for a period in the house
> of Zaynab bint Jahsh and drink honey in her house
========underlined====================.
> No, but I drank honey in the house of Zaynab bint
> Jahsh, and I will never drink it again.)''
==========underlined==============
> you pinpoint where is the 'uproar'? The prophet vowed
> not to take honey due to the 'complain' by ayesha ,
=============underlined=============
> The revelation was not about honey but to rebuke
> the prophet of making unlawful what has been made
===============underlined================
> lawful by allah. The case in point here is honey.
===================================
Let me try to follow your logic. Muhammat spent more days than he
should with Zainab, his adopted son's divorced wife he took as 4th or
5th wife, and eat a kind of HONEY there. Ayesha felt JEALOUS so she
joint hand with other wives to inform Muhammat that he was having bad
smell because of HONEY served in Zainab' house. Because of that
complain, Muhammat declared a VOW NOT TO EAT HONEY anymore, and
disclosed the VOW ON NOT EATING HONEY to one of his wife with a
commitment of keeping that as a SECRET.
Allah rebuked Muhammat coz he VOWED NOT TO EAT HONEY. The SECRET of A
VOW NOT EATING HONEY was exposed. Just because the SECRET WAS EXPOSED,
the wife whom Muhammat confided with was SINNED. Because of the SECRET
OF NOT EATING HONEY EAS EXPOSED, Allah warned Muhammat' s wives of
POSSIBLE OF DIVORCE.
That's your line of thinking from your lengthy replied post, Isn't
it? You may refrain from affirming my way of putting of it. But I
would like you to point where do you want to stress more on this
JEALOUSY, HONEY, VOW, SECRET, POSSIBLE DIVORCE debacle you just
present, if you comfortable enough, nevertheless.
donie
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
To expose you again in your equivocation :
1. Where did it state of your claim of : '...Muhammat
spent more days than he should with Zainab ...'?
2. Where did it state that Allah rebuked the prophet of
his vow not to eat honey?
3. Where did it state that Allah rebuked the wife due to
the exposed vow of not taking honey? That was the
claim made by your phantom hero ali sina.
4. Where did it state that due to the exposed 'not to eat
honey' vow , Allah threatened the wives with divorce?
Looks like you are really good in deception , equivocation
and bullshit. My advice again : be objective not christian.
>
> Let me try to follow your logic. Muhammat spent more days than he
> should with Zainab, his adopted son's divorced wife he took as 4th or
> 5th wife, and eat a kind of HONEY there. Ayesha felt JEALOUS so she
> joint hand with other wives to inform Muhammat that he was having bad
> smell because of HONEY served in Zainab' house. Because of that
> complain, Muhammat declared a VOW NOT TO EAT HONEY anymore, and
> disclosed the VOW ON NOT EATING HONEY to one of his wife with a
> commitment of keeping that as a SECRET.
>
> Allah rebuked Muhammat coz he VOWED NOT TO EAT HONEY. The SECRET of A
> VOW NOT EATING HONEY was exposed. Just because the SECRET WAS EXPOSED,
> the wife whom Muhammat confided with was SINNED. Because of the SECRET
> OF NOT EATING HONEY EAS EXPOSED, Allah warned Muhammat' s wives of
> POSSIBLE OF DIVORCE.
>
> That's your line of thinking from your lengthy replied post, Isn't
> it? You may refrain from affirming my way of putting of it. But I
> would like you to point where do you want to stress more on this
> JEALOUSY, HONEY, VOW, SECRET, POSSIBLE DIVORCE debacle you just
> present, if you comfortable enough, nevertheless.
You need to go back to read and understand what has been
written. Looks like you are really desperate that you have
to resort to deception , equivocation and bull shit to
present your argument. Poor isn't it.
Again : be objective not christian.
Count of you refusing to answer the question = 34
To mock and taunt you :
You still have not answered my question. What is
the use of you being christian if you cannot even
answer a question about your theology. You look
like you are afraid to even answer the appended
question. Why be a christian if you cannot even
justify of your belief? We muslims did not run away
facing your questions. In fact for us muslims facing
your questions was like a stroll in the park. No
problems in answering them.
The question again :
Can you explain to me in logical sense , how can
jesus die for your sins? Prophet Adam(as) sin is
his. He sinned , he has to face the consequences.
Neither you nor I had any agreement with Prophet
Adam (as) to inherit his sin. Why should jesus
die for your sins? He has never in his words
said that he was god and demanded to be worshiped.
He also had never said that he would die for your
sins.
Can you 'advice' me of these contradictory and
confusing issues. Isn't the atonement of sin by
another person a cult behaviour?
sam1528
donie
> On Oct 29, 5:09 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
> To expose you again in your equivocation :
> 1. Where did it state of your claim of : '...Muhammat
> spent more days than he should with Zainab ...'?
Muhammat spent more times with Zainab.
> 2. Where did it state that Allah rebuked the prophet of
> his vow not to eat honey?
but you snipped.
> 3. Where did it state that Allah rebuked the wife due to
> the exposed vow of not taking honey?
does your Allah rebukes him in 66:1
That was the
> claim made by your phantom hero ali sina.
> 4. Where did it state that due to the exposed 'not to eat
> honey' vow , Allah threatened the wives with divorce?
Read at your own post and relate that with your GLORIOUS qoran 66:1-5.
sam...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 29, 8:40 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Oct 29, 5:09 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --snip--
>
> > To expose you again in your equivocation :
> > 1. Where did it state of your claim of : '...Muhammat
> > spent more days than he should with Zainab ...'?
>
> You say or present the information that Ayesha got jealous because
> Muhammat spent more times with Zainab.
Exposing you again. Where did it state of your claim
of : '...Muhammat spent more days than he should with
Zainab ...'?
Upon exposure of your equivocation it is now :
'... spent more time ...'
So what is it now?
According to the hadith , yes ayesha was jealous ...
> 2. Where did it state that Allah rebuked the prophet of
> > his vow not to eat honey?
>
> You say or you present it. Look at the your presentation I underline
> but you snipped.> 3. Where did it state that Allah rebuked the wife due to
> > the exposed vow of not taking honey?
>
> You say or present the info. If not rebuking for taking honey what
> does your Allah rebukes him in 66:1
> That was the
>
You did not read and much less understand what you
had read. Its very poor. No wonder you equivocate
so much. 'Superior' comprehension .... hmmm
Did verse66:1 state of honey? No it doesn't.
It state of 'unlawful' and 'lawful' and 'pleasing
of the wives'.
Lets look at maududi’s commentary of verses66:1-5
Ref : http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/66/index.html
Excerpt : ‘...The object is not to ask the Holy
Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace)
why he had done so, but to warn him
that his act to make unlawful for
himself what Allah had made lawful is
not approved by Allah. This by itself
gives the meaning that nobody has the
power to make unlawful what Allah has
made lawful; so much so that the Holy
Prophet (upon whom be peace) himself
also did not possess any such power...’
‘...This shows that in this case the
Holy Prophet had not made a lawful
thing unlawful because of a personal
desire but because his wives had
wanted him to do so, and he had made
it unlawful for himself only in order
to please them...’
The hadith presented is consistent with the verses.
> > claim made by your phantom hero ali sina.
> > 4. Where did it state that due to the exposed 'not to eat
> > honey' vow , Allah threatened the wives with divorce?
>
> Read at your own post and relate that with your GLORIOUS qoran 66:1-5.
You need to show where is the threat to of divorce.
This is not another "HYPOTHETICAL DIVORCE' type of
argument from you again issit?
You are so easily refuted , from tafseer ibn
kathir : '...Maybe his Lord, if he divorces you,
will give him in your place wives better
than you,) and , (but if you help one
another against him, then verily, Allah
is his Protector, and Jibril, and the
righteous among the believers; and after
that the angels are his helpers.) I said,
`Messenger of Allah, have you divorced
them' He said, `No.' I stood at the door
of the Masjid and called out at the top
of my voice, `The Messenger of Allah has
not divorced his wives...'
Was there any threat? No and as been pointed out
that the prophet himself never issue that threat and
the prophet himself admitted that he had never
divorced his wives.
My advice again : be objective not christian
Count of you refusing to answer the question = 35
donie
> Exposing you again. Where did it state of your claim
> of : '...Muhammat spent more days than he should with
> Zainab ...'?
Here. Read the portion ..HE STAYED LONGER THAN USUAL IN THE QARTERS OF
ZAINAB BINT JASH...
Aren't you exposing yourself, that you don't even remember what you
post yourself??
On Oct 25, 7:46 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
=== --snip--=====================
Once again you are going to be badly exposed. You
have been provided with the tafseer of the verses
but like any christian tend twist the facts to your
liking. Don't you realise that you will be caught
out if you lie? From the tafseer :
1. Once it so happened that he stayed longer than
usual at the quarters of Zainab bint Jahsh, for
she had received from somewhere some honey which
the holy Prophet liked very much. "At this",
says 'Aisha, "I felt jealous, and Hafsa, Sawda,
Safiya, and I agreed among ourselves that when
he visits us each of us would tell him that a
peculiar odour came from his mouth as a result
of what he had eaten, for we knew that he was
particularly sensitive to offensive smells"
2. So when his wives hinted at it, he vowed that
he would never again use honey.
3. Thereupon these verses were revealed reminding
him that he should not declare to himself unlawful
that which Allah had made lawful to him.
=================================
You used to popularize accusing me of 'clueless.' With you lengthy
post you have afforded me with so many clues on you and on Muhammat
you honor as GREAT PROPHET without capability and confidence in
exhibiting his benevolence prophetic quality.
sam...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 30, 9:34 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Exposing you again. Where did it state of your claim
> > of : '...Muhammat spent more days than he should with
>
> Here. Read the portion ..HE STAYED LONGER THAN USUAL IN THE QARTERS OFZAINABBINT JASH...
> Aren't you exposing yourself, that you don't even remember what you
> post yourself??
>
> On Oct 25, 7:46 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> === --snip--=====================
>
> Once again you are going to be badly exposed. You
> have been provided with the tafseer of the verses
> but like any christian tend twist the facts to your
> liking. Don't you realise that you will be caught
> out if you lie? From the tafseer :
> 1. Once it so happened that he stayed longer than
> she had received from somewhere somehoneywhich
> the holy Prophet liked very much. "At this",
> says 'Aisha, "I felt jealous, and Hafsa, Sawda,
> Safiya, and I agreed among ourselves that when
> he visits us each of us would tell him that a
> peculiar odour came from his mouth as a result
> of what he had eaten, for we knew that he was
> particularly sensitive to offensive smells"
> 2. So when his wives hinted at it, he vowed that
> he would never again usehoney.
> 3. Thereupon these verses were revealed reminding
> him that he should not declare to himself unlawful
> that which Allah had made lawful to him.
> =================================
>
> You used to popularize accusing me of 'clueless.' With you lengthy
> post you have afforded me with so many clues on you and on Muhammat
> you honor as GREAT PROPHET without capability and confidence in
> exhibiting his benevolence prophetic quality.
That is why you win hands down the title of 'clueless
christian going around in circles chasing your own
backside'.
Your post of oct29 , 5.08 pm of the same thread :
'...Let me try to follow your logic. Muhammat spent
more days than he should with Zainab...'
So fast , you have forgotten what you posted?
You are even more clueless when it comes to the
qualities of Prophet Muhammad (saw) as you do
not have a standard of measurement. You are a
christian , your values is derived from your bible.
I provided the link that details out the prophet
quality but you were too scared to open and read
it , much less understand it. Now do you agree
with me that 'terror has been cast in your heart'
as you are even scared to read and understand the
prophet's quality. This show that you having bad
intention has this psychological terror cast in
your heart by Allah. I rest my case. You are a
prime example of 'terror cast in their hearts'...
Until now you cannot disprove the quality of the
prophet based on your bible. That is why I have
been more than confident in refuting you. What
have you offered when refuted, NOTHING except the
repeats of already refuted arguments. That is very
and extremely poor by any standards.
My advice again : be objective not christian
sam1528
maddoxx
@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com :
> Until now you cannot disprove the quality of the
> prophet based on your bible. That is why I have
> been more than confident in refuting you.
are you drunk ?
donie
>
> Until now you cannot disprove the quality of the
> prophet based on your bible. That is why I have
> been more than confident in refuting you. What
> have you offered when refuted, NOTHING except the
> repeats of already refuted arguments. That is very
> and extremely poor by any standards.
See proof? 2, 3 on the absent of 'quality' of your Muhammat.
If you are confident, you would be able to discuss why Muhammat would
need to declare a VOW. And if the VOW is not taking HONEY anymore, why
should your Allah ridiculing himself by issuing GLORIOUS revelation on
rebuking Muhammat for not taking lawful HONEY?
And if the issue only on taking HONEY, why your Allah considers that
as a SECRET and uses this opportunity to threaten Muhammat'S wives of
possible divorce with immediate replacement WIDOWS and VIRGINS?
066:001
O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which God has made
lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But God is Oft-
Forgiving, Most Merciful.
066:002
God has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your
oaths (in some cases): and God is your Protector, and He is Full of
Knowledge and Wisdom.
066:003
When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his
consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and God made it known
to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he
told her thereof, she said, "Who told thee this? "He said, "He told me
Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)."
066:004
If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so
inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly God is his
Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who
believe, - and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.
066:005
It may be, if he divorced you (all), that God will give him in
exchange consorts better than you, - who submit (their wills), who
believe, who are devout, who turn to God in repentance, who worship
(in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast, - previously married
or virgins.
sam...@hotmail.com
> On Oct 31, 11:43 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Until now you cannot disprove the quality of the
> > prophet based on your bible. That is why I have
> > been more than confident in refuting you. What
> > have you offered when refuted, NOTHING except the
> > repeats of already refuted arguments. That is very
> > and extremely poor by any standards.
>
> See proof? 2, 3 on the absent of 'quality' of your Muhammat.
> If you are confident, you would be able to discuss why Muhammat would
> should your Allah ridiculing himself by issuing GLORIOUS revelation on
> rebuking Muhammat for not taking lawfulHONEY?
>
Before we go on , you agree that you have been a
clueless christian , running around in circles
chasing your own backside. You even forgotten
and got confused of what you posted.
You also agree that you are repeating already
refuted argument. You are not even capable to
address the counter argument. You are only
restricted to repeats of already refuted
argument.
The qualities have been presented so many times
that I have lost count. You admitted that you
did not bother to open the link provided much
less read and understand the information that
was provided. Your weakness , do not blame
others for it.
Your argument is so easy to refute :
Narrated 'Ubaid bin 'Umar:
I heard 'Aisha saying, "The Prophet used to
stay for a long while with Zanab bint Jahsh
and drink honey at her house. So Hafsa and I
decided that if the Prophet came to anyone
of us, she should say him, "I detect the
smell of Maghafir (a nasty smelling gum) in
you. Have you eaten Maghafir?' " So the
Prophet visited one of them and she said to
him similarly. The Prophet said, "Never mind,
I have taken some honey at the house of Zainab
bint Jahsh, but I shall never drink of it
anymore." So there was revealed: 'O Prophet !
Why do you ban (for you) that which Allah has
made lawful for you . . . If you two (wives
of Prophet) turn in repentance to Allah,'
(66.1-4) addressing Aisha and Hafsa. 'When the
Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to
some of his wives.' (66.3) namely his saying:
But I have taken some honey.
- Sahih Bukhari Vol 7 , book 63 Num 192
So what is your issue if the prophet made a vow
not to take honey as his wives complained of
the odour of magahafir. You have not stated of
what is your issue. He made that vow of not to
take honey as his wives complained that he had
taken magahafir. What is so ridiculous about
Allah rebuking the prophet. He had no authority
to make unlawful what is lawful. This shows that
the prophet is indeed a true prophet as Allah
guided him in all aspects.
What is more ridiculous is your bible having 2
different genealogies of your 'son of god' but
forgotten that jesus was of virgin birth.
> And if the issue only on takingHONEY, why your Allah considers that
> as a SECRET and uses this opportunity to threaten Muhammat'S wives of
> possible divorce with immediate replacement WIDOWS and VIRGINS?
>
Think of it this way. We muslims follow strictly
to guidance from the Quran. However you christains
do not have such reverence to your bible. Case in
point is that your bible prohibits the consumption
of swine. However that does not stop you christians
from eating pigs.
The secret is that the prophet vowed not to take
honey for himself. If the word got out , every one
will think that you cannot take honey anymore as
the prophet had vowed not to take it. That is why
Allah rebuked the prophet in verse66:1.
ref : http://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=66
excerpt : '... Second, that in any society the
position of a Prophet is very delicate.
A minor incident experienced by an
ordinary man in his life may not be
of any consequence, but it assumes the
status of law when experienced by a
Prophet. That is why the lives of the
Prophets have been kept under close
supervision by Allah so that none of
their acts, not even a most trivial one,
may deviate from Divine Will. Whenever
such an act has emanated from a Prophet,
it was rectified and rectified immediately
so that the Islamic law and its principles
should reach the people in their absolute
purity not only through the Divine Book
but also through the excellent example of
the Prophet, and they should include
nothing which may be in disagreement with
Divine Will,...'
'... Thirdly, and this automatically follows
from the above mentioned point, that when
the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) was
checked on a minor thing, which was not
only corrected but also recorded, it gives
us complete satisfaction that whatever
actions and commands and instructions we
now find in the pure life of the Holy Prophet
concerning which there is nothing on record
in the nature of criticism or correction from
Allah, they are wholly based on truth, are
in complete conformity with Divine Will and
we can draw guidance from them with full
confidence and peace of mind...'
This means that there is documentation of the events
and the teachings associated with it. Therefore in
technical terms , the hadith and Quran fulfill the
ISO standards for documentation. Not much can be
said of your bible yeah ....
As for verse66:5 , same link :
excerpt : '... it has been stated in this Surah
that once during his sacred life he made
a thing declared lawful by Allah unlawful
for himself only to please his wives; then
Allah has severely reproved for their
errors those very wives of the Holy Prophet,
whom He Himself has declared as mothers of
the faithful and worthy of the highest esteem
and honor by them. Then, this criticism of
the Prophet and the administration of the
warning to the wives also has not been made
secretly but included in the Book, which
the entire Ummah has to read and recite for
ever. Obviously, neither the intention of
making mention of it in the Book of Allah
was, nor it could be, that Allah wanted to
degrade His Messenger and the mothers of
the faithful in the eyes of the believers;
and this also is obvious that no Muslim has
lost respect for them, in his heart after
reading this Surah of the Qur'an. Now, there
cannot be any other reason of mentioning
this thing in the Qur'an than that Allah
wants to acquaint the believers with the
correct manner of reverence for their great
personalities...'
'...the holy wives of the Prophet, were human,
not angels or super men. They could commit
mistakes. Whatever ranks they achieved
became possible only because the guidance
given by Allah and the training imparted by
Allah's Messenger had moulded them into the
finest models. Whatever esteem and reverence
they deserve is on this very basis and not
on the presumption that they were infallible.
For this reason, whenever in the sacred
lifetime of the Prophet (upon him be peace)
the Companions or holy wives happened to
commit an error due to human weakness, they
were checked. Some of their errors were
corrected by the Holy Prophet, as has been
mentioned at many places in the Hadith; some
other errors were mentioned in the Qur'an and
Allah Himself corrected...'
So in the end of the day , your argument :
1. Is based in strawman (again)
- where is the threat?
- Historically there has been no evidence of
the intention of divorcing the wives
So how do you say it - 'deficient comprehension'?
See above for the commentary by Maududi.
my advice again : be objective not christian.
Beng Ngek Loe™
6d2e7e...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com :
> my advice again : be objective not christian.
>
no doubt, above advice smells so islamic !
no wonder you failed to perceive donie's statements
are objective enough
sam...@hotmail.com
> sam1...@hotmail.com wrote in news:6f60c7a3-fa1f-4144-8aff-
> 6d2e7ed9d...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com :
>
> > my advice again : be objective not christian.
>
> no doubt, above advice smells so islamic !
>
Thank you for admitting that islam is logical and
christianity is full of conjectures.
> no wonder you failed to perceive donie's statements
> are objective enough
Arguing from strawman or 'HYPOTHETICAL DIVORCED
WIVES' objective?
sam1528
Beng Ngek Loe™
@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com :
> On Nov 6, 1:52 am, "Beng Ngek Loe™" <bengngek...@asma.com> wrote:
>> sam1...@hotmail.com wrote in news:6f60c7a3-fa1f-4144-8aff-
>> 6d2e7ed9d...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com :
>>
>> > my advice again : be objective not christian.
>>
>> no doubt, above advice smells so islamic !
>>
>
> Thank you for admitting that islam is logical and
> christianity is full of conjectures.
wow, definitely time for you to see your optician,
if not re-taking Basic Reading Comprehension 101
dont delay any minutes my friend :))
>> no wonder you failed to perceive donie's statements
>> are objective enough
>
> Arguing from strawman or 'HYPOTHETICAL DIVORCED
> WIVES' objective?
now you've even convinced me,
you dont even know what objective is
> sam1528
>
donie
The issue is your Allah, your GREAT PROPHET and all their circle, are
very funny.
1) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about making a vow of not taking
HONEY?
2) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about disclosing the vow of not
taking HONEY to one wife with a promise to keep that as a SECRET?
3) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about REPRIMANDING the wife that
broke the SECRET vow of not taking HONEY?
4) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about threatening all wives just
because a SECRET VOW of not taking HONEY?
5) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about your Allah instructing
Muhammat to break his vow of not taking HONEY?
Don't you think that it's very funny that your HOLY BOOK delves on
taking HONEY rather that teach you how to behave?
sam...@hotmail.com
> sam1...@hotmail.com wrote in news:f4c0a167-72b1-4d8c-951a-af061375b392
The only advice to you : be objective not christian.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> very funny.
Hmmm , very weird sense of humour you have. Most of
the people on earth apart from christians will think
that your so called son of god , having 2 different
genealogies but he was of virgin birth is a whole lot
funnier. It goes onto show what little thought you
christians have upon 'intoxicated' writing.
> 1) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about making a vow of not takingHONEY?
Nobody claimed its great nor glorious. Only you in
trying to bullshit on your point claimed as such.
Read the tafseer for the commentary of the verse.
> 2) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about disclosing the vow of not
> takingHONEYto one wife with a promise to keep that as a SECRET?
Again , nobody claimed its great not glorious. Only
you in trying to bullshit on your point claimed as
such. Again , read the tafseer for the commentary to
the verse.
> 3) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about REPRIMANDING the wife that
> broke the SECRET vow of not takingHONEY?
Isn't breaking one's word or promise sinful? Again
nobody claimed its great nor glorious. Again only
you in trying to bullshit on your point claim as
such. Again read the tafseer for the commentary to
the verse.
> 4) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about threatening all wives just
> because a SECRET VOW of not taking HONEY?
The understanding of threat only comes from your
convoluted mind. Again nobody claimed its great
nor glorious. Again only you in trying to bullshit
your point claim as such. Again read the tafseer
for the commentary to the verse.
> 5) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about your Allah instructing
> Muhammat to break his vow of not takingHONEY?
>
One cannot make unlawful what is lawful. Isn't
that a straight forward understanding. Wait! You
are christian aren't you. Therefore you are not
objective. Again nobody claimed its great nor
glorious. Again only you in trying to bullshit
your point claim as such. Again read the tafseer
for the commentary to the verse.
> Don't you think that it's very funny that your HOLY BOOK delves on
> takingHONEYrather that teach you how to behave?
Don't think so. If you had the bravado to read and
understand the tafseer you can see that there are
a couple of teachings in the verses. As usual you
have been too afraid to read and understand it.
What is really funny is as follows :
- your so called son of god , having 2 different
genealogies but he was of virgin birth is a whole
lot funnier. It goes onto show what little thought
you christian have upon 'intoxicated' writing.
sam1528
donie
> On Nov 6, 6:38 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about making a vow of not takingHONEY?
>
> Nobody claimed its great nor glorious. Only you in
> trying to bullshit on your point claimed as such.
> Read the tafseer for the commentary of the verse.
But that's well written in the GLORIOUS Qoran and for the GREAT
Prophet Muhammat, isn't it?
> > 2) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about disclosing the vow of not
> > takingHONEYto one wife with a promise to keep that as a SECRET?
>
> Again , nobody claimed its great not glorious. Only
> you in trying to bullshit on your point claimed as
> such. Again , read the tafseer for the commentary to
> the verse.
>
Again that's written in the GLORIOUS Qoran and for the GREAT Prophet
Muhammat.
> > 3) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about REPRIMANDING the wife that
> > broke the SECRET vow of not takingHONEY?
>
> Isn't breaking one's word or promise sinful? Again
> nobody claimed its great nor glorious. Again only
> you in trying to bullshit on your point claim as
> such. Again read the tafseer for the commentary to
> the verse.
Even if that's just disclosing a secret of not taking HONEY? Really?
Disclosing a secreet of a vow not taking HONEY is considered SINFUL
that warrant your allah wrath in the form of DIVORCE threat?
> > 4) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about threatening all wives just
> > because a SECRET VOW of not taking HONEY?
> The understanding of threat only comes from your
> convoluted mind. Again nobody claimed its great
> nor glorious. Again only you in trying to bullshit
> your point claim as such. Again read the tafseer
> for the commentary to the verse.
Read the GLORIOUS verses for yourself. Verse 4: "...truly Allah is
his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who
believe, - and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up" (Allah,
gabriel and Angels are protectors of GREAT Prophet Muhammat) Verse 5:
",,, IF HE DIVORCED YOU (ALL), that ALLAH will give him in exchange
consorts better than you."
> > 5) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about your Allah instructing
> > Muhammat to break his vow of not taking HONEY?
>
> One cannot make unlawful what is lawful. Isn't
> that a straight forward understanding. Wait! You
> are christian aren't you. Therefore you are not
> objective. Again nobody claimed its great nor
> glorious. Again only you in trying to bullshit
> your point claim as such. Again read the tafseer
> for the commentary to the verse.
>
Don't you think that it's very funny that your HOLY BOOK delves on
taking HONEYrather that teach you how to behave?
>
> Don't think so. If you had the bravado to read and
> understand the tafseer you can see that there are
> a couple of teachings in the verses. As usual you
> have been too afraid to read and understand it.
What tafseer are you talking about. How is that different with with
simple reading using simple wisdom straight on the qoran texts?
Bauw Phe Sieng™
da9751...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com :
now look who's talking :))
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
First things first. We have an agreement of the
comical nature of your bible :
- Your so called son of god had 2 different
genealogies in mat1 and luke3. However he
was of virgin birth (no father if you do not
understand).
Therefore it is intoxicated writing rather than
'inspired' writing. You agree yeah?
>
> > Nobody claimed its great nor glorious. Only you in
> > trying to bullshit on your point claimed as such.
> > Read the tafseer for the commentary of the verse.
>
> But that's well written in the GLORIOUS Qoran and for the GREAT
> Prophet Muhammat, isn't it?
>
I thank you for admitting that the Quran is GLORIOUS
and Prophet Muhammad (saw) was GREAT prophet. I was
hoping it would come from you. Now you have stated
it. See , even christians admitted to the fact.
> > > 2) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about disclosing the vow of not
> > > takingHONEYto one wife with a promise to keep that as a SECRET?
>
> > Again , nobody claimed its great not glorious. Only
> > you in trying to bullshit on your point claimed as
> > such. Again , read the tafseer for the commentary to
> > the verse.
>
> Again that's written in the GLORIOUS Qoran and for the GREAT Prophet
> Muhammat.
>
I thank you again. See above
> > > 3) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about REPRIMANDING the wife that
> > > broke the SECRET vow of not takingHONEY?
>
> > Isn't breaking one's word or promise sinful? Again
> > nobody claimed its great nor glorious. Again only
> > you in trying to bullshit on your point claim as
> > such. Again read the tafseer for the commentary to
> > the verse.
>
> Even if that's just disclosing a secret of not takingHONEY? Really?
> Disclosing a secreet of a vow not takingHONEYis considered SINFUL
> that warrant your allah wrath in the form of DIVORCE threat?
>
A promise is a promise. Breaking a promise is a
sin. I do not know about christianity , you lot
have a very fuzzy concept of sin. Probably due
to the con of 'rasul paulus. aka paul aka saul
(the bounty hunter) in making you lot believe
that jesus died for your sins.
At first it was threatening now warning. Do you
notice your inconsistency? Again this is what you
admitted as inventing excuses. Where is the fact
that the prophet ever intended to divorce his
wives? Looks like inventing excuses or arguments
comes from you since your arguments lack facts.
Then you need to provide evidence or proof of
the prophet ever intended to divorce his wives.
The bit part definition of 'if'
ref : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if
excerpt : 1 c: on the assumption that
So in the end it is an ASSUMPTION. Therefore your
argument is based on an ASSUMPTION , NOT FACTS.
What is it you say - inventing excuses ....
This argument of yours is a prime example of
inventing excuses or argument which is devoid of
facts. Typical christian argument.
> > > 5) What's so GREAT and so GLORIOUS about your Allah instructing
> > > Muhammat to break his vow of not takingHONEY?
>
> > One cannot make unlawful what is lawful. Isn't
> > that a straight forward understanding. Wait! You
> > are christian aren't you. Therefore you are not
> > objective. Again nobody claimed its great nor
> > glorious. Again only you in trying to bullshit
> > your point claim as such. Again read the tafseer
> > for the commentary to the verse.
>
> Don't you think that it's very funny that your HOLY BOOK delves on
> taking HONEYrather that teach you how to behave?
>
The key learning is as follows :
- not to make unlawful things that are lawful
(without authority)
- breaking a promise is a sin
- the wives of the prophets were held in high
esteem, they are required to be well
behaved all of the time.
Going back , in comparison. Don't you think it
is funnier that in your bible :
- Your so called son of god had 2 different
genealogies in mat1 and luke3. However he
was of virgin birth (no father if you do not
understand).
What learning can you derived from the verses
in mat1 and luk3? The only learning is that the
conclusion of it being intoxicated writing as
opposed to 'god inspired' writing.
>
>
> > Don't think so. If you had the bravado to read and
> > understand the tafseer you can see that there are
> > a couple of teachings in the verses. As usual you
> > have been too afraid to read and understand it.
>
> What tafseer are you talking about. How is that different with with
> simple reading using simple wisdom straight on the qoran texts?
Ho ho ho , now its the questioning of the tafseer.
You are again caught being inconsistent. In your
post of oct30 , 11.52am in thread 'donie - can you
explain the following irregularity in your bible' ;
in which you were so afraid to answer my question :
'...I can provide you a number of studies that have
been extended even as early as the second century
(e.g. Julius Africanus, d. A.D. 240)...'
To try support your case , you appeal to biblical
studies. Now you are trying to throw away Quranic
studies to present your case. Hmmmm , not only you
are inconsistent but you are also dishonest. Well
that the trait of christians.
my advice again : be objective not christian
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> > The only advice to you : be objective not christian.
>
> > sam1528
>
> now look who's talking :))
Yeah its me talking :
- be objective not christian
sam1528
donie
> On Nov 7, 5:04 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> At first it was threatening now warning. Do you
> notice your inconsistency? Again this is what you
You can toggle threatening and warning,reprimanding if you like, but
the issue your Allah is very fond of threatening women in this case
muhammat's wofe is crystal clear.
> admitted as inventing excuses. Where is the fact
> that the prophet ever intended to divorce his
> wives? Looks like inventing excuses or arguments
> comes from you since your arguments lack facts.
The read your glorious qoran 4:128, the case of poor old Sauda
settling to relinquish her turn for Muhammat's care to Ayesha fearing
cruelity and divorce from Muhammat.
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
You try to run away from the topics that you brought
up. Poor isn't it? -
1. Don't you think it is funnier that in your
bible :
- Your so called son of god had 2 different
genealogies in mat1 and luke3. However he
was of virgin birth (no father if you do
not understand).
What learning can you derived from the verses
in mat1 and luk3? The only learning is that
the conclusion of it being intoxicated writing
as opposed to 'god inspired' writing.
2. You question of why tafseer but per your post
of oct30 , 11.52am in thread 'donie - can you
explain the following irregularity in your
bible' (in which you were so afraid to answer
my question) :
'...I can provide you a number of studies that
have been extended even as early as the second
century
(e.g. Julius Africanus, d. A.D. 240)...'
To try support your case , you appeal to
biblical studies. Now you are trying to throw
away Quranic studies to present your case. Hmm
, not only you are inconsistent but you are also
dishonest.
> > At first it was threatening now warning. Do you
> > notice your inconsistency? Again this is what you
>
> You can toggle threatening and warning,reprimanding if you like, but
> the issue your Allah is very fond of threatening women in this case
> muhammat's wofe is crystal clear.
>
Definition of threaten (bitpart ) :
ref : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threaten
excerpt : 3: to announce as intended or possible
Definition of warning (bitpart)
ref : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warning
excerpt : 2: something that warns or serves to warn
; especially : a notice or bulletin
that alerts the public to an imminent
hazard (as a tornado, thunderstorm, or
flood)
Which is which? Toggle between what? You sure you
know what you are talking about? Really exposed
you being clueless
Refer to verse66:5 (bitpart):
'It may be, if he divorced you (all)....'
The bit part definition of 'if'
ref : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if
excerpt : 1 c: on the assumption that
In the end , your argument is based on an ASSUMPTION
, NOT FACTS. You fit your description of 'reinventing
excuses ...'.
Not very good issit? Extremely weak argument from you.
In fact you have no argument at all except you dancing
around flirting with assumptions.
> > admitted as inventing excuses. Where is the fact
> > that the prophet ever intended to divorce his
> > wives? Looks like inventing excuses or arguments
> > comes from you since your arguments lack facts.
>
> The read your glorious qoran 4:128, the case of poor old Sauda
> settling to relinquish her turn for Muhammat's care to Ayesha fearing
> cruelity and divorce from Muhammat.
Quran verse4:128
ref : http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/4.htm
128. If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her
husband's part, there is no blame on them if
they arrange an amicable settlement between
themselves; and such settlement is best; even
though men's souls are swayed by greed. But
if ye do good and practise self-restraint,
Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do
Where is the mention of sauda fearing divorce from
the prophet in the said verse?
In fact if you compare it to your bible of deut24:1 :
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=741530
[1] When a man hath taken a wife, and married her,
and it come to pass that she find no favour in
his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness
in her: then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send
her out of his house.
The man can just kick the woman out of his house
regardless whether the woman is pregnant. He can do
it without even consulting the wife (woman). In
verse4:128 , it provides an avenue for negotiation.
Clearly the law in the Quran is much more superior
to the biblical law.
donie
> On Nov 12, 3:41 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
> You try to run away from the topics that you brought
> up. Poor isn't it? -
>
If you are confident, you would be able to discuss why Muhammat would
should your Allah ridiculing himself by issuing GLORIOUS revelation on
rebuking Muhammat for not taking lawful HONEY?
And if the issue only on taking HONEY, why your Allah considers that
as a SECRET and uses this opportunity to threaten Muhammat'S wives of
possible divorce with immediate replacement WIDOWS and VIRGINS?
066:001
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> > You try to run away from the topics that you brought
> > up. Poor isn't it? -
>
> Yes.
> If you are confident, you would be able to discuss why Muhammat would
> should your Allah ridiculing himself by issuing GLORIOUS revelation on
> rebuking Muhammat for not taking lawfulHONEY?
>
You agree that you bring up an argument ,when
refuted , you run away with your tail between
your legs. Repeating the issues , this time be
a bit brave to answer the topics that you
brought up :
1. Don't you think it is funnier that in your
bible :
- Your so called son of god had 2 different
genealogies in mat1 and luke3. However he
was of virgin birth (no father if you do
not understand).
What learning can you derived from the verses
in mat1 and luk3? The only learning is that
the conclusion of it being intoxicated writing
as opposed to 'god inspired' writing.
2. You question of why tafseer but per your post
of oct30 , 11.52am in thread 'donie - can you
explain the following irregularity in your
bible' (in which you were so afraid to answer
my question) :
'...I can provide you a number of studies that
have been extended even as early as the second
century
(e.g. Julius Africanus, d. A.D. 240)...'
To try support your case , you appeal to
biblical studies. Now you are trying to throw
away Quranic studies to present your case. Hmm
, not only you are inconsistent but you are
also dishonest.
> And if the issue only on takingHONEY, why your Allah considers that
> as a SECRET and uses this opportunity to threaten Muhammat'S wives of
> possible divorce with immediate replacement WIDOWS and VIRGINS?
>
Again , you never read the tafsir that was forwarded :
ref : http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1305&Itemid=122
Bit part of it :'... A'ishah claiming that Allah's
Messenger used to stay for a period
in the house of Zaynab bint Jahsh
and drink honey in her house. (She
said) "Hafsah and I decided that
when the Prophet entered upon either
of us, we would say, `I smell Maghafir
on you. Have you eaten Maghafir'
When he entered upon one of us, she
said that to him...'
'... `A'ishah said, "The Messenger
of Allah used to hate to have a bad
odor coming from him'' This is why
they suggested to him that he ate
Maghafir, because it causes a bad
odor...'
The vow was that he thought that the honey he took
caused an odour as complained by ayesha and hafsah.
The prophet hated to have bad odour , thus he made
the vow of not taking anymore honey. Since he is a
leader , if that got to public , others will follow
suit. That was why he made them to keep it as a
secret.
It was due to the made up complain of the wives that
the prophet avowed not to take honey. He had no
authority to make unlawful what is lawful. Therefore
the wives need to conduct themselves better and
behave in a more dignified manner. Look again
at verse66:5 : '...It may be, if he divorced you ...'
Again you are doing what you claim of 'reinventing
excuses'. Repeating my previous post :
The bit part definition of 'if'
ref : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if
excerpt : 1 c: on the assumption that
In the end , your argument is based on an ASSUMPTION
, NOT FACTS. You fit your description of 'reinventing
excuses ...'.
Again refer to the tafseer , the prophet did not
even had the intention to divorce his wives. Where
is the threat?
You keep on repeating already refuted arguments. You
need to be brave and honest to at least address the
counter argument. You have not done such in any of
your argument. Typical christian , poor theology and
poor arguments.
This time make an effort to read and understand. Don't
always be a clueless christian running around in
circles chasing your own backside.
my advice again : be objective not christian
sam1528
donie
>
> The vow was that he thought that the honey he took
> caused an odour as complained by ayesha and hafsah.
> The prophet hated to have bad odour , thus he made
> the vow of not taking anymore honey. Since he is a
> leader , if that got to public , others will follow
> suit. That was why he made them to keep it as a
> secret.
If you have adequate reading comprehension, you will see from the
lengthy materials you copy-pasted, it was spending more times, then it
should that bothered Ayesha and the rest of Muhammat wives. Its was
JEALOUSY that matters not HONEY or bad smell resulting from taking
honey..
> It was due to the made up complain of the wives that
> the prophet avowed not to take honey. He had no
> authority to make unlawful what is lawful. Therefore
> the wives need to conduct themselves better and
> behave in a more dignified manner. Look again
> at verse66:5 : '...It may be, if he divorced you ...'
> Again you are doing what you claim of 'reinventing
> excuses'. Repeating my previous post :
> The bit part definition of 'if'
> ref :http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if
> excerpt : 1 c: on the assumption that
>
> In the end , your argument is based on an ASSUMPTION
> , NOT FACTS. You fit your description of 'reinventing
> excuses ...'.
I have been picking up clues from your lengthy posts and using them
against you yet you have the nerve labeling me fantasizing when I
quote Ayesha's JEALOUSY.
> Again refer to the tafseer , the prophet did not
> even had the intention to divorce his wives. Where
> is the threat?
Here again, you pave the way for me to see that Muhammat got those
verses in order to THREATEN his wives. If he as you say he never had
any intention of divorcing his wives, he never needs frequent threat
to divorce his wives. If Muhammat doesn't need, should your Allah
care?
sam...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 14, 6:14 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > caused an odour as complained by ayesha and hafsah.
> > The prophet hated to have bad odour , thus he made
> > leader , if that got to public , others will follow
> > suit. That was why he made them to keep it as a
> > secret.
>
> If you have adequate reading comprehension, you will see from the
> lengthy materials you copy-pasted, it was spending more times, then it
> should that bothered Ayesha and the rest of Muhammat wives. Its was
> JEALOUSY that matters notHONEYor bad smell resulting from takinghoney..
>
Back to you , if you have a wee bit of reading
comprehension you will know why it is called
tafseer. Its the commentary of the Quran which
in this case is tied to the hadith for surah66.
You are being inconsistent again. Your argument
is 100% copied from faith freedom. You are even
worse , you also copy pasted a satire which was
not even facts. Be consistent in you argument
principles.
You talk of jealousy , who was jelous? All of
the wives? What was their action? What was the
result of the their action? You have this
problem of telescoping issues but have missed
the central point.
> > It was due to the made up complain of the wives that
> > the prophet avowed not to takehoney. He had no
> > authority to make unlawful what is lawful. Therefore
> > the wives need to conduct themselves better and
> > behave in a more dignified manner. Look again
> > at verse66:5 : '...It may be, if he divorced you ...'
> > Again you are doing what you claim of 'reinventing
> > excuses'. Repeating my previous post :
> > The bit part definition of 'if'
> > ref :http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/if
> > excerpt : 1 c: on the assumption that
>
> > In the end , your argument is based on an ASSUMPTION
> > , NOT FACTS. You fit your description of 'reinventing
> > excuses ...'.
>
> I have been picking up clues from your lengthy posts and using them
> against you yet you have the nerve labeling me fantasizing when I
> quote Ayesha's JEALOUSY.
>
Have you picked up facts or just fantasy from your
assumptions? So far its assumptions and coupled
with fantasy from your end. You mentioned in the
beginning that it was due to hafsah who stumbled
on the prophet with hafsah's slave , mary. Where
is your facts? When did hafsah ever had mary as
her slave? Mary was married to the prophet and
lived in her own house. I even have the nerve to
label you a LIAR.
Doesn't the tafseer mentioned that ayesha was
jealous? You are again just going around in circles.
> > Again refer to the tafseer , the prophet did not
> > even had the intention to divorce his wives. Where
> > is the threat?
>
> Here again, you pave the way for me to see that Muhammat got those
> verses in order to THREATEN his wives. If he as you say he never had
> any intention of divorcing his wives, he never needs frequent threat
> to divorce his wives. If Muhammat doesn't need, should your Allah
> care?
Then show evidence of it. Until now you have failed
and failed badly in you trying to show proof.
Where is your proof? Refer to verse66:5 , bit part
of the verse : '...It may be, if he divorced you...'
Refer again to the definition of 'It may be' and
'if' , I don't have to repeat the definition again.
Your argument has been based on ASSUMPTIONS. You
have been very dishonest in your argument but you
have been caught out.
donie
Once again you are going to be badly exposed. You
have been provided with the tafseer of the verses
but like any christian tend twist the facts to your
liking. Don't you realise that you will be caught
out if you lie? From the tafseer :
usual at the quarters of Zainab bint Jahsh, for
she had received from somewhere some honey which
the holy Prophet liked very much. "At this",
Safiya, and I agreed among ourselves that when
he visits us each of us would tell him that a
peculiar odour came from his mouth as a result
of what he had eaten, for we knew that he was
particularly sensitive to offensive smells"
he would never again use honey.
him that he should not declare to himself unlawful
that which Allah had made lawful to him.
Any comment Sam?
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
Exposing you again :
You argument of 'threatening with divorce' has been
based on ASSUMPTION with no proof. Refer to verse66:5
, bit part of the verse : '...It may be, if he
divorced you...'
Refer again to the definition of 'It may be' and
'if' , I don't have to repeat the definition again.
You have been dishonest and you have been caught out.
Now you are trying to divert attention to ayesha's
jealousy which obviously has been stated in the
tafseer. Why are you trying to argue on something
that has been made plain and obvious? Are you already
that bankrupt of ideas?
> usual at the quarters ofZainabbint Jahsh, for
> she had received from somewhere somehoneywhich
> the holy Prophet liked very much. "At this",
> says 'Aisha, "I FELT JEALOUS", and Hafsa, Sawda,
> Safiya, and I agreed among ourselves that when
> he visits us each of us would tell him that a
> peculiar odour came from his mouth as a result
> of what he had eaten, for we knew that he was
> particularly sensitive to offensive smells"
> 2. So when his wives hinted at it, he vowed that
> he would never again usehoney.
> 3. Thereupon these verses were revealed reminding
> him that he should not declare to himself unlawful
> that which Allah had made lawful to him.
> ==============end quote============
>
> Any comment Sam?
Yeah , isn't that what has been consistently stated?
You are clueless again.
Your so called argument : '...Its was JEALOUSY that
matters notHONEYor bad
smell resulting from
takinghoney...'
However you conveniently forgotten about the fact
of verse66:1 that stated of not making unlawful
what is lawful. My questions again :
1. Who was/were jealous?
2. What were their action?
3. What was the ramification?
What is your point? Well apart from your lying of
the prophet being caught by hafsah with mary , the
so called hafsah's slave in hafash's house. Whereas
historically , mary married the prophet and was never
hafash's slave and she had her own house in madinah.
my advice again : be objective not christain.
sam1528
donie
> On Nov 16, 1:11 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
> Exposing you again :
>
> You argument of 'threatening with divorce' has been
> based on ASSUMPTION with no proof. Refer to verse66:5
> , bit part of the verse : '...It may be, if he
> divorced you...'
>
> Refer again to the definition of 'It may be' and
> 'if' , I don't have to repeat the definition again.
> You have been dishonest and you have been caught out.
You conveniently choose to interpret otherwise. If that's not a
DIVORCE THREAT, your allah doesn't need to insert DIVORCE YOU in the
phrase you conveniently select. If you read the whole context of
66:3-5, you will clearly see that's Allah's threat to only serve his
Messenger's desire. And as per school of thought you subscribe to, a
threat just because one wife disclosing Muhammat's mundane VOW of not
eating HONEY. Very funny.
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
We can agree that your argument of mary being the
slave of hafsah was just a made up story by you.
> > Exposing you again :
>
> > You argument of 'threatening with divorce' has been
> > based on ASSUMPTION with no proof. Refer to verse66:5
> > , bit part of the verse : '...It may be, if he
> > divorced you...'
>
> > Refer again to the definition of 'It may be' and
> > 'if' , I don't have to repeat the definition again.
> > You have been dishonest and you have been caught out.
>
> You conveniently choose to interpret otherwise. If that's not a
> DIVORCE THREAT, your allah doesn't need to insert DIVORCE YOU in the
> phrase you conveniently select. If you read the whole context of
> 66:3-5, you will clearly see that's Allah's threat to only serve his
> Messenger's desire. And as per school of thought you subscribe to, a
> threat just because one wife disclosing Muhammat's mundane VOW of not
> eatingHONEY. Very funny.
>
Observe the flip flop nature of your argument. First
it was ayesha's jealously. When questioned about
1. Who was/were jealous?
2. What were their action?
3. What was the ramification?
You are not capable to answer and then you jump to
saying that its Allah treat to serve the prophet's
desire. Why so silly and flip flopping in your
argument? Where in the verses that exhibited of the
prophet's desire.
If you look carefully at the verses66:3-5 , it showed
that once a promise has been made , you do not break
it. The prophet will know about it as he is protected
by Allah. Breaking a promise is a sin , as wives to
the prophet , they are required the be at the best
of behavior at all times. Go back to the tafseer ,
its all there.
Look at the definition of 'if' and 'on condition of'.
Different from you , we muslims argue on facts not
like you christians who just argue on fantasy. You
are just making assumptions and arguing from
assumptions. Just like you assumed that your so called
'son of god' died for your sins.
What so funny about the vow? I can show you what is
even funnier :
- Your so called son of god had 2 different
genealogies in mat1 and luke3. However he
was of virgin birth (no father if you do
not understand).
You sure the above is god inspired writing.
Sounds more like intoxicated writing.
my advice again : be objective not christain.
sam1528
donie
> On Nov 17, 10:16 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
> We can agree that your argument of mary being the
> slave of hafsah was just a made up story by you.
>
SECRET which trigger DIVORCE THREAT as the asababun nuzul of At TAhrim
66:1-5, so we go back to the Muhammat and Mariam the Copt sexual
scandal?
sam...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 17, 10:08 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Nov 17, 10:16 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --snip--
>
> > We can agree that your argument of mary being the
> > slave of hafsah was just a made up story by you.
>
> SECRET which trigger DIVORCE THREAT as the asababun nuzul of At TAhrim
> 66:1-5, so we go back to the Muhammat and Mariam the Copt sexual
> scandal?
However the problem is that you do not have any
point of contention. You keep on going around in
circles chasing your own backside but do not have
any point in your argument.
You argue of ayesha's jealousy , its has been
recorded in the tafseer. You argue of mary's
issue , she was never hafsah's slave. You argue
that the vow of taking honey , it is in the
tafseer on not to make unlawful what is lawful.
You argue on keeping a secret , breaking one's
word is a sin in any religion. Again , what is
your point? You argue that vow on honey is funny ,
as follows is even funnier :
- Your so called son of god had 2 different
genealogies in mat1 and luke3. However he
was of virgin birth (no father if you do
not understand).
You sure the above is god inspired writing.
Sounds more like intoxicated writing.
What is your point? My questions are very simple
1. Who was/were jealous?
2. What were their action?
3. What was the ramification?
You are not capable of answering , you then jump to
saying that its Allah treat to serve the prophet's
desire. Why so silly and flip flopping in your
argument? Where in the verses that exhibited of the
prophet's desire.
If you say threat of divorce , in verse66:4 , bit
part of the verse : '...It may be, if he divorced
you...'. Refer again to the definition of 'It may be'
and 'if' , I don't have to repeat the definition
again.
Your argument has been based on ASSUMPTIONS. You
have been very dishonest in your argument but you
have been caught out.
my advice again : be objective not christian
sam1528
donie
> On Nov 18, 10:04 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:08 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:> On Nov 17, 10:16 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > --snip--
>
> > > We can agree that your argument of mary being the
> > > slave of hafsah was just a made up story by you.
>
> > Are you giving up on yourZainabHONEY, HOLY PROPHET'S VOW and its
> > SECRET which trigger DIVORCE THREAT as the asababun nuzul of At TAhrim
> > 66:1-5, so we go back to the Muhammat and Mariam the Copt sexual
> > scandal?
>
> However the problem is that you do not have any
> point of contention. You keep on going around in
> circles chasing your own backside but do not have
> any point in your argument.
>
> You argue of ayesha's jealousy , its has been
> recorded in the tafseer. You argue of mary's
> issue , she was never hafsah's slave. You argue
> that the vow of taking honey , it is in the
> tafseer on not to make unlawful what is lawful.
> You argue on keeping a secret , breaking one's
> word is a sin in any religion. Again , what is
> your point? You argue that vow on honey is funny ,
> as follows is even funnier :
I have just been questioning your tafseer on ATH Tahrim which I
summarize as the title of the thread. Now if you give up on that
particular school of thought, I can go back to my Muhammat and Mariam
the Copt sexual scandal.
sam...@hotmail.com
> > point of contention. You keep on going around in
> > circles chasing your own backside but do not have
> > any point in your argument.
>
> > You argue of ayesha's jealousy , its has been
> > recorded in the tafseer. You argue of mary's
> > issue , she was never hafsah's slave. You argue
> > tafseer on not to make unlawful what is lawful.
> > You argue on keeping a secret , breaking one's
> > word is a sin in any religion. Again , what is
> > as follows is even funnier :
>
> I have just been questioning your tafseer on ATH Tahrim which I
> summarize as the title of the thread. Now if you give up on that
> particular school of thought, I can go back to my Muhammat and Mariam
> the Copt sexual scandal.
So where are your questions? You seemed to flip
flop from one point to another. When you got
refuted you change your stance. You have been
and still is very inconsistent.
What arguments have you put up so far? All
that can be seen :
1. You talk about ayeaha's jealousy , its in the
tafseer.
2. You talk about mary being hafsah's slave , you
have been caught lying as mary was married to
the prophet.
3. You tried to refute the issue on honey but
until now you do not have any support hadiths
or historical evidence
4. You talk about the threat of divorce , its all
based on ASSUMPTIONS of 'if' and 'on the
condition'. Therefore its clear you just invented
arguments without any proof.
5. You claim of vowing not to take honey is funny ,
no one else find it funny. A funnier issue is
as follows (in your bible):
- Your so called son of god had 2 different
genealogies in mat1 and luke3. However he
was of virgin birth (no father if you do
not understand).
You sure the above is god inspired writing.
Sounds more like intoxicated writing.
You have nothing except excuses and being clueless
running around in circles chasing your own backside.
Until now you have yet to mount any serious challenge.
Can you christians please mount a serious challenge
to us muslims. So far it has been too easy as your
arguments were just inventions with no hadith or Quran
or historical backing.
To remind you : Until now you have not managed to
use your biblical verses to refute
the Prophet Muhammad (saw) having
been foretold in your bible.
isa29:12
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2594466
[12] And the book is delivered to him that is not
learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he
saith, I am not learned.
When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by
saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".
ref : http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/mBible.htm
You will have a hard time refuting your own bible.
donie
> On Nov 19, 11:10 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have just been questioning your tafseer on ATH Tahrim which I
> > summarize as the title of the thread. Now if you give up on that
> > particular school of thought, I can go back to my Muhammat and Mariam
> > the Copt sexual scandal.
>
> So where are your questions? You seemed to flip
> flop from one point to another. When you got
> refuted you change your stance. You have been
> and still is very inconsistent.
The issue you have been avoiding. If the school of thought you
subscribe relates the ATH Tahrim 1-5 verses to as I summarize in the
title of this thread: A kind of HONEY served by Zainab, Muhammat
stayed longer in Zainab house, Ayesha jealousy because of that, the
VOW of not taking that HONEY anymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by
a confident wife; Allah involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife
of the secret dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and
the the DIVORCE THREAT.
What a futile Allah you GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking his
nose into mundane honey taking issue. And lo a divorce threat is in
order, just because honey taking.
sam...@hotmail.com
> > > summarize as the title of the thread. Now if you give up on that
> > > particular school of thought, I can go back to my Muhammat and Mariam
> > > the Copt sexual scandal.
>
> > So where are your questions? You seemed to flip
> > flop from one point to another. When you got
> > refuted you change your stance. You have been
> > and still is very inconsistent.
>
> The issue you have been avoiding. If the school of thought you
> subscribe relates the ATH Tahrim 1-5 verses to as I summarize in the
> title of this thread: A kind ofHONEYserved byZainab, Muhammat
> VOW of not taking thatHONEYanymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by
> a confident wife; Allah involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife
> of the secret dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and
> the the DIVORCE THREAT.
>
> What a futile Allah you GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking his
> order, just becausehoneytaking.
Again you have not read and understand the citation
provided. On the other hand you completely disregard
the citation and information provided as you are so
hung up on your version that you are already blinded
or you need a dose of urine from your so called
biblical 'son of god' to wake you up. What is your
position on this matter?
It is the opposite actually. It is you who have been
avoiding to talk on FACTS. Rather you are much more
comfortable to just look at the surface and try to run
away when FACTS is put on the table. Honey is not the
issue , ayesha's jealousy is not the issue. Go back
to the previous posts as the issue has been explained.
Read it up , understand it and come back with some
FACTS so that we can continue.
Again you have been inconsistent. When refuted you
change your stance rather than to be a man and explain
your argument. You christians have absolutely no
principles. You even throw away your biblical values
if you have problems with it.
What divorce threat? You argument is based on
ASSUPMTIONS. Can't you argue based on facts? Are you
that poor in your theology?
donie
>
> Again you have not read and understand the citation
> provided. On the other hand you completely disregard
> the citation and information provided as you are so
> hung up on your version that you are already blinded
> or you need a dose of urine from your so called
> biblical 'son of god' to wake you up. What is your
> position on this matter?
>
> It is the opposite actually. It is you who have been
> avoiding to talk on FACTS. Rather you are much more
> comfortable to just look at the surface and try to run
> away when FACTS is put on the table. Honey is not the
> issue , ayesha's jealousy is not the issue. Go back
> to the previous posts as the issue has been explained.
> Read it up , understand it and come back with some
> FACTS so that we can continue.
I don't care if that's facts or just your fantasy but all I am
questioning is the school of thought you subscribe to as backgrounder
for HOLY AT TAHRIM 1-5. as I summarize as the title of this thread:
A kind of HONEY served by Zainab, Muhammat stayed longer in Zainab
house, Ayesha jealousy because of that, the
VOW of not taking that HONEY anymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by
a confident wife; Allah involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife
of the secret dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and
the the DIVORCE THREAT.
What a futile Allah you GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking his
nose into mundane honey taking issue. And lo a divorce threat is in
order, just because of honey taking issue.
sam...@hotmail.com
> > provided. On the other hand you completely disregard
> > the citation and information provided as you are so
> > hung up on your version that you are already blinded
> > or you need a dose of urine from your so called
> > biblical 'son of god' to wake you up. What is your
> > position on this matter?
>
> > It is the opposite actually. It is you who have been
> > avoiding to talk on FACTS. Rather you are much more
> > comfortable to just look at the surface and try to run
> > issue , ayesha's jealousy is not the issue. Go back
> > to the previous posts as the issue has been explained.
> > Read it up , understand it and come back with some
> > FACTS so that we can continue.
>
> I don't care if that's facts or just your fantasy but all I am
> questioning is the school of thought you subscribe to as backgrounder
> for HOLY AT TAHRIM 1-5. as I summarize as the title of this thread:
> a confident wife; Allah involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife
> of the secret dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and
> the the DIVORCE THREAT.
>
> What a futile Allah you GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking his
> order, just because ofhoneytaking issue.
When you say that you don't care for facts , it
shows that you are just arguing blind. You do not
have the facts on hand but invent an argument based
on a non existent issue. Its is perfectly ok to do
that in christianity as you do not even have facts
of jesus dying for your sins. That is the peril of
copy paste arguments from sites like faith freedom
etc. Now you are in trouble as those sites does not
provide answers to counter arguments. You are at a
loss of how to address the counter arguments.
When you have been refuted , you again change your
stance. It shows your extreme inconsistency. You can
go to a sunni or shia , the answer will still be the
same as the commentary is from ibn kathir which is
recognised by any muslim. Your inconsistency as
follows :
1. You claim it was the incident of hafash catching
the prophet with mary , hafsah's slave. However
you have been caught out lying as mary was the
prophet wife and she has her own house in madinah.
2. You claim its ayesha jealousy , its has been
commentated in ibn kathir. However you got stumped
when questioned about the ramifications.
3. You claim vow of not taking honey was funny but the
multiple genealogies of your biblical 'son of god'
is funnier coupled to the fact that he was of
virgin birth , no male intervention if you do not
understand.
4. You claim of divorce threat , you have been exposed
again that its an argument based on ASSUMPTION of
'if' and 'on the condition of' in verse66:4. When
questioned of did the prophet ever divorced his
wives , you answered NO. You have again refuted
your own argument.
On the whole you have been very poor.
Bauw Keh Thek
2b167a...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> my advice again : be objective not christian
>
thats the problem with ya, sammie dear
you cant quit being a muslim, no wonder you
failed to see how very objective donie has been !!
so now try to think using your brain sammie,
(I hope God has provided you with one)
Oo boy, dont I always love this part, btw
donie
The thread is on your presentation of background (Asababun nuzul) of
AT Tahrim 65:1-5. I don't care if that (your presentation) is facttual
or just your fantasy but all I am questioning is the quick tendency of
your allah in interfering in the domestic affairs of and for the the
benefit of Muhammat. As I summarize as the title of this thread: A
kind of HONEY served by Zainab, Muhammat stayed longer in Zainab
house, Ayesha jealousy because of that, the VOW of not taking that
HONEY anymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by a confident wife; Allah
involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife of the secret
dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and the the
DIVORCE THREAT.
What a futile Allah you GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking his
nose into mundane honey taking issue. And lo a divorce threat is in
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> The thread is on your presentation of background (Asababun nuzul) of
> AT Tahrim 65:1-5. I don't care if that (your presentation) is facttual
> or just your fantasy but all I am questioning is the quick tendency of
> your allah in interfering in the domestic affairs of and for the the
> benefit of Muhammat. As I summarize as the title of this thread: A
> involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife of the secret
> dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and the the
> DIVORCE THREAT.
>
> What a futile Allah you GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking his
> order, just because ofhoneytaking issue.
Weird person you are. Is repeating already refuted
arguments the best you can do? You are not drunk
with the urine of your so called biblical 'son of
god' are you?
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4794909
[37] In the last day, that great day of the feast,
Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man
thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
[38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture
hath said, out of his belly shall flow
rivers of living water.
You admitted that you have been arguing blind. When
refuted , you change your stance. Now its Allah
interference. For sure , Allah interfered as the
prophet had no authority to make unlawful what has
been made lawful. Logic isn't it? This showed that
the Prophet Muhammad (saw) was truly a prophet of
Allah. BTW this has been answered 3X.
You claim of divorce threat. When asked did the
prophet ever divorced his wives , you admitted NO.
In the end , your argument is based on ASSUMPTION.
All fair minded people argue on facts. Our resident
christian , donie argues on ASSUMPTIONS. Tell us a
lot about you being bankrupt of ideas.
sam...@hotmail.com
> sam1...@hotmail.com wrote in news:c519be33-a129-4095-88a9-
> 2b167afbc...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > my advice again : be objective not christian
>
> thats the problem with ya, sammie dear
>
> you cant quit being a muslim, no wonder you
> failed to see how very objective donie has been !!
>
> so now try to think using your brain sammie,
> (I hope God has provided you with one)
>
> Oo boy, dont I always love this part, btw
Another christian who is drunk with the urine
of your so called biblical 'son of god'.
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4794909
[37] In the last day, that great day of the feast,
Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man
thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
[38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture
hath said, out of his belly shall flow
rivers of living water.
my advice : be objective not christian
sam1528
Bauw Keh Thek
@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com:
> Another christian who is drunk with the urine
> of your so called biblical 'son of god'.
> ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=
4794909
> [37] In the last day, that great day of the feast,
> Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man
> thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
> [38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture
> hath said, out of his belly shall flow
> rivers of living water.
>
> my advice : be objective not christian
>
> sam1528
after you sammie dear .... quit being a moslem, take off that islamic
brain at least for once, I bet ya , you'll be
able to see then how others have always been objective to you all this
time
while you are a PhD in advising other to be objective,
you failed to demonstrate the attitude yourself
why keep blaming others for your shortage ????
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> after you sammie dear .... quit being a moslem, take off that islamic
> brain at least for once, I bet ya , you'll be
> able to see then how others have always been objective to you all this
> time
>
> while you are a PhD in advising other to be objective,
>
> you failed to demonstrate the attitude yourself
>
> why keep blaming others for your shortage ????
Like I mentioned : be objective not christian.
You might want to be a bit more braver in you
answering questions about your theology and
your bible. Learn that from us muslims , we
are confident enough to do that.
You drinking your so called biblical 'son of
god urine'?
Shortage? What 'shortage' you talking about?
sam1528
donie
>
> Weird person you are. Is repeating already refuted
If you have refuted, then it should be easy for you to present that
again as your response. I repeat that the thread is on your
presentation of background (Asababun nuzul) of AT Tahrim 65:1-5. I
don't care if that (your presentation) is factual
or just your fantasy but all I am questioning is the quick tendency of
your allah in interfering in the domestic affairs of and for the the
benefit of Muhammat. As I summarize as the title of this thread from
your lengthy explanation of why this AT Tahrim verses was issued:
Akind of HONEY served by Zainab, Muhammat stayed longer in Zainab
house, Ayesha jealousy because of that, the VOW of not taking that
HONEY anymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by a confident wife; Allah
involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife of the secret
dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and the the
DIVORCE THREAT.
What a futile Allah your GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking
his
nose into mundane honey taking issue. And lo... a divorce threat is in
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
You are definately a weird person. Repeating of
already refuted arguments will not help you but
shows that you are already at a loss on how to
proceed in your argument.
>
> If you have refuted, then it should be easy for you to present that
> again as your response. I repeat that the thread is on your
> presentation of background (Asababun nuzul) of AT Tahrim 65:1-5. I
> don't care if that (your presentation) is factual
> or just your fantasy but all I am questioning is the quick tendency of
> your allah in interfering in the domestic affairs of and for the the
> benefit of Muhammat. As I summarize as the title of this thread from
> your lengthy explanation of why this AT Tahrim verses was issued:
> Akind ofHONEYserved byZainab, Muhammat stayed longer inZainab
> house, Ayesha jealousy because of that, the VOW of not taking thatHONEYanymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by a confident wife; Allah
> involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife of the secret
> dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and the the
> DIVORCE THREAT.
>
> What a futile Allah your GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking
> his
> nose into mundanehoneytaking issue. And lo... a divorce threat is in
> order, just because ofhoneytaking issue.
Repeating of already refuted arguments will not
work. You again expose yourself as an ignorant
person trying his best to look intelligent. When
refuted you again change your stance.
Isn't Prophet Muhammad (saw) the prophet of Allah?
Therefore the prophet was guided accordingly by
Allah. So what is your point? You keep on changing
your stance when refuted.
Where is the divorce threat? Has the prophet
divorced any of his wives? Until now you cannot
even address the counter argument. Again , repeats
of a stale argument will not work. It shows that
you are not using your brains to think. You have
already admitted to 'NO' of the above questions.
Why are contradicting yourself again?
donie
>
> Repeating of already refuted arguments will not
> work. You again expose yourself as an ignorant
If you have refuted, then it should be easy for you to present that
again as your response. I repeat that the thread is on your
presentation of background (Asababun nuzul) of AT Tahrim 65:1-5. I
don't care if that (your presentation) is factual
or just your fantasy but all I am questioning is the quick tendency of
your allah in interfering in the domestic affairs of and for the the
benefit of Muhammat. As I summarize as the title of this thread from
your lengthy explanation of why this AT Tahrim verses was issued:
Akind of HONEY served by Zainab, Muhammat stayed longer in Zainab
house, Ayesha jealousy because of that, the VOW of not taking that
HONEY anymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by a confident wife; Allah
involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife of the secret
dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and the the
DIVORCE THREAT.
What a futile Allah your GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking
his nose into mundane honey taking issue. And lo... a divorce threat
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
YAWN (again). You have been effectively refuted that
you cannot even address the counter arguments as you
have been changing your stance so often that you do
not even have any point of argument. What is your
point of argument?
> > Repeating of already refuted arguments will not
> > work. You again expose yourself as an ignorant
>
> If you have refuted, then it should be easy for you to present that
> again as your response. I repeat that the thread is on your
> presentation of background (Asababun nuzul) of AT Tahrim 65:1-5. I
> don't care if that (your presentation) is factual
> or just your fantasy but all I am questioning is the quick tendency of
> your allah in interfering in the domestic affairs of and for the the
> benefit of Muhammat. As I summarize as the title of this thread from
> your lengthy explanation of why this AT Tahrim verses was issued:
> Akind ofHONEYserved byZainab, Muhammat stayed longer inZainab
> house, Ayesha jealousy because of that, the VOW of not taking thatHONEYanymore, disclosure of the SECRET VOW by a confident wife; Allah
> involvement in the reprimanding (all) the wife of the secret
> dissemination, two wives that kept nagging Muhammat and the the
> DIVORCE THREAT.
>
> What a futile Allah your GREAT PROPHET is trying to exhibit, poking
> his nose into mundanehoneytaking issue. And lo... a divorce threat
> is in order, just because ofhoneytaking issue.
Repeating of already refuted arguments will not
work. You again expose yourself as an ignorant
donie
>
> Isn't Prophet Muhammad (saw) the prophet of Allah?
> Therefore the prophet was guided accordingly by
> Allah. So what is your point? You keep on changing
> your stance when refuted.
- Muhammat claims to be the prophet of Allah.
-Muhammat claims that he receives Allah's revelation thru Jibril.
- Many verses that he claims benefiting himself only
- Muhammat claims to receive revelation against his VOW not to take
HONEY anymore any some other weird issues in At Tahrim 1-5
> Where is the divorce threat? Has the prophet
> divorced any of his wives? Until now you cannot
> even address the counter argument. Again , repeats
> of a stale argument will not work. It shows that
> you are not using your brains to think. You have
> already admitted to 'NO' of the above questions.
> Why are contradicting yourself again?
>
We have discussed DIVORCE THREAT and issues at least in 4 different
Suras. What kind of god would find fun in revealing DIVORCE VERSES?
Have you ever think of this?
sam...@hotmail.com
> > Therefore the prophet was guided accordingly by
> > Allah. So what is your point? You keep on changing
> > your stance when refuted.
>
> - Muhammat claims to be the prophet of Allah.
> -Muhammat claims that he receives Allah's revelation thru Jibril.
> - Many verses that he claims benefiting himself only
>
You talk of many verses but you cannot even make
your mud stick on even one verse. All of your
attempts have failed as you argue on fantasy NOT
facts. Until now you cannot even provide proof that
the verses were of benefit to the prophet only.
Your initial claim has been that hafsah caught the
prophet in an intimate moment with mary the copt
, who was hafsah's slave in hafsah's house. You
have been badly exposed of your equivocation as
- the prophet married mary the copt
- mary the copt was never hafsah's slave
- mary the copt had her own house in madinah
When refuted and exposed you change your stance.
Can we now agree that your initial claim of the
prophet with mary was all just bull shit concocted
by you , yes?
For sure Prophet Muhammad (saw) is the prophet of
Allah. It has been stated in the Quran and also
your bible as until now you cannot refute the said
biblical verses , I do not think you are CAPABLE
do so. If he is the prophet ,for sure he will be
the one receiving revelation from Allah thru the
Arch Angel Gabriel. The prophet was an unlettered
person. How could he come up with the revelation
which was in poetic arabic? Until now you cannot
even answer the question. The city of Iram was
stated in the revelation. It was in ruins a couple
of hundred years before the prophet and no body
knew about it. It was only in 1972 when Iram was
discovered and this was documented the national
geographic. The prophet did not know about this
city but he relayed the revelation. This is just
to show you that you cannot defend your position.
You do not have the FACTS and TRUTH.
What is so weird about the vow not to take honey?
Its a clear proof of Allah rebuking the prophet
of not to make unlawful what is lawful. Like I
said , I can even show you funnier things in your
bible. Look at the genealogies of your so called
biblical jesus in matt1 and luke3. However if you
look carefully , your so called biblical jesus
was of virgin birth (ie. no male father , if you
do not know). How come the genealogies? Until now
you disregard this fact as its a source of extreme
embarrassment for you.
> > Where is the divorce threat? Has the prophet
> > divorced any of his wives? Until now you cannot
> > even address the counter argument. Again , repeats
> > of a stale argument will not work. It shows that
> > you are not using your brains to think. You have
> > already admitted to 'NO' of the above questions.
> > Why are contradicting yourself again?
>
> We have discussed DIVORCE THREAT and issues at least in 4 different
> Suras. What kind of god would find fun in revealing DIVORCE VERSES?
> Have you ever think of this?
And all of them are based on 'HYPOTHETICAL DIVORCE
WIVES' type of argument. What kind of a person are
you who argues on hypothetical issues but not facts?
You admitted that the prophet never divorced his
wives nor did he ever issued any divorce threats.
Do you know the definition of 'IF' or 'ON THE
CONDITION OF' in english? I thought you boast of
'superior comprehension'? We are communicating in
english , are we not?
donie
> On Nov 30, 5:45 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > - Muhammat claims to be the prophet of Allah.
> > -Muhammat claims that he receives Allah's revelation thru Jibril.
> > - Many verses that he claims benefiting himself only
> > - Muhammat claims to receive revelation against his VOW not to takeHONEYanymore any some other weird issues in At Tahrim 1-5
>
> You talk of many verses but you cannot even make
> your mud stick on even one verse. All of your
I bet they stick too deep in which unfortunately reduce you to name
calling capability only. Making bombastic labeling is the only quality
left in you.
sam...@hotmail.com
> > > -Muhammat claims that he receives Allah's revelation thru Jibril.
> > > - Many verses that he claims benefiting himself only
> > > - Muhammat claims to receive revelation against his VOW not to takeHONEYanymore any some other weird issues in At Tahrim 1-5
>
> > You talk of many verses but you cannot even make
> > your mud stick on even one verse. All of your
>
> I bet they stick too deep in which unfortunately reduce you to name
> calling capability only. Making bombastic labeling is the only quality
> left in you.
What too deep? The mud you sling just bounce off
the wall without any sticking. It shows that you
do not have facts but blabber on arguments of the
nature of 'HYPOTHETICAL DIVORCE WIVES' , what is
it - 'MANY NOT EQUAL TO ANYONE or whatever' ,
'inventing excuses' , afraid to answer questions ,
'lawful to divorce pregnant wives'. In short , a
focus of laughter.
Again I am waiting for you to address the counter
argument. Futile wait so far as you again and again
proved to be a disappointment as you do not seem
to be able to address the counter argument. You
will not be taught of such from sites like faith
freedom and answering islam. You need to think in
cases like this.
So can you answer your initial bull shit of the
prophet being caught by hafsah with mary who you
claimed to be hafsah's slave. How did you manage
to concoct the bull shit. You have so far been
sooooo afraid to explain.
donie
> On Dec 1, 11:41 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I bet they stick too deep in which unfortunately reduce you to name
> > calling capability only. Making bombastic labeling is the only quality
> > left in you.
>
> What too deep? The mud you sling just bounce off
> the wall without any sticking. It shows that you
> do not have facts but blabber on arguments of the
> nature of 'HYPOTHETICAL DIVORCE WIVES' , what is
> it - 'MANY NOT EQUAL TO ANYONE or whatever' ,
> 'inventing excuses' , afraid to answer questions ,
> 'lawful to divorce pregnant wives'. In short , a
> focus of laughter.
>
I join you in the focus of the laughter. The way Muhammat claims that
AT TAHRIM 1-5 is from Allah he alone introduces. The kind of god and
his prophet who love to talk about breaking the VOW not to eat HONEY
anymore in the so called GLORIOUS and HOLY QORAN. A god that takes
pleasure in agitating his partner's wives, threatening divorce just
because one of them disclosed the SECRET of not taking HONEY
anymore... .
sam...@hotmail.com
At last you recognised the stupidity of your
argument and thank you for joining me in the
laughter of you and you alone.
Firstly your argument was of hafsah who you
claimed to have caught the prophet with mary
the copt who you claimed was hafash's slave
in hafsah's house. You got badly exposed as
mary the copt married the prophet and was
never hafsah's slave and she had her own house
in madinah. You then change your stance .....
wishy washy and flip flopping of your argument
already noted.
When you cannot refute the teachings of the
verses66:1-4 from the incident of honey you
claimed that its funny but there is even
funnier stuff from your bible. Case in point
is the different genealogies of your biblical
jesus in matt1 and luke3. However you lot had
forgotten of the fact that your biblical 'son
of god' was of virgin birth thus negating the
genealogies. Virgin birth means no father or
male intervention if you do not understand.
Then again you change your stance to bring up
the issue of Allah 'interference' and threat
of divorce. Again you got refuted as your point
actually supported my case. The prophet made
unlawful what is lawful and was rebuked by Allah.
This actually means that he was a prophet of
Allah. Divorce wives? As far as I know the ladies
in concern married the prophet not Allah. You
admitted that the prophet never divorced any of
his wives. You got yourself again.
In essence you actually refuted , smoked and
kapowed your own arguments. Now you also join
me in laughing at yourself and only yourself.
Thank you again for inadvertently supporting
my case. Told you that in the end you will be
debunking your own case as you do not have the
facts and truth in your arguments.
donie
> Firstly your argument was of hafsah who you
> claimed to have caught the prophet with mary
> the copt who you claimed was hafash's slave
> in hafsah's house. You got badly exposed as
> mary the copt married the prophet and was
> never hafsah's slave and she had her own house
> in madinah. You then change your stance .....
> wishy washy and flip flopping of your argument
> already noted.
It was you who brought up the VOW, HONEY, JEALOUSY, SECRET and DIVORCE
THREAT backgrounder of At Tahrim verses.
On Oct 25, 7:46 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 25, 6:10 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2. So when his wives hinted at it, he vowed that
> he would never again use honey.
========underlined===============
> in zainab's place and he liked the honey that was
> served to him.
============underlined==================
> Messenger used to stay for a period in the house
> of Zaynab bint Jahsh and drink honey in her house
========underlined====================.
> No, but I drank honey in the house of Zaynab bint
> Jahsh, and I will never drink it again.)''
==========underlined==============
> you pinpoint where is the 'uproar'? The prophet vowed
> not to take honey due to the 'complain' by ayesha ,
=============underlined=============
> The revelation was not about honey but to rebuke
> the prophet of making unlawful what has been made
===============underlined================
> lawful by allah. The case in point here is honey.
===================================
Let me try to follow your logic. Muhammat spent more days than he
should with Zainab, his adopted son's divorced wife he took as 4th or
5th wife, and eat a kind of HONEY there. Ayesha felt JEALOUS so she
joint hand with other wives to inform Muhammat that he was having bad
smell because of HONEY served in Zainab' house. Because of that
complain, Muhammat declared a VOW NOT TO EAT HONEY anymore, and
disclosed the VOW ON NOT EATING HONEY to one of his wife with a
commitment of keeping that as a SECRET.
Allah rebuked Muhammat coz he VOWED NOT TO EAT HONEY. The SECRET of A
VOW NOT EATING HONEY was exposed. Just because the SECRET WAS EXPOSED,
the wife whom Muhammat confided with was SINNED. Because of the SECRET
OF NOT EATING HONEY EAS EXPOSED, Allah warned Muhammat' s wives of
POSSIBLE OF DIVORCE.
That's your line of thinking from your lengthy replied post, Isn't
it? You may refrain from affirming my way of putting of it. But I
would like you to point where do you want to stress more on this
JEALOUSY, HONEY, VOW, SECRET, POSSIBLE DIVORCE debacle you just
present, if you comfortable enough, nevertheless.
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
Why are you repeating already refuted arguments?
In the first place you agreed that you actually
bull shitted in your claim of hafsah catching
the prophet with mary the copt who you claimed
was hafsah's slave in hafash house. You got
exposed as mary was never hafsah's slave and she
married the prophet and had her own house in
madinah.
> > Firstly your argument was of hafsah who you
> > claimed to have caught the prophet with mary
> > the copt who you claimed was hafash's slave
> > in hafsah's house. You got badly exposed as
> > mary the copt married the prophet and was
> > never hafsah's slave and she had her own house
> > in madinah. You then change your stance .....
> > wishy washy and flip flopping of your argument
> > already noted.
>
> It was you who brought up the VOW,HONEY, JEALOUSY, SECRET and DIVORCE
> THREAT backgrounder of At Tahrim verses.
>
Refer to the commentary by maududi and ibn kathir
posted earlier on verse66:1-6.
> On Oct 25, 7:46 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 25, 6:10 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 2. So when his wives hinted at it, he vowed that
> > he would never again usehoney.
>
> ========underlined===============
>
> > inzainab'splace and he liked thehoneythat was
> > served to him.
>
> ============underlined==================
>
> > Messenger used to stay for a period in the house
> > of Zaynab bint Jahsh and drinkhoneyin her house
>
> ========underlined====================.
>
> > No, but I drankhoneyin the house of Zaynab bint
> > Jahsh, and I will never drink it again.)''
>
> ==========underlined==============
>
> > you pinpoint where is the 'uproar'? The prophet vowed
> > not to takehoneydue to the 'complain' by ayesha ,
>
> =============underlined=============
>
> > The revelation was not abouthoneybut to rebuke
> > the prophet of making unlawful what has been made
>
> ===============underlined================
>
> > lawful by allah. The case in point here ishoney.
>
> ===================================
>
> Let me try to follow your logic. Muhammat spent more days than he
> should withZainab, his adopted son's divorced wife he took as 4th or
> 5th wife, and eat a kind ofHONEYthere. Ayesha felt JEALOUS so she
> joint hand with other wives to inform Muhammat that he was having bad
> smell because ofHONEYserved inZainab' house. Because of that
> complain, Muhammat declared a VOW NOT TO EATHONEYanymore, and
> disclosed the VOW ON NOT EATINGHONEYto one of his wife with a
> commitment of keeping that as a SECRET.
>
> Allah rebuked Muhammat coz he VOWED NOT TO EATHONEY. The SECRET of A
> VOW NOT EATINGHONEYwas exposed. Just because the SECRET WAS EXPOSED,
> the wife whom Muhammat confided with was SINNED. Because of the SECRET
> OF NOT EATINGHONEYEAS EXPOSED, Allah warned Muhammat' s wives of
> POSSIBLE OF DIVORCE.
>
> That's your line of thinking from your lengthy replied post, Isn't
> it? You may refrain from affirming my way of putting of it. But I
> would like you to point where do you want to stress more on this
> JEALOUSY,HONEY, VOW, SECRET, POSSIBLE DIVORCE debacle you just
> present, if you comfortable enough, nevertheless.
You are just going around in circles repeating
your already refuted arguments. Go back for my
post of oct 29 , 9.40pm upwards for the answers.
Is that the best you can do?
Asking repeated questions gets repeated answers.
God Gave
[Top of Document]
We turn our attention now to the certainty of the messages that came through
the servant of God. I wish to relate a story on this aspect of Ellen G.
White's work-one of the most interesting, and certainly one of the most
unusual, that we come across in our reading concerning her work. But before
that story, we should read a few verses from the 139th psalm, which give a
fitting background for the experience we shall present:
"O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting
and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest
my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is
not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou
hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge
is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Whither shall
I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend
up into heaven, thou
[124]
art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the
wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even
there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say,
Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day:
the darkness and the light are both alike to thee" (Psalms 139:1-12).
We cannot get away from the presence of God.
To think that God knows us individually and so intimately, and is able to
look into our personal experiences and tell what is happening to us, is
beyond the understanding of men. It is one of the evidences that God knows
the secret things and can reveal them to His messengers.
The Certainty of the Messages
[Top of Document]
Here is a type of evidence that is conclusive and convincing, one in which
no mistakes could be made without dire consequences to those involved. Here
is no room for guesswork or for human devisings or imaginings. The message
was either from God, or else it definitely was not.
Over in Australia, about 1891, shortly after Mrs. White arrived there, she
was given a vision in which she saw a number of the workers in that part of
the world. Among those brought to her attention in a very special way was a
brother by the name of Faulkhead. N. D. Faulkhead was a very successful
businessman. He was a man of unusual talents, appreciated not only by the
[125]
Advent people when he joined them, but by the people of the city in which he
lived-so much so, that he was a prominent leader in some five or more of
their secret societies.
This Mr. Faulkhead became a Seventh-day Adventist, and at the time saw no
reason why he should not continue to be a member of the Masonic order and
all the other lodges. Of himself he says, "I was Master of the Master
Masonic Lodge; second, I was First Principal of the Holy Royal of Canada;
third, I was Preceptor of the Knight Templars, besides many other minor
lodges (five in all), Good Templars, the Rechabites, Odd Fellows, and so
forth." He really was involved in secret societies!
This man sincerely believed that he could continue to be a leader in these
societies and at the same time be a devout Seventh-day Adventist and a
worker in the cause of God. On account of his business ability he was made
treasurer in the publishing house at Melbourne. At first he rendered very
good service, but as time went on he became more and more interested in his
lodge work, and less and less interested in the publishing house work, until
at last the brethren became quite anxious about his spiritual welfare.
Shortly after she arrived in Australia, in December of 1891, Mrs. White had
a vision in which she saw Mr. Faulkhead. After that vision concerning him
and others, she sat down and wrote out the experience of Brother Faulkhead.
It took some fifty pages of manuscript to
[126]
set forth his situation, and she did it in a most remarkable and very
detailed way.
However, when she sought to mail this communication to him, something seemed
to hold her back and say, "Not yet! Not yet!" So she withheld this message
to him for some time. It was, in fact, about twelve months later that the
opportunity came for her to actually bring the message to his attention. She
had been away in another part of the country, and on returning she felt that
she must give this message to Brother Faulkhead.
The day after her return to Melbourne a meeting of the school board was
called. In the morning everyone rejoiced in the closing exercises of the
first term of the new Australian Bible school. That afternoon, Tuesday,
December 13, Mr. Faulkhead as a board member gave attention to the affairs
of that meeting. At the conclusion of the business, W. C. White, the
chairman, stepped to the side of Mr. Faulkhead and said, "Brother Faulkhead,
Mother wishes to see you before you leave."
Brother Faulkhead, of course, wondered what it might be, for only a short
time before that in a dream he had seen that the Lord had shown his
situation to Mrs. White and that she had a message for him. He had steeled
himself against the idea, and was just waiting for some such suggestion as
that, for shortly before his dream one of the brethren, Brother Stockton,
our first believer in the Australian field, had talked with
[127]
Brother Faulkhead and had told him frankly that they were all concerned over
him. They believed that he was losing out spiritually by his contact with
all these lodges and by giving so much more time to them and less and less
time to his duties in the punishing house. Brother Stockton had asked him
what he would do if Sister White should have a message for him. Brother
Faulkhead had straightened up and said, "It would have to be a mighty strong
statement that would make me believe that the Lord had given her a message
for me."
Now all of this went through his mind when Elder White said to him, "Mother
wishes to see you before you leave." So Brother Faulkhead went immediately
to Mrs. White. He had a high regard for her as a Christian, but he did not
take much stock in the testimonies. He said, "I used to enjoy visiting with
her and listening to her talk, but when it came to her giving testimonies,
as it was stated she did and had done all along, I was a little skeptical."
Thus his attitude was one of uncertainty. He did not exactly believe in the
testimonies, and he was not much interested when it came to something for
himself, for he thought it to be only her imagination or something like
that. Actually, he had little confidence in the gift of prophecy.
With all this in his mind he went to Sister White and asked whether she had
something for him. She cordially greeted him, and replied that the burden of
his case was upon her heart and that she would like to see
[128]
him and his wife together for a message that had to do with both of them. He
replied, "Why not let me have it now?" "Well," she responded, "if you want
the message now, I shall be glad to give it to you." She went to the stand
and brought out a fifty-page manuscript that she had written twelve months
earlier.
As he listened to the words-she not only read the testimony but she talked
to him, explaining it as she went along-he began to be very much interested,
for in the course of her message and her explanations she told of certain
meetings that he had been attending and of what he had said in those
meetings, where he had sat, the kind of seat on which he had sat, the
position that he occupied in the lodge, and the attitude that he manifested
in transacting its business, for he was one of its top-level men. Faulkhead
wrote later, "I thought this was getting pretty close home when she started
to talk to me in reference to what I was doing in the lodges."
In the course of her description of what he had done and said, and the
position he had occupied, she gave a sign with her hand, and said, "The
angel gave me this message for you, but I cannot relate all that was given
to me." She stopped. "Why, Sister White," he said, "do you know what you
have done?" She was not aware that she had done anything unusual. Then he
told her that she had given the secret sign that is known only to Masons.
She went on a little longer, and told him that she
[129]
had heard him addressed as "Worshipful Master" and other names or titles of
that nature. She talked of Free Masonry and the impossibility of a man's
being a Free Mason and a Seventh-day Adventist at the same time. Once more
she made a certain movement that she said her attending angel had made to
her.
Again Mr. Faulkhead was startled and turned deathly pale. "Sister White, do
you know what you have done? No woman knows that. No woman is ever allowed
to hear or see what is going on in those meetings, and yet you have
described a particular meeting in which I took a very important part, and
you have told not only what I said, but what I did."
Later he told in a letter his reaction to all of this. He wrote, "This
convinced me that her testimony was from God. I can assure you this caused
me to feel very queer. But, as Sister White said, the Spirit of the Lord had
come upon me and taken hold of me. She went on talking and reading as if
nothing had happened, but I noticed how her face brightened up when I
interrupted her again and spoke to her about the sign. She seemed surprised
that she had given me such a sign. Immediately the statement that I had made
to Brother Stockton that it would have to be mighty strong before I could
believe that she had a message for me from the Lord, flashed through my
mind."
It is an interesting story, and a wonderfully fine account that Brother
Faulkhead has given, for it was a very strange experience for a man of his
kind and position.
[130]
It certainly revealed something in his life that was not known to others,
not even to his wife; and after all this evidence had been given by the
signs and by the specific expressions, along with the description of what
had taken place in those lodge meetings, accurately picturing the attitude
of the people present, this is what he said: "I accept every word. All of it
belongs to me. I accept the light the Lord has sent me through you. I will
act upon it. I am a member of five lodges; three other lodges are under my
control; I transact all of their business. Now I shall attend no more of
their meetings, and shall close my business relations with them as fast as
possible."
I thank God for that kind of reaction. Only God could know what that man had
done in the secrecy of those lodges. Only God could see where he sat and
what he was doing, could hear what he was saying, and could know his very
attitude in all those meetings. God saw fit to reveal all of that to His
servant that this man might be reclaimed and have his faith in her thus
strengthened.
Now I like the rest of his testimony: "I am so glad you did not send me that
testimony, for then it would not have helped me. Your reading the reproof
yourself has touched my heart. The Spirit of the Lord has spoken to me
through you, and I accept every word you have addressed especially to me,
and the general matter also is applicable to me. It all means me. That which
you have written in regard to my connection
[131]
with the Free Masons, I accept.. I have just taken the highest order in Free
Masonry, but I shall sever my connection with them all.. It will take me
nine months to wind up my business relations with the three under my
control."
The hour was late when they finished their interview. He took the streetcar
and started out to his home, and for some reason or other the car was a
little late in arriving at a certain station where he had to make a change.
Just as he was arriving at the station he saw the train for Preston pull
out; so he had to walk the remaining four miles to his home. He enjoyed the
quiet walk, for it gave him an opportunity to be alone and to think through
all that had happened that afternoon and evening. He came to this
conclusion: God had looked down from heaven and had seen him and had deigned
to help him turn from the course that would have led him away from the truth
and away from the kingdom.
I do not know of any experience recorded in the life and works of Ellen G.
White of greater significance than this experience of Brother Faulkhead. On
the following Thursday, Brother Faulkhead, accompanied by his wife, had
another interview with Mrs. White. In the meantime, she had written more
about that experience-I think some twenty-eight pages-and she read all of
that testimony to both of them. They both accepted it-the reproof and the
counsel that came from the Lord. Finally he told Mrs. White, "I wish you to
[132]
know how I look upon this matter. I regard myself as greatly honored of the
Lord. He has seen fit to mention me, and I am not discouraged, but
encouraged. I shall follow out the light given me of the Lord."
Now came the real battle. He had fought the battle through on that night as
he walked home, but it was not yet entirely won. He went to his office the
next morning and dictated a number of letters, enclosing his resignation to
each and every one of those organizations, and lest he might weaken, he
handed the letters to A. G. Daniells, saying, "Elder Daniells, here they
are. I am free from all of those things that have been binding me to the
world. You mail them for me!" In relating that part of the story Mr.
Faulkhead says, "How his eyes did sparkle with pleasure to think that the
Lord had gained His point at last, and that his prayers had been answered."
After he had given the letters to Elder Daniells to mail, he began to think
it through, and wondered how he was going to extricate himself from all the
relations and all the connections with those lodges. He was almost
overwhelmed, but declared, "Brethren, I will not give up the conflict. I did
not expect that it would be so severe. I thought I could sever my
connections easily; but I find it a greater struggle to break the bonds than
I had anticipated. But the Lord has honored me greatly in speaking to me
through Sister White. He has presented my case to her, and called me by
name, and I will heed the instruction from the Lord. Oh, the Lord
[133]
has engraven my name on the palms of His hands."
When a message came to her from the Lord, Ellen G. White never had any
doubts as to the meaning of that message and her duty regarding it. She
never questioned. She never stood off and wondered whether the Lord really
meant what He said. Nor did she hesitate and wonder what the people would
think when she gave her message. Neither did she think to change or soften
the message to ease the blow or to make it more acceptable to the one
involved.
On one occasion, in a vision she did not see the face-she heard only a
voice-and the angel of the Lord instructed her that when she heard that
voice she was to bear a certain message. And he gave her the message. That
was all she had-merely a voice, and a message for that voice. Here is no
room for guesswork or for human devisings or imaginings.
It was some time before Mrs. White again heard that voice. Then came the day
when she and her husband arrived on a certain campground. They were riding
in a carriage, a brother having met them at the railway station, and as they
approached the campground the brother suggested that they go over to the
tent where the Whites would be staying. But Sister White wished to attend
the meeting at once.
The people were assembled and a speaker was on the platform in the midst of
his sermon. Ellen G. White paused a moment as she approached, and without a
bit of hesitation took the arm of James White and they
[134]
walked down the aisle straight to the place before the desk. James White sat
down. She looked up at the man, and pointing her finger at him said in a
loud voice, "My brother, you have no business to be standing by that desk
speaking to these people."
Naturally the man stopped; all eyes were focused on him and on Ellen G.
White as they stood there. She had never seen the man before, nor did she
know anything about him, except what the Lord had revealed to her. She had
heard only the sound of his voice, and the Lord told her when she heard that
voice to deliver a message to that person. "Tell him that he is not a fit
man to preach to the people. There is a woman in another State who calls him
husband and children who call him father, and there is a woman here on this
campground who calls him husband and children who call him father."
The man disappeared. His sermon was never finished. His own brother sitting
in the audience admitted that what Sister White had said was true, that the
man had been living a double life and deserved the open rebuke. The effect
of that message was immediate. The Spirit of God came into that camp, and a
great revival followed.
Suppose Sister White had made a mistake. Suppose she had addressed the wrong
man. Suppose it had been a message for a different camp meeting. It is easy
to suppose a good many things in a situation like that, but Ellen G. White
was certain of her revelations from
[135]
the Lord only because she recognized a voice she had heard in vision. The
Lord makes no mistakes.
No, if the Lord worked through her at all, the messages would be certain and
very specific. Such messages could come from God alone; no human mind could
devise such things with such deadly accuracy. She had never seen that man.
She had heard only a voice, but when she heard that voice coming from the
platform, she knew the time had come to give her message. She asked nobody
any questions. Whom would she ask? She walked straight down that aisle to
the very front of the tent, and pointing her finger at the man declared he
was not a fit man to be standing by the desk.
That, my friends, took a lot of courage. But it took more than that. It took
a lot of faith and confidence in the Source of that message. Such was her
confidence, and such was her faith in the work that God had given her to do.
May God help us as we read the marvelous messages that come from God through
His servant, to have greater and greater confidence in the divine guidance
that has come to this people all through their history. We have nothing to
fear for the future except as we may forget the way God has led us in the
past.
"donie" <doni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6e50519-98df-463c...@w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
zaid@tm.net.my wan zaid
is indeed very islamic to think of sex all the time.
"Beng Ngek LoeT" <bengn...@asma.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B4E8DFFFB5...@194.177.98.144...
> sam...@hotmail.com wrote in news:6f60c7a3-fa1f-4144-8aff-
> 6d2e7e...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com :
>
>> my advice again : be objective not christian.
>>
>
> no doubt, above advice smells so islamic !
>
> no wonder you failed to perceive donie's statements
> are objective enough
>