The Hadith ‘…Fight Until They Say There Is No god But Allah’ Explained

Interesting analysis

Discover The Truth

Kaleef K. Karim

Content:

1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Quraysh Broke The Treaty And Waged War
4. Analysing The Hadith
5. The Hadith rejects Forced Conversion Claim
6. The Quran Rejects Forced Conversion Claim
7.  Various Commentaries On The Hadith
8. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The following Hadith quotation (below) has often been quoted by some critics claiming that Prophet Muhammed (p) sanctions and/or approves of Muslims to forcefully convert non-Muslims to Islam:

“I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.” (Fath al-Bari, volume 1, page 95) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) [Abridged by A Group of Scholars Under The Supervision Of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri. Maktaba Dar-us-Salam – Second Edition, 2003] volume 4, page 377)”

When we get to read the Hadith and its…

View original post 12,227 more words

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

60 replies

    • Stop spamming you troll. Try and bring something new to the table.

      Surah 9:5 and 9:29 have been responded too here:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/05/27/most-misinterpreted-verses-of-the-quran/

      As for the Hadith about expelling, this is dealt with here.

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/10/did-jews-get-expelled-from-arabia/

      When will you write an article dedicated to explaining why and how your lord and saviour Jesus who is god of the Old Testament allowed Moses and his men to marry prepubescent girls (child marriage) in your Bible??

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/

      Numbers 31:18 most disturbing passage a Christian never is able to answer.

      Liked by 2 people

    • old twisted dismantled argument sam lol…you’re great at doing the twist…

      Liked by 3 people

    • If you have a problem with spamming then you need to toss your Quran into the waste bin. And if you really are confident of your garbage which makes even your profit sound literate THEN GIVE ME A DATE WHEN YOU CAN DEBATE ME ON THESE TOPICS AND PUT ME IN MY PLACE!

      Bring some bite with your bark.

      Like

    • So my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ enabled me to refute the filth and immorality of your god and his whore-mongering, women raping and enslaving profit.

      Like I said, bring your bite and let’s debate.

      Like

    • sam brother zawadi counter refuted your second feeble attempt with you addressing his argunent that exposed you silly:

      Shamoun wrote a response to my article over here.

      Shamoun insists that the Meccans claimed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was insulting their gods. I already know that! But the question IS HOW? It is clearly evident from the lines that Shamoun himself has highlighted in bold in his citation from Al-Tabari that they interpreted the insult as being that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was teaching monotheism and that their gods were false. They found that to be insulting.

      Shamoun then cites another tradition:

      Yunus stated, from Ibn Ishaq, “Then Abu Bakr met the Messenger of God and asked him, ‘Is it true what the Quraysh are saying, Muhammad? About you abandoning our gods, ridiculing our intellects, and calling our ancestors pagans?’
      “The Messenger of God said, ‘Yes indeed. I am the Messenger of God, and His Prophet, He sent me to deliver his message and invite you to God by the truth. For I swear, God is the truth. I call upon you, O Abu Bakr, to believe in God alone, in Him who has no associate. And I call upon you to worship none but Him, and to devote yourself to obeying Him.’
      Again, this does nothing but reaffirm what I am saying. The Meccans interpreted the Prophet’s call to one God as being insulting since the implications of it meant that their forefathers were wrong and polytheistic pagans. The Qur’an also illustrates how illogical their beliefs were, which they interpreted to be an insult to their intellect.

      My position is reinforced when looking at the following narration attributed to Ibn Abbass:

      áãÇ äÒáÊ { Åäßã æãÇ ÊÚÈÏæä ãä Ïæä Çááå ÍÕÈ Ìåäã ÃäÊã áåÇ æÇÑÏæä } ÔÞ Ðáß Úáì ÞÑíÔ æÞÇáæÇ : ÔÊã ÂáåÊäÇ

      When the verse “Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell” (21:98) was revealed this disappointed the Quraysh and they said: “He insulted our gods”. (Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani in his Muwafaqah al-Khubr al-Khabar, Volume 2, page 173 declared this narration to be hasan.)

      This is what the Quraysh meant when they claimed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) insulted their gods. The very fact that the Qur’an taught that their religion is false was an insult to them. Wouldn’t that same logic make Christianity an “insulting” religion as well?

      Shamoun then provides several verses from the Qur’an, which state that the fathers of the Quraysh had no knowledge and committed shirk. Is Shamoun working with me or against me here? He is strengthening my argument in illustrating that this is exactly what the Meccans meant when they said that Muhammad (peace be upon him) insulted their faith and their forefathers. They interpreted Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) preaching that monotheism is true and polytheism is false to be insulting.

      Does Shamoun agree with the Meccans that this is meant to be insulting and mocking them and justifies their antagonistic behavior towards the Prophet (peace be upon him)? If yes, then Shamoun is really putting Christian preachers in danger, since one could also argue based on Shamoun’s logic that when Christians say that Christianity is the only means to salvation and that all other faiths are wrong and that those who don’t come to Jesus would be doomed to hell including the people of the past then that means that these Christians are ridiculing, mocking and insulting the faiths of these people and these people would then be justified in fighting them!

      Shamoun then said that the Qur’an warned the disbelievers of hell. So what? Wouldn’t it actually be immoral not to warn them about the consequences of their actions and try to save them?

      Shamoun said:

      Finally, these next passages give us an idea of what Muhammad was actually saying to his people and how the pagans felt about his criticisms of their beliefs:
      And when those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah) see you (O Muhammad), they take you not except for mockery (saying): “Is this the one who talks (badly) about your gods?” While they disbelieve at the mention of the Most Beneficent (Allah). [Tafsir. Al-Qurtubi]. S. 21:36
      And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fairseeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do. S. 6:108
      These texts clearly presuppose that Muhammad did more than offend the Meccans by proclaiming the unity of god. He also insulted the religious beliefs of the pagans by speaking badly of their gods.

      I fail to see the evidence for Muhammad (peace be upon him) using words that were offensive or in the form of mockery with the sole intent of hurting their feelings.

      Shamoun then provides a weak narration with Ibn Humayd in the chain.

      Shamoun then said:

      The Prohibition of Insulting the False gods of the Disbelievers, So that they Do not Insult Allah
      Allah prohibits His Messenger and the believers from insulting the false deities of the idolators, although there is a clear benefit in doing so. Insulting their deities will lead to a bigger evil than its benefit, for the idolators might retaliate by insulting the God of the believers, Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He. `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on this Ayah [6:108]; “They (disbelievers) said, `O Muhammad! YOU WILL STOP INSULTING OUR GODS, OR WE WILL INSULT YOUR LORD.” Thereafter, Allah prohibited the believers from insulting the disbelievers’ idols.
      (lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge.)” `Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said, “Muslims used to insult the idols of the disbelievers and the disbelievers WOULD RETALIATE by insulting Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Allah revealed.
      (And insult not those whom they worship besides Allah.)” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; capital and underline emphasis ours)

      Again, weak narrations.

      The first narration is weak because the chain is disconnected. Ali ibn Abi Talha never met Ibn Abbas. Who is the missing individual in the middle and is he reliable?

      The second narration regarding Qatadah is mursal.

      Even if we grant that this is what occurred, who is say that the Meccans only started persecuting the Muslims after the Muslims insulted their gods? How does Shamoun know that the Muslims weren’t so frustrated with the persecution being inflicted upon them that they started insulting the gods of the Meccans? This is especially since it is said that Surah 6 was revealed during the last stage of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) stay in Mecca long after the Meccans persecuted the Muslims.

      Shamoun said:

      Now if Zawadi’s claim was sound then we would expect that the pagans would have also persecuted Waraqa for believing that there was only one God, thereby turning all the gods into one, much like Muhammad was accused of doing. However, such is not the case since Waraqa continued to live peaceably with the pagans in Mecca and was free to preach and believe in whatever religion he wanted.

      That would be a false analogy taking into consideration that Waraqa didn’t put the amount of effort in persisting to the Quraysh to leave their faith and come to the truth such as Muhammad (peace be upon him). For all we know Waraqah tried and quickly gave up after being rejected.

      Shamoun said:

      This in turn exposes the utter weakness of Zawadi’s explanation since it proves that the pagans didn’t have a problem with Muhammad choosing to believe in one god

      I never claimed that the Quraysh had a problem with the Prophet (peace be upon him) only believing in one God. They had a problem with him trying to preach this belief to them and trying to get them to leave their false faith.

      Shamoun then goes on a red herring spree trying to show that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had people who insulted him to be killed. It’s funny also that the analogy is fallacious, since these people were allegedly killed for bad mouthing and using offensive and insulting words to harm the Prophet (peace be upon him). They didn’t simply say that he was a false prophet. No evidence was shown that the Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke about the Meccan deities back in Mecca the way these people allegedly spoke about the Prophet (peace be upon him), which ended up with them being killed.

      Shamoun said:

      This shows that when Muhammad said he came to bring slaughter to the Quraish he specifically meant their chiefs.

      No evidence has been shown for this. There is no necessary connection between the two events. Plus, if the Quraysh really understood the Prophet’s statement at that time as an actual physical threat then they would have killed him on the spot justifiably with no fear from the Prophet’s tribe retaliating.

      Shamoun then talks about the Ayah of the Sword, which is a red herring and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It doesn’t prove or illustrate whether Muhammad (peace be upon him) antagonized the Meccans first or vice versa.

      Shamoun said:

      May the Triune God have mercy on Muslims such as Zawadi by bringing them out of the deception of Islam and into the glorious light of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

      If Shamoun wants his prayer to be answered then he needs to stop appealing to weak sources, being dishonest, committing double standards and providing weak arguments in general. This is something clear since Shamoun purposely didn’t address the fact that I have exposed his double standards by talking about how according to the Bible Jesus insulted his people and according to Shamoun’s logic that would make them justified in their persecuting him. Shamoun also failed to counter my exposing him on his argument regarding the Muslims attacking the caravans. Quite frankly, we are getting sick and tired of Shamoun’s pathetic arguments and he needs to stop his polemical tirade against Islam immediately.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Since you like to copy and paste let me return the favor. Enjoy!

      Bassam Zawadi has written a “reply” to my article proving that it was actually Muhammad who first antagonized and threatened the pagans, thereby refuting the Muslim claim that the Meccans actually started the problems with Muhammad and his followers.

      Although Zawadi raised a host of issues, all of which I plan on refuting in due time by the grace of the Lord Jesus, here I want to focus on his explanation and defense of Muhammad’s insulting the religious beliefs of the pagans.

      Zawadi claims that the way in which Muhammad insulted their gods was by proclaiming that God is actually one!

      Notice what they were feeling offended at the Prophet’s request to have them believe in one god. This is how they felt they were insulted and how their gods were insulted. They especially felt like their forefathers were insulted when verses like Surah 2:170-171 could be revealed claiming that their forefathers were in error.

      To say that this response is desperate would be putting it mildly. Zawadi obviously didn’t bother to read the sources which I provided or, worse still, wasn’t able to understand what he was reading. According to the quotations themselves the Meccans weren’t merely upset over the fact that Muhammad turned all the gods into one. They were also angry over his mocking their gods and insulting their ancestors. Since Zawadi failed to see this point I will quote another Islamic source to help him see more clearly:

      (Maketh he the gods One God? Lo! that is an astounding thing…) [38:5-11]. Abu’l-Qasim ibn Abi Nasr al-Khuza‘i informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdawayh> Abu Bakr ibn Abi Darim al-Hafiz> Muhammad ibn ‘Uthman in Abi Shaybah> his father> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Asdi> Sufyan> al-A‘mash> Yahya ibn ‘Umarah> Sa‘id ibn Jubayr> Ibn ‘Abbas who said: “When Abu Talib fell ill, the Quraysh and the Prophet went to visit him. There was, close to the head of Abu Talib, enough room for one man to sit, so Abu Jahl rushed to it to prevent the Prophet from sitting there. They complained to Abu Talib about the Prophet. Abu Talib said to the Prophet: ‘Son of my brother, what is it that you want from your own people?’ He said: ‘O uncle, I want from them one word by means of which all the Arabs will surrender to them and all the non-Arabs will pay exemption tax to them’. ‘What is this word?’ he asked. He said: ‘There is no deity except Allah’. They all exclaimed: ‘Does he make the gods One God?’ The Qur’an was then revealed about them (Sad. By the renowned Qur’an, nay, but those who disbelieve are in false pride and schism…) up to Allah’s words (This is naught but an invention) [38:1-7]”. The commentators of the Qur’an said: “When ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab embraced Islam, the Muslims were overjoyed while the Quraysh was devastated. Al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah said to the nobles and chiefs of Quraysh: ‘Go to Abu Talib and say to him: you are our elder and chief and you know well what these fools have done. We have come to you so that you judge between us and your nephew’. Abu Talib sent for the Prophet and when he answered his call, he said to him: ‘Son of my brother, these are your own people and they are asking you for fairness, so do not swerve completely from them’. The Prophet asked: ‘What do they want from me?’ They said: ‘CEASE MENTIONING OUR DEITIES AND WE WILL LEAVE YOU ALONE WITH YOUR GOD’. The Prophet said to them: ‘Will you grant me one word by means of which you will rule over the Arabs and subjugate the non-Arabs?’ Abu Jahl said: ‘We will surely grant it and grant you ten like it!’ The Prophet said: ‘Say: there is no deity except Allah!’ The Quraysh were repelled and left, saying: ‘Does he make the gods One God? How can One God be sufficient for the whole creation?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed about them these verses, up to His words (The folk of Noah before them denied (their messenger)…) [38:12]”. (‘Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      Does Zawadi not see that the Meccans were already complaining that Muhammad was insulting their gods and fathers and had asked him to stop EVEN BEFORE he invited them to believe that Allah is the only deity? Does this not prove that Muhammad did more than simply preach that there is only one god but that he also reviled, ridiculed, mocked and insulted the other gods which the pagans worshiped?

      Nor is this an isolated citation. We find this repeated all throughout the Islamic literature just as the following quotations prove:

      Yunus stated, from Ibn Ishaq, “Then Abu Bakr met the Messenger of God and asked him, ‘Is it true what the Quraysh are saying, Muhammad? About you abandoning our gods, ridiculing our intellects, and calling our ancestors pagans?’

      “The Messenger of God said, ‘Yes indeed. I am the Messenger of God, and His Prophet, He sent me to deliver his message and invite you to God by the truth. For I swear, God is the truth. I call upon you, O Abu Bakr, to believe in God alone, in Him who has no associate. And I call upon you to worship none but Him, and to devote yourself to obeying Him.’

      “He then recited the Quran to him. And he neither confirmed nor refused.

      “Then he did accept Islam, disavowed the idols, repudiated the other gods and affirmed the truth of Islam. When Abu Bakr went home he was a believer, a man of faith.” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization: First paperback edition, 2000], Volume I, p. 314; bold and italic emphasis ours)

      And:

      Yunus b. Bukayr stated that Muhammad b. Ishaq related to him, quoting a man originally from Egypt some forty years previously, from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas, a long anecdote relating what transpired between the polytheists of Mecca and the Messenger of God. When the Messenger of God arose, Abu Jahl b. Hisham said, “O Quraysh, Muhammad is persisting, as you know, in criticizing our religion, reviling our forefathers, ridiculing our values and insulting our gods. I swear by God that I’ll sit and wait for him tomorrow carrying a rock, and if he prostrates in his prayer, I will smash his head with it! And let ‘Abd Manaf’s people do whatever they like about it afterwards.” (Ibid., p. 337; bold and italic emphasis ours)

      Again:

      “They said, ‘O Abu Talib, your nephew has cursed our gods, ridiculed our values and said our forefathers erred. Either you interpose yourself between us – you disagree with him just as we do – or we’ll take care of him for you!’

      “Abu Talib gave them a polite and gracious reply and they then left him.

      “There after the Messenger of God continued as before, openly practising God’s religion and calling upon people to embrace it. But then things between them became more heated until the men were mutually hostile and alienated from one another.

      “Quraysh discussed the Messenger of God a great deal, complaining to one another and urging one another on to take action against him.

      “They then went AGAIN to Abu Talib, and told him, ‘O Abu Talib, you have seniority, prestige, and position among us, and we have asked you to keep your nephew away from us, but you have not done so. We can’t any longer put up with his behaviour in reviling our forefathers, ridiculing our values, and criticizing our gods, until such time as you make him desist, or we will battle with him and you in this matter, until one or other side perishes.’ They then said something of this sort, and then they left.

      “It grieved Abu Talib to be alienated from his people, and he was neither sympathetic to the call for Islam by the Messenger of God nor to the idea of abandoning him.” (Ibid., p. 344)

      There is more:

      Ibn Ishaq stated, “When Quraysh learned Abu Talib had refused to abandon the Messenger of God and was determined to break with them in enmity because of this, they went to him, bringing ‘Umara b. al-Walid with them. They told him, as I have heard, ‘O Abu Talib, this is ‘Umara b. al-Walid, the strongest and best-looking young man of Quraysh. Take him and use his mind and strength and adopt him as your own son; he is yours. And hand over to us this nephew of yours who has opposed your religion and that of your forefathers, broken up the unity of your people, and ridiculed our values, so that we may kill him. It will be just one man for another!’” (Ibid., p. 345; bold and italic emphasis ours)

      Finally:

      “Nu‘aym b. ‘Abd Allah met him and enquired, ‘Where are you heading, ‘Umar?’

      “He replied, ‘I’m looking for Muhammad, that Sabian who has disunited Quraysh, ridiculed their dreams, criticized their religion and slandered their gods. I’m going to kill him!’” (Ibid., Volume II, p. 21; bold and italic emphasis ours)

      Moreover, the Quran itself is witness to the fact that Muhammad did more than simply proclaim the unity of God. Zawadi mentioned this passage:

      When it is said to them: “Follow what Allah has sent down.” They say: “Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following.” (Would they do that!) Even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided? S. 2:170

      But failed to mention the following verses:

      And when it is said to them: “Come to what Allah has revealed and unto the Messenger (Muhammad for the verdict of that which you have made unlawful).” They say: “Enough for us is that which we found our fathers following,” even though their fathers had no knowledge whatsoever and no guidance. S. 5:104

      Verily! Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, has indeed strayed far away. They (all those who worship others than Allah) invoke nothing but female deities besides Him (Allah), and they invoke nothing but Shaitan (Satan), a persistent rebel! S. 4:116-117

      Do they attribute as partners to Allah those who created nothing but they themselves are created? No help can they give them, nor can they help themselves. And if you call them to guidance, they follow you not. It is the same for you whether you call them or you keep silent. Verily, those whom you call upon besides Allah are slaves like you. So call upon them and let them answer you if you are truthful. Have they feet wherewith they walk? Or have they hands wherewith they hold? Or have they eyes wherewith they see? Or have they ears wherewith they hear? Say (O Muhammad): “Call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me, and give me no respite! Verily, my Wali (Protector, Supporter, and Helper, etc.) is Allah Who has revealed the Book (the Qur’an), and He protects (supports and helps) the righteous. And those whom you call upon besides Him (Allah) cannot help you nor can they help themselves.” And if you call them to guidance, they hear not and you will see them looking at you, yet they see not. Show forgiveness, enjoin what is good, and turn away from the foolish (i.e. don’t punish them). S. 7:191-199

      And they worship besides Allah things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah.” Say: “Do you inform Allah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?” Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him! S. 10:18

      He to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Who has begotten no son (children or offspring) and for Whom there is no partner in the dominion. He has created everything, and has measured it exactly according to its due measurements. Yet they have taken besides Him other aliha (gods) that created nothing but are themselves created, and possess neither hurt nor benefit for themselves, and possess no power (of causing) death, nor (of giving) life, nor of raising the dead. S. 25:2-3

      Like

    • To add insult to injury Muhammad even appealed to an apocryphal legend concerning Abraham’s confrontation with his people regarding their idolatry as a way of insulting and cursing his own people for worshiping idols:

      And certainly We gave to Ibrahim his rectitude before, and We knew him fully well. When he said to his father and his people: What are these images to whose worship you cleave? They said: We found our fathers worshiping them. He said: Certainly you have been, (both) you and your fathers, in manifest error. They said: Have you brought to us the truth, or are you one of the triflers? He said: Nay! your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Who brought them into existence, and I am of those who bear witness to this: And, by Allah! I will certainly do something against your idols after you go away, turning back. So he broke them into pieces, except the chief of them, that haply they may return to it. They said: Who has done this to our gods? Most surely he is one of the unjust. They said: We heard a youth called Ibrahim speak of them. Said they: Then bring him before the eyes of the people, perhaps they may bear witness. They said: Have you done this to our gods, O Ibrahim? He said: Surely (some doer) has done it; the chief of them is this, therefore ask them, if they can speak. Then they turned to themselves and said: Surely you yourselves are the unjust; Then they were made to hang down their heads: Certainly you know that they do not speak. He said: What! do you then serve besides Allah what brings you not any benefit at all, nor does it harm you? Fie on you and on what you serve besides Allah; what! do you not then understand? They said: Burn him and help your gods, if you are going to do (anything). S. 21:51-66 Shakir

      In these next passages Muhammad tells his people that they are liars who are deceived, that they have no sense and that they do not know the truth:

      Or have they taken (for worship) aliha (gods) from the earth who raise the dead? Had there been therein (in the heavens and the earth) gods besides Allah, then verily both would have been ruined. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, (High is He) above what they attribute to Him! He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned. Or have they taken for worship (other) aliha (gods) besides Him? Say: “Bring your proof:” This (the Qur’an) is the Reminder for those with me and the Reminder for those before me. But most of them know not the Truth, so they are averse. S. 21:21-24

      Say: “Whose is the earth and whosoever is therein? If you know!” They will say: “It is Allah’s!” Say: “Will you not then remember?” Say: “Who is (the) Lord of the seven heavens, and (the) Lord of the Great Throne?” They will say: “Allah.” Say: “Will you not then fear Allah (believe in His Oneness, obey Him, believe in the Resurrection and Recompense for each and every good or bad deed).” Say “In Whose Hand is the sovereignty of everything (i.e. treasures of each and everything)? And He protects (all), while against Whom there is no protector, (i.e. if Allah saves anyone none can punish or harm him, and if Allah punishes or harms anyone none can save him), if you know.” [Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Vol. 12, Page 145] They will say: “(All that belongs) to Allah.” Say: “How then are you deceived and turn away from the truth?” Nay, but We have brought them the truth (Islamic Monotheism), and verily, they (disbelievers) are liars. S. 23:84-90

      If you were to ask them: “Who has created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon?” They will surely reply: “Allah.” How then are they deviating (as polytheists and disbelievers)? Allah enlarges the provision for whom He wills of His slaves, and straitens it for whom (He wills). Verily, Allah is the All-Knower of everything. If you were to ask them: “Who sends down water (rain) from the sky, and gives life therewith to the earth after its death?” They will surely reply: “Allah.” Say: “All the praises and thanks be to Allah!” Nay! Most of them have no sense. S. 29:61-63

      Have you then considered Al-Lat, and Al-‘Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs) And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the other third? Is it for you the males and for Him the females? That indeed is a division most unfair! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to them the Guidance from their Lord! … Verily, those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names. While they have no knowledge thereof. They follow but a guess, and verily, guess is no substitute for the truth. S. 53:19-23, 27-28

      Muhammad also repeatedly threatened the pagans with hell and wrath:

      And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him [i.e. they are Mushrikun – polytheists – see Verse 6: 121]. Do they then feel secure from the coming against them of the covering veil of the Torment of Allah, or of the coming against them of the (Final) Hour, all of a sudden while they perceive not? S. 12:106-107

      Have you not seen those who have changed the Blessings of Allah into disbelief (by denying Prophet Muhammad and his Message of Islam), and caused their people to dwell in the house of destruction? Hell, in which they will burn, – and what an evil place to settle in! And they set up rivals to Allah, to mislead (men) from His Path! Say: “Enjoy (your brief life)! But certainly, your destination is the (Hell) Fire!” S. 14:28-30

      Certainly! You (disbelievers) and that which you are worshipping now besides Allah, are (but) fuel for Hell! (Surely), you will enter it. Had these (idols, etc.) been aliha (gods), they would not have entered there (Hell), and all of them will abide therein. S. 21:98-99

      And they have taken besides Allah aliha (gods), hoping that they might be helped (by those so called gods). They cannot help them, but they will be brought forward as a troop against those who worshipped them (at the time of Reckoning). S. 36:74-75

      Finally, these next passages give us an idea of what Muhammad was actually saying to his people and how the pagans felt about his criticisms of their beliefs:

      And when those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah) see you (O Muhammad), they take you not except for mockery (saying): “Is this the one who talks (badly) about your gods?” While they disbelieve at the mention of the Most Beneficent (Allah). [Tafsir. Al-Qurtubi]. S. 21:36

      And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fairseeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do. S. 6:108

      These texts clearly presuppose that Muhammad did more than offend the Meccans by proclaiming the unity of god. He also insulted the religious beliefs of the pagans by speaking badly of their gods.

      Zawadi thinks he has an explanation of Q. 6:108 which calls into question my exegesis of the text.

      Shamoun’s arguments fails on two different levels:

      1) He has not shown that it was Muslims who initiated the insults. For all we know they could have been doing it in response to the disbelievers initiating it. The Meccans got fed up and couldn’t take it and then wanted it to end and wanted to make a compromise with the Muslims that they would stop insulting as well.

      It gets to be really tiring having to constantly and repeatedly point out the fact that Zawadi has a serious inability to correctly understand and actually comprehend the arguments of his opponents. Did Zawadi not read the following?

      Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq: The Messenger of God proclaimed God’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in anyway, as far as I had heard, UNTIL HE SPOKE OF THEIR GODS AND DENOUNCED THEM. WHEN DID THIS, THEY TOOK EXCEPTION TO IT and united in opposition and hostility to him, except for those of them whom God had protected from error by means of Islam. The latter were few in number and practiced their faith in secret. His uncle Abu Talib was friendly to him, however, and protected him and shielded him from them. The Messenger of God continued to do God’s work and to proclaim his message, undeterred by anything. When Quraysh saw that he would not give them any satisfaction, they objected to his departing from their ways and denouncing their gods, and seeing that Abu Talib protected him, shielded him from harm, and would not hand him over to them, a number of the nobles of Quraysh, consisting of such men as ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, Shaybah b. Rabi‘ah, Abu al-Bakhtari b. Hisham, al-Aswad b. al-Muttalib, al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, Abu Jahl b. Hisham, al-‘As b. Wa’il and Nubayh and Munabbih, the sons of al-Hajjaj, went to Abu Talib and said, “Abu Talib, your nephew has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values and told us that our forefathers were misguided. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are just as opposed to him as we are, and we will deal with him for you.” Abu Talib gave them a mild answer and declined courteously, and they left him. The Messenger of God continued as before, proclaiming the faith of God and summoning people to it. (The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, translated and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald [State University of New York Press, Albany 1988], Volume VI, p. 93; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      And:

      ‘Ali b. Nasr b. ‘Ali al-Jahdami and ‘Abd al-Warith b. ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith – ‘Abd al-Samad b. ‘Abd al-Warith – Aban al-‘Attar – Hisham b. ‘Urwah – ‘Urwah: He wrote to ‘Abd al-Malik as follows, referring to the Messenger of God: When he summoned his people to the guidance and light which had been revealed to him and for which God had sent him, THEY DID NOT WITHDRAW FROM HIM AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS PREACHING, AND WERE ON THE POINT OF LISTENING TO HIM. WHEN, HOWEVER, HE SPOKE OF THEIR IDOLS, some wealthy men of Quraysh who had come from al-Ta’if took exception to this and reacted strongly against him, not liking what he said… (Ibid., pp. 95-98; bold and underline emphasis ours)

      Does Zawadi not see that according to these quotations the pagans had absolutely no problem with Muhammad preaching about Allah, which means that they were not the ones who started insulting the god of the Muslims? After all, didn’t they also believe that Allah was one of their gods?

      Can he not read that the Meccans only objected to Muhammad’s preaching and threatened to insult Allah AFTER Muhammad started denouncing and mocking their gods?

      Like

    • I also quoted the following which Zawadi apparently didn’t bother to read carefully:

      The Prohibition of Insulting the False gods of the Disbelievers, So that they Do not Insult Allah

      Allah prohibits His Messenger and the believers from insulting the false deities of the idolators, although there is a clear benefit in doing so. Insulting their deities will lead to a bigger evil than its benefit, for the idolators might retaliate by insulting the God of the believers, Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He. `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on this Ayah [6:108]; “They (disbelievers) said, `O Muhammad! YOU WILL STOP INSULTING OUR GODS, OR WE WILL INSULT YOUR LORD.” Thereafter, Allah prohibited the believers from insulting the disbelievers’ idols…

      (lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge.)” `Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said, “Muslims used to insult the idols of the disbelievers and the disbelievers WOULD RETALIATE by insulting Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Allah revealed…

      (And insult not those whom they worship besides Allah.)” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; capital and underline emphasis ours)

      Was Zawadi able to see that according to Ibn Kathir the pagans clearly warned Muhammad that he better stop insulting their gods otherwise they would start insulting his deity? If he did read this then couldn’t Zawadi comprehend the fact that the pagans’ threat to Muhammad actually proves that it was Muhammad who started insulting them and not the other way around? Can it be any clearer than this?

      Here is another quote just in case Zawadi still fails to see the point:

      (Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance…) [6:108]. Said ibn ‘Abbas, according to the report of al-Walibi: “They [the idolaters] said: ‘O Muhammad, either you stop reviling our idols or we will revile your Lord’. And so Allah, exalted is He, warned against reviling their idols lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance”. Qatadah said: “The Muslims used to revile the idols of the unbelievers and the latter USED TO REACT AGAINST THEM. Allah, exalted is He, therefore, warned the Muslims against being the cause which drives ignorant unbelievers, who have no knowledge of Allah, to revile Allah as a result of reviling their idols”. Said al-Suddi: “When Abu Talib was dying, [some chiefs of] the Quraysh said: ‘let us go to this man and ask him to forbid his nephew from reviling our idols, for we feel shame to kill him after he passes away and drive the Arabs to say: ‘He used to defend him but once he passed away, they killed him’. And so Abu Sufyan, Abu Jahl, al-Nadr ibn al-Harith, Umayyah and Ubayy the sons of Khalaf, ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘ayt, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, al-Aswad ibn al-Bukhturi went to see Abu Talib. They said to him: ‘You are our master and chief, but Muhammad has harmed us AND HARMED OUR IDOLS. We would like you to call him and warn him AGAINST SPEAKING ILL OF OUR IDOLS. And from our part, WE WILL LEAVE HIM ALONE TO HIS ALLAH’. The Prophet went when he was summoned. Abu Talib said to him: ‘These are your people and cousins!’ The Messenger of Allah asked them: ‘What do you want?’ They said: ‘We want you to leave us alone with our idols and we will leave you alone with your Allah’. Abu Talib said: ‘YOUR PEOPLE ARE BEING FAIR WITH YOU, so give your consent’. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘If I agree to this would you agree to give me one sentence, if you were to utter it, you would rule over the Arabs and non-Arabs alike?’ Abu Jahl said: ‘Yes, by your father, we will give it to you and also give you ten other things like it; but what is it? He said: ‘Say: there is no god but Allah!’ They refused and expressed their aversion at this proposal, upon which Abu Talib said; ‘Son of my brother, ask for something else, for your people are wary of this’. (‘Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul)

      Can Zawadi see that this source expressly says that the pagans REACTED to the Muslims reviling their idols, which again proves that they didn’t start the insults and therefore were not the cause of the problem? Can he also read here that the pagans asked Muhammad to stop reviling their idols?

      Will he be able to see their complaints to Abu Talib that Muhammad was harming them and their idols and asked that he stop speaking against their gods? Better yet, will he be able to comprehend and appreciate just how tolerant the pagans were being since they were still willing to work with Muhammad and allow him to continue preaching and worshiping Allah, provided that he stopped insulting their gods?

      Even Muhammad’s own uncle, Abu Talib, could see just how fair and tolerant the pagans were being to his nephew!

      In fact, the Meccans repeatedly went out of their way to appease Muhammad, doing everything they can to reconcile with him by offering to give him everything he could desire on a silver platter, just as long as he stopped attacking their gods and beliefs:

      Yunus and Ziyad related, from Ibn Ishaq, and from a certain scholar, namely a sheikh from Egypt named Muhammad b. Abu Muhammad, from Sa‘id b. Jubayr and ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Leaders from Quraysh chiefs met – and he enumerated their names – after sunset at the rear of the ka‘ba. Some send, ‘Send for Muhammad and speak with him and argue with him SO YOU WILL FIND EXCUSE FOR HIM.

      “So they sent a message to him, saying, ‘The chiefs of your people have assembled to with you.’

      “The Messenger of God came to them quickly, believing that there had been a change in their attitude to him. He was eager for them to accept the truth for their error, which was painful to him. He sat down with them.

      “They said, ‘O Muhammad, we sent for you TO RECONCILE WITH YOU. By God, we know of no Arab who has ever brought his people AS MUCH TROUBLE AS YOU HAVE. You have reviled the forebears, criticized the religion, ridiculed the values, cursed the gods, and divided our community. EVERY UNPLEASANT THING POSSIBLE YOU HAVE DONE to make a rift between you and us.

      “If you had come to say these things merely to seek wealth, we would have collected money for you from our own until you were the richest among us. If what you wanted was prestige, we would have placed you in leadership over us. If you had wanted sovereignty, we would have made you a king over us. If what you were bringing us was because of a spirit that had possessed you (they used the word ra’i for tabi‘ meaning spirit) and that may be the case, we would expend our resources seeking a potion to free you from him, or we would excuse you.’” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume I, pp. 347-348; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)

      And:

      Imam ‘Abd b. Humayd stated in his musnad collection of hadith that Abu Bakr b. Shayba related to him, quoting ‘Ali b. Mishar, from al-Ajlah, the son of ‘Abd Allah al-Kindi, from al-Dhayyal b. Harmala al-Asadi, from Jabr b. ‘Abd Allah, who said, “Quraysh met one day and agreed to determine who among them was the most knowledgeable in magic, sorcery, and poetry. That person would then approach the man who had caused dissension, and division amongst them and had found fault with their religion, talk to him and decide how to respond to him. They agreed that ‘Utba b. Rabi‘a was the obvious choice, and they approached him and told him, ‘It is to be you, O Abu al-Walid.’

      “‘Utba then went to the Messenger of God and said, ‘O Muhammad, who is better, you or ‘Abd Allah?’ The Messenger of God, remained silent.

      “Then he said, ‘Who is better, you or ‘Abd al-Muttalib?’ The Messenger of God remained silent.

      “‘Utba then said, ‘If you claim those men to be better than you, the fact is they worship the gods YOU HAVE CRITICIZED. If you claim to be better than them, then speak so we can hear what you say. By God, we’ve never seen any fool MORE HARMFUL TO HIS PEOPLE THAN YOU; you have caused division and dissension among us, CRITICIZED OUR RELIGION and so disgraced us in the eyes of the Arabs that the rumour is current among them that there is a magician or a sorcerer amidst Quraysh. By God, fellow, it seems all we have to await is the cry of a pregnant woman for us all to be at one another with swords till we wipe ourselves out! If it is need that is your problem, we’ll make a collection for you till you’re the wealthiest man in Quraysh; if it is status you want, choose any women of Quraysh you like and we’ll marry you to ten of them.

      “The Messenger of God responded, ‘Are you done?’ ‘Yes,’ replied ‘Utba. The Messenger of God then spoke: ‘In the name of God, the Most Merciful and Beneficent. Ha Mim. A revelation from the Most Merciful and Beneficent. A book whose verses have been detailed in an Arabic Quran for a people who are aware…’ and so on until he reached the verse, ‘But if they turn aside, say: “I warn you of a terrible punishment like that which destroyed ‘Ad and Thamud”’(surat Ha Mim, also called surat al-Fussilat, XLI, v.1-13).

      “‘Utba said, ‘That’s sufficient. You’ve nothing else”’

      “‘No,’ he replied.

      “‘Utba then went back to Quraysh and they asked what had happened. He replied, ‘I didn’t omit saying to him anything you talked about.’

      “‘And did he respond?’ they asked. ‘Yes,’ he answered. Then he stated, ‘Well, no; by Him who erected it as a building, I didn’t understand anything he said, except that he warned YOU of a terrible punishment like that of ‘Ad and Thamud.’” (Ibid., pp. 363-364; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)

      Finally:

      Ziyad b. Ishaq stated that ‘Utba said, “O Quraysh, should I not go to Muhammad and talk to him and make him offers, some of which he might accept, so we give them to him AND HE WOULD LEAVE US ALONE?” That occurred when Hamza had accepted Islam and Quraysh recognized that the followers of the Messenger of God were increasing and expanding. So they said, “YES, Abu al-Walid, do go and talk to him.”

      ‘Utba then arose and sat down near the Messenger of God and said, “O nephew, you know the status and respect your people give you, and the nobility of your lineage, but you have caused much trouble to your people. By this, you have destroyed their unity, RIDICULED THEIR VALUES, CRITICIZED THEIR GODS AND THEIR RELIGION, and claimed that their forefathers were unbelievers. Listen to me now, as I make you some offers to consider; perhaps you might be able to accept some of these.

      The Messenger of God replied, “I am listening, Abu al-Walid.”

      ‘Utba went on, “O nephew, if all you want by bringing up this matter is wealth, we will collect money from ourselves for you and so you will be the richest of us all. If what you are seeking by it is honour, we will make you our leader and never make decisions without you. If what you want by it is sovereignty, we will make you our king. If whatever comes to you is some spirit you see but can’t remove by yourself, we will seek out a potion for you and spend our own money to free you from it. A spirit may well take possession of a person until he is cured of it.” His words were similar to these. (Ibid., p. 365; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)

      All of this proves that the pagans were much more tolerant than Muhammad ever was since after he conquered Mecca he threatened to kill any of them if they refused to become Muslims. More on this point later.

      Zawadi also asks:

      2) After this verse was revealed and the Muslims stopped insulting the Meccan deities, why did the Meccans continue to persecute the Muslims? If all they really wanted were for the Muslims to stop cursing their deities then why continue the persecution? Why continue to chase the Muslims to Abyssinia and try to have them killed?

      In the first place, even if we assume that the Muslims did in fact stop insulting the pagans the damage had already been done, peoples’ families had already been insulted, and their gods had already been reviled. It is hard for individuals to simply forgive and forget when their ancestors and gods have been mocked and ridiculed.

      Secondly, it is not hard to see why the pagans would chase after the Muslims in order to bring them back. Since their gods had been insulted, their honor had been trampled on, and their fathers had been ridiculed it is only to be expected that the Meccans would want justice and vengeance. In fact, as we shall shortly see Muhammad did the very same thing to those who insulted him and questioned his “revelations.” Therefore, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

      Interestingly, the very same sources which say that the Muslims fled for Abyssinia also plainly state that Muhammad had it rather good in comparison to some of the other Muslims, a fact that Zawadi conveniently failed to mention:

      Muhammad b. Ishaq, stated, “When the Messenger of God, witnessed the trials descending upon his Companions, he compared this WITH HIS OWN GOOD STATE that derived from his own status with God and from his uncle Abu Talib, and, recognizing that he was unable to prevent the evil befalling them, he told them, ‘I wish you would go forth into the land of Abyssinia, for there is a king in whose realm no one is harmed, where truth prevails. Stay there until God gives you relief from your plight.’

      “The Companions of the Messenger of God, thereupon left for Abyssinnia fearing the unrest and fleeing with their faith unto God. This was the first emigration that occurred in Islam …” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume II, p. 1; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

      Third, who said that the Muslims actually stopped insulting the gods of the pagans? We find verses which were composed all throughout Muhammad’s stay at Mecca insulting the gods and ancestors of the pagans.

      The Muslims continued insulting the pagan gods even in Medina:

      … Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship – “Would we flee and leave him?” … (The History of al-Tabari – The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76; bold and italic emphasis ours)

      Ibn Ishaq provides a slightly different version:

      … Now Abu Bakr was sitting behind the apostle and he said, ‘Suck al-Lat’s nipples! Should we desert him?’ … (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth Impression 1995), p. 502; bold and italic emphasis ours)

      Like

    • What the above references show is that the only reason why the Muslims were told not to insult people’s religions is because of the fear that they would then start insulting the Islamic god and his prophet. These quotes also show that such a rule only applies when Muslims are a minority and the disbelievers greatly outnumber them since once Muslims are strong enough to kill people who insult Islam then they do not have to refrain from insulting other people’s faiths. That is why we find Abu Bakr insulting this man’s goddess and using profane language. He was now in a situation where the Muslims had power and could murder the man if he had responded back with insults of his own.

      This is similar to Muhammad commanding tolerance when he was living in Mecca and greatly outnumbered by the unbelievers. During this stage of his life the Muslims were weak and the rule was essentially turn the other cheek and forgive those who cursed them. Muhammad knew that if the Muslims tried to attack the disbelievers at this stage then he would be running the risk of being defeated and/or killed. However, once Muhammad came into a position of power and the Muslims became dominant the Islamic god changed the rules and ordered his jihadist thugs to murder, plunder, rape and pillage the disbelievers.

      What about the monotheists before Muhammad?

      To further document the utter futility of Zawadi’s argument that Muhammad insulted the pagans by claiming that there was only one god it is important to remember that there were others before Muhammad who had either converted to Christianity or embraced monotheism. One such individual was Waraqa ibn Naufal, the first cousin of Muhammad’s first wife, Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, and the man Muhammad spoke to after being physically manhandled and tormented by the spirit who came to him in the cave.

      According to the Islamic sources Waraqa abandoned the pagan religion of his people and embraced Christianity:

      Narrated ‘Aisha:

      The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet), “What do you see?” When he told him, Waraqa said, “That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605)

      Now if Zawadi’s claim was sound then we would expect that the pagans would have also persecuted Waraqa for believing that there was only one God, thereby turning all the gods into one, much like Muhammad was accused of doing. However, such is not the case since Waraqa continued to live peaceably with the pagans in Mecca and was free to preach and believe in whatever religion he wanted.

      This in turn exposes the utter weakness of Zawadi’s explanation since it proves that the pagans didn’t have a problem with Muhammad choosing to believe in one god. In fact, all of the sources that I cited clearly stated that the pagans even listened to Muhammad when he spoke of his god. They had a problem with Muhammad making fun of their gods and ancestors.

      Muhammad’s treatment of those who ridiculed him

      In order to more fully appreciate just how tolerant the pagans were towards Muhammad all we have to do is compare their response with how Muhammad responded to anyone who would dare challenge and criticize him.

      According to the hadith and sirah literature Muhammad had his followers brutally murder anyone who made fun of him or his beliefs. Here are some examples:

      Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

      A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.

      He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

      He sat before the Prophet and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

      Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348)

      And:

      Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:

      A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4349)

      Muhammad also ordered the murder of an old man and a young woman for lampooning him and criticizing his evil actions through poetry:

      SALIM B. `UMAYR’S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU `AFAK

      Abu `Afak was one of B. (tribe) `Amr b. `Auf of the B. `Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Samit and said:

      Long have I lived but never have I seen
      An assembly or collection of people
      More faithful to their undertaking
      And their allies when called upon
      Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
      Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted.
      A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
      “Permitted”, “Forbidden” of all sorts of things.
      Had you believed in glory or kingship
      You would have followed Tubba`.

      The apostle said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. `Umayr, brother of B. `Amr b. `Auf one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

      You gave the lie to God’s religion and the man Ahmad!
      By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
      A hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying
      “Take that Abu `Afak in spite of your age!”
      Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
      Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)

      (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 675)

      And:

      When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people.

      Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the “Reader”, and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.” (Ibid., p. 676)

      Here is another version of these murders:

      SARIYYAH OF ‘UMAYR IBN ‘ADI

      Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn ‘Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against ‘Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. ‘Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the Prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. ‘Umayr Ibn ‘Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the Prophet at al-Madinah… The Apostle of Allah said to him: Have you slain the daughter of Marwan? He said: Yes. Is there something more for me to do? He said: No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the Apostle of Allah. The Apostle of Allah called ‘Umayr, basir (the seeing).

      SARIYYAH OF SALIM IBN ‘UMAYR

      Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India), Volume II, pp. 30-31; bold emphasis ours)

      Like

    • Moreover, Islamic law demands that anyone who insults Muhammad must be murdered:

      Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

      The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or jokes, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the ‘ulama’ and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.

      Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses the Prophet is killed. These include Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the position of the Shafi’i school. Qadi Abu’l-Fadl said that it is based on the statement of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq. His repentance is not accepted. Something similar was stated by Abu Hanifa and his people, ath-Thawri and the people of Kufa and al-Awza’i about the Muslims. However, they said that it constitutes apostasy.

      At-Tabari related something similar from Abu Hanifa and his companions about anyone who disparages the Prophet, proclaims himself quit of him or calls him a liar.

      Sahnun said about those who curse the Prophet, “This is apostasy in exactly the same way as heresy (zandaqa) is. Therefore there is some dispute about whether such a person should be called to repent (as a Muslim) or whether he is an unbeliever. Is he to be killed by a hadd-punishment (as a Muslim) or for disbelief?” We will make this clear in Chapter Two. We do not know of any dispute among the ‘ulama’ of the community and the Salaf regarding the permissibility of shedding his blood.

      Several people have mentioned that the consensus is that he is to be killed and considered an unbeliever. One of the Dhahirites, Abu Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Farisi, however, indicated that there is some disagreement about whether to consider someone who belittles the Prophet as an unbeliever. The best-known position has already been stated.

      Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that the ‘ulama’ agree that anyone who reviles the Prophet and disparages him is an unbeliever and the threat of Allah’s punishment is on him. The community’s judgement on him is that he be killed. Anyone who has any doubts about such a person’s disbelief and punishment is also an unbeliever. For a proof of this, Ibrahim ibn Husayn ibn Khalid, the faqih, uses the instance of Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayra for referring to the Prophet as “your companion.”‘

      Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said, “I do not know of any Muslim who disagrees about the necessity of killing such a person if he is a Muslim.”

      Ibn al-Qasim reports from Malik in the book of Ibn Sahnun, the Mabsut, and the ‘Utibiyya and Ibn Mutarrif relates the same from Malik in the book of Ibn Habib, “Any Muslim who curses the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.”

      Ibn al-Qasim said in the ‘Utibiyya, “Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed. The community say that he should be killed just like the dualist. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him.”

      In the Mabsut from ‘Uthman ibn Kinana we find, “Any Muslim who reviles the Prophet is killed or crucified without being asked to repent. The Imam can choose between crucifying him or killing him.” In the variant of Abu’l-Mus’ab and Ibn Abi Uways, they heard Malik say, “Anyone who curses the Messenger of Allah reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed, be he Muslim or unbeliever, without being asked to repent.”

      Asbagh said, “He is killed in every case, whether he conceals it or makes it public, without being asked to repent because his repentance is not recognised.” ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdu’l-Hakam said that and at-Tabari related something similar from Malik Ibn Wahb related that Malik said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet’s cloak (or button) was dirty, thereby intending to find fault with him, should be killed.” …

      Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.” (Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], Part Four. The judgements concerning those who think the Prophet imperfect or curse him, Chapter One: Clarification about cursing the prophet or saying that he is imperfect by allusion or clear statement, Section One. The Judgement of the Shari’a regarding someone who curses or disparages the Prophet, pp. 373-374, 375; bold emphasis ours)

      In order to prove that this ruling is correct the Qadi presents some cases of individuals who were murdered by the express orders of Muhammad for mocking or criticizing him:

      In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, “Who will deal with Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.” He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than idol-worship. It was for causing harm. Abu Rafi,’ who used to harm the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.

      Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.

      In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Khalid said, “I will,” so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.

      Similarly the Prophet commanded that a group of unbelievers who used to injure and curse him, like an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and ‘Uqba ibn Abi Mu’ayt, be killed. He promised that a group of them would be killed before and after the conquest. They were all killed except for those who hurried to become Muslim before they were overpowered. Al-Bazzar related from Ibn ‘Abbas that ‘Uqba ibn Abi Mu’ayt cried out, “O company of Quraysh, why is it that I alone among you am to be killed without war?” The Prophet said, “For your disbelief and your forging lies against the Messenger of Allah.”

      ‘Abdu’r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Az-Zubayr said, “I will.” He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.

      It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.

      It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent ‘Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.

      Ibn Qani’ related that a man came to the Prophet and said, “Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, SO I KILLED HIM,” AND THAT DID NOT DISTRESS THE PROPHET.

      Al-Mujahir ibn Abi Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of the Ridda chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand AND PULLED OUT HER FRONT TEETH. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, “If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others.”

      Ibn ‘Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, “Who will deal with her for me?” A man from her people said, “I will, Messenger of Allah.” The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, “Two goats will not lock horns over her.”2

      Ibn ‘Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity…

      Harun ar-Rashid asked Malik about a man who had reviled the Prophet and he mentioned to him that the fuqaha’ of Iraq had given a fatwa that he be flogged. Malik became angry and said, “Amir al-Mu’minin! There is no continuation for a community after it curses its Prophet! Whoever curses the Companions of the Prophet is to be flogged.”

      I do not know which of those Iraqi fuqaha’ gave Harun ar-Rashid that fatwa. We have already mentioned that the school of the people of Iraq is that he be killed. Perhaps they were among those who were not known for knowledge or those whose fatwas were unreliable or idiosyncratic, or it is possible that what the man said was not taken to be a curse and there was a dispute as to whether or not it was a curse or he had retracted it and repented of it. None of these things were mentioned to Malik at all. However, the consensus is that anyone who curses him is to be killed as we have already stated.

      That he is to be killed can be deduced by reflection and consideration. Anyone who curses or disparages the Prophet has shown clear symptoms of the sickness of his heart and proof of his real convictions and belief. That is why most of the ‘ulama’ judge him to be an apostate. This is what is transmitted by the people of Syria from Malik, al-Awza’i, ath-Thawri, Abu Hanifa and the people of Kufa.

      The other position is that it is not a proof of disbelief, and so the person in question is killed by the hadd-punishment but he is not adjudged to be an unbeliever unless he persists in his words, not denying them nor refraining from them. To be judged an unbeliever, his statement must either be a clear statement of disbelief, like calling the Prophet a liar, or originate from mocking words and censure. His open avowal of what he said and lack of repentance for it is an indication that he finds it lawful and this constitutes disbelief, so there is no disagreement that he is an unbeliever. Allah says about people like this, “They swear by Allah that they did not speak. They said the words of disbelief. They disbelieved after their Islam.” (9:76)

      The commentators said that this refers to the statement, “If what is said by Muhammad is true, we are worse than monkeys.”

      It is said that it refers to what one of them said, “Our likeness with respect to that of Muhammad is only as the words of the one who says, ‘Feed your dog and it will devour you.’ When we return to Madina, the mighty will drive out the weaker.”

      It is said that even if the one who says this conceals it, the same judgement applies to him as to the heretic and he is killed because he has changed his deen. The Prophet said, “Strike off the heads of all who change their deen.”

      Because upholding the Prophet’s honour is an obligation owed by his entire community and anyone who curses a free man of his community is given a hadd-punishment, the punishment of someone who curses the Prophet is that he is to be is killed because of the immensity of the worth of the Prophet and his elevation over others. (Ibid., Section Two. The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him, pp. 378-380)

      Like

    • The translator has a note identifying the woman from Khatma:

      2. A tribe allied to the Aws. She was ‘Usma’ bint Marwan. (Ibid., p. 378)

      I.e., Asma bint Marwan, the young woman whom the Islamic sources say was brutally murdered while breastfeeding heir child! But didn’t the Qadi know better than to use the incident of Asma to establish this Islamic ruling since her story is based on a weak narration according to Muslim propagandists like Zawadi? Or should we see this assertion for what it truly is, i.e. this is nothing more than a canard and smokescreen which Muslim dawagandists like Zawadi always bring up whenever they cannot defend their position?

      What makes some of these murders all the more reprehensible is that some of these individuals were killed for simply writing poetry criticizing Muhammad’s violent crimes!

      Ironically, Muhammad himself ordered his own followers to compose poems mocking his opponents!

      Narrated Al-Bara:
      The Prophet said to Hassan, “LAMPOON them (the pagans) in verse, and Gabriel is with you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 174)

      Narrated Al-Bara:
      The Prophet said to Hassan, “ABUSE THEM (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e., supports you).” (Through another group of sub narrators) Al-Bara bin Azib said, “On the day of Quraiza’s (besiege), Allah’s Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, ‘ABUSE THEM (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 449)

      Here we see that it was perfectly okay for Muhammad to mock people’s beliefs just as long as they didn’t mock him or his teachings. We also see that it was alright for Muhammad to have his followers compose poems ridiculing his opponents, but it was not okay when the disbelievers did the same exact thing to him!

      To make matters worse Muhammad is reported to have said that poetry was actually from Satan!

      “The Messenger of God moved a little away from his tent and prayed. He travelled on the rest of that day and night and arrived next morning in Tabuk. He gave appropriate praise and thanks to God, then said … ‘Doubting is from disbelief. Wailing in mourning is from jahiliyya. Fraud is of the soil spread in hell. POETRY COMES FROM SATAN. Women are the snares of Satan. Youth is an offshoot of madness. The worst income is that from interest. The worst food is consuming the wealth of orphans …’” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume IV, p. 16; bold and capital emphasis ours)

      Now doesn’t this mean that Muhammad was encouraging his followers to sin against Allah by participating in a satanic act? And wouldn’t this indicate that Hasan was actually inspired and supported by Satan whom Muhammad claimed was Gabriel? Or would Zawadi like us to believe that all poetry is from Satan except the ones that are commissioned by Muhammmad?!

      Whatever the case, these examples not only prove that the Meccans were much more tolerable than Muhammad and his followers, and put up with a lot more than Muhammad had to ever put up with, they further show just how inconsistent and hypocritical Muhammad and his followers truly were. Muhammad’s motto clearly was, “we do unto others what we will never allow others to do to us!”

      The Slaughter which Muhammad Brought

      I had quoted al-Tabari to document that Muhammad had threatened to murder the pagans while he was at Mecca.

      Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yahya b. ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr- his father ‘Urwah-‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As: I said to him, “What was the worst attack you saw by Quraysh upon the Messenger of God when they openly showed their enmity to him?” He replied, “I was with them when THEIR NOBLES assembled one day in the Hijr and discussed the Messenger of God. They said, ‘We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him,’ or words to that effect. While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared and walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he passed by them while performing the circumambulation, and as he did so they made some slanderous remarks about him. I could see from the Messenger of God’s face that he had heard them, but he went on. When he passed the second time they made similar remarks, and I could see from his face that he had heard them, but again he went on. Then he passed them the third time, and they made similar remarks; but this time he stopped and said, ‘Hear, men of Quraysh. By Him in whose hand Muhammad’s soul rests, I have brought you slaughter.’ They were gripped by what he said, and it was as though every man of them had a bird perched on his head; even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him previously spoke in conciliatory ways to him, using the politest expressions they could think of, and said, ‘Depart in true guidance, Abu al-Qasim; by God you were never ignorant.’

      Muhammad clearly warned the nobles or the chiefs of Mecca that he had come to slaughter them.

      Here is Zawadi’s “response.”

      There are two possible ways to understand this narration. One is literally and the second is metaphorically.

      The literal understanding of the Arabic word dhabh (translated as slaughter) has us to understand that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was speaking about a particular group of people from the Quraysh and not all of them just as Sheikh Al-Munajjid states. This is clear because we know that the Prophet eventually forgave the Quraysh after the conquest of Mecca and did not slaughter them…

      It seems most plausible to me that the Prophet intended to communicate to the Quraysh they will be doomed to peril and destruction if they continued their ways and habits and not that he is intending to massacre them.

      This is simply another example of why Zawadi shouldn’t be writing articles defending Islam or criticizing the Holy Bible.

      According to the Islamic sources Muhammad did carry out his plan since he had his follows murder the chiefs of the Quraysh at the Battle of Badr:

      Narrated Abdullah:

      Once the Prophet was offering the prayer in the shade of the Ka’ba. Abu Jahl and some Quraishi men sent somebody to bring the abdominal contents of a she camel which had been slaughtered somewhere in Mecca, and when he brought them, they put them over the Prophet. Then Fatima (i.e. the Prophet’s daughter) came and threw them away from him, and he said, “O Allah! Destroy (the pagans of) Quraish; O Allah! Destroy Quraish; O Allah Destroy Quraish,” naming especially Abu Jahl bin Hisham, ‘Utba bin Rabi’a, Shaiba bin Rabi’a, Al Walid bin ‘Utba, Ubai bin Khalaf and ‘Uqba bin Abi Mitt. (The narrator, ‘Abdullah added, “I saw them all killed and thrown in the Badr well). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 185)

      This shows that when Muhammad said he came to bring slaughter to the Quraish he specifically meant their chiefs. And:

      Narrated ‘Abdullah:

      While the Prophet was in the state of prostration, surrounded by a group of people from Quraish pagans. ‘Uqba bin Abi Mu’ait came and brought the intestines of a camel and threw them on the back of the Prophet. The Prophet did not raise his head from prostration till Fatima (i.e. his daughter) came and removed those intestines from his back, and invoked evil on whoever had done (the evil deed). The Prophet said, “O Allah! Destroy the chiefs of Quraish, O Allah! Destroy Abu Jahl bin Hisham, ‘Utba bin Rabi’a, Shaiba bin Rabi’a. ‘Uqba bin Abi Mu’ait ‘Umaiya bin Khalaf (or Ubai bin Khalaf).” Later on I saw all of them killed during the battle of Badr and their bodies were thrown into a well except the body of Umaiya or Ubai, because he was a fat person, and when he was pulled, the parts of his body got separated before he was thrown into the well. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 409)

      Finally:

      Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud:

      From Sad bin Mu’adh: Sad bin Mu’adh was an intimate friend of Umaiya bin Khalaf and whenever Umaiya passed through Medina, he used to stay with Sad, and whenever Sad went to Mecca, he used to stay with Umaiya. When Allah’s Apostle arrived at Medina, Sa’d went to perform ‘Umra and stayed at Umaiya’s home in Mecca. He said to Umaiya, “Tell me of a time when (the Mosque) is empty so that I may be able to perform Tawaf around the Ka’ba.” So Umaiya went with him about midday. Abu Jahl met them and said, “O Abu Safwan! Who is this man accompanying you?” He said, “He is Sad.” Abu Jahl addressed Sad saying, “I see you wandering about safely in Mecca in spite of the fact that you have given shelter to the people who have changed their religion (i.e. became Muslims) and have claimed that you will help them and support them. By Allah, if you were not in the company of Abu Safwan, you would not be able to go your family safely.” Sad, raising his voice, said to him, “By Allah, if you should stop me from doing this (i.e. performing Tawaf) I would certainly prevent you from something which is more valuable for you, that is, your passage through Medina.” On this, Umaiya said to him, “O Sad do not raise your voice before Abu-l-Hakam, the chief of the people of the Valley (of Mecca).” Sad said, “O Umaiya, stop that! By Allah, I HAVE HEARD ALLAH’S APOSTLE PREDICTING THAT THE MUSLIMS WILL KILL YOU.” Umaiya asked, “In Mecca?” Sad said, “I do not know.” Umaiya was greatly scared by that news.

      When Umaiya returned to his family, he said to his wife, “O Um Safwan! Don’t you know what Sad told me? “She said, “What has he told you?” He replied, “He claims that MUHAMMAD HAS INFORMED THEM (i.e. companions) THAT THEY WILL KILL ME. I asked him, ‘In Mecca?’ He replied, ‘I do not know.” Then Umaiya added, “By Allah, I will never go out of Mecca.” But when the day of (the Ghazwa of) Badr came, Abu Jahl called the people to war, saying, “Go and protect your caravan.” But Umaiya disliked to go out (of Mecca). Abu Jahl came to him and said, “O Abu Safwan! If the people see you staying behind though you are the chief of the people of the Valley, then they will remain behind with you.” Abu Jahl kept on urging him to go until he (i.e. Umaiya) said, “As you have forced me to change my mind, by Allah, I will buy the best camel in Mecca. Then Umaiya said (to his wife). “O Um Safwan, prepare what I need (for the journey).” She said to him, “O Abu Safwan! Have you forgotten what your Yathribi brother told you?” He said, “No, but I do not want to go with them but for a short distance.” So when Umaiya went out, he used to tie his camel wherever he camped. He kept on doing that till Allah caused him to be killed at Badr. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 286)

      Moreover, Zawadi and his source are being quite selective in their quotations since they failed to inform their readers that even though Muhammad initially forgave the Quraysh when he conquered Mecca he and his god later changed their minds and threatened to kill the pagans if they did not embrace Islam.

      Like

    • In fact, the following passage threatening the pagans to convert or be murdered was composed roughly a year after Muhammad had taken control of Mecca:

      Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely (O Mushrikun – see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah – the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al-Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2). Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the pious – see V.2:2). How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With (good words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are averse to you, and most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah). They have purchased with the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah a little gain, and they hindered men from His Way; evil indeed is that which they used to do. With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors. But if they repent, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish – pagans of Makkah) – for surely their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop (evil actions). Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people, And remove the anger of their (believers’) hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Do you think that you shall be left alone while Allah has not yet tested those among you who have striven hard and fought and have not taken Walijah [(Batanah – helpers, advisors and consultants from disbelievers, pagans, etc.) giving openly to them their secrets] besides Allah and His Messenger, and the believers. Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do. It is not for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), to maintain the Mosques of Allah (i.e. to pray and worship Allah therein, to look after their cleanliness and their building, etc.), while they witness against their ownselves of disbelief. The works of such are in vain and in Fire shall they abide. The Mosques of Allah shall be maintained only by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day; perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat and fear none but Allah. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance. Do you consider the providing of drinking water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) as equal to the worth of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah? They are not equal before Allah. And Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers)… O you who believe! Take not for Auliya’ (supporters and helpers) your fathers and your brothers if they prefer disbelief to Belief. And whoever of you does so, then he is one of the Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.)… O you who believe (in Allah’s Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. S. 9:1-19, 23, 28 Hilali-Khan

      Here, Allah gives Muhammad the right to break any of his pacts and covenants that he had made with the polytheists with the intention of forcing them to convert to Islam:

      This is the Ayah of the Sword…

      Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations… In the two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn ‘Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

      This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, EVERY TREATY, AND EVERY TERM.” Al-‘Awfi said that Ibn ‘Abbas commented: “No idolator had any more treaty or promise ever since Sura Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 9:5; capital and underline emphasis ours)

      Another famous Muslim commentator, as-Suyuti, confirms Ibn Kathir’s interpretation:

      This [Q. 9:5] is an Ayat of the Sword WHICH ABROGATES PARDON, TRUCE AND OVERLOOKING. (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives. (and besiege them) is permission for besieging and raiding and attacking by night. Ibn Abi Hatim reported that Abu ‘Imran al-Jawfi said that ribat in the way of Allah is found in the words, “lie in wait for them on every road.” (if they make tawba and establish the prayer and pay the zakat, let them go on their way) Repentance from shirk is not enough to let them go their way until they establish the prayer and pay the zakat. Ash-Shafi’i took this as a proof FOR KILLING ANYONE WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER and fighting ANYONE WHO REFUSES TO PAY ZAKAT. Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun… (Aisha Bewley, Tafsir – Surat at-Tawba: Repentance; capital and underline emphasis ours)

      And here is the approximate date of composition which helps us see that these verses were composed long after Muhammad had taken complete control of Mecca:

      Discourses and Periods of Revelation

      This Surah comprises three discourses:-

      The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa’adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. As the importance of the subject of the discourse required its declaration on the occasion of Haj the Holy Prophet dispatched Hadrat Ali to follow Hadrat Abu Bakr, who had already left for Makkah as leader of the Pilgrims to the Ka’abah. He instructed Hadrat Ali to deliver the discourse before the representatives of the different clans of Arabia so as to inform them of the new policy towards the mushriks…

      Historical Background

      Now let us consider the historical background of the Surah. The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time, one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful, well organized and civilized Islamic State. This Treaty afforded further opportunities to Islam to spread its influence in the comparatively peaceful atmosphere created by it. After this Treaty, two events took place, which led to very important results:

      Conquest of Arabia

      The first was the Conquest of Arabia. The Holy Prophet was able to send missions among different clans for the propagation of Islam. The result was that during the short period of two years, it became such a great power that it made the old order of ignorance’ feel helpless before it. So much so that the zealous elements from among the Quraish were so exasperated that they broke the Treaty in order to encounter Islam in a decisive combat. But the Holy Prophet took prompt action after the breach so as not to allow them any opportunity to gather enough force for this. He made a sudden invasion on Makkah in the month of Ramadan in A. H. 8 and conquered it. Though this conquest broke the backbone of the order of ignorance, it made still another attack on Islam in the battle-field of Hunain, which proved to be its death-knell. The clans of Hawazin Thaqif, Naur, Jushm and others gathered their entire forces in the battle field in order to crush the reformative Revolution, but they utterly failed in their evil designs. The defeat of ‘ignorance’ at Hunain paved the way for making the whole of Arabia the ‘Abode of Islam’ (Dar-ul-Islam). The result was that hardly a year had passed after the Battle of Hunain, when the major portion of Arabia came within the fold of Islam and only a few upholders of the old order remained scattered over some corners of the country…

      Problems of the Period

      If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:

      1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,

      2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,

      3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and

      4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.

      1. Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam. Therefore the following measures were adopted:

      1. A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it.

      2. A decree was issued that the guardianship of the Ka`abah, which held central position in all the affairs of Arabia, should be wrested from the mushriks and placed permanently in the hands of the Believers, (vv. 12-18) that all the customs and practices of the shirk of the era of ‘ignorance’ should be forcibly abolished: that the mushriks should not be allowed even to come near the “House” (v. 28). This was to eradicate every trace of shirk from the “House” that was dedicated exclusively to the worship of Allah.

      3. The evil practice of Nasi, by which they used to tamper with the sacred months in the days of ‘ignorance’, was forbidden as an act of kufr (v. 37). This was also to serve as an example to the Muslims for eradicating every vestige of the customs of ignorance from the life of Arabia (and afterwards from the lives of the Muslims everywhere). (Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi’s Chapter Introductions to the Qur’an; underline emphasis ours)

      And:

      … The first part of this honorable Surah was revealed to the Messenger of Allah when he returned from the battle of Tabuk, during the Hajj season, which the Prophet thought about attending. But he remembered that the idolators would still attend that Hajj, as was usual in past years, and that they perform Tawaf around the House while naked. He disliked to associate with them and sent Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to lead Hajj that year and show the people their rituals, commanding him to inform the idolators that they would not be allowed to participate in Hajj after that season. He commanded him to proclaim…

      , to the people. When Abu Bakr had left, the Messenger sent `Ali bin Abu Talib to be the one to deliver this news to the idolators on behalf of the Messenger, for he was the Messenger’s cousin. We will mention this story later. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 9:1-2; bold emphasis ours)

      The pagans posed no serious threat to Muhammad since he had already subjected them to his rule. Yet it wasn’t enough for Muhammad that the disbelievers were under his control, he had to force them to become Muslims. Otherwise he would have them brutally murdered if they refused.

      Hence, this clearly proves that Muhammad had every intention in literally slaughtering and murdering the Meccans had they not converted due to duress and fear.

      What makes this rather unfortunate is that Zawadi knows full well that these verses warning the polytheists of impending massacre were composed sometime after the pagans of Mecca had already surrendered to Muhammad. And yet Zawadi deliberately withheld this information from his readers in order to portray Muhammad in the best possible manner while depicting his enemies in the worst imaginable way. Such deception and dishonesty is truly reprehensible and exposes the true origin of the teachings of Islam.

      May the Triune God have mercy on Muslims such as Zawadi by bringing them out of the deception of Islam and into the glorious light of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

      We now come to the conclusion of this part of our refutation to Zawadi’s distortion of truth. Lord Jesus willing, the rest of our response to Zawadi’s smokescreens should be appearing soon.

      Like

    • Contrary to popular misconceptions, the theme of religious freedom is found in abundance in the Qurʾān. The Holy Book thus explains that, (Translations mostly from Abdel-Haleem, same for footnotes)

      1. Differences in people’s beliefs are bound to happen

      Verses that point out that the difference between people in matters of belief is a divine will from his Will, and hence it is something that happened and will continue to happen until the Day of Judgement.

      ________

      We favoured some of these messengers above others. God spoke to some; others He raised in rank; We gave Jesus, son of Mary, Our clear signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If God had so willed, their successors would not have fought each other after they had been brought clear signs. But they disagreed: some believed and some disbelieved. If God had so willed, they would not have fought each other, but God does what He will.

      Qurʾān — 2:253

      ________

      We sent to you [Muḥammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it, and with final authority over them: so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their whims, which deviate from the truth that has come to you. We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.

      Qurʾān — 5:48

      ________

      If you find rejection by the disbelievers so hard to bear, then seek a tunnel into the ground or a ladder into the sky, if you can, and bring them a sign: God could bring them all to guidance if it were His will, so do not join the ignorant.

      Qurʾān — 6:35

      ________

      Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord, there is no God but Him. Turn away from those who join other gods with Him.

      If it had been God’s will, they would not have done so, but We have not made you their guardian, nor are you their keeper.

      Qurʾān — 6:106–107

      ________

      Say, ‘The conclusive argument belongs to God alone. Had He so willed He would
      have guided you all.’

      Qurʾān — 6:149

      ________

      All people were originally one single community, but later they differed. If it had not been for a wordᵃ from your Lord, the preordained judgement would already have been passed between them regarding their differences.

      Qurʾān — 10:19

      ᵃ : Postponing judgement.

      ________

      And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed –– all of them entirely. Then, [O Muḥammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?

      Qurʾān — 10:99

      ________

      If your Lord had pleased, He would have made all people a single community, but they continue to have their differences –– except those on whom your Lord has mercy –– for He created them to be this way, and the word of your Lord is final: ‘I shall definitely fill Hell with both jinn and men.’

      Qurʾān — 11:118–119

      ________

      If there were ever to be a Qurʾān with which mountains could be moved, the earth shattered, or the dead made to speak [it would have been this one],ᵃ but everything is truly in God’s hands. Do the believers not realize that if God had so willed, He could have guided all mankind? As for the disbelievers, because of their misdeeds, disaster will not cease to afflict them or fall close to their homes until God’s promise is fulfilled: God never fails to keep His promise.

      Qurʾān — 13:31

      ᵃ : Or ‘[they still would not believe]’.

      ________

      God points out the right path, for some paths lead the wrong way: if He wished, He could guide you all.

      Qurʾān — 16:9

      ________

      If God so willed, He would have made you all one people, but He leaves to stray whoever He will and guides whoever He will. You will be questioned about your deeds.

      Qurʾān — 16:93

      ________

      We have appointed acts of devotion for every community to observe, so do not let them argue with you [Prophet] about this matter. Call them to your Lord––you are on the right path––and if they argue with you, say, ‘God is well aware of what you are doing.’

      Qurʾān — 22:67–68

      ________

      ‘If it had been Our will, We could certainly have given every soul
      its true guidance, but My words have come true. “I shall be sure to fill Hell with jinn and men together.”

      Qurʾān — 32:13

      ________

      If God had so pleased, He could have made them a single community, but He admits to His mercy whoever He will; the evildoers will have no one to protect or help them.

      Qurʾān — 42:8

      ________

      2. Judgement between people in their differences in belief is in the Day of Resurrection and not in this earthly world

      Verses that show that the decision and final judgement between people in their differences in belief isn’t in this abode but it is in the abode of the Hereafter.

      ________

      The Jews say, ‘The Christians have no ground whatsoever to stand on,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews have no ground whatsoever to stand on,’ though they both read the Scripture, and those who have no knowledge say the same; God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their differences.

      Qurʾān — 2:113

      ________

      God said, ‘Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to Me: I will purify you of the disbelievers. To the Day of Resurrection I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieved. Then you will all return to Me and I will judge between you regarding your differences.

      Qurʾān — 3:55

      ________

      The [hypocrites] wait to see what happens to you and, if God brings you success, they say, ‘Were we not on your side?’ but if the disbelievers have some success, they say to them, ‘Did we not have the upper hand over you, and [yet] protect you from the believers?’ God will judge between you all on the Day of Resurrection, and He will give the disbelievers no means of overcoming the believers.

      Qurʾān — 4:141

      ________

      We sent to you [Muḥammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it, and with final authority over them: so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their whims, which deviate from the truth that has come to you. We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.

      Qurʾān — 5:48

      ________

      You who believe, you are responsible for your own souls; if anyone else goes astray it will not harm you so long as you follow the guidance; you will all return to God, and He will make you realize what you have done.

      Qurʾān — 5:105

      ________

      Say, ‘I stand on clear proof from my Lord, though you deny it. What you seek to hasten is not within my power. Judgement is for God alone: He tells the truth, and He is the best of judges.’

      Say, ‘If what you seek to hasten were within my power, the matter would be settled between you and me, but God knows best who does wrong.’

      Qurʾān — 6:58–59

      ________

      He is the Supreme Master over His subjects. He sends out recorders to watch over you until, when death overtakes any of you, those sent by Us take his soul–– they never fail in their duty.

      Then they will all be returned to God, their true Lord. The Judgement truly belongs to Him, and He is the swiftest of reckoners.

      Qurʾān — 6:61–62

      ________

      We settled the Children of Israel in a good place and provided good things as sustenance for them. It was only after knowledge had come to them that they began to differ among themselves. Your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their differences.

      Qurʾān — 10:93

      ________

      [Prophet], follow what is being revealed to you, and be steadfast until God gives His
      judgement, for He is the Best of Judges.

      Qurʾān — 10:109

      ________

      The Sabbath was made obligatory only for those who differed about it. On the Day of Resurrection your Lord will judge between them as to their differences.

      Qurʾān — 16:124

      ________

      As for the believers, those who follow the Jewish faith, the Sabians, the Christians, the Magians, and the idolaters, God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection; God witnesses all things.

      Qurʾān — 22:17

      ________

      On that Day control will belong to God: He will judge between them. Those who believe and do good deeds will be admitted to Gardens of Delight, while those who disbelieve and reject Our revelations will receive a humiliating torment.

      Qurʾān — 22:56–57

      ________

      And whoever invokes besides God another deity for which he has no proof – then his account is only with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will not succeed.

      Qurʾān — 23:117

      ________

      He is God; there is no god but Him; all praise belongs to Him in this world and the next; His is the Judgement; and to Him you shall be returned.

      Qurʾān — 28:70

      ________

      [Prophet], it is your Lord who will judge between
      them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their differences.

      Qurʾān — 32:25

      ________

      Say, ‘God! Creator of the heavens and earth! Knower of all that is hidden and all that is open, You will judge between Your servants regarding their differences.’

      Qurʾān — 39:46

      ________

      [They will be told], ‘This is all because when God alone was invoked you rejected this, yet when others were associated with Him you believed [in them].’ Judgement belongs to God the Most High, the Most Great.

      Qurʾān — 40:12

      ________

      Whatever you may differ about is for God to judge. [Say], ‘Such is God, my Lord. In Him I trust and to
      Him I turn,

      Qurʾān — 42:10

      ________

      How can they believe in others who ordain for them things which God has not sanctioned in the practice of their faith? If it were not for God’s decree concerning the final Decision, judgement would already have been made between them. The evildoers will have a grievous punishment––

      Qurʾān — 42:21

      ________

      Neither your kinsfolk nor your children will be any use to you on
      the Day of Resurrection: He will separate you out. God sees everything you do.

      Qurʾān — 60:3

      ________

      Indeed, to Us is their return.

      Then indeed, upon Us is their account.

      Qurʾān — 88:25–26

      ________

      3. Compulsion and coercion is prohibited, and it is the way of the unbelievers and believers are its victims

      Verses that prohibit compulsion in religion and that show that it is the way of the unbelievers –– and not Prophets and their followers –– who use different methods such as compulsion, torture, slaughter, stoning, expulsion from homes, …etc to oppress believers to make them revert from their religion.

      ________

      There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God is all hearing and all knowing.

      Qurʾān — 2:256

      ________

      And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. Then, [O Muḥammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?

      Qurʾān — 10:99

      ________

      He said, ‘O my people have you considered: if I should be upon clear evidence from my Lord while He has given me mercy from Himself but it has been made unapparent to you, should we force it upon you while you are averse to it?

      Qurʾān — 11:28

      ________

      His people’s arrogant leaders said, ‘Shu’ayb, we will expel you and your fellow believers from our town unless you return to our religion.’ He said, ‘What! Even if we detest it?

      Qurʾān — 7:88

      ________

      With the exception of those who are forced to say they do not believe, although their hearts remain firm in faith, those who reject God after believing in Him and open their hearts to disbelief will have the wrath of God upon them and a grievous punishment awaiting them.

      Qurʾān — 16:106

      ________

      [The people of Shu’ayb said to him:]

      They said, ‘Shu’ayb, we do not understand much of what you
      say, and we find you very weak in our midst. But for your family, we
      would have stoned you, for you have no great status among us.’

      Qurʾān — 11:91

      ________

      [The father of Abraham said to him:]

      His father answered, ‘Abraham, do you reject my gods? I will stone you if you do not stop this. Keep out of my way!’

      Qurʾān — 19:46

      ________

      [And the people of the two of Antakiya said to their prophets:]

      but they answered, ‘We think you are an evil omen. If you do not stop, we shall stone you, and inflict a painful torment on you.’

      Qurʾān — 36:18

      ________

      [And one amongst the companions of the cave said about his polytheist people:]

      Indeed, if they come to know of you, they will stone you or return you to their religion. And never would you succeed, then – ever.

      Qurʾān — 18:20

      ________

      [And the people of Noah said to him:]

      So they said, ‘Noah, if you do not stop this, you will be stoned.’

      Qurʾān — 26:116

      ________

      [And in the Qurʾān the attrocities of Pharaoh – such as his execution and slaughtering of those who believed with Moses – were mentioned in many instances.]

      Remember when We saved you from Pharaoh’s people, who subjected you to terrible torment, slaughtering your sons and sparing only your women––this was a great trial from your Lord––

      Qurʾān — 2:49

      ________

      damned were the makers of the trench, the makers of the fuel-stoked fire! They sat down to watch what they were doing to the believers. Their only grievance against them was their faith in God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy, to whom all control over the heavens and earth belongs: God is witness over all things.

      Qurʾān — 85:4-9

      ________

      The disbelievers said to their messengers, ‘We shall expel you from our land unless you return to our religion.’ But their Lord inspired the messengers: ‘We shall destroy the evildoers, and leave you to dwell in the land after them. This reward is for those who are in awe of meeting Me, and of My warnings.’

      Qurʾān — 14:13–14

      ________

      [And about the people of Lot:]

      The only answer his people gave was to say, ‘Expel Lot’s followers from your town! These men mean to stay chaste!’

      Qurʾān — 27:56

      The only response his people gave was to say [to one another], ‘Drive them out of your town! These men want to keep themselves chaste!’

      Qurʾān — 7:82

      ________

      [Prophet], consider the leaders of the Children of Israel who came after Moses, when they said to one of their prophets, ‘Set up a king for us and we shall fight in God’s cause.’ He said, ‘But could it be that you would not fight, if it were ordained for you?’ They said, ‘How could we not fight in God’s cause when we and our children have been driven out of our homeland?’ Yet when they were commanded to fight, all but a few of them turned away: God has full knowledge of those who do wrong.

      Qurʾān — 2:246

      ________

      [And about the expulsion of the Prophet ﷺ from Makkah:]

      And indeed, they were about to drive you from the land to evict you therefrom. And then [when they do], they will not remain [there] after you, except for a little.

      Qurʾān — 17:76

      And [remember, O Muḥammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and God plans. And God is the best of planners.

      Qurʾān — 8:30

      You who believe, do not take My enemies and yours as your allies, showing them friendship when they have rejected the truth you have received, and have driven you and the Messenger out simply because you believe in God, your Lord –– not if you truly emigrated in order to strive for My cause and seek My good pleasure. You secretly show them friendship –– I know all you conceal and all you reveal –– but any of you who do this are straying from the right path. If they gain the upper hand over you, they will revert to being your enemies and stretch out their hands and tongues to harm you; it is their dearest wish that you may renounce your faith.

      Qurʾān — 60:1–2

      ________

      [About the believers amongst the followers of Muḥammad ﷺ]

      those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ If God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. God is sure to help those who help His cause –– God is strong and mighty ––

      Qurʾān — 22:40

      [… and about it:]

      Their Lord has answered them: ‘I will not allow the deeds of any one of you to be lost, whether you are male or female, each is like the other [in rewards]. I will certainly wipe out the bad deeds of those who emigrated and were driven out of their homes, who suffered harm for My cause, who fought and were killed. I will certainly admit them to Gardens graced with flowing streams, as a reward from God: the best reward is with God.’

      Qurʾān — 3:195

      The poor emigrants who were driven from their homes and possessions, who seek God’s favour and approval, those who help God and His Messenger –– these are the ones who are true –– [shall have a share].

      Qurʾān — 59:8

      But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers.

      Qurʾān — 60:9

      Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits:ᵃ God does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them,ᵇ and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing.ᶜ Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them –– this is what such disbelievers deserve –– but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worshipᵈ ᵉ is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility, except towards aggressors.

      Qurʾān — 2:190–193

      ᵃ : The Arabic command la ta’tadu is so general that commentators have agreed that it includes prohibition of starting hostilities, fighting non-combatants, disproportionate response to aggression, etc.
      ᵇ : The Muslims were concerned as to whether it was permitted to retaliate when attacked within the sacred precincts in Mecca when on pilgrimage (see Q.2:196). They are here given permission to fight back wherever they encounter their attackers, in the precinct or outside it.
      ᶜ : ‘Persecuting you unlawfully is worse than you killing them in the precincts in self-defence.’ The article al- in Arabic sometimes takes the place of a pronoun, as here ‘their persecution’ and ‘your killing them’, it is not the generic al-, cf. Q.2:217. See also Q.2:217 below.
      ᵈ : Worship at the sacred mosque.
      ᵉ : Cf. Q.8:39 and note ᶜ to Q.2:191 above.

      .

      They ask you [Prophet] about fighting in the prohibited month. Say, ‘Fighting in that month is a great offence, but to bar others from God’s path, to disbelieve in Him, prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and expel its people, are still greater offences in God’s eyes: persecution is worse than killing.’ᵃ They will not stop fighting you [believers] until they make you revoke your faith, if they can. If any of you revoke your faith and die as disbelievers, your deeds will come to nothing in this world and the Hereafter, and you will be inhabitants of the Fire, there to remain.

      Qurʾān — 2:217

      ᵃ : To persecute people for believing in God is a worse offence than for the aggrieved party to fight back in the prohibited month. This further explains verse 191.

      ________

      [And concerning the persecution of prophets and messengers mentally and physically, the Qur’an points out that everyone of them suffered from these, …]

      but We have always appointed adversaries from the wicked, for every prophet: Your Lord is sufficient guide and helper.

      Qurʾān — 25:31

      [… and they range from threat to death, passing by torture, expulsion to humiliation. We’ll list here some few examples: Starting with Abraham:]

      They said, ‘Burn him and avenge your gods, if you are going to do the right thing.’ But We said, ‘Fire, be cool and safe for Abraham.’ They planned to harm him, but We made them suffer the greatest loss.

      Qurʾān — 21:68-70

      The only answer Abraham’s people gave was, ‘Kill him or burn him!’ but God saved him from the Fire: there truly are signs in this for people who believe.

      Qurʾān — 29:24

      ________

      [And about Noah:]

      So they said, ‘Noah, if you do not stop this, you will be stoned.’

      Qurʾān — 26:116

      ________

      [And Pharaoh threatened Moses with prison:]

      [Pharaoh] said, ‘If you take a god other than me, I will surely place you among those imprisoned.’

      Qurʾān — 26:29

      ________

      [And Lot was threatened with expulsion from his home:]

      but they replied, ‘Lot! If you do not stop this, you will be driven away.’

      Qurʾān — 26:167

      ________

      4 The Human being is free and responsible for his actions

      Verses that point out that the human being is free in his choice of the religion he wishes, if he wills he believes, and if he wills he disbelieves, and that he is responsible for his choice in front of God ﷻ.

      ________

      Say [Prophet], ‘Disbelievers: I do not worship what you worship, you do not worship what I worship, I will never worship what you worship, you will never worship what I worship:ᵃ you have your religion and I have mine.’

      Qurʾān — 109:1-6

      ᵃ : If you keep to your present gods (see Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf, vol. iv)

      ________

      Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.’ We have prepared a Fire for the wrongdoers that will envelop them from all sides. If they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like molten metal, scalding their faces. What a terrible drink! What a painful resting place!

      Qurʾān — 18:29

      ________

      Whoever accepts guidance does so for his own good; whoever strays does so at his own peril. No soul will bear another’s burden, nor do We punish until We have sent a messenger.

      Qurʾān — 17:15

      ________

      We said, ‘Get out, all of you! But when guidance comes from Me, as it certainly will, there will be no fear for those who follow My guidance nor will they grieve –– those who disbelieve and deny Our messages shall be the inhabitants of the Fire, and there they will remain.’

      Qurʾān — 2:38–39

      ________

      So if they believe like you do, they will be rightly guided. But if they turn their backs, then they will be entrenched in opposition. God will protect you from them: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.

      Qurʾān — 2:137

      ________

      if they argue with you [Prophet], say, ‘I have devoted myselfᵈ to God alone and so have my followers.’ Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one, ‘Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?’ If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, your only duty is to convey the message. God is aware of His servants.

      Qurʾān — 3:20

      ᵈ : Literally ‘submitted my face’.

      ________

      Everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to God. We have commanded those who were given the Scripture before you, and We command you, to be mindful of God. Even if you do ignore Him, everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him, and He is self-sufficient, worthy of all praise.

      Qurʾān — 4:131

      ________

      Now clear proof has come to you from your Lord: if anyone sees it, that will be to his advantage; if anyone is blind to it, that will be to his loss –– [Say], ‘I am not your guardian.’

      Qurʾān — 6:104

      ________

      Say, ‘People, the Truth has come to you from your Lord. Whoever follows the right path follows it for his own good, and whoever strays does so to his own loss: I am not your guardian.’

      Qurʾān — 10:108

      ________

      [Say, Prophet], ‘Worship no one but God. I am sent to you from Him to warn and to give good news. Ask your Lord for forgiveness, then turn back to Him. He will grant you wholesome enjoyment until an appointed time, and give His grace to everyone who has merit. But if you turn away, I fear you will have torment on a terrible Day: it is to God that you will all return, and He has power over everything.’

      Qurʾān — 11:2-4

      And Moses said, ‘If you should disbelieve, you and whoever is on the earth entirely – indeed, God is Free of need and Praiseworthy.’

      Qurʾān — 14:8

      ________

      Say, ‘Everyone does things their own way, but your Lord is fully aware of who follows the best-guided path.’

      Qurʾān — 17:84

      ________

      I am commanded to recite the Qurʾān.’ Whoever chooses to follow the right path does so for his own good. Say to whoever deviates from it, ‘I am only here to warn.’

      Qurʾān — 27:92

      ________

      [Prophet], stand firm in your devotion to the upright religion, before an irresistible Day comes from God. On that Day, mankind will be divided: those who rejected the truth will bear the burden of that rejection, and those who did good deeds will have made good provision for themselves.

      Qurʾān — 30:43–44

      ________

      We endowed Luqman with wisdom: ‘Be thankful to God: whoever gives thanks benefits his own soul, and as for those who are thankless––God is self-sufficient, worthy of all praise.’

      Qurʾān — 31:12

      ________

      Whoever directs himselfᵇ wholly to God and does good work has grasped the surest handhold, for the outcome of everything is with God. As for those who refuse to do this, do not let their refusal sadden you [Prophet] –– they will return to Us and We shall tell them what they have done: God knows all that hearts contain ––

      Qurʾān — 31:22–23

      ᵇ : Literally ‘his face’.

      ________

      it is He who made you [people] successors to the land. Those who deny the truth will bear the consequences: their denial will only make them more odious to their Lord, and add only to their loss.

      Qurʾān — 35:39

      ________

      If you are ungrateful, remember God has no need of you, yet He is not pleased by ingratitude in His servants; if you are grateful, He is pleased [to see] it in you. No soul will bear another’s burden. You will return to your Lord in the end and He will inform you of what you have done: He knows well what is in the depths of [your] hearts.

      Qurʾān — 39:7

      ________

      Say, ‘It is God I serve, dedicating my worship entirely to Him –– you may serve whatever you please beside Him.’ Say, ‘The true losers are the ones who will lose themselves and their people on the Day of Resurrection: that is the most obvious loss.

      Qurʾān — 39:14–15

      ________

      Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture that We may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing. Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he ungrateful.

      Qurʾān — 76:2–3

      ________

      by the soul and how He formed it and inspired it [to know] its own rebellion and piety! The one who purifies his soul succeeds and the one who corrupts it fails.

      Qurʾān — 91:7-10

      ________

      By the enshrouding night, by the radiant day, by His creation of male and female! The ways you take differ greatly. There is the one who gives, who is mindful of God, who testifies to goodness –– We shall smooth his way towards ease. There is the one who is miserly, who is self-satisfied, who denies goodness –– We shall smooth his way towards hardship and his wealth will not help him as he falls.

      Our part is to provide guidance –– this world and the next belong to Us –– so I warn you about the raging Fire, in which none but the most wicked one will burn, who denied [the truth], and turned away. The most pious one will be spared this –– who gives his wealth away as self-purification, not to return a favour to anyone but for the sake of his Lord the Most High –– and he will be well pleased.

      Qurʾān — 92:1-21

      ________

      This is a reminder. Let whoever wishes take the way to his Lord.

      Qurʾān — 73:19 – 76:29

      but truly this is a reminder. Let whoever wishes to take heed do so:

      Qurʾān — 74:54–55

      This is a message for all people; for those who wish to take the straight path.

      Qurʾān — 81:27–28

      ________

      5 Obligation to use the mind, to think and ponder, and prohibition from blindly following the religion of one’s parents

      And such verses have a clear relation to the fourth category, since they show that one should use reason, to observe, understand and ponder, and to be independent in his thinking, and not blindly follow a religion just because of a custom or it being the religion of his/her parents. And that’s what makes one free & responsible in his decision.

      These verses are extremely abundant. According to one estimate, these verses constitute more than 1/8 of the Holy Qurʾān. I’ll mention briefly some of these verses, but to find more of them, one may either open up a random page of the Qurʾān, or use indexed dictionnaries of the Qurʾān such as the one of Muḥammad Fouād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (freely available here), or one may search for the following keywords and their derivatives: عقل, فكر، عبر، نظر، أولي الألباب، ذكر، سير (السير في الأرض)، and the words آباؤنا وآباؤنا، and other similar expressions such as علم. To keep things short in this list, I’ll include just two verses from each keyword.

      ________

      But when it is said to them, ‘Follow the message that God has sent down,’ they answer, ‘We follow the ways of our fathers.’ Even though their fathers understood nothing and were not guided?

      Qurʾān — 2:170

      ________

      when it is said to them, ‘Come to what God has sent down, and to the Messenger,’ they say, ‘What we inherited from our forefathers is good enough for us,’ even though their forefathers knew nothing and were not guided.

      Qurʾān — 5:104

      ________

      in the alternation of night and day, in the rain God provides, sending it down from the sky and reviving the dead earth with it, and in His shifting of the winds there are signs for those who use their reason.

      Qurʾān — 45:5

      ________

      [We sent them] with clear proofs and written ordinances. And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.

      Qurʾān — 16:44

      ________

      who remember God standing, sitting, and lying down, who reflect on the creation of the heavens and earth: ‘Our Lord! You have not created all this without purpose–– You are far above that!–– so protect us from the torment of the Fire.

      Qurʾān — 3:191

      ________

      There is a lesson in the stories of such people for those who understand. This revelation is no fabrication: it is a confirmation of the truth of what was sent before it; an explanation of everything;ᵃ a guide and a blessing for those who believe.

      Qurʾān — 12:111

      ᵃ : There are two interpretations of this phrase: (i) ‘everything to do with the story of Joseph’; and (ii) ‘everything to do with religion’.

      ________

      God alternates night and day–– there truly is a lesson in [all] this for those who have eyes to see––

      Qurʾān — 24:44

      ________

      Say, ‘Look at what is in the heavens and on the earth.’ But what use are signs and warnings to people who will not believe?

      Qurʾān — 10:101

      ________

      So let man observe from what he was created.

      Qurʾān — 86:5

      ________

      who listen to what is said and follow what is best. These are the ones God has guided; these are the people of understanding.

      Qurʾān — 39:18

      ________

      Have you not considered that God sends water down from the sky, guides it along to form springs in the earth, and then, with it, brings forth vegetation of various colours, which later withers, turns yellow before your eyes, and is crumbled to dust at His command? There is truly a reminder in this for those who have understanding.

      Qurʾān — 39:21

      ________

      and We restored his family to him, with many more like them: a sign of Our mercy and a lesson to all who understand.

      Qurʾān — 38:43

      ________

      He gives wisdom to whom He wills, and whoever has been given wisdom has certainly been given much good. And none will remember except those of understanding.

      Qurʾān — 2:269

      ________

      Say, ‘Travel throughout the earth and see how He brings life into being: and He will bring the next life into being. God has power over all things.

      Qurʾān — 29:20

      ________

      All the messengers We sent before you [Muḥammad] were men to whom We made revelations, men chosen from the people of their towns. Have the [disbelievers] not travelled through the land and seen the end of those who went before them? For those who are mindful of God, the Home in the Hereafter is better. Do you [people] not use your reason?

      Qurʾān — 12:109

      ________

      6 The purpose of Prophets and Mesengers

      Verses that restrict the functions of Prophets and Messengers (Peace be upon them) in preaching and da’wa, and to give a clear warning, without any type of compulsion or coercion, and that negates the idea that the Messengers have to be guardians and watchers over people.

      ________

      if they argue with you [Prophet], say, ‘I have devoted myself to God alone and so have my followers.’ Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one, ‘Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?’ If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, your only duty is to convey the message. God is aware of His servants.

      Qurʾān — 3:20

      ________

      Obey God, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the sole duty of Our Messenger is to deliver the message clearly.

      Qurʾān — 5:92

      ________

      The Messenger’s duty is only to deliver the message: God knows what you reveal and what you conceal.

      Qurʾān — 5:99

      ________

      Whether We let you [Prophet] see part of what We threaten them with, or cause you to die [before that], your duty is only to deliver the message: the Reckoning is Ours.

      Qurʾān — 13:40

      ________

      Those who worshipped others alongside God say, ‘If God had willed, we would not have worshipped anything but Him, nor would our fathers. We would not have declared anything forbidden without His sanction.’ Those before them said the same. Are the messengers obliged to do anything other than deliver [their message] clearly?

      Qurʾān — 16:35

      ________

      But if they turn away [Prophet], your only duty is to deliver the message clearly.

      Qurʾān — 16:82

      ________

      Say, ‘Obey God; obey the Messenger. If you turn away, [know that] he is responsible for the duty placed upon him, and you are responsible for the duty placed upon you. If you obey him, you will be rightly guided, but the Messenger’s duty is only to deliver the message clearly.’

      Qurʾān — 24:54

      If you say this is a lie, [be warned that] other communities before you said the same. The messenger’s only duty is to give clear warning.’

      Qurʾān — 29:18

      ________

      [And the messengers said: (c.f. Q.36:13-18)]

      Our duty is only to deliver the message to you,’

      Qurʾān — 36:17

      ________

      If they still turn away [remember that] We have not sent you [Prophet] to be their guardian: your only duty is to deliver the message. When We give man a taste of Our mercy, he rejoices in it, but if some harm befalls him on account of what he has done with his own hands, then he is ungrateful.

      Qurʾān — 42:48

      ________

      so obey God and the Messenger. If you turn away, remember that Our Messenger’s duty is only to make plain his message.

      Qurʾān — 64:12

      ________

      We send messengers only to give good news and to warn, so for those who believe and do good deeds there will be no fear, nor will they grieve.

      Qurʾān — 6:48

      We only send messengers to bring good news and to deliver warning, yet the disbelievers seek to refute the truth with false arguments and make fun of My messages and warnings.

      Qurʾān — 18:56

      ________

      Has it not occurred to them that their companionᵃ is not mad but is giving clear warning?

      Qurʾān — 7:184

      ᵃ : This refers to the Prophet ﷺ.

      ________

      Say [Prophet], ‘I have no control over benefit or harm, [even] to myself, except as God may please: if I had knowledge of what is hidden, I would have abundant good things and no harm could touch me. I am no more than a bearer of warning, and good news to those who believe.’

      Qurʾān — 7:188

      ________

      So [Prophet] are you going toᵃ abandon some part of what is revealed to you, and let your heart be oppressed by it, because they say, ‘Why is no treasure sent down to him? Why has no angel come with him?’? You are only there to warn; it is God who is in charge of everything.

      Qurʾān — 11:12

      ᵃ : Literally ‘Perhaps you will . . .’, but this is a challenging figure of speech.

      ________

      Say [Prophet], ‘People, I am sent only to give you clear warning.’

      Qurʾān — 22:49

      ________

      [And Noah said:]

      I am here only to give people a clear warning.’

      Qurʾān — 26:115

      ________

      You, [O Muḥammad], are not but a warner.

      Qurʾān — 35:23

      ________

      It has not been revealed to me except that I am a clear warner.’

      Qurʾān — 38:70

      ________

      Say, ‘I am nothing new among God’s messengers. I do not know what will be done with me or you; I only follow what is revealed to me; I only warn plainly.’

      Qurʾān — 46:9

      ________

      Say, ‘God alone has knowledge of this: my only duty is to give clear warning.’

      Qurʾān — 67:26

      ________

      We sent down the Qurʾān with the truth, and with the truth it has come down –– [Prophet], We sent you only to give good news and warning ––

      Qurʾān — 17:105

      ________

      We sent you only to give good news and warning.

      Qurʾān — 25:56

      ________

      And those who disbelieved say, ‘Why has a sign not been sent down to him from his Lord?’ You are only a warner, and for every people is a guide.

      Qurʾān — 13:7

      ________

      [Prophet] say, ‘I am only here to give warning. There is no god but God the One, the All Powerful, Lord of the heavens and earth and everything between, the Almighty, the Most Forgiving.’

      Qurʾān — 38:65–66

      ________

      They ask you [Prophet] about the Hour, saying, ‘When will it arrive?’, but how can you tell [them that]? Its time is known only to your Lord; you are only sent to warn those who fear it.

      Qurʾān — 79:42-45

      ________

      I am commanded to recite the Qurʾān.’ Whoever chooses to follow the right path does so for his own good. Say to whoever deviates from it, ‘I am only here to warn.’

      Qurʾān — 27:92

      ________

      So [Prophet] warn them: your only task is to give warning

      Qurʾān — 88:21

      ________

      So all of these verses restrict and limit the function of Messengers to preaching, warning, and to give good news, using expressions such as “إِنَّمَا” and expressions of negation and restriction. And there other verses that negate that Messengers use or should employ compulsion and coercion, or be guardians over people, …etc

      ________

      So [Prophet] warn them: your only task is to give warning, you are not there to control them.

      Qurʾān — 88:21–22

      ________

      We know best what the disbelievers say. You [Prophet] are not there to force them, so remind, with this Qurʾān, those who fear My warning.

      Qurʾān — 50:45

      ________

      Now clear proof has come to you from your Lord: if anyone sees it, that will be to his advantage; if anyone is blind to it, that will be to his loss –– [Say], ‘I am not your guardian.’

      Qurʾān — 6:104

      ________

      What lasts with God is best for you, if you are believers: I am not your keeper.’

      Qurʾān — 11:86

      ________

      Whoever obeys the Messenger obeys God. If some pay no heed, We have not sent you to be their keeper.

      Qurʾān — 4:80

      ________

      If it had been God’s will, they would not have done so, but We have not made you their guardian, nor are you their keeper.

      Qurʾān — 6:107

      ________

      If they still turn away [remember that] We have not sent you [Prophet] to be their guardian: your only duty is to deliver the message. When We give man a taste of Our mercy, he rejoices in it, but if some harm befalls him on account of what he has done with his own hands, then he is ungrateful.

      Qurʾān — 42:48

      ________

      yet your people still reject it even though it is the truth. Say, ‘I have not been put in charge of you.

      Qurʾān — 6:66

      ________

      Say, ‘People, the Truth has come to you from your Lord. Whoever follows the right path follows it for his own good, and whoever strays does so to his own loss: I am not your guardian.’

      Qurʾān — 10:108

      ________

      We have sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth for people. Whoever follows the guidance does so for his own benefit, whoever strays away from it does so at his own peril: you are not in charge of them.

      Qurʾān — 39:41

      ________

      As for those who take protectors other than Him, God is watching them; you are not responsible for them.

      Qurʾān — 42:6

      ________

      Your Lord has the most knowledge about all of you: if He pleases He will have mercy on you, and if He pleases He will punish you. [Prophet], We did not send you to take charge of them.

      Qurʾān — 17:54

      ________

      Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?

      Qurʾān — 25:43

      ________

      And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed – all of them entirely. Then, [O Muḥammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?

      Qurʾān — 10:99

      ________

      It is not for you [Prophet] to guide them; it is God who guides whoever He will. Whatever charity you give benefits your own soul, provided you do it for the sake of God: whatever you give will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged.

      Qurʾān — 2:272

      ________

      Some of them look at you: but can you guide the blind if they will not see?

      Qurʾān — 10:43

      ________

      Though you [Prophet] may be eager to guide them, God does not guide those
      who misguide [others],ᵃ nor will they have anyone to help them.

      Qurʾān — 16:37

      ᵃ : C.f. verse 25 : On the Day of Resurrection they will bear the full weight of their own burden, as well as some of the burden of those they misled with no true knowledge. How terrible their burden will be!

      ________

      you cannot guide the blind out of their error: you cannot make anyone hear you except those who believe in Our signs and submit [to Us].

      Qurʾān — 27:81 – Qurʾān — 30:53

      ________

      You [Prophet] cannot guide everyone you love to the truth; it is God who guides whoever He will: He knows best those who will follow guidance.

      Qurʾān — 28:56

      ________

      Can you [Prophet] make the deaf hear? Or guide either the blind or those who are in gross error?

      Qurʾān — 43:40

      ________

      Some of them do listen to you: but can you make the deaf hear if they will not use their minds?

      Qurʾān — 10:42

      ________

      You cannot make the dead hear, you cannot make the deaf listen to your call when they turn their backs and leave,

      Qurʾān — 27:80, see also: Qurʾān — 30:52

      ________

      And not equal are the living and the dead. Indeed, God causes to hear whom He wills, but you cannot make hear those in the graves.

      Qurʾān — 35:22

      ________

      We have sent you [Prophet] with the truth, bearing good news and warning. You will not be responsible for the inhabitants of the Blaze.

      Qurʾān — 2:119

      ________

      I am commanded to recite the Qurʾān.’ Whoever chooses to follow the right path does so for his own good. Say to whoever deviates from it, ‘I am only here to warn.’

      Qurʾān — 6:52

      ________

      But if they turn away, say, ‘I have proclaimed the message fairly to you all. I do not know whether the judgement you are promised is near or far,

      Qurʾān — 21:109

      ________

      Say, ‘Obey God; obey the Messenger. If you turn away, [know that] he is responsible for the duty placed upon him, and you are responsible for the duty placed upon you. If you obey him, you will be rightly guided, but the Messenger’s duty is only to deliver the message clearly.’

      Qurʾān — 24:54

      ________

      What about those whose evil deeds are made alluring to them so that they think they are good? God leaves whoever He will to stray and guides whoever He will. [Prophet], do not waste your soul away with regret for them: God knows exactly what
      they do.

      Qurʾān — 35:8

      ________

      But [Prophet] are you going to worry yourself to death over them if they do not believe in this message?

      Qurʾān — 18:6

      ________

      [Prophet], are you going to worry yourself to death because they will not believe?

      Qurʾān — 26:3

      ________

      So leave them, [O Muḥammad], for you are not to be blamed.

      Qurʾān — 51:54

      ________

      If they disobey you, say, ‘I bear no responsibility for your actions.’

      Qurʾān — 26:216

      ________

      For the self-satisfied one you go out of your way –– though you are not to be blamed for his lack of spiritual growth ––

      Qurʾān — 80:5-7

      ________

      If they do not believe you, [Prophet], say, ‘I act for myself, and you for yourselves. You are not responsible for my actions nor am I responsible for yours.’

      Qurʾān — 10:41

      ________

      Say, ‘Everyone does things their own way, but your Lord is fully aware of who follows the best-guided path.’

      Qurʾān — 17:84

      ________

      [Prophet], say, ‘My people, you carry on as you are, and so will I: you will come to realize who will have a happy homecoming in the Hereafter.’ The evildoers will not prosper.

      Qurʾān — 6:135

      ________

      [And Shu’ayb said:]

      My people, do whatever is within your power, and I will do likewise. Soon you will know who will receive a disgraceful punishment and who is a liar. Watch out, and so will I.’

      Qurʾān — 11:93

      ________

      Say to those who do not believe, ‘Do whatever you can: we too are doing what we can,’
      and ‘Wait: we too are waiting.’

      Qurʾān — 11:121-122

      ________

      Say, ‘O my people, work according to your position, [for] indeed, I am working; and you are going to know
      To whom will come a torment disgracing him and on whom will descend an enduring punishment.’

      Qurʾān — 39:39-40

      ________

      [Prophet], say, ‘We are all waiting, so you carry on waiting: you will come to learn who has followed the even path, and been rightly guided.’

      Qurʾān — 20:135

      ________

      If they turn away, [Prophet], say ,‘God is enough for me: there is no god but Him; I put my trust in Him; He is the Lord of the Mighty Throne.’

      Qurʾān — 9:129

      ________

      7 Having a different religion does not prohibit kindness and justice

      ________

      God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of
      your homes: God loves the just.

      But God forbids you to take as allies those who have fought against you for your faith, driven you out of your homes, and helped others to drive you out: any of you who take them as allies will truly be wrongdoers.

      Qurʾān — 60:8-9

      [The arabic word used in this verse ‘birr’ (dutiful respect and compassion) is the same word that the Prophet ﷺ commands Muslims to use in the treatment of their own parents, and he ﷺ says, ‘birr is good manners’ (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim). This verse is—to borrow an expression used by Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī—the constitution (dustūr) of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.]

      ________

      [On the authority of Ibn Jarīr, Ibn ʿAbbās (ra) said: Some people of the Ansār that had family ties with [the tribes of] Banū Qurayẓah and al-Naḍīr, and they feared to give them charity – wanting them to convert to Islam, then this verse was revealed:]

      It is not for you [Prophet] to guide them; it is God who guides whoever He will. Whatever charity you give benefits your own soul, provided you do it for the sake of God: whatever you give will be repaid to you in full, and you will not be wronged.

      Qurʾān — 2:272

      ________

      Today all good things have been made lawful for you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful for you as your food is lawful for them. So are chaste, believing, women as well as chaste women of the people who were given the Scripture before you, as long as you have given them their bride-gifts and married them, not taking them as lovers or secret mistresses. The deeds of anyone who rejects faith will come to nothing, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

      Qurʾān — 5:5

      Another of His signs is that He created spouses from among yourselves for you to live with in tranquillity: He ordained love and kindness between you. There truly are signs in this for those who reflect.

      Qurʾān — 30:21

      [This last verse shows that there must be love and kindness between spouses, and the first verse from Surat Al-Māʾidah made marriage with women of the People of the Book (Christians & Jews) lawful.]

      ________

      [And about the polytheist parents:]

      If they strive to make you associate with Me anything about which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them. Yet keep their company in this life according to what is right, and follow the path of those who turn to Me. You will all return to Me in the end, and I will tell you everything that you have done.

      Qurʾān — 31:15

      ________

      You who believe, be steadfast in your devotion to God and bear witness impartially: do not let hatred of others lead you away from justice, but adhere to justice, for that is closer to awareness of God. Be mindful of God: God is well aware of all that you do.

      Qurʾān — 5:8

      ________

      God commands you [people] to return things entrusted to you to their rightful owners, and, if you judge between people, to do so with justice: God’s instructions to you are excellent, for He hears and sees everything.

      Qurʾān — 4:58

      [And Ibn Kathīr narrated in his tafsīr that Ibn ʿAbbās and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyyah said, ‘This verse is for the righteous and wicked,’ meaning it is a command that encompasses everyone.]

      ________

      Like

    • Lol i did sammy and as i said zawadi counter teplied to your bogus long article that you didnt address:

      Shamoun wrote a response to my article over here.

      Shamoun insists that the Meccans claimed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was insulting their gods. I already know that! But the question IS HOW? It is clearly evident from the lines that Shamoun himself has highlighted in bold in his citation from Al-Tabari that they interpreted the insult as being that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was teaching monotheism and that their gods were false. They found that to be insulting.

      Shamoun then cites another tradition:

      Yunus stated, from Ibn Ishaq, “Then Abu Bakr met the Messenger of God and asked him, ‘Is it true what the Quraysh are saying, Muhammad? About you abandoning our gods, ridiculing our intellects, and calling our ancestors pagans?’
      “The Messenger of God said, ‘Yes indeed. I am the Messenger of God, and His Prophet, He sent me to deliver his message and invite you to God by the truth. For I swear, God is the truth. I call upon you, O Abu Bakr, to believe in God alone, in Him who has no associate. And I call upon you to worship none but Him, and to devote yourself to obeying Him.’
      Again, this does nothing but reaffirm what I am saying. The Meccans interpreted the Prophet’s call to one God as being insulting since the implications of it meant that their forefathers were wrong and polytheistic pagans. The Qur’an also illustrates how illogical their beliefs were, which they interpreted to be an insult to their intellect.

      My position is reinforced when looking at the following narration attributed to Ibn Abbass:

      áãÇ äÒáÊ { Åäßã æãÇ ÊÚÈÏæä ãä Ïæä Çááå ÍÕÈ Ìåäã ÃäÊã áåÇ æÇÑÏæä } ÔÞ Ðáß Úáì ÞÑíÔ æÞÇáæÇ : ÔÊã ÂáåÊäÇ

      When the verse “Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell” (21:98) was revealed this disappointed the Quraysh and they said: “He insulted our gods”. (Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani in his Muwafaqah al-Khubr al-Khabar, Volume 2, page 173 declared this narration to be hasan.)

      This is what the Quraysh meant when they claimed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) insulted their gods. The very fact that the Qur’an taught that their religion is false was an insult to them. Wouldn’t that same logic make Christianity an “insulting” religion as well?

      Shamoun then provides several verses from the Qur’an, which state that the fathers of the Quraysh had no knowledge and committed shirk. Is Shamoun working with me or against me here? He is strengthening my argument in illustrating that this is exactly what the Meccans meant when they said that Muhammad (peace be upon him) insulted their faith and their forefathers. They interpreted Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) preaching that monotheism is true and polytheism is false to be insulting.

      Does Shamoun agree with the Meccans that this is meant to be insulting and mocking them and justifies their antagonistic behavior towards the Prophet (peace be upon him)? If yes, then Shamoun is really putting Christian preachers in danger, since one could also argue based on Shamoun’s logic that when Christians say that Christianity is the only means to salvation and that all other faiths are wrong and that those who don’t come to Jesus would be doomed to hell including the people of the past then that means that these Christians are ridiculing, mocking and insulting the faiths of these people and these people would then be justified in fighting them!

      Shamoun then said that the Qur’an warned the disbelievers of hell. So what? Wouldn’t it actually be immoral not to warn them about the consequences of their actions and try to save them?

      Shamoun said:

      Finally, these next passages give us an idea of what Muhammad was actually saying to his people and how the pagans felt about his criticisms of their beliefs:
      And when those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah) see you (O Muhammad), they take you not except for mockery (saying): “Is this the one who talks (badly) about your gods?” While they disbelieve at the mention of the Most Beneficent (Allah). [Tafsir. Al-Qurtubi]. S. 21:36
      And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fairseeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do. S. 6:108
      These texts clearly presuppose that Muhammad did more than offend the Meccans by proclaiming the unity of god. He also insulted the religious beliefs of the pagans by speaking badly of their gods.

      I fail to see the evidence for Muhammad (peace be upon him) using words that were offensive or in the form of mockery with the sole intent of hurting their feelings.

      Shamoun then provides a weak narration with Ibn Humayd in the chain.

      Shamoun then said:

      The Prohibition of Insulting the False gods of the Disbelievers, So that they Do not Insult Allah
      Allah prohibits His Messenger and the believers from insulting the false deities of the idolators, although there is a clear benefit in doing so. Insulting their deities will lead to a bigger evil than its benefit, for the idolators might retaliate by insulting the God of the believers, Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He. `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas commented on this Ayah [6:108]; “They (disbelievers) said, `O Muhammad! YOU WILL STOP INSULTING OUR GODS, OR WE WILL INSULT YOUR LORD.” Thereafter, Allah prohibited the believers from insulting the disbelievers’ idols.
      (lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge.)” `Abdur-Razzaq narrated that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said, “Muslims used to insult the idols of the disbelievers and the disbelievers WOULD RETALIATE by insulting Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Allah revealed.
      (And insult not those whom they worship besides Allah.)” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; capital and underline emphasis ours)

      Again, weak narrations.

      The first narration is weak because the chain is disconnected. Ali ibn Abi Talha never met Ibn Abbas. Who is the missing individual in the middle and is he reliable?

      The second narration regarding Qatadah is mursal.

      Even if we grant that this is what occurred, who is say that the Meccans only started persecuting the Muslims after the Muslims insulted their gods? How does Shamoun know that the Muslims weren’t so frustrated with the persecution being inflicted upon them that they started insulting the gods of the Meccans? This is especially since it is said that Surah 6 was revealed during the last stage of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) stay in Mecca long after the Meccans persecuted the Muslims.

      Shamoun said:

      Now if Zawadi’s claim was sound then we would expect that the pagans would have also persecuted Waraqa for believing that there was only one God, thereby turning all the gods into one, much like Muhammad was accused of doing. However, such is not the case since Waraqa continued to live peaceably with the pagans in Mecca and was free to preach and believe in whatever religion he wanted.

      That would be a false analogy taking into consideration that Waraqa didn’t put the amount of effort in persisting to the Quraysh to leave their faith and come to the truth such as Muhammad (peace be upon him). For all we know Waraqah tried and quickly gave up after being rejected.

      Shamoun said:

      This in turn exposes the utter weakness of Zawadi’s explanation since it proves that the pagans didn’t have a problem with Muhammad choosing to believe in one god

      I never claimed that the Quraysh had a problem with the Prophet (peace be upon him) only believing in one God. They had a problem with him trying to preach this belief to them and trying to get them to leave their false faith.

      Shamoun then goes on a red herring spree trying to show that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had people who insulted him to be killed. It’s funny also that the analogy is fallacious, since these people were allegedly killed for bad mouthing and using offensive and insulting words to harm the Prophet (peace be upon him). They didn’t simply say that he was a false prophet. No evidence was shown that the Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke about the Meccan deities back in Mecca the way these people allegedly spoke about the Prophet (peace be upon him), which ended up with them being killed.

      Shamoun said:

      This shows that when Muhammad said he came to bring slaughter to the Quraish he specifically meant their chiefs.

      No evidence has been shown for this. There is no necessary connection between the two events. Plus, if the Quraysh really understood the Prophet’s statement at that time as an actual physical threat then they would have killed him on the spot justifiably with no fear from the Prophet’s tribe retaliating.

      Shamoun then talks about the Ayah of the Sword, which is a red herring and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It doesn’t prove or illustrate whether Muhammad (peace be upon him) antagonized the Meccans first or vice versa.

      Shamoun said:

      May the Triune God have mercy on Muslims such as Zawadi by bringing them out of the deception of Islam and into the glorious light of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

      If Shamoun wants his prayer to be answered then he needs to stop appealing to weak sources, being dishonest, committing double standards and providing weak arguments in general. This is something clear since Shamoun purposely didn’t address the fact that I have exposed his double standards by talking about how according to the Bible Jesus insulted his people and according to Shamoun’s logic that would make them justified in their persecuting him. Shamoun also failed to counter my exposing him on his argument regarding the Muslims attacking the caravans. Quite frankly, we are getting sick and tired of Shamoun’s pathetic arguments and he needs to stop his polemical tirade against Islam immediately.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Br. Omar I just seen your comment on whether the Quraysh were the antagonizers or not (responding to shamoun). There is a very good article we wrote a while back showing early evidence that the Makkans continued persecuting Muslims for believing in God in early days of Madinah.

      In fact, the sources tell us, as soon as the Muslims fled to Madinah, the Quraysh polytheists threatened the inhabitants of Madinah for giving safe sanctuary to the persecuted Muslim minority. They were once again persecuted. This is one of the reasons which led to some skirmishes with Quraysh caravans and Battle of Badr. Here is the article (follow the links for each incident):

      “Did Quraysh Persecute Muslims When They Fled To Madinah?”

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/23/did-quraysh-persecute-muslims-when-they-fled-to-madinah/

      While we are on this article, please also get to read this new article Part 2, on “I Have Been Commanded To Fight…” Hadith as well:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/01/09/revisiting-i-have-been-commanded-to-fight-hadith/

      Salaam

      Like

    • I am returning the favour here to Shamoun He presented an article from Silas claiming that the Prophet supposedly broke the treaty of Hudaybiyyah:

      “Did The Treaty Of Hudaybiyyah Include Women?”

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/01/11/did-the-treaty-of-hudaybiyyah-include-women/

      In the above article, we expose how Shamoun’s friend Silas deliberately, deceptively misquotes sources to spread lies on this incident.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. Sam,

    You’ve got to allow for contextualisation of that Hadith and you’ve got to allow Muslims to explain their own texts to get a better grasp of what the faith actually teaches so it can be represented accurately..This is even touched on by the church elder, James R White who writes:

    “I learned as a young person that the single best way to honor the truth and to show honor to those you seek to reach is to “hear them in their own language,” that is, to enter into their worldview and their theology.”

    James also advises folks who talk about Islam:

    “The Christian who writes about this subject must do so first and foremost with the with the highest standards of truthfulness and honesty…our highest goal always must be to honor our commitment to Christ by seeking transparent honesty in all things.”

    It’s clear there’s a context to it. And, think about it, if forceful conversion was meant by that Hadith then why you and your family would be Muslims today as your lineage if Assyrian and your family came from the land which is now Kuwait. The same applies to Usama Dakdok and CP, these guys are Egyptian Coptic Christians – Egypt has been under Muslim rule since a companion of the Prophet took it over in the 7th century. The fact there are Christians there is demonstrable proof that Muslims did not think the Prophet ordered forcible conversion.

    I’d humbly request you to listen to James R White’s criticism of inconsistent and unfair attacks on the Prophet and decide whether this criticism applies to your argument here:

    But even if a religion did command forceful conversion or violence, you as a Christian could not call it false as you believe, as a Trinitarian, Jesus ordered the killing of babies, women and children in the OT:

    Numbers 31:15-18
    1 Samuel 15:3

    There are others which you may dispute (which is fine because I’m not making on argument based on these – you may appeal to context just like we’re doing with the Hadith in the main post :)):

    Hosea 13:16
    Hosea 9:14
    Psalms 137:8-9

    On top of this the eschatological beliefs Christians have of Jesus killing non-Christians at the end would also mean the Christian is being inconsistent.

    So what do we do? Rather than trying to throw mud by trying to make the other faith seem more violent let’s focus on theology.

    It comes back to talking about the Trinity and Abrahamic monotheism. These are our respective views of God. They must be discussed first. Let’s start talking about theology.

    PS I know you will accept this comment with the grace and politeness it was sent to you so we can stimulate though, grow and have a productive and meaningful discussion.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Here is the response toflyingibnmuta’s distortion of Numbers 31 THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER, which is why the gutless coward won’t debate me on the filth of his profit versus the teachings of the Bible: http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

    Like

    • And here is the response to flyingibnmuta’s butchering of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 in his failed attempt to show that Moses taught to rape women and treat them as whores much like his god and profit did in Quran 4:24:

      Q. 4:24 permits Muslim men (which includes Muhammad himself) to sleep with married women whom they have taken captive:

      Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali

      Tragically, this did not remain a mere abstraction but was readily put into practice by Muhammad’s sexually craved jihadists:

      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

      And:

      Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

      This same narration is found in all of the major hadith collections:

      Chapter 36. What Has Been Related (About A Man) Who Captures A Slave Woman That Has A Husband, Is It Lawful For Him To Have Relations With Her?

      1132. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri narrated: We got some captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the following was revealed: And women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess. (Hasan) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith No. 544 to 1204, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 2, p. 502; underline emphasis ours)

      And:

      1137. Jabir bin ‘Abdullah narrated: “We practiced ‘Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” (Sahih)

      (Abu ‘Eisa said:) The Hadith of Jabir is a Hasan Sahih Hadith. It has been reported from him through other routes.

      There are those among the people of knowledge, among the Companions of the Prophet and others, who permitted ‘Azl. Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for ‘Azl, while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.” (Ibid., Chapter 39. What Has Been related About ‘Azl, p. 507)

      Finally:

      (3) 3016. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “On the Day of Awtas, we captured some women who had husbands among the idolaters. SO SOME OF THE MEN DISLIKED THAT, so Allah, Most High, revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….’” (Sahih)

      [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

      (4) 3017. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “we captured some women on the Day of Awtas and they had husbands among their people. That was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah so Allah revealed: ‘…And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….” (Sahih)

      [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

      This is how it was reported by Ath-Thawri, from ‘Uthman Al-Batti, from Abu Al-Khalil, from Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri from the Prophet and it is similar. “From Abu ‘Alqamah” is not in this Hadith and I do not know of anyone who mentioned Abu ‘Alqamah in this Hadith except in what Hammam mentioned from Qatadah. Abu Al-Khalil’s name is Salih bin Abi Mariam. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, Chapter 4. Regarding Surat An-Nisa’, pp. 331-332; capital and underline emphasis ours)

      Thus, Muhammad and his deity condoned and encouraged men to virtually rape their female captives whether they were married or not.

      Now unless this taqiyyist wants us to believe that such women whose families had just been murdered and (in some cases) whose husbands were still alive would actually consent to having sex with their captors, it should be apparent that the Islamic deity is actually permitting, and even encouraging, rape and adultery in his so-called holy book!

      How truly sad and tragic for these women that Muhammad and his god did not share the shame and concern of the jihadists regarding the highly unethical nature of raping captives whose husbands were still alive. Instead, Allah and his messenger rushed to justify such a perverted and heinous crime!

      Contrast this filth with what Deuteronomy teaches concerning the issue of female captives:

      “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      Here we see that, instead of permitting men to rape captive women, the Holy Bible forces the Israelites to marry them if they wanted to have sex with them, and then letting them go free in case of a divorce. This means that the Holy Bible is actually dignifying these women by not allowing them to be treated the way Allah and his “messenger” had them treated, namely like animals. Now this is a command which predates the Quran by approximately 2200 years!

      To say that such an injunction was truly shocking and revolutionary for that time period would be a wild understatement, just as the following commentaries illustrate:

      “The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful.” (Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2002], Volume 6b, p. 475; bold emphasis ours)

      “Throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, captive women of vanquished peoples were assumed to be the due sexual prerogative of the victors. This law exceptionally seeks to provide for the human rights of the woman who falls into this predicament… the verb ‘inah is also sometimes used for rape, and its employment here astringently suggests that the sexual exploitation of a captive woman, even in a legally sanctioned arrangement of concubinage, is equivalent to rape.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary [W. W. Norton & Company, 2008], p. 982; bold emphasis ours)

      “The instructions given for the treatment of female captives in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 take it for granted that a conquering army have the right to dispose of the conquered population in any way that it wishes. It is hard for those coming from a different cultural context to see this as anything other than appalling, but this approach would have been unquestioned within the ancient Near East, and we have to see these instructions within that setting. What is remarkable is that although the woman may have had no choice in the matter–the soldier who fancied her has every right to make her this wife–nevertheless her identity as a human being is at least to some extent recognized. She is not to be thrown into the new situation but must be allowed time to mourn for her parents and her past life… Within these oppressive situations the laws are geared to provide at least a level of protection for the women involved… Women who were bought as wives or captured in war and taken as wives could not be sold as slaves or even neglected (Ex 21.11; Deut 21.14).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2002], pp. 100, 102)

      “The space given for weeping is not primarily a period of mourning (though it is perhaps to be assumed that the woman’s father has died in the herem; 20:13, 15). Rather, it is given in compassionate consideration of the large adjustment she must make, and the accompanying trauma. It is an acknowledgment, too, that her former life is ended and a new life is to begin (cf. Ps. 45:10). The hints of compassion breaking through the brutality of the age reflect an awareness of divine compassion, however limited by the thought climate of the times.” (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary), [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI 1992], p. 189; bold emphasis ours)

      For more on the humanitarian nature of this OT passage we recommend the following article: A note on the humanitarian character of Deut 21.10-14.

      Unfortunately, there’s more to the story. The so-called sound ahadith report that Muhammad taught that Allah has predestined the amount of adultery a person must necessarily commit:

      Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
      I did not see anything so resembling minor sins as what Abu Huraira said from the Prophet, who said, “Allah has written for the son of Adam his INEVITABLE share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not: The adultery of the eye is the looking (at something which is sinful to look at), and the adultery of the tongue is to utter (what it is unlawful to utter), and the innerself wishes and longs for (adultery) and the private parts turn that into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 609)

      Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he OF NECESSITY MUST COMMIT (or there would be no escape from it). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421; see also Number 6422)

      In other words, these Muslims were only carrying out the very sexual filth which their god had predestined for them!

      Like

    • To now further add insult to injury, let me further break down Deuteronomy 21:10-14 to show how this passage condemns Muhammad as an adulterer and rapist:

      “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and attracted to her, YOU MAY TAKE HER AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband AND SHE SHALL BE YOUR WIFE. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her (innitah).” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      The word innitah comes from anah. Now let us see how other versions render this word in v. 14:

      “But if you aren’t pleased with her, you must send her away as she wishes. You are not allowed to sell her for money or treat her as a slave because you have HUMILIATED her.” Common English Bible

      “It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go [c]wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not [d]mistreat her, because you have HUMBLED her.” New American Standard Bible

      But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have DISHONORED her. New Revised Standard Version

      And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast HUMBLED her. Jewish Publication Society 1917

      And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have AFFLICTED her. Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary

      The reason why these versions rendered the word anah as dishonored, humbled, afflicted etc. is because the word is not being used here in the sense of forcing the captive woman to have sex, but of dishonoring or humiliating her by divorcing her and sending her on her way. That this word can and does mean refer to dishonoring someone, and not forcing them to have sex, is easily seen from the way this word is used in the following verses:

      “This shall be a perpetual statute for you so that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall HUMBLE yourselves, and do no work of any kind, whether it is the native citizen or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you to cleanse you, so that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath, a solemn rest for you, and you shall HUMBLE yourselves. It is a perpetual statute. The priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as a priest in the place of his father, shall make atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, the holy garments. And he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, for the tent of meeting, and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.” Leviticus 16:29-33

      “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation to you, and you shall HUMBLE yourselves, and offer a food offering made by fire to the Lord. You shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whoever is not HUMBLED on that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whoever does any work in that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no manner of work. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be to you a sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict your souls. On the ninth day of the month starting at the evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.” Leviticus 23:16-32

      “You will have a holy assembly on the tenth day of this seventh month, and you will AFFLICT yourselves. You will not do any work on it.” Numbers 29:7

      “You must carefully keep all the commandments that I am commanding you today, so that you may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to your fathers. You must remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to HUMBLE you, and to prove you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. He HUMBLED you and let you suffer hunger, and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man does not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your feet swell these forty years. You must also consider in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you… who fed you in the wilderness with manna, which your fathers did not know, that He might HUMBLE you and that He might prove you, to do good for you in the end. ” Deuteronomy 8:1-5, 16

      Thus, this text doesn’t permit Israelite men to rape captive women like Muhammad’s god allowed his profit and jihadi thugs. Rather, it is telling them they can only have sex with women whom they have taken captive BY FIRST MARRYING THEM! Even the very translation used by this demented liar AFFIRMS THAT THE ISRAELITES HAD TO MARRY THE CAPTIVE WOMEN, AND WERE TO SET THEM FREE AND NOT SELL THEM AS SLAVES IF THEY ENDED UP DIVORCING THEM, UNLIKE YOUR WICKED PROFIT WHO NOT ONLY RAPED THEM WITHOUT MARRYING THEM BUT THEN SOLD THEM OFF AFTER HE GOT DONE VIOLATING THEM!

      10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like AND WANT TO MARRY HER. 12 take her your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, YOU MAY MARRY HER. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. since you forced her to have intercourse with you, YOU CANNOT TREAT HER AS A SLAVE AND SELL HER.

      OUCH!

      MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU CANNOT QUOTE A SINGLE VERSE FROM THE BIBLE WHICH SAYS THAT ISRAELITES OR BELIEVES CAN RAPE MARRIED WOMEN THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CAPTIVE, UNLIKE YOUR WICKED PROFIT!

      DOUBLE OUCH!!!!

      You could only wish that your profit had shown the same decency and civility towards captive women that this passage from Deuteronomy does, a passage which predates your filthy Quran by approximately 2200 years!

      Like I said, keep producing your trash and filth and keep watching hundreds of thousands leave your wicked and filthy deen and turn to the glory of Christ, Muhammad’s God and Judge!

      With that said give me a time and date when you can come to my paltak room so we can compare Deuteronomy 21:10-14 with the filth of Quran 4:24 and your profit’s implementation of it so all can see how well you do defending your garbage.

      Like

    • Quran 4;24 is related to awtas, and we have refuted your lies here:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/06/23/what-happened-to-the-captive-women-in-awtas-incident/

      And:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/19/a-closer-look-at-awtas-incident-in-relation-to-quran-424/

      Now let’s see if your babble sanction rape or not. We will begin with the New Testament.

      Your Lord and saviour/deceiver Paul endorses and sanction marital rape:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/27/does-the-new-testament-endorse-marital-rape/

      Let me quote the passage:

      I Corinthians 7:3-4
      3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
      4 The WIFE DOES NOT HAVE authority over her own body but HER HUSBAND DOES. …

      This verse commands that a Christian wife has no authority over her body. The ‘body’ part mentioned here is in reference to her ‘private parts’. Basically, the husband has full right to have sexual relations with his wife even when she refuses. The Christian husband can have forceful sexual intimacy even if the wife refuses. For the wife to refuse this, is a major sin. This in modern terms would be called ‘marital rape’.

      Christian scholars says that a wife has no right over her body, the husband does. They agree that the Christian husband can rape his own wife and your god Jesus is pleased with it, no sin on the Christian man according to your babble:

      Pastor and Bible teacher David Guzik:
      “b. On the same idea, also the wife to her husband: The wife is not to withhold marital affection from her husband. Paul strongly puts forth the idea that there is a mutual sexual responsibility in marriage. The husband has obligations toward his wife, and the wife has obligations toward her husband.
      i. Render to his wife: The emphasis is on giving, on “I owe you” instead of “you owe me.” In God’s heart, sex is put on a much higher level than merely the husband’s privilege and the wife’s duty.
      c. The wife does not have authority over her own body: In fact, these obligations ARE SO CONCRETE, IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE WIFE’S BODY DOES NOT EVEN BELONG TO HERSELF, BUT TO HER HUSBAND. The same principle is true of the husband’s body in regard to his wife. …”
      (David Guzik Commentary on the Bible – online source)

      And:

      Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges:

      “Verse 4
      4. οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει. A.V. hath not power. Better, HATH NO RIGHT. ἐξουσία sometimes stands for power, as in Revelation 9:3. But the more usual sense of the word is AUTHORITY. τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος. OVER HER OWN BODY. Because in everything connected with the duties of married life each should consult the comfort, well-being, and happiness of the other before their own, and should be especially careful that they do not, by any selfishness on the part of either, ‘cause their brother to offend’” (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges – online source)

      And:

      Heinrich Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

      “Verse 3-4
      ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώμ. κ. τ. λ(1073)] Explanatory of 1 Corinthians 7:3. THE WIFE HAS NO POWER OVER HER OWN BODY, NAMELY, AS REGARDS COHABITATION, but THE HUSBAND HAS THAT POWER; likewise ( ὁμοίως) also, on the other hand, the converse holds, so that “neutri liceat alteri conjugale debitum poscenti denegare,” Estius. Corresponding statements of the Rabbins may be seen in Selden, uxor. Hebr. iii. 6, 7. Bengel says happily respecting ἰδίου, that it forms with οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει, an elegans paradoxon.” (Heinrich Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament – online source)

      rest of the evidence can be seen here:
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/27/does-the-new-testament-endorse-marital-rape/

      In conclusion, we see that the New Testament which was “inspired” by your god, Shamoun, endorses Christian husbands to forcefully have sex with your wives and there is no sin on it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Part 1,

      Now I am going to obliterate your lies on the rape law in Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      One of the verses that has been downplayed by Christian apologists as not endorsing or approving ‘rape’ is Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since YOU FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.

      They claim that the word ‘anah’ used here doesn’t actually mean ‘ rape’ (forced intercourse).

      In each translation and commentary one will see that “annah” word used in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 means RAPE. This word is used in Lamentations, and pay careful attention one will see that the word means RAPE:

      Translations for Lamentations 5:11

      New Living Translation
      “Our enemies RAPE THE WOMEN in Jerusalem and the young girls in all the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      English Standard Version (ESV)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, young women in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, young women in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      International Standard Version (ISV)
      “They have RAPED women in Zion, young women in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      NET Bible
      “They RAPED women in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      GOD’S WORD® Translation
      “Women in Zion are RAPED, so are the girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Common English Bible (CEB)
      “Women have been RAPED in Zion, young women in Judah’s cities.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “They have RAPED the women of Tziyon, virgins in the cities of Y’hudah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      “On Zion and everywhere in Judah our wives and daughters are BEING RAPED.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “The enemy raped the women of Zion. They RAPED THE WOMEN in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “The enemy [L They] ·ABUSED [VIOLATED; RAPED] the women ·of Jerusalem [L in Zion; C the location of the Temple] and the ·girls [L virgins] in the ·cities [towns] of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “Our wives have BEEN RAPED on Mount Zion itself; in every Judean village our daughters have been forced to submit.” – Lamentations 5:11

      International Children’s Bible (ICB)
      “The ENEMY RAPED the women of Jerusalem and the girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “They RAPED women in Zion, young women[a] in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “They RAPE the women of Jerusalem and the girls in Judah’s cities.” – Lamentations 5:11

      The Message (MSG)
      “Our wives were RAPED in the streets in Zion, and our virgins in the cities of Judah.” Lamentations 5:11

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “Women in Zion are RAPED, so are the girls in the cities of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, young women in the cities of Judah…” – Lamentations 5:11

      New English Translation (NET Bible)
      “They RAPED women in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
      “Women are RAPED in Zion, virgins in the towns of Judah.” – Lamentations 5:11

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “In the place where God should be— Zion and the surrounding towns of Judah— Women, young and old alike, are BRUTALLY RAPED and violated.” – Lamentations 5:11

      Some may argue that the above translations are wrong. Let’s see what Christian commentaries say in regards to the passage.

      Commentaries

      Bridgeway Bible Commentary:

      Conditions in Judah are terrible. The people have to search the barren country regions for food, and in doing so they risk death from desert bandits (9-10). Judean WOMEN ARE RAPED, former leaders are tortured, and children are forced to work like slaves (11-13). The old way of life has gone, and with it has gone all celebration and rejoicing (14-15). People everywhere are unhappy, discouraged and ashamed. They acknowledge that their sin has brought all this upon them (16-18). (Bridgeway Bible Commentary – Lamentations 5:11 – online source)

      Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible:

      “They ravished the women … the virgins of the cities of Judah” (Lamentations 5:11). This is an accompanying vice of warfare that is just as much a part of modern wars as it was in antiquity. Nothing is more terrible and disgusting than the WHOLESALE RAPE of the women (all of them) by an army of enemies. The bestiality of wicked men unrestrained by any outside force is the utmost in depravity.
      (Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible – Lamentations 5:11 – online source)

      Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable:

      “The enemy had RAPED THE WOMEN and girls in Jerusalem and Judah. Respected princes had experienced the most humiliating deaths, and the enemy gave no respect to Judah”s elderly. Since Nebuchadnezzar evidently did not torture his victims (cf. Jeremiah 52:10-11; Jeremiah 52:24-27), it may be that the Chaldeans strung up the princes by their hands-after they had died-to dishonor them (cf. Deuteronomy 21:22-23). [Note: Keil, 2:451.]” (Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable – Lamentations 5:11 – Online source)

      Chuck Smith Bible Commentary:

      “They ravished the women in Zion, and the maids in the cities of Judah ( Lamentations 5:11 ).
      The enemies had come in. It must have been a horrible thing. The fathers to see their wives and their young daughters ravished by the enemy, RAPED and all and then murdered.” (Chuck Smith Bible Commentary – Lamentations 5:11 – online source)

      American Old Testament scholar and the William Marcellus McPheeters Professor Emerita of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary – Kathleen M. O’Connor:

      “Women’s history
      As symbolic figures, women convey mixed messages in Lamentations, but when the book speaks of real women, it tells of their history in painful and illuminating ways. The book brings into the open hidden victims of war who suffer long after the war’s end. Some verses mention women’s sufferings alongside those of men and other social groups. Young women have gone into captivity with young men (2:21). Young girls and elders grieve over Zion’s destruction (2:10). Other verses attend specifically to the plight of women. The male speaker grieves over ‘the fate of all the young women in my city’ (3:11). ‘WOMEN ARE RAPED in Zion’ (5:11).” (Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition [Edited by Carol Ann Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, WJK – Westminister – John Knox Press Louisville – Kentucky, 1998], by Kathleen M. O’Connor, page 190)

      Dr. Charles H. Dyer:

      “The first group mentioned who suffered the horrors of foreign occupation were the women of Jerusalem (Zion) and the virgins … of Judah. Women who survived the Babylonian assault on their cities were mercilessly RAPED BY THE SADISTIC SOLDIERS. In a scene of savage brutality, repeated by many conquering armies throughout history, the victors went on a wanton spree of lustful revenge against defenceless women.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition Of the Scriptures By Dallas Seminary Faculty – Old Testament [Editors John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, 1983] by Charles H. Dyer, page 1222)

      Professor of Old Testament David L. Petersen:

      The elegant literary construction stands in constrast with the devastating destruction: much will be violated. The book of Lamentations, which reflects the fall of Jerusalem, refers to all three elements, the destruction of the city, presumably its walls (2:8); plundering (1:18) and violation of dwelling places (2:2); WOMEN RAPED (5:11).” (Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary [Westminister – John Knox Press Louisville – Kentucky, 1995], by David L. Petersen, page 141)

      Professor David W. Chapman:

      “The context of 5:11-14 concentrates on the horrors that women and men faced in the exilic period. After speaking of the rape RAPE OF THE WOMEN IN 5:11, the two verses above mention in descending social order the fate of the men (a similar order is reiterated in 5:14). The Hebrew perfect verbs are translated above with the English simple past; however, many modern interpreters (going back to Lam 5:1) understand these are current afflictions for the writer. (Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe – Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany, 2008], by David W. Chapman, page 158)

      So there we have it – the translations for Lamentations 5:11 and the commentaries on the verse, all agree that the Hebrew word ‘anah’ signifies ‘rape’. The GNT translation for Deuteronomy 21:10-14 where it says forceful sexual intercourse (rape) did take place, they translated it correctly. The women mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 were raped.

      More here:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/29/deuteronomy-211014-hebrew-word-anah-means-rape/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Part 2,

      we are going to show once more that Jesus who is god of the Old Testament allowed and endorsed his soldiers to RAPE women in war in Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

      One of the best translations to illustrate that rape did indeed take place in Deuteronomy, is the GNT translation. It reads:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      Christian apologists, however have argued that those scholars who translated the GNT are wrong in translating the Hebrew word ‘anah’ as ‘forced intercourse’ (‘rape’).

      In this article we will look at Judges 20:5, where the Hebrew word ‘anah’ (inn) is used. We will look and see how Biblical scholars have translated the word for that verse (Judges 20:5). Does the word carry the meaning of ‘rape’ or sexual intercourse by ‘force’?

      Before reading the translations, please check word for word English and Hebrew text for Judges 20:5, where the word ‘anah’ (inna) is used here: BlueletterBible.org

      Some context surrounding the verse we are examining:

      “4 So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, replied, “I had come with my concubine to spend the night in Gibeah, [a town] which belongs to [the tribe of] Benjamin. 5 But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me, but instead they RAPED (ANAH) my concubine [so brutally] that she died.” – Judges 20:4-5

      We will focus only on verse 5 and see how the scholars have translated the word (Anah) here.

      Translations for Judges 20:5

      Amplified Bible (AMP)
      “5 But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me, but instead they RAPED my concubine [so brutally] that she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
      “5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me and beset the house round about me by night; they meant to kill me and they RAPED my concubine, and she is dead.” – Judges 20:5

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “5 and the men in Giv‘ah attacked me and surrounded the house I was staying in at night. They wanted to kill me, but instead they RAPED my concubine to death.” – Judges 20:5

      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      “5 Later that night, the men of Gibeah surrounded the house. They wanted to kill me, but instead they RAPED and killed my wife.” – Judges 20:5

      Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
      “5 And behold the men of that city in the night beset the house wherein I was, intending to kill me, and abused my wife with an incredible FURY OF LUST, so that at last she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “5 But during the night the men of the city of Gibeah came to the house where I was staying. They surrounded the house, and they wanted to kill me. They RAPED my slave woman, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “5 During the night the ·men [leaders; lords] of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house and wanted to kill me. They FORCED MY SLAVE WOMAN TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS [abused/RAPED my concubine] and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
      “5 The citizens of Gibeah came to attack me. They surrounded the house where I was staying that night. They intended to kill me, but instead, they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “5 The men of Gibeah came to get me and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me; instead they RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “5 Citizens of Gibeah ganged up on me and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, but they RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      International Children’s Bible (ICB)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house and wanted to kill me. They RAPED my slave woman. And she died!” – Judges 20:5

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “5 “That night the men of Gibeah surrounded the house, planning to kill me, and they RAPED my wife until she was dead.” – Judges 20:5

      The Message (MSG)
      “That night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They GANG-RAPED my concubine and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “5 The citizens of Gibeah came to attack me. They surrounded the house where I was staying that night. They intended to kill me, but instead, they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house and wanted to kill me. They FORCED MY SLAVE WOMAN TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me. They surrounded the house. They were planning to kill me. They RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New International Version (NIV)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
      “5 During the night the men of Gibeah came after me and surrounded the house, intending to kill me. They RAPED my concubine, and she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Living Translation (NLT)
      “5 That night some of the leading citizens of Gibeah surrounded the house, planning to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she was dead.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
      “5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
      “5 And the ba’alei haGiv’ah rose against me, and surrounded the bais upon me by lailah, and intended to have murdered me; and my pilegesh have they RAPED, that she is dead.” – Judges 20:5

      Tree of Life Version (TLV)
      “5 Then men of Gibeah rose against me and surrounded the house over me at night. They intended to kill me, but instead, they RAPED my concubine until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “5 but the leaders of the city came to the house where we were staying and surrounded it, wanting to attack me. They intended to kill me, but they RAPED my mistress until she died.” – Judges 20:5

      World English Bible (WEB)
      “5 The men of Gibeah rose against me, and surrounded the house by night. They intended to kill me, and they RAPED my concubine, and she is dead.” – Judges 20:5

      Let’s now read some Bible commentaries for Judges 20:5.

      Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible:

      “The testimony was clear and straightforward, although protecting his honour. The main motive of the men is not mentioned, possibly because he did not want to be associated with such an idea, or possibly as being something he was ashamed to mention in public, but he had had no doubt as to what would have been the end result, especially when he resisted. All present would understand what he meant by the humbling or forcing of his concubine, MULTIPLE RAPE. And it had been so vicious that she had died as a result.” (Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible – Judges 20:5 – online source)

      The New Interpreter’s Bible:

      “The Levite’s testimony (20:4-7) is correct in labelling the RAPE of the concubine as a ‘vile outrage,’ but several features of his testimony are less than honest. He reports that the ‘lords of Gibeah’ rose against him (20:5), but the account indicates the perpetrators were a perverse group in the city (19:22), not necessarily the city’s leaders. The Levite also says the men of the city intended to kill him (20:5). Judges 19:22, however, only says they wanted to have intercourse with him. He also does not report that he ‘seized’ his concubine and put her out to the crowd (19:25), which, as already noted, implicates the Levite in the RAPE as well as the men of Gibeah. By distorting the story in these ways, the Levite creates a conflict between the tribe of Benjamin and the other Israelite tribes that diverts attention from his own guilt.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible: One-Volume Commentary [Editors: Beverly Roberts Gaventa and David Peterson – Abingdon Press – Nashville, 2010] by Jerome F. D. Creach, page 311)

      John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible:

      “And the men of Gibeah rose against me,…. Not all of them, but some that dwelt in that city; he forbears giving them the character they justly deserved, sons of Belial. These came in a tumultuous and violent manner: and beset the house round about upon me by night; that he might not make his escape, resolving if possible to get him into their hands, and do with him according to their will: and thought to have slain me; their first intention was to commit the unnatural sin on him, and, if he resisted, to slay him; but this he modestly conceals, as being a sin not to be named in an assembly of saints; and besides he might say this, because he himself chose rather to be slain than to submit to their lust, which he knew must be the case upon his refusal and resistance; and even if he had yielded, being overpowered, this would have been the consequence, that he should have been abused even unto death, as his wife was: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead; or “afflicted”, or “humbled”F4 her; which is a modest expression for CARNAL knowledge of her, and WHICH THEY HAD TO SUCH EXCESS THAT SHE DIED THROUGH IT. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible – Judges 20:5 – online source)

      The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann:

      “v. 5. And the men of Gibeah, the lords of the city, for they were guilty with their whole city, since they had not prevented the excess, rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me. The crime which the men of Gibeah had intended was really worse than murder, and it would probably have resulted in the Levite’s death; he may have been ashamed to speak of the crime by its right name. And MY CONCUBINE HAVE THEY FORCED that she is dead, a victim of their BESTIAL LUSTS. (The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann – Judges 20:5 – online source)

      As we finished reading the above evidences, the soldiers in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 did get married to the women, however, the captive women were raped. They did not consent to the marriage. As we have seen the true intended meaning for ‘anah’ (inna) in Deuteronomy 21:10-14, the whole passage relays how soldiers were given the green light to rape slave-women.

      See more evidence here:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/deuteronomy-2110-14-soldiers-raped-women/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Part 3,

      Here we revisit Deuteronomy 21:10-14 once again where Jesus who is god of the Old Testament endorsed and sanctioned his soldiers to rape women in the Bible:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 has been noted by some that the ‘provisions’ laid out in the passage are ‘remarkable’, ‘compassionate’ and ‘humanistic’. Let’s read:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      This is the original reading for the verse. However, Christian apologists have argued that the GNT have wrongly translated the Hebrew word (Anah) as ‘forced intercourse’ (rape). No rape took place since the women were married, they claim.

      In this third piece, we will look at verses, where the Hebrew word ‘anah’ has been used. We look and see how scholars have translated the Hebrew word ‘anah’. The passage we will focus on is Genesis 34:2.

      Before reading the translations, please check word for word English and Hebrew text for Deuteronomy 34:2, where the word ‘anah’ is used: BlueletterBible.org

      The context surrounding Genesis 34:2,

      The Defiling of Dinah
      “1Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land. 2When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force.
      Dinah the daughter of Leah, went out to visit, in a different territory. Shechem, was attracted to her, grabbed by force FORCE and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:1-2

      Translations for Genesis 34:2

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “2 and Sh’khem the son of Hamor the Hivi, the local ruler, saw her, grabbed her, RAPED HER and humiliated her.” – Genesis 34:2

      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      “2 She was seen by Hamor’s son Shechem, the leader of the Hivites, and he grabbed her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “2 She was seen by Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, who ruled that area. Shechem took Dinah and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who was chief of that region, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, a prince of the region, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      International Children’s Bible (ICB)
      “2 Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that land, saw Dinah. He took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      International Standard Version (ISV)
      “2 When Hamor the Hivite’s son Shechem, the regional leader, saw her, he grabbed her and RAPED HER, humiliating her.” – Genesis 34:2

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “2 And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her. And he took her and lay with her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      The Message (MSG)
      “1-2 One day Dinah, the daughter Leah had given Jacob, went to visit some of the women in that country. Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite who was chieftain there, saw her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “2 When Shechem, son of the local ruler Hamor the Hivite, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “2 but when Shechem, son of King Hamor the Hivite, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
      “2 When Shechem, son of the local ruler Hamor the Hivite, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
      “2 Hamor, the Hivite, was the ruler of that area. When his son Shechem saw Dinah, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New International Version (NIV)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Living Translation (NLT)
      “2 But when the local prince, Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, saw Dinah, he seized her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Tree of Life Version (TLV)
      “2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “2 But when Shechem (son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region) saw Dinah, he grabbed her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      “2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and LAY WITH HER [A]BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of the land, saw her, he took her and FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM.” – Genesis 34:2

      New English Translation (NET Bible)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who ruled that area, saw her, he grabbed her, FORCED HIMSELF ON HER, and SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he SEIZED HER AND LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
      “2 And when Shechem, the son of Hamor (the) Hivite, the prince of that land, had seen her, he loved her, and he ravished her, and (he) slept with her, and OPPRESSED THE VIRGIN BY VIOLENCE (and he oppressed the virgin with violence).” – Genesis 34:2

      Amplified Bible (AMP)
      “2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince (sheik) of the land, saw her, he KIDNAPPED HER AND LAY [INTIMATELY] WITH HER BY FORCE [humbling and offending her].” – Genesis 34:2

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite [C one of the tribes that inhabited Canaan], the ·ruler [prince] of the land, saw her, he took her and FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM [lay with her and humiliated/violated her].” – Genesis 34:2

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “2 When Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite,[a] the leader of the region, saw her, HE SEIZED HER AND LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      Let’s now turn to the exegesis for Genesis 34:2.

      Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible:

      “Shechem … took her … lay with her … humbled her …” As Willis pointed out, “The whole drift of this chapter indicates that Shechem RAPED DINAH AGAINST HER will and forced her to live in his house.”[7] These very words, [~laqach], meaning that, “an irresistible force was used,”[8] [~innah], meaning that Dinah was humbled, and [~timme’], meaning defiled are indeed eloquent regarding the bestiality to which Dinah was subjected. Some commentators want to make a big thing out of the fact that Dinah might have encouraged Shechem, but, so what? Even if she had consented, which was not the case at all, it was a clear case of STATUTORY RAPE. Shechem, like any other selfish, spoiled son of a ruler, simply took what he wanted when he wanted, and by force, if necessary. (Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible – Genesis 34:2 – online source)

      David Guzik Commentary on the Bible:

      “c. Went out to see the daughters of the land: Dinahs desire to do this understandable but unwise. Jacob did not make sure she was properly supervised. To allow unsupervised socialization in a pagan town was a failure of responsibility on the part of Jacob and Leah.
      i. Unattached young women were considered fair game in cities of the time, in which promiscuity was not only common but, in fact, a part of the very religious system itself. (Morris)
      ii. This occurrence serves to illustrate the low standard of morals prevalent among the Canaanites. Any unattended female could be RAPED, and in the transactions that ensue neither father nor son feel the need of apologizing for or excusing what had been committed. (Leupold)
      iii. But try telling this to a teenager like Dinah! Teenagers often want it all, and they want it now. It is almost impossible for them to see the benefits of waiting for certain things until they are more mature.
      iv. A way this difficulty has been measured has been called the marshmallow test. A researcher gives this choice to a four-year-old: I am leaving for a few minutes to run an errand, and you can have this marshmallow while I am gone, but if you wait until I return, you can have two marshmallows. Researchers at Stanford did this test in the 1960s, and a dozen years later they found the kids who grabbed the single marshmallow tended to be more troubled as adolescents. The one-marshmallow kids also scored an average of 210 points less on SAT tests. Learning to delay gratification is important!
      d. Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her: Jacobs lack of attention and protection was partially at fault in this tragedy. His own compromise made him less able to stand up to his own children and guide them as he should.
      i. Jacobs children knew he told his brother Esau he would go south with him, but Jacob went north instead. They picked up on this and other areas of compromise and used them to justify their own compromise.
      e. He took her and lay with her, and violated her: As for the young man named Shechem, his soul was strongly attracted to Dinah and he even spoke kindly to her. Yet we cannot say he loved her, because he violated her.
      i. It was a soulish love Shechem had for Dinah, not a spiritual or godly love. He loved her for what she could be and give to him, not for what he could be and give to her. His heart is shown in the words get me this young woman as a wife. It was a soulish get me kind of love.
      ii. It is possible for a man to be attracted to a woman and to show kindness to her for reasons having nothing or little to do with love. In their desire to connect romantically with a man, women often forget this.” (David Guzik Commentary on the Bible – Genesis 34:2 – online source)

      Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible:

      “Like many petty princes Shechem was proud and arrogant and considered he did not have to behave as others did. When he saw the tribal girl who aroused his feelings more than any woman had before, he did not think twice about taking her and having his way with her. To him she was simply a ‘stranger’ in the land and therefore not very important. It may well be that he felt that by taking her he would render it impossible for her to marry anyone else. “Humbled her.” That is, changed her status. There is an advancement in thought. First he took her, that is sent his men to fetch her, and then HE RAPED HER. And the final result was that she was ‘humbled’ and lost her status. She was morally and socially degraded and lost the expectancy of a fully valid marriage. No act to a woman of Dinah’s status could have been more cruel. We must recognise this when we consider the passage.” (Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible – Genesis 34:2 – online source)

      The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis:

      “34:1-31
      Dinah and Shechem
      34:2. Hivites. Based on their appearance in various narratives, the Hivites apparently inhabited an area in the central hill country of Canaan, ranging from Gibeon, near Jerusalem (Josh 9:1-7), to Shechem and on north to Mount Hermon (Josh 11:3; Judg 3:3). The origin of the Hivites is unknown (descendant of Ham in Gen 10:17), but it is possible that they are related to either Hurrian or Hittite peoples settling in Canaan during the period from the mid-second to early first millennium B.C. 34:2. Ravishing women. RAPE AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING A MARRIAGE CONTRACT WAS APPARENTLY ONE STRATAGEM USED IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST. Laws regulating this practice are found in Exodus 2:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the Middle Assyrian laws and the Hittite laws. These often require the rapist to pay an especially high bride price and sometimes forbid any possibility of divorce. Sumerian Law 7, like Genesis 34, deals with a case where a young, unbetrothed woman leaves her parents’ home without permission and is RAPED. The result is an option by the parents to marry her to the rapist without her consent.” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis—Deuteronomy [IVP – InterVarsity Press – Dowers Grove, Illinois, 1997] by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, page 67)

      The MacArthur Bible Commentary

      “34:1 to see the daughters. Little did Dinah (see 30:20-21) realize that her jaunt to the nearby city to view how other women lived would bring forth such horrific results.
      34:2 saw…took…violated. Scripture classifies Shechem’s action as FORCIBLE RAPE, no matter how sincerely he might have expressed his love for her afterwards (v.3) and desire for marriage (vv. 11, 12). Other expressions in the account underscore the clearly unacceptable nature of this crime, e.g., ‘defiled’ (vv. 5, 13), ‘grieved and very angry’ (v. 7), ‘a disgraceful thing… which ought not be done’ (v. 7), and ‘treat our sister like a harlot’ (v. 31).” (The MacArthur Bible Commentary [Thomas Nelson since 1798 – Nashville, Dallas, Mexico City, Rio De Janeiro, 2005] by John F. MacArthur, page 61)

      The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary:

      “THE RAPE OF DINAH (GEN 34)
      The narrative of the rape of Dinah is disturbing for several reasons. The chapter begins with Jacob and his family settling safely in Shechem, purchasing land from the sons of Hamor, the King of Shechem, erecting an altar and calling it El-Elohe-Israel, that is, ‘God, the God of Israel’ (Gen 33:18-20). It seems that we are in the age of fulfilment. With Jacob’s large family, God’s promise of many descendants is being realized, and now the preferred line is securing a foothold in the Promised Land. In this context, Dinah, reintroduced as the daughter of Jacob and Leah, sets out to visit the women of the region (Gen 34:1). This constructive effort to secure good relations is the last time that Dinah will initiate action. From here on, the narrative tells what is done to her. She becomes a pawn, and we are not even told how she responds to the events swirling around her… When Dinah sets out, she is seen by Shechem, the son of Hamor. He seizes her and RAPES HER (Gen 34:2).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary [IVP – InterVarsity Press – Dowers Grove, Illinois, 2002], by Catherine Clark Kroeger, Mary J. Evans, page 23)

      David W. Cotter:

      “Dinah goes out ‘to see,’ and she is seen by Shechem in return. In this way, what is seen and not seen enters the story as important. Perhaps more than any other exposition in the book, this one verse is pregnant with meaning and causes real foreboding in us readers.
      Dinah went out to see the local women. There is absolutely no hint in the text that she went out to see the men of the region. But in v.2 the brutal action commences as she is seen by Shechem. Three verbs show the rapidity of Shechem’s behaviour and its violence, but in a way that is not well captured by the NRSV’s translation: ‘[Shechem] SAW HER, HE SEIZED HER AND LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.’ (34:2) Better would be – after marking Shechem as the son of the local ruler and therefore a man of power, whereas Dinah is a vulnerable newcomer: ‘…saw her, he took her, lay [with] her and humiliated [or degraded, or debased] her’ (AT). 56 (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative & Poetry – Genesis [MG – A Michael Glazier Book – the Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 2003], by David W. Cotter page 254)

      David W. Cotter goes further on Footnote 56:

      56”Ordinarly the verb translated here as ‘ay’ would be followed by a preposition meaning ‘with’. That preposition is absent here, so ‘her’ follows the verb immediately. The result is a sort of coarse and vulgar Hebrew used for instances of improper or BRUTAL SEXUAL ENCOUNTER. This coarseness is, of course, further heightened by the use of the verse ‘to humiliate, degrade, debase.’ To call this something other than RAPE, as some commentaries do, seems incomprehensible to me. (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative & Poetry – Genesis [MG – A Michael Glazier Book – the Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 2003], by David W. Cotter page 254 [Footnote 56])

      Joseph Benson’s Commentary of the Old and New Testaments:

      “Verse 2
      Genesis 34:2. Shechem took her, and defiled her — Hebrew, humbled her. “The word,” says Bishop Kidder, “INTIMATES HIS VIOLENCE, as well as her dissent.” Young women may learn from this to be “chaste, keepers at home,” (Titus 2:5,) which qualities have a closer connection than many are willing to believe. They that are fond of going abroad, and intermixing in company with persons of whose piety and good conduct they have no proof, often expose their virtue to a snare. From what happened to Dinah, all may learn to avoid all occasions of falling into temptation, or leading others into it. (Joseph Benson’s Commentary of the Old and New Testaments – Genesis 34:2 – online source)

      John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible:

      “saw her; that is, Dinah, what a beautiful person she was, and was enamoured with her: HE TOOK HER: BY FORCE, as the Targum of Jonathan: and lay with her, and defiled her; or “humbled” or “afflicted her”F4; and it is a rule with the Jews, that every such act, which is done by FORCE, IS CALLED AN HUMILIATION AND AFFLICTIONF5: the child begotten in this act of fornication is saidF6 by them to be Asenath, who was had into Egypt, and brought up by Potipherah’s wife as her daughter, and afterwards married to Joseph, Genesis 41:45.” (John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible – Genesis 34:2 – online source)

      As we have seen, the Hebrew word ‘anah’ (inna) used for Deuteronomy 21:14 carries the meaning of rape. Although the women were married off to the soldiers, the passage tells us that this marriage was not consensual. Any sexual relations with the captive –women in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 was forceful sexual intercourse i.e., ‘rape’, as the above evidences have shown.

      more evidence in the link:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/hebrew-word-anah-inna-carries-the-meaning-of-rape/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Part 4, here we show more evidence available on Deuteronomy 21:10-14 that Jesus who is god of the Old Testament sanctioned his holy men to rape innocent women in the Bible.

      We continue to examine the Hebrew ‘anah’ (inna) in this fourth piece. Previously (which can be seen here, here, and here) we mentioned how some have argued that the captive women mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 were treated humanely, no rape took place, they claim. However, as we looked at the Hebrew words closer, we seen that the passage gave approval and the permissibility of forced sexual intercourse (rape) with these slave-women. The GNT Bible accurately described what happened to the women:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      This captures the original reading for the passage. Christian apologists have rejected this translation because it shows that the women were raped. We will look at the same Hebrew word (‘Anah/inna’) used elsewhere in the Old Testament and see whether scholars translate the word ‘anah/inna’ as ‘rape’ or forced sexual intercourse.

      Before reading the translations, please check the follow link – word for word English and Hebrew text for Deuteronomy 22:29, where the word ‘anah’ is used: BlueletterBible.org

      Some context in relation to Deuteronomy 22:29. If a man sees a virgin and he forcefully has sexual intercourse with her, the rapist has to pay the father of the girl ‘fifty shekels’ and must marry her (forced marriage). This was the ancient Israelite law, when a man raped a virgin which was not ‘betrothed’, the man had to marry her, even if the girl disliked this, the marriage would have still gone ahead without her wishes.

      Good New Translation (GNT)
      “28 “Suppose a man is caught raping a young woman who is not engaged. 29 He is to pay her father the bride price of fifty pieces of silver, and she is to become his wife, because he forced her to have intercourse with him. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Different translations for Deuteronomy 22:29.

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “28-29 If a man RAPES A GIRL who is not engaged and is caught in the act, he must pay a fine[a] to the girl’s father and marry her; he may never divorce her.” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      The Message (MSG)
      “28-29 When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and RAPES HER and they are found out, the man who RAPED HER has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her. And he can never divorce her.” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “29 the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl’s father 1¼ pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. Since he RAPED HER, he can never divorce her as long as he lives.[a]” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      New English Translation (NET Bible)
      “29 The man who has RAPED HER must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
      “29 Then the man must weigh out 20 ounces of silver. He must give it to her father. The man must marry the young woman, because he RAPED HER. And he can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      “29 they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and[a] can never divorce her.” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      Footnote for CEV Translation:

      “22.28,29 talks her into sleeping with him. . . bride-price and: Or “FORCES HER TO HAVE SEX.”

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      29 the man who ·had sexual relations [L lay] with her must pay the girl’s father about ·one and one-fourth pounds [L fifty shekels] of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has ·dishonored [HUMILIATED; RAPED] her, and he may never divorce her for as long as he lives [Ex. 22:16–17].” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
      “29 the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl’s father 1¼ pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. SINCE HE RAPED HER, he can never divorce her as long as he lives.[a]” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “29 He is to pay her father the bride price of fifty pieces of silver, and she is to become his wife, because he FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH HIM. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:29

      Let’s now turn to Bible commentaries for the verse, and see what they say in relation to Deuteronomy 22:29

      Chuck Smith Bible Commentary:

      “NOW, IF YOU RAPED A GIRL, and she is a virgin, and she is not betrothed to someone else, then you”re to take her as your wife to pay her father fifty shekels of silver (Deuteronomy 22:23-29).” (Chuck Smith Bible Commentary – Deuteronomy 22:29 – online source)

      Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Unabridged:

      “But if SHE WAS FORCED, THE MAN ONLY WHO COMMITTED THE RAPE was to suffer for the violence, which was regarded as a capital crime. In the case of a maiden not betrothed being seduced, the man was OBLIGED TO MARRY HER, and he forfeited the right possessed by other husbands of giving her a divorce. …”(Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Unabridged – Deuteronomy 22:29 – online source)

      The following commentaries on this verse (Deuteronomy 22:29) were taken from an article on Unveiling-Christianity.net site.

      Biblical scholars John Walton, Victor Matthew and Mark Chavalas in their The IVP Bible Background Commentary have the following on Deuteronomy 22:25-27 which is the context of verses 28 and 29:

      “In this case, Israelite law adds another criterion by specifying the guiltlessness of the woman who is RAPED in the countryside, where her screams were unlikely to attract assistance. The assumption of her innocence is based on the implied resistance to the rape in this circumstance.” (Walton, J. H., Matthew, V. H., & Chavalas, M. W. (2000). The IVP Bible Background Commentary: The Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. p. 196)

      Biblical scholar and historian Philip King who was professor of Biblical Studies in the Department of Theology at Boston College and Dorot Professor of the Archeology of Israel in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Hardvard University Lawrence Stager write:

      “RAPE IS REFERRED TO ONLY IN DEUTERONOMY, but with no sharp distinction between rape and seduction. THE RAPIST “SHALL GIVE FIFTY SHEKELS OF SILVER TO THAT YOUNG WOMAN’S FATHER, AND SHE SHALL BECOME HIS WIFE. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.”(Deut. 22:29) The Payment in this case represents the mohar.” (King, P. J, & Stager, L. E. (2001). Life in Biblical Israel. In Douglas A. Knight (ed.), Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 60)

      The late conservative Biblical scholar Peter Craigie who held several top posts such as head of the religious studies department at the University of Calgary in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes as follows:

      “28-29 (iv) The RAPE OF A SINGLE WOMAN. THE MAN USES FORCE ON THE WOMAN, who is a virgin and is not betrothed to a man; the two are discovered while the crime is being committed. In this case, the man must pay damages to the father, in the amount of fifty pieces (shekels) of silver, and he must marry the woman.” (Craigie, P. C. (1976). The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co. p. 295)

      The late Biblical scholar and specialist in Hebrew studies Roger Whybray writes:

      “Deuteronomy 22:22-29 deals with adultery and RAPE, and make distinctions between RAPE in the open country, where the woman is defenceless, and rape in the town, where it is held that she could have shouted for help. Rape of an unbetrothed virgin is punished by a payment to her father.” (Whybray, R. N. (2002). The Good Life in the Old Testament. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark. p. 50)

      Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Salve Regina University T. J. Wray writes:

      “The crime of rape in the Bible is varied and complex. In the world of biblical antiquity, RAPE is largely viewed as a crime of disordered lust. Today, we know that it is about must more, but in the Bible, if an unengaged virgin is RAPED, she may actually be required TO MARRY HER RAPIST, and the rapist may must pay the girl’s father a fee for defiling his daughter (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)! Though Deuteronomy stipulates the death penalty for the rape of an engaged female (Deut. 22:25-27, there are numerous cases of vigilante justice for victims of rape (Gen 34:25-29; Judges 19-20; 2 Sam 13:22-29), which leads us to conclude that perhaps in ancient Israel, the long arm of the law often falls short when it comes to rape.” (Wray, T. J. (2011). What the Bible Really Tells Us: The Essential Guide to Biblical Literacy. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 142)

      Dr. Gary Hall, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Lincoln Christian Seminary in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 write:

      “22:28-29 If the girl who was violated was not married or engaged, the penalty was not death but a fine and the loss of the right of divorce. The law protected both the girl (economic security) and the father (loss of bride price). The girl’s loss of virginity would have made her virtually unmarriageable. In Exodus 22:16 the father could refuse to let the girl marry the seducer. There is some question whether the act in view here was rape (NIV) or consensual. The word of verse 25 (“seize”) was not used but an apparently more mild word which meant “take hold of.” However, the explanation that the man had violated the girl POINTS TOWARD RAPE. The expression was also used of Shechem’s treatment of Dinah (Gen. 34:2).” (Hall, G. H. (2000). The College Press NIV Commentary: Deuteronomy. United States: College Press Publishing Co. p. 339)

      Avid Christian pastor and Bible instructor Warren W. Wiersbe writes:

      “According to the law, if a man RAPED A VIRGIN not engaged to be married, he had to pay her father a fine and marry her, and he could never divorce her (Deut. 2:28-29).” (Wiersbe, W. W. (2003). The Bible Exposition Commentary: Old Testament History. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Cook Communications Ministries. p. 342)

      The IVP Bible Background Commentary agrees that it is about rape:

      “34:2 ravishing women. RAPE AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING A MARRIAGE CONTRACT WAS APPARENTLY ONE STRATAGEM used in the ancient Near East. Laws regulating the practice are found in Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the Middle *Assyrian Laws and the *Hittite laws. These often require the rapist to pay an especially high bride price and sometimes forbid any possibility of divorce.” (Walton, J. H., Matthews, V. H., & Chavalas M. W. (2000). The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament: An indispensable resource for all students of the Bible, accessibly providing the cultural background of every passage in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press. p. 66)

      Thomas P. Lowry writes:

      “Deuteronomy 20:10 describes the divinely approved course of action after successfully besieging a city: kill all the men and use the women any way that pleases you. On the smaller scale of the individual victim, we are advised in 22:28 that if a man RAPES A GIRL, he must pay the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, marry the girl, and never divorce her. Whether she wishes to marry her assailant is not in the text.” (Lowry, T. P. (2006). Sexual Misbehavior in the Civil War: A Compendium. United States: Xilbris Corporation. p. 115)

      Theologian Dr David Garland who is Dean of George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University and his wife Dr. Diana Garland write:

      “It is also declared in Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
      If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
      The law implicitly assumed that the RAPED VICTIM was not damaged goods, and it was best for her to marry the assailant.” (Garland, D., & Garland, D. (2007). Flawed Families of the Bible: How God’s Grace Works Through Imperfect Relationships. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press. p. 78)

      Biblical scholar Dr. Cheryl Anderson in Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law which is based on her PhD thesis writes the following:

      “To review briefly the provisions in Deut. 22:22-29, the penalties for a male and female who have intercourse vary according to the female’s marital status. If the female is single and had been RAPED, the man must marry the female and cannot divorce her (Deut. 22:28-29).” (Anderson, C. B. (2004). Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law. London: T&T Clark International. p. 67)

      The late theologian and president of the conservative Dallas Theological Seminary John F. Walvoord comments on the verse and clearly identifies it as rape:

      “22:28-29. A man who RAPED AN UNBETROTHED virgin was forced to marry her (after paying the bride-price of 50 shekels to her father) and had to forfeit the right of divorce.” (Wolvoord, J. F., & Zuck, R. B. (1983). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament. Colorade Sprins, Colorado: David C. Cook. p. 303)

      Regarded as one of the most influential Old Testament scholars of recent times Old Testament scholar and theologian Walter Brueggmann in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes:

      “22:28-29: As the laws proceed in a movement toward less severe affronts, the fifth case is, from the perspective of the text, the least severe (vv. 28-29). This case involved an unengaged virgin, that is, a woman not yet possessed by a man other than her father. The man is aggressive and seizes (tapas) her…The man is fined and forfeits his right to a future divorce. Again the settlement must be made between the two men. The WOMAN HAS BEEN RAPED, but she is not even acknowledged in the settlement, except that she is assigned to a lifelong partnership with her rapist.” (Brueggmann, W. (2001). Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Deuteronomy. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press. p. 225)

      Anthropologist and academic Robin Fox writes:

      “Jewish law stated that a man who RAPED A VIRGIN should pay her bride-price and be required to marry her (Exodus 22:16, Deuteronomy 22:28), but it is not said how this would apply to incestuous rape.” (Fox, R. (2011). The Tribal Imagination: Civilization and the Savage Mind. United States: Harvard University Press. pp. 141-142)

      Conservative Evangelical Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser Jr. who is Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament writes :

      “There are two cases in Deuteronomy 22:19-29 that record that divorce was denied on the basis of whim with attempted false slander or in the case of RAPE OF A VIRGIN for whom the man then gave the bride-price.” (Kaiser Jr., W. (1991). Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. p. 201)

      Laurie L. Levenson who is David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality writes:

      “The biblical laws on RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT seem antiquated when they call upon women to resist their attackers, cry out for help, and be amenable to “punishment” of the defendant by requiring him to marry the victim or pay a fine.” (Levenson, L. L. (2013). Judaism and Criminal Justice. In Elliot N. Dorf & Jonathan K. Crane (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 479)

      The above is footnoted with the following:

      “Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (“and she shall be his wife, because he humbled her; and he may not put her away all his days”); Haim H. Cohn, “Sexual Offenses” (1952), in Elon, ed., The Principles of Jewish Law (at note 8 above), p. 485. He notes there that apart from specified acts, “RAPE as such is not a criminal offense in Jewish law” but requires compensation to the victim.” (Levenson, L. L. (2013). Judaism and Criminal Justice. In Elliot N. Dorf & Jonathan K. Crane (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 484 fn. 54)

      Christian author Gary Field writes:

      “F. In INSTANCES OF RAPE:
      ….
      2) Where the woman is an unbetrothed virgin, the man was required to marry her and never divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)” (Fields, G. E. (2010). All You Ever Wanted to Know About Exodus 20… And a Little Bit More. United States: Xulon Press. p. 224)

      In conclusion, we have learned that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 gives the rapist, and gets the right to marry the rape victim. The victim had no say in this marriage.

      In light of this, we can further understand when the Hebrew word ‘anah’ (inna) is used for the slave-women mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:10-14, it means the soldiers raped – had forced sex with the slaves.

      more in the link;

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/biblical-law-forces-rapist-to-marry-victim-anahinna/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Part 5

      We show more evidence once more that the god Shamoun worships endorses and sanctions rape of women in war.

      We look yet again at the Hebrew word ‘anah’ (inna) in relation to Deuteronomy 21:14,

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      The different translations for Deuteronomy 21:14 do not give an accurate portrayal of what happened to the slave-women. The only accurate translation for the verse is from the GNT translation. Nearly every other translation make it out that the slave-women captured in warfare were happily jumping into another man’s bed. Same men (soldiers) who murdered her husband, father, and brothers.

      We showed in the previous four pieces that the Hebrew word ‘anah’ (inna) carries the meaning of ‘rape’ and ‘forced sex’. You can access the four pieces here, here, here, and here.

      With that being said, in this piece, we will focus on Ezekiel 22:11, where the Hebrew word ‘anah’ (inna) has been used.

      Before we get to read the translations, please check the following link – word for word English and Hebrew text for Ezekiel 22:11, where the word ‘anah’ (inna) is used: BlueletterBible.org

      Some context in relation to Ezekiel 22:11. According to Matthew Henry commentary, Jerusalem was full of murder, idolatry, people disobeying their parents, oppression and extortion, profanation of the Sabbath, and lewdness and adultery.

      Translations for Ezekiel 22:11

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “11 One man commits a terrible sin against his own neighbor’s wife. Another man has sex with his daughter-in-law and makes her unclean. Another man RAPES his father’s daughter—his very own sister.” – Ezekiel 22:11

      International Children’s Bible (ICB)
      “11 One person in you does a hated act with his neighbor’s wife. Another has shamefully violated his daughter-in-law. And another RAPES his half sister.” – Ezekiel 22:11

      New Living Translation (NLT)
      “11 Within your walls live men who commit adultery with their neighbors’ wives, who defile their daughters-in-law, or who RAPE their own sisters.” – Ezekiel 22:11

      Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
      “11 And ish hath committed to’evah with his neighbor’s isha; and another hath lewdly made tameh his kallah (daughter-in-law); and another in thee hath RAPED his achot, his bat aviv.” – Ezekiel 22:11

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “11 There are those in you who do abominable things with their neighbors’ wives, men who defile their daughters-in-law by incest, men who COERCE THEIR SISTERS TO INTERCOURSE, the daughters of their own fathers.” – Ezekiel 22:11

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “11 One man in you does a hateful act with his neighbor’s wife, while another has shamefully made his daughter-in-law unclean sexually. And another FORCES HIS HALF SISTER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with him.” – Ezekiel 22:11

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “11 One man in you does a ·hateful [detestable; abominable] act with his neighbor’s wife, while another has shamefully ·made his daughter-in-law unclean sexually [L defiled his daughter-in-law; C ritually]. And another FORCES HIS HALF SISTER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS [L violates his father’s daughter] with him [C all forbidden in the Law; Lev. 18:9, 15, 20].” – Ezekiel 22:11

      We now turn to the exegesis of John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible, for Ezekiel 22:11:

      “Verse 11
      And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour’s wife,…. The sin of adultery, which is an abominable sin; it is so to God, and it should be so to man: or, “a man hath committed”F3; some man of note, a great man; for this sin prevailed among the princes and nobles: or “everyone”; it being a general vice, which obtained among all ranks, high and low, rich and poor: and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; his wife’s daughter, or his son’s wife, contrary to Leviticus 18:15, and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father’s daughter: his own sister, begotten of the same father, though it may be not born of the same mother; yet the relation is too near for marriage; and besides, it is a RAPE that is here intended; and the uncovering of the nakedness of a sister, whether by father or mother’s side, whether born at home or abroad, is prohibited, Leviticus 18:9, and some have thought that all these acts of uncleanness were committed in honour of their idols, and when they worshipped them on the mountains, Ezekiel 22:9.” (John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible – Ezekiel 22:11 – online source)

      Conclusion:

      Throughout the translations and John Gill’s commentary, the Hebrew word ‘annah’ (‘inna’) used for Ezekiel 22:11 carries the meaning of “rape”.

      With this, we can see that the GNT translation was correct in translating Deuteronomy 21:14, that rape did take place in connection with slave-women captured in war.

      Link;

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/01/rape-in-ezekiel-2211-and-deuteronomy-2114/

      Liked by 2 people

    • Part 6,

      Ouch Shamoun :p

      In this last piece on Deuteronomy 21:10-14 we show evidence that the GNT translation describing the rape of women in Deut 21:10-14 is a accurate translation. The same word is used in many other verses and the translations all agree that the word Annah carries the meaning of rape or forceful intercourse.

      We continue to seek and analyse Deuteronomy 21:14, to see what the true historical reading for it was.

      This is the 6th piece on the Hebrew word ‘anah’ (inna). We looked in the previous articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), that Deuteronomy 21:14 showed that the slave-women mentioned were forced into marriage, and raped:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      The crucial Hebrew word we looked at was ‘anah’ (inna). In this article, we get to look at 2 Samuel 13:14. The Hebrew word ‘anah’ is mentioned here along ‘shakab’. Both words carry the meaning of ‘rape’ and forced sex. Biblical scholars have translated the first word ‘anah’, as ‘forced her’ and ‘Hebrew word ‘shakab’ as ‘rape’.

      The context for 2 Samuel 13:14 goes like this (starting from verse 10-14):

      New King James Version (NKJV)
      “10 Then Amnon said to Tamar, “Bring the food into the bedroom, that I may eat from your hand.” And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them to Amnon her brother in the bedroom. 11 Now when she had brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.”
      12 But she answered him, “No, my brother, do not force me, for no such thing should be done in Israel. Do not do this disgraceful thing!
      13 And I, where could I take my shame? And as for you, you would be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you.”
      14 However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay with her.” – 2 Samuel 13:10-14

      Apparently from the above verses, Amnon the brother asked his sister, Tamar, to bring food to his bedroom, so that he ‘may’ eat from her hand. As a sister, she took some ‘cake’ and brought it to Amnon. As she came in the bedroom, Amnon got hold of her sister and told her, let’s go to bed. Tamar refused and said ‘do not force me’, for such is forbidden and is a disgraceful thing to do. Amnon did not listen and forced Tamar down and raped her.

      I may add, I don’t know what the benefit of such story is being included in the ‘Book of God’, the Bible. I am sure no parent would read such story to her kids? Would any pastor read such a story to his congregation in church?

      This is why I and other Muslims (including non-Muslim scholars) have said that the Bible has been tampered with. There are things in there that no person who thinks rationally would attribute to God Almighty.

      Coming back to the main point of this article: we will show from the following translations that word ‘anah’ (inna) carries the meaning of ‘forced sex’ i.e., rape. Before reading the translations, please check the follow link – word for word English and Hebrew text for 2 Samuel 13:14, where the word ‘anah’ (inna) is used: BlueletterBible.org

      Translations for 2 Samuel 13:14

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “14 However, he wouldn’t listen to her; and since he was stronger than she, he OVERPOWERED HER AND RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “14 But Amnon refused to listen to her. He was stronger than she was, so he FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM [RAPED/L humiliated her and lay with her].” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and since he was stronger than she was, he OVERPOWERED HER AND RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “14 But Amnon refused to listen to Tamar. He was stronger than she was, so he FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
      “14 Nevertheless he would not hearken unto her voice; but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; he was too strong for her: he FORCED HER DOWN AND RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      American Standard Version (ASV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice; but being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
      “14 But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      International Standard Version (ISV)
      “14 But he was unwilling to listen to what she was saying. Since he was stronger than she was, HE FORCED HER INTO HAVING SEX WITH HIM.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      BRG Bible (BRG)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “14 But Amnon refused to listen to her. He was stronger than she was, so he FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New King James Version (NKJV)
      “14 However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she was, HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she was, HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
      “14 Howbeit, he would not hearken unto her voice, but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Revised Standard Version (RSV)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, and LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
      “14 But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Tree of Life Version (TLV)
      “14 But he was unwilling to listen to her voice, so he overpowered her, FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      World English Bible (WEB)
      “14 However he would not listen to her voice; but being stronger than she, he FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      King James Version (KJV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “14 But he was not willing to listen to her voice. He was stronger than she, and HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Modern English Version (MEV)
      “14 But he refused to listen to her. So, being stronger than her, he OVERPOWERED HER AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
      “14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice, but being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “14 But he refused to listen to her, and because he was stronger than she was, he RAPED HER.” – 2 Samuel 13:14

      Let’s now read the exegesis for the above verse under discussion.

      Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable:

      “The dialogue in the story of Amnon and Tamar … looks like a conscious allusion to the technique used in the episode of Joseph and Potiphar”s wife. Amnon addresses to his half-sister exactly the same words with which Potiphar”s wife accosts Joseph-[“Come to bed with me!” (Genesis 39:7)]-adding to them only one word, the thematically loaded “sister” (2 Samuel 13:11). She responds with an elaborate protestation, like Joseph before her.” [Note: Alter, p73.] David had violated God”s will by “sleeping” (Heb. skb “m) with Bathsheba, evidently with her consent. Amnon, however, violated God”s will by “laying” (Heb. skb “t) Tamar, FORCING HER AGAINST HER WILL (2 Samuel 13:14; cf. 2 Samuel 11:4). [Note: David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, p100.] Jonadab may have been trying to secure his own political future with Absalom (2 Samuel 13:3-5; 2 Samuel 13:32-35). [Note: Andrew E. Hill, “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society30:4 (December1987):387-90.] Quite clearly Amnon”s attraction to Tamar was only selfish infatuation. When he had satisfied himself, he hated her and wanted no more contact with her (2 Samuel 13:15). Contrast Amnon”s attitude toward TAMAR AFTER THE RAPE with that of pagan Shechem toward Dinah in a similar incident ( Genesis 34:2-3). Amnon hated Tamar, but Shechem loved Dinah. Likewise, David continued to love Bathsheba after their affair. (Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      L. M. Grant’s Commentary on the Bible:

      “…Ammon having been guilty of the cruel rape of Tamar, his professed love for her was proven utterly false, for he turned against her with vicious hatred. This is what will often occur when one is led by infatuation. He knew he had done evil, and the one he had wronged is the one who becomes the object of his worst hatred. From then on, every time he saw her, his conscience would burn. For this reason he wanted her out of his sight, just as some men are hateful enough to murder a woman after they have RAPED HER. (L. M. Grant’s Commentary on the Bible – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      David Guzik Commentary on the Bible:

      “4. (11-14) Amnon rapes Tamar.
      Now when she had brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” And she answered him, “No, my brother, do not force me, for no such thing should be done in Israel. Do not do this disgraceful thing! And I, where could I take my shame? And as for you, you would be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you.” However, he would not heed her voice; and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay with her.
      a. Come, lie with me, my sister: Amnon’s evil naturally revealed itself. Here he admitted his incestuous desire as he made the wicked suggestion to Tamar. Amnon seems to be a spoiled prince who always took what he wanted.
      b. Do not do this disgraceful thing! Tamar easily saw how evil and disgraceful this was. Amnon could not see what was so plainly evident because he was blinded by lust.
      c. Where could I take my shame? And as for you, you would be like one of the fools in Israel: Tamar wisely asked Amnon to consider the result of his desire, both for her and for him. It would shame Tamar and reveal Amnon as one of the fools. Blinded by lust, Amnon would not see the inevitable result of his desire.
      i. “There is something exceedingly tender and persuasive in this speech of Tamar; but Amnon was a mere brute, and it was all lost on him.” (Clarke)
      d. Please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you: The Law of Moses commanded against any marriage between a half-brother and half-sister (Leviticus 18:11). Tamar probably said this simply as a ploy to get away from Amnon.
      e. HE FORCED HER AND LAY WITH HER: THIS WAS NOTHING BUT RAPE. Tamar did whatever she could to avoid this and all the blame clearly rests on Amnon.” (David Guzik Commentary on the Bible – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann:

      “v. 14. Howbeit, he would not hearken unto her voice; but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER, gratified his passionate lust. Such is the power of sin if it is not kept in check by the fear of God or by love toward the Lord. (The Popular Commentary by Paul E. Kretzmann – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament:

      “Amnon would not listen to her, however, but overpowered her, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER. (Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible:

      “So she pleaded with him, and begged him not to RAPE HER, pointing out that it was not the kind of thing that was acceptable in Israel, especially as she was his half-sister. It was contrary to God’s Law. She asked him not to behave so foolishly, and to consider how as a result of any such action she would be shamed in the sight of all, so much so that she would have nowhere to hide. She would no longer be a chaste virgin. And as for him he would be seen as ‘one of the fools in Israel’. The implication behind the word ‘fool’ was that he would be seen as godless and rebellious against YHWH (Psalms 14:1).
      Thus she begged him to ask the king for her hand in marriage, assuring him that she was sure that the king, who doted on his sons, would not withhold her from him. She may well not have known about ‘the forbidden degrees’ (Leviticus 20:17), for parents arranged marriages, and she had led a sheltered life, or alternatively she may simply have been devising any means of getting way from him with her virginity intact. She was in fact saying to him, ‘let the king decide what we should do’. It was basically an appeal to the king that Amnon should have listened to.
      2 Samuel 13:14
      ‘However he would not listen to her voice, but being stronger than she, he forced her, and lay with her.’
      But Amnon was not listening. He was too possessed with lust to take notice of anything reasonable. Poor Tamar had never seen her brother like this before, as, mad with lust, he refused to listen to her pleas and VIOLENTLY RAPED HER where she was. It was an act of total callousness and depravity, which nevertheless aped the behaviour of his father.” (Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      Chuck Smith Bible Commentary:

      “Now it wasn”t Tamar”s fault at all. SHE WAS RAPED! Amnon was totally at fault in this thing. But the tragedy of the whole story is this, David because of what he had done, couldn”t discipline Amnon for it. He didn”t say a thing to Amnon. There was no disciplining. There was no rebuking. David was a lousy father, totally derelict in discipline. He suffered the result of it in his children.” (Chuck Smith Bible Commentary – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      Treasury of Scripture Knowledge:

      “Verse 14
      Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, FORCED HER, AND LAY WITH HER.
      FORCED HER
      12:11; DEUTERONOMY 22:25-27; JUDGES 20:5; Esther 7:8” (Treasury of Scripture Knowledge by R. A. Torrey – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      Arthur Peake’s Commentary on the Bible:

      “2 Samuel 13:1-22. Amnon, David’s eldest son, forces his half-sister, Tamar, the full sister of Absalom. He might have married her (2 Samuel 3:5*) but did not choose to do so. She rent her royal tunic, probably a garment reaching to the hands and feet (cf. Genesis 37:3*); Joseph’s “coat of many colours” represents the same Heb. word. David was angry, but he did not vex him by punishing him, for he loved him because he was his first-born (so LXX).” (Arthur Peake’s Commentary on the Bible – 2 Samuel 13:14 – online source)

      Conclusion:

      Reading the translations and the commentaries, we get a picture that the Hebrew word ‘anah’ carries the meaning of ‘forced’ sex, violent sexual intercourse and rape. As we have said in previous articles, the GNT have given the true accurate account what happened to the slave-women in Deuteronomy 21:14, that they were forced to sleep with the soldiers i.e., rape.

      more in the link
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/02/2-samuel-1314-and-deuteronomy-2114/

      Like

    • Sam,
      You have been lashed miserably in “a night with no moonlight”(saying in arabic) 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Flyingibnmuta enjoy! Now when you manage to become man enough to debate me on your filth that you produce that makes the Quran look coherent then email me. In the meantime, I hope Williams doesn’t delete my posts but leaves it for all to see how I just took your trash and dumped it into the waste basket where your website and “holy book” belongs.

    It really must suck being you. 😉

    Like

    • Please tell me, who are you again? You have not earned my respect to even clean my shoe, why would I debate you online? Everyone has boycotted you because they know you are a filthy person in and out. You cannot control yourself but attack people’s beliefs with filthy and derogatory words. If it wasnt for you or Wood I would never write articles on your babble. I would just stick to Islam.

      If you really push me, I will find stuff from your babble and publish them that you have never heard before, I promise you. The only reason I have not gone to that length yet is because I have some respect for some other Christians who don’t indulge in filthy attacks, against my religion.

      Now let’s analyse your babble further. We’re told that Jesus used to have relations with a prostitute, often kissed Mary Magdalene and had touchy touchy feelings with her according to what your babble says.

      “There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and MAGDALENE, THE ONE WHO WAS CALLED HIS COMPANION. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary. … As for the Wisdom who is called “the barren,” she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the […] MARY MAGDALENE. […] LOVED HER MORE THAN ALL THE DISCIPLES, AND USED TO KISS HER OFTEN ON HER MOUTH. The rest of the disciples […]. They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” THE SAVIOR ANSWERED AND SAID TO THEM,”WHY DO I NOT LOVE YOU LIKE HER? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.” (The Gospel According to Philip (Translated by Wesley W. Isenberg), online source)

      Jesus often kissing Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Phillip does have a historical truth.

      When we look at the Gospel of John we see that Mary Magdalene had touched Jesus sexually and he didn’t stop her or say don’t do that (permanent prohibition). Instead, he responded by saying I have not ascended yet. In other words, the text suggests that Jesus being touched was perfectly “ok” as long as it was done later (or she would be his future partner):

      Berean Literal Bible
      “Jesus says to her, “DO NOT TOUCH (HAPTOMAI) ME, FOR NOT YET HAVE I ASCENDED TO THE FATHER. Now go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’” – John 20:17

      Jesus words “do not touch me” or “touch me not” are very difficult to interpret according to Christian scholars. [1] They say nowhere else in the Gospels has Jesus prohibited people from touching him. In the Gospel of Matthew it is clearly reported that the women held on to him and was touched:

      Young’s Literal Translation
      “and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, ‘Hail!’ and they having come near, LAID HOLD OF HIS FEET, and did bow to him.” – Matthew 28:9

      He was also touched in other instances, for example, Jesus told Thomas to touch him:

      New International Version
      “Then he said to Thomas, “PUT YOUR FINGER HERE; SEE MY HANDS. REACH OUT YOUR HAND AND PUT IT INTO MY SIDE. Stop doubting and believe.” – John 20:27

      Jesus also invited all his apostles to touch him:

      New International Version
      “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! TOUCH ME AND SEE; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” – Luke 24:39

      Since Jesus allowed himself to be touched by his disciples and other women, what reason was there for him to prohibit Mary Magdalene to touch him on this instance? The answer is easy, when we read the Greek word closer, we see that the particular word used here has a sexual meaning. [2] The word “touch”, although the word is translated this way, when we look deeper, the Greek lexicons tell us that the word here is meant “sexually”. The Greek word here used here is “haptomai”. According to Greek Lexicons, the Greek verb hapto has sexual meaning.

      Greek-English Lexicon – Henry George Liddell:

      “hapto, fut. …: aor. …: – Pass., pf. …, Ion. … Hdt. I. 86 (v. sub …): fut. … Galen. :-Med., fut. …: aor. … (The … appears in …, …) To fasten or bind to, used by Hom. In this sense, once in Act., … (of a person putting a new string to a lyre), Od. 21. 408; … Phaedo 99 E. 6. TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN, Plat. Legg. 840 A, Arist. Pol. 7. 16, 18, 1 Ep. Cor. 7. 1: generally, TO ENJOY, Plat, Legg. 913 A, etc. 7. To come up to, reach, overtake, Xen. Hell. 5. 4, 43: to gain, Lat. Assequi, attingere, … Plat. Phaedo 65 B, al. …” (Greek-English Lexicon compiled by Henry George Liddell, D.D. (Dean Of Christ Church, Oxford) And Robert Scott, D.D. (Dean Of Rochester, Late Master Of Balliol College, Oxford) [Seventh edition, revised and augmented throughout with the cooperation of Professor drissler, of Columbia College, New York – NEW YORK: Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1883], page 209)

      A Manual Greek Lexicon Of The New Testament – G. Abbott-Smith:

      “apto [in LXX chiefly for …:] prop., to fasten to; hence, of fire to kindle, light: Lk 8:16 11:33 15:8. Ac 28:2. Mid., c. gen., to fasten oneself to, cling to, lay hold of (so in …; MM, S.V.): Mt 8:3, 15, Jo 20:17, al.: of CARNAL INTERCOURSE, 1 Cor 7:1; with reference to Levitical and ceremonial prohibitions, II Co 6:17, Col 2:21…” (A Manual Greek Lexicon Of The New Testament [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1922] by G. Abbott-Smith, D.D., D.C.L. (Professor of New Testament Literature in the Montreal Diocesan Theological College and Assistant Professor in the Oriental department In Mcgill University), page 56)

      The Analytical Greek Lexicon:

      “apto], fut. …, ( 23. Rem. 1. A) pr. To bring in contact, fit, fasten; to light, kindle, Mar. 4. 21; Lu. 8. 16, et al.; mid. … fut. …, aor. 1, …, to touch, Mat. 8. 3, et al.; to meddle, venture to partake, Col. 2.21; TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH, TO KNOW CARNALLY, 1 CO. 7.1; by impl. …” (The Analytical Greek Lexicon: Consisting of An Alphabetical Arrangement Of every Occurring Inflexion Of Every Word Contained In The Greek New Testament Scriptures, With A Grammatical Analysis Of Each Word, And Lexicographical Illustration Of The meanings. A Complete Series Of Paradigms, With Grammatical Remarks And Explanations. [London: Samuel Bagster And Sons, At the Warehouse for Bibles, New Testaments, Prayer Books, Lexicons, Concordances, Grammars, And Psalters, In Ancient And Modern Languages], page 49)

      A Greek And English Lexicon Of The New Testament – Edward Robinson:

      “…, f. …, to put one thing to another, to adjoin, to apply, Hom. Od. 21. 408. Hence in N. T.
      1. Spoken of fire as applied to things, set fire to, to kindle, to light, trans. … Luke 8:16. 11:33. 15:8. … Luke 22:55. – Jos. Ant. 4. 3. 4. Theophr. Xhar. 18 o4 28. Thuc. 4. 100. … Judith 13:13. …, touch no unclean one, i.e. have no intercourse with the heathen; comp. Is. 52:11, where sept. for … and see Gesen. Com. In loc. C) trop. …, TO TOUCH A WOMAN, I.E. TO HAVE CARNAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER, 1 COR. 7:1. So Sept. for … Gen. 20:6. … Gen. 20:4. – Jos. Ant. 1. 8. 1. Plut. Vit. Alex. Mag. C. 21. Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 8.” (A Greek And English Lexicon Of The New Testament [Boston: Published by Crocker And Brewster. New York: Leavitt, Lord & Co. Andover: Gould And Newman, Printers, 1836] by Edward Robinson, D. D. (Late Prof. Extraord. Of Sac. Lit. In The Theol. Sem. Andover.), page 94)

      As we have read the Greek lexicons for the word haptomai, this is pretty graphic in its meaning. As we have read, the word here is defined as “touch”, in the sense of “carnal intercourse” i.e., Jesus was touched sexually.

      This same exact Greek word is used in Paul’s writings and the vast majority of translators have translated the word as “sexual”. Paul advises his people to stay celibate and not to have any sexual relation with woman (whom they are married too):

      Common English Bible (CEB)
      “7 Now, about what you wrote: “It’s good for a man not to have SEX WITH A WOMAN.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “7 Now I will discuss the things you wrote me about. You asked if it is better for a man not to have any SEXUAL RELATIONS at all.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      English Standard Version (ESV)
      “7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have SEXUAL RELATIONS with a woman.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “7 Now I will discuss the things you wrote me about. It is good for a man not to have SEXUAL RELATIONS with a woman.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      New International Version (NIV)
      “7 Now for the matters you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have SEXUAL RELATIONS with a woman.’” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
      “7 Now for the matters you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have SEXUAL RELATIONS with a woman.’” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      New Living Translation (NLT)
      “7 Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from SEXUAL RELATIONS.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “7 Now to the topics you raised in your last letter. Some have said, ‘It is better for a man to abstain from having SEX WITH HIS WIFE.’” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      New English Translation (NET Bible)
      “7 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have SEXUAL RELATIONS with a woman.’” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
      “7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have SEXUAL RELATIONS with a woman.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “7 Now ·I will discuss [L concerning] the things you wrote me about [C in a letter from the Corinthians; see 8:1; 12:1; 16:1]. It is good for a man not to ·have SEXUAL RELATIONS with [L touch; C a EUPHEMISM FOR SEX] a woman [C probably another slogan (6:12; 8:1, 4; 10:23) asserting that a celibate lifestyle was spiritually superior].” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      The Message (MSG)
      “7 Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have SEXUAL RELATIONS?” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
      “7 Now concerning the matters you wrote about. Yes, “It is good for a man not me to have SEXUAL CONTACT with a woman.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
      “7 Now as to the matters of which you wrote me. It is well [and by that I mean advantageous, expedient, profitable, and wholesome] for a man not TO TOUCH A WOMAN [TO COHABIT WITH HER] but to remain unmarried.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)
      “7 Now concerning the things which you wrote— Concerning Marriage And Singleness: Live According To Your Gift From God It is good[a] for a man NOT TO TOUCH[b] a woman.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Footnote “a” and “b” for DLNT translation:

      a. 1 Corinthians 7:1 Or, commendable, praiseworthy.
      b. 1 Corinthians 7:1 That is, TO HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT with, and thus, to marry. Paul extols singleness, in contradiction to the views of his day.

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)

      “7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to TOUCH[A] A WOMAN.” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Footnote for LEB translation:

      “a. 1 Corinthians 7:1 I.e., IN A SEXUAL SENSE”

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “7 Advice to the Married.[b] 1 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is a good thing for a man NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN,’ [c]” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Footnote for NABRE translation:

      a. 7:1–40 Paul now begins to answer questions addressed to him by the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:1–11:1). The first of these concerns marriage. This chapter contains advice both to the married (1–16) and to the unmarried (1 Cor 7:25–38) or widowed (1 Cor 7:39–40); these two parts are separated by 1 Cor 7:17–24, which enunciate a principle applicable to both.
      b. 7:1–16 It seems that some Christians in Corinth were advocating asceticism in sexual matters. The pattern it is a good thing…, but occurs twice (1 Cor 7:1–2, 8–9; cf. 1 Cor 7:26), suggesting that in this matter as in others the Corinthians have seized upon a genuine value but are exaggerating or distorting it in some way. Once again Paul calls them to a more correct perspective and a better sense of their own limitations. The phrase it is a good thing (1 Cor 7:1) may have been the slogan of the ascetic party at Corinth.
      c. 7:1–7 References to Paul’s own behavior (1 Cor 7:7–8) suggest that his celibate way of life and his preaching to the unmarried (cf. 1 Cor 7:25–35) have given some the impression that asceticism within marriage, i.e., suspension of normal SEXUAL RELATIONS, would be a laudable ideal. Paul points to their experience of widespread immorality to caution them against overestimating their own strength (1 Cor 7:2); as individuals they may not have the particular gift that makes such asceticism feasible (1 Cor 7:7) and hence are to abide by the principle to be explained in 1 Cor 7:17–24.

      New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
      “7 Now I want to deal with the things you wrote me about. Some of you say, ‘It is good for a man not to SLEEP WITH A WOMAN.’” – 1 Corinthians 7:1

      Thus we get a better picture here that Jesus was indeed touched sexually by Mary Magdalene. Some may claim that the touch here means not to cling on him non-stop, however, this does not reflect what the text says. The women in Matthew 28:9 touched him for a while, yet he didn’t prohibit them for what they did. As the evidence is shown, it is quite clear here Jesus is telling Mary Magdalene not to touch him in a sexual way for now, until he ascends. In a way the text suggests that Mary Magdalene could repeat what she did on earth in heaven to Jesus, Jesus himself did not prohibit her forever, it was a temporary prohibition until he ascended. Moreover, the sexual touch Mary gave to Jesus, he was not angry about it, otherwise, he would have rebuked her harshly, however, it seems from the text that her sexual approach was perfectly “ok” as long as it was done another time.

      more in the link:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/27/did-jesus-have-a-wife-a-look-into-the-gospel-of-john/

      Like

    • Shamoun,

      For 50 shekels Jesus who is god of the Old Testament allows a rapist to forcefully marry the victim.

      Some modern Christians have attempted to show that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not condone or sanction a rapist to marry the rape victim. The verse in question is very clear in Hebrew. It categorically states that if a woman (“virgin”) was raped in ancient of days, the penalty for the rapist is that he has to pay fifty shekels and he gets to marry the victim. He was never allowed to divorce her. The woman (“virgin”) has no say in this marriage.

      Here are some of the translations for Deuteronomy 22:28-29, notice they all agree that the verse in question is in relation to “rape”.

      Deuteronomy 22:28:29 Translations

      GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
      “28 This is what you must do when a man RAPES A VIRGIN who isn’t engaged. When the crime is discovered, 29 the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl’s father 1¼ pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. Since HE RAPED HER, he can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “28 “Suppose a man is caught RAPING A YOUNG WOMAN who is not engaged. 29 He is to pay her father the bride price of fifty pieces of silver, and she is to become his wife, because he FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH HIM. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and RAPES HER, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      International Standard Version (ISV)
      “28 “However, if a man meets a girl who isn’t engaged to be married, and HE SEIZES HER, RAPES HER, and is later found out, 29 then the man who RAPED HER must give 50 shekels of silver to the girl’s father. Furthermore, he must marry her. Because he violated her, he is to not divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “28-29 If a man RAPES A GIRL who is not engaged and is caught in the act, he must pay a fine[a] to the girl’s father and marry her; he may never divorce her.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      The Message (MSG)
      “28-29 When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and RAPES HER and they are found out, the man who RAPED HER has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her. And he can never divorce her.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “28 This is what you must do when a man RAPES A VIRGIN who isn’t engaged. When the crime is discovered, 29 the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl’s father 1¼ pounds of silver, and she will become his wife. Since he raped her, HE CAN NEVER DIVORCE HER AS LONG AS HE LIVES.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      New English Translation (NET Bible)
      “28 Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and RAPES HER and they are discovered. 29 The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
      “28 Suppose a man happens to see a virgin who hasn’t promised to marry another man. And the man who happens to see her RAPES HER. But someone discovers them. 29 Then the man must weigh out 20 ounces of silver. He must give it to her father. The man must marry the young woman, because he raped her. And he can never divorce her as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      New International Version (NIV)
      “28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES HER and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. HE CAN NEVER DIVORCE HER AS LONG AS HE LIVES.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
      “28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES HER and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. HE CAN NEVER DIVORCE HER AS LONG AS HE LIVES.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged to be married and FORCES HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM [L grabs her and lies with her] and ·people find out about it [L is discovered], 29 the man who ·had sexual relations [L lay] with her must pay the girl’s father about ·one and one-fourth pounds [L fifty shekels] of silver. HE MUST ALSO MARRY THE GIRL, because he has ·dishonored [humiliated; RAPED] her, and HE MAY NEVER DIVORCE HER FOR AS LONG AS HE LIVES [Ex. 22:16–17].” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “28 “A man might find a virgin girl who is not engaged and FORCE HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM. If other people see this happen, 29 he must pay the girl’s father 20 ounces of silver.[a] And THE GIRL WILL BECOME THE MAN’S WIFE, because he used her for sexual sin. He cannot divorce her all his life.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged to be married and FORCES HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with him and people find out about it, 29 the man must pay the girl’s father about one and one-fourth pounds of silver. HE MUST ALSO MARRY THE GIRL, because he has dishonored her, and he may never divorce her for as long as he lives.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “28 If a man meets a girl who’s a virgin and who isn’t engaged to someone else, and HE FORCES HIMSELF ON HER, when what he’s done is discovered, 29 he must pay 20 ounces of silver to her father as a bride price, and SHE WILL BECOME HIS WIFE. He can’t ever divorce her after this because he’s dishonored her.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      Tree of Life Version (TLV)
      “28 Suppose a man finds a young virgin who is not engaged, GRABS HER and lies with her, and they are discovered. 29 Then the man who lay with her is to give to the young woman’s father 50 pieces of silver, and she is to be his wife, since he has HUMILIATED HER—he may not send her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28-29

      It is quite evident from the above translations that the verse in question talks about rape. And that is, the law allowed and endorsed a rapist to marry the rape victim. And he was never allowed to divorce her.

      Biblical Commentaries

      Here are some of the Christian exegesis for the above verse in question.

      Chuck Smith Bible Commentary:

      “NOW, IF YOU RAPED A GIRL, and she is a virgin, and she is not betrothed to someone else, then YOU”RE TO TAKE HER AS YOUR WIFE to pay her father fifty shekels of silver (Deuteronomy 22:23-29).” (Chuck Smith Bible Commentary – Deuteronomy 22:29 – online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/csc/deuteronomy-22.html )

      Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Unabridged:

      “But if SHE WAS FORCED, THE MAN ONLY WHO COMMITTED THE RAPE was to suffer for the violence, which was regarded as a capital crime. In the case of a maiden not betrothed being seduced, the man was OBLIGED TO MARRY HER, and he forfeited the right possessed by other husbands of giving her a divorce. …”(Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible – Unabridged – Deuteronomy 22:29 – online source https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/deuteronomy-22.html )

      Reverend and Dr. Graham R. Hamborg:

      “However, there are laws deigned to protect women. For example, Exod 22:15 (16) states that ‘When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.’ Deuteronomy 22:28-29 instructs that in a case of the RAPE of a virgin (…) the man is to make her his wife. … “ (Still Selling The Righteous – A Redaction-Critical Investigation Of Reasons For Judgement In Amos 2:6-16 [Published by T & T Clark International, 2012], by Graham R. Hamborg, page 211)

      Author Mike Berner:

      “A non-engaged virgin with a man, any non-married man. God says, ‘If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days’ (DEUTERONOMY 22:28-29). If a man RAPES A NON-ENGAGED VIRGIN (‘lay hold on her’), the man is fined, forced to marry the woman, and can never divorce her. No divorce, period. (Brave New Marriage [ISBN 9781609574857 – Printed in the United States of America, 2010], by Mike Berner, page 54)

      Note: the following commentaries were taken with permission from br Ibn Anwar’s site, which can be visited here: http://www.unveiling-Christianity.org

      Biblical scholars John Walton, Victor Matthew and Mark Chavalas in their The IVP Bible Background Commentary have the following on Deuteronomy 22:25-27 which is the context of verses 28 and 29:

      “In this case, Israelite law adds another criterion by specifying the guiltlessness of the woman who is RAPED in the countryside, where her screams were unlikely to attract assistance. The assumption of her innocence is based on the implied resistance to the rape in this circumstance.” (Walton, J. H., Matthew, V. H., & Chavalas, M. W. (2000). The IVP Bible Background Commentary: The Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. page 196)

      Biblical scholar and historian Philip King who was a professor of Biblical Studies in the Department of Theology at Boston College and Dorot Professor of the Archeology of Israel in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Hardvard University Lawrence Stager writes:

      “RAPE IS REFERRED TO ONLY IN DEUTERONOMY, but with no sharp distinction between rape and seduction. THE RAPIST “SHALL GIVE FIFTY SHEKELS OF SILVER TO THAT YOUNG WOMAN’S FATHER, AND SHE SHALL BECOME HIS WIFE. Because he violated her, he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.”(Deut. 22:29) The Payment in this case represents the mohar.” (King, P. J, & Stager, L. E. (2001). Life in Biblical Israel. In Douglas A. Knight (ed.), Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. page 60)

      The late conservative Biblical scholar Peter Craigie who held several top posts such as head of the religious studies department at the University of Calgary in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes as follows:

      “28-29 (iv) The RAPE OF A SINGLE WOMAN. THE MAN USES FORCE ON THE WOMAN, who is a virgin and is not betrothed to a man; the two are discovered while the crime is being committed. In this case, the man must pay damages to the father, in the amount of fifty pieces (shekels) of silver, and HE MUST MARRY THE WOMAN.” (Craigie, P. C. (1976). The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co. page 295)

      The late Biblical scholar and specialist in Hebrew studies Roger Whybray writes:

      “Deuteronomy 22:22-29 deals with adultery and RAPE, and make distinctions between RAPE in the open country, where the woman is defenceless, and RAPE in the town, where it is held that she could have shouted for help. Rape of an unbetrothed virgin is punished by a payment to her father.” (Whybray, R. N. (2002). The Good Life in the Old Testament. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark. page 50)

      Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Salve Regina University T. J. Wray writes:

      “The crime of rape in the Bible is varied and complex. In the world of biblical antiquity, RAPE is largely viewed as a crime of disordered lust. Today, we know that it is about must more, but in the Bible, if an unengaged virgin is RAPED, she may actually be required TO MARRY HER RAPIST, and the rapist may must pay the girl’s father a fee for defiling his daughter (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)! Though Deuteronomy stipulates the death penalty for the rape of an engaged female (Deut. 22:25-27, there are numerous cases of vigilante justice for victims of RAPE (Gen 34:25-29; Judges 19-20; 2 Sam 13:22-29), which leads us to conclude that perhaps in ancient Israel, the long arm of the law often falls short when it comes to rape.” (Wray, T. J. (2011). What the Bible Really Tells Us: The Essential Guide to Biblical Literacy. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. page 142)

      Dr. Gary Hall, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Lincoln Christian Seminary in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 write:

      “22:28-29 If the girl who was violated was not married or engaged, the penalty was not death but a fine and the loss of the right of divorce. The law protected both the girl (economic security) and the father (loss of bride price). The girl’s loss of virginity would have made her virtually unmarriageable. In Exodus 22:16 the father could refuse to let the girl marry the seducer. There is some question whether the act in view here was rape (NIV) or consensual. The word of verse 25 (“seize”) was not used but an apparently more mild word which meant “take hold of.” However, the explanation that the man had violated the girl POINTS TOWARD RAPE. The expression was also used of Shechem’s treatment of Dinah (Gen. 34:2).” (Hall, G. H. (2000). The College Press NIV Commentary: Deuteronomy. United States: College Press Publishing Co. page 339)

      Avid Christian pastor and Bible instructor Warren W. Wiersbe writes:

      “According to the law, if a man RAPED A VIRGIN not engaged to be married, he had to pay her father a fine and marry her, and HE COULD NEVER DIVORCE HER (Deut. 2:28-29).” (Wiersbe, W. W. (2003). The Bible Exposition Commentary: Old Testament History. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Cook Communications Ministries. page 342)

      The IVP Bible Background Commentary agrees that it is about rape:

      “34:2 ravishing women. RAPE AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING A MARRIAGE CONTRACT WAS APPARENTLY ONE STRATAGEM used in the ancient Near East. Laws regulating the practice are found in Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the Middle *Assyrian Laws and the *Hittite laws. These often REQUIRE THE RAPIST to pay an especially high bride price and sometimes forbid any possibility of divorce.” (Walton, J. H., Matthews, V. H., & Chavalas M. W. (2000). The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament: An indispensable resource for all students of the Bible, accessibly providing the cultural background of every passage in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press. Page 66)

      Thomas P. Lowry writes:

      “Deuteronomy 20:10 describes the divinely approved course of action after successfully besieging a city: kill all the men and use the women any way that pleases you. On the smaller scale of the individual victim, we are advised in 22:28 that if a man RAPES A GIRL, he must pay the girl’s father FIFTY PIECES OF SILVER, MARRY THE GIRL, and never divorce her. Whether she wishes to marry her assailant is not in the text.” (Lowry, T. P. (2006). Sexual Misbehavior in the Civil War: A Compendium. United States: Xilbris Corporation. page 115)

      Theologian Dr David Garland who is Dean of George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University and his wife Dr. Diana Garland write:

      “It is also declared in Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
      If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.
      The law implicitly assumed that the RAPED VICTIM was not damaged goods, and it was BEST FOR HER TO MARRY THE ASSAILANT.” (Garland, D., & Garland, D. (2007). Flawed Families of the Bible: How God’s Grace Works Through Imperfect Relationships. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press. page 78)

      Biblical scholar Dr. Cheryl Anderson in Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law which is based on her PhD thesis writes the following:

      “To review briefly the provisions in Deut. 22:22-29, the penalties for a male and female who have intercourse vary according to the female’s marital status. If the female is single and had been RAPED, THE MAN MUST MARRY THE FEMALE AND CANNOT DIVORCE HER (Deut. 22:28-29).” (Anderson, C. B. (2004). Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law. London: T&T Clark International. page 67)

      The late theologian and president of the conservative Dallas Theological Seminary John F. Walvoord comments on the verse and clearly identifies it as rape:

      “22:28-29. A man who RAPED AN UNBETROTHED virgin was forced to marry her (after paying the bride-price of 50 shekels to her father) and had to forfeit the right of divorce.” (Wolvoord, J. F., & Zuck, R. B. (1983). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament. Colorade Sprins, Colorado: David C. Cook. page 303)

      Regarded as one of the most influential Old Testament scholars of recent times Old Testament scholar and theologian Walter Brueggmann in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 writes:

      “22:28-29: As the laws proceed in a movement toward less severe affronts, the fifth case is, from the perspective of the text, the least severe (vv. 28-29). This case involved an unengaged virgin, that is, a woman not yet possessed by a man other than her father. The man is aggressive and SEIZES (TAPAS) HER…The man is fined and forfeits his right to a future divorce. Again the settlement must be made between the two men. The WOMAN HAS BEEN RAPED, but she is not even acknowledged in the settlement, except that SHE IS ASSIGNED TO A LIFELONG PARTNERSHIP WITH HER RAPIST.” (Brueggmann, W. (2001). Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Deuteronomy. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press. page 225)

      Anthropologist and academic Robin Fox writes:

      “Jewish law stated that a man who RAPED A VIRGIN should pay her bride-price and be required to marry her (Exodus 22:16, Deuteronomy 22:28), but it is not said how this would apply to incestuous RAPE.” (Fox, R. (2011). The Tribal Imagination: Civilization and the Savage Mind. United States: Harvard University Press. page 141 – 142)

      Conservative Evangelical Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser Jr. who is Colman M. Mockler distinguished Professor of Old Testament writes:

      “There are two cases in Deuteronomy 22:19-29 that record that divorce was denied on the basis of whim with attempted false slander or in the case of RAPE OF A VIRGIN for whom the man then gave the bride-price.” (Kaiser Jr., W. (1991). Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. page 201)

      Laurie L. Levenson who is David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality writes:

      “The biblical laws on RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT seem antiquated when they call upon women to resist their attackers, cry out for help, and be amenable to “PUNISHMENT” OF THE DEFENDANT BY REQUIRING HIM TO MARRY THE VICTIM or pay a fine.” (Levenson, L. L. (2013). Judaism and Criminal Justice. In Elliot N. Dorf & Jonathan K. Crane (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press. page 479)

      The above is footnoted with the following:

      “Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (“and she shall be his wife, because he humbled her; and he may not put her away all his days”); Haim H. Cohn, “SEXUAL OFFENSES” (1952), in Elon, ed., The Principles of Jewish Law (at note 8 above), p. 485. He notes there that apart from specified acts, “RAPE as such is not a criminal offense in Jewish law” but requires compensation to the victim.” (Levenson, L. L. (2013). Judaism and Criminal Justice. In Elliot N. Dorf & Jonathan K. Crane (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Ethics and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press. page 484 (footnote 54))

      Christian author Gary Field writes:

      “F. In INSTANCES OF RAPE:
      ….
      2) Where the woman is an unbetrothed virgin, THE MAN WAS REQUIRED TO MARRY HER AND NEVER DIVORCE HER (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)” (Fields, G. E. (2010). All You Ever Wanted to Know About Exodus 20… And a Little Bit More. United States: Xulon Press. page 224)

      In conclusion, readers would be aware that the context and the scholarly exegesis both, hand in hand agree that the verse in question speaks about rape. We see, that in the ancient of days a rape victim would have to marry the rapist. The victim most times, as was the law, had no choice but to marry the rapist.

      more in the link:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/12/20/does-biblical-law-force-rape-victim-to-marry-rapist/

      Like

    • lololo .. oh sammy.. you must be limping after getting whipped ruthlessly lolol.. my goodness…May Allah guide your heart to Islam… you can still keep your love of Jesus with you..just worship Allah only… the one God of all the Prophets amin..:)

      Like

    • Yep, I am limping so badly that I decided to take it out on your vile murdering profit: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/the-prophet-of-terror-and-mayhem-pt-1/

      Now what don’t either you or flyingibnmuta man up and debate me in my paltalk room if you really think this crap that you produce is good enough to refute the fact of your profit being a murdering terrorist and bandit. Send me an email when you muster the courage to do so.

      May the God and Judge of Muhammad, the Father’s beloved Son, the Lord Jesus, save you from the filth and lies of muhammad. Amin!

      Like

  4. Saying that “it refers to fighting those who are waging war” is redundant, since who else would you be fighting except those who you are fighting?

    Secondly what does it mean to “have a covenant” with Muslims? And what of those nations that do not have or do not want a covenant with Muslims? By this reasoning those nations would be fair game to go to war with since there is no covenant.

    I should also point out the verse is not just about going to war in self defense or fighting off an aggressor. Otherwise it would say “fight them until they have stopped fighting… or Fight them until they return to their lands”. Instead that hadeeth says to fight them “until they testify that there is no one worthy of worship but Allâh and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allâh and until they perform the Prayers and pay the Zakãh, and if they do so they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they do acts that are punishable] in accordance with Islãm, and their reckoning will be with Allâh Most High “

    The Quran says “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

    So when are Muslims to stop fighting?

    When the aggressor stops fighting them? NO
    When the aggressor retreats and returns to his territory? NO

    Muslims are only to stop fighting anyone who does not have a convenient with them until the following conditions are met.
    1. They believe in Allah
    2. They believe in Mohamed
    3. They implement sharia law

    If they are people of the book, Christians and Jews then the following conditions must be met.
    1. They must pay the Jizya
    2. They must be subdued, humiliated, subjugated.
    So there is nothing in the context nothing in the wording, nothing at all that mentions fighting in self-defense or only fighting those that attack you until they stop fighting, retreat and return to their territories.

    Like

    • > “They implement Sharia law”

      1) The term “Sharia law” is an oxymoron, 2) non-Muslim are not ruled by the Shariah, in point of fact, they are allowed to retain their own judicial system according to their own beliefs, the Qur’an states, “Let Christians judge according to what We have revealed in the Gospel” 5:47.

      > So when are Muslims to stop fighting?
      >
      > When the aggressor stops fighting them? NO
      > When the aggressor retreats and returns to his territory? NO

      1) That is a very naive reading of Q.9:29. If Q.9:29 meant that the cause of war was the unbelievers unbelief, then jizya wouldn’t have been accepted from them! Since when they give jizya it is prohibited to fight them, but they are still abiding to their unbelief. Now, is the justification for war being an unbeliever and not paying jizya? The answer is again no, since all jurists agree that jizya is not taken from women, children, the old, …etc So if the reason for war was being an unbeliever + not paying jizya then jizya would have been taken from women, children, the old …etc So the only remaining option is that the cause of war that can be concluded from Q.9:29 is that it is ḥirāba, a term that comes from the noun ḥarb meaning war, we can thus translate it as ‘waging war’. Hence Q.9:29 is in line with the Islamic justification of war, which is to repulse aggression and assure security and protection to Muslim as well as non-Muslim citizens. And that is basically what the vast majority of jurists, from Hanbalis, Malikis, al-Shafi’i in one opinion, and Hanafis as well as in Twelver Shi’ism, state, that the justification of war is ḥirāba and not unbelief in itself. And as the verse Q.9:13 preceding Q.9:29 makes it clear:

      How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers.

      Qurʾān – 9:13

      And the attestation to that is that Q.9:29 was revealed after an aggression: The very early exegete, Mujāhid ibn Jabr (d. 104H) explained that this fighting was revealed in reference to the Prophet Muhammad’s (ﷺ) campaign against the Byzantine empire. The Prophet ﷺ sent al-Harith ibn Umayr al-Azdi as an emissary to the Byzantine vassal state of the Ghassanids, but the chieftain Shurahbeel committed the shocking crime of tying up the emissary, torturing him, and murdering him. When an army was dispatched to confront the Ghassanids for their crime, the Vicarius Theodorus summoned a large force of Roman soldiers to engage in war against the Muslims in the Battle of Mu’tah. Thus, this verse was revealed in regards to fighting within an existing war against an enemy political entity, namely the Byzantine empire, which lead to preparations for the expedition of Tabuk. The hostility of the group in question is mentioned in the this very Qur’anic passage itself, which goes on to state Q.9:32 that this instruction refers to those “who attempt to extinguish the light of Islam with their mouths“, which Aḍ-Ḍahāk (d. 105H) stated meant “they attempt to destroy Muhammad and his companions.”

      2) An important remark by the great scholar al-Buti:

      الآية أمرت بالقتال لا بالقتل، وقد علمت الفرق الكبير بين الكلمتين … فأنت تقول: قتلت فلاناً، إن بدأته بالقتل، وتقول: قاتلته، إذا قاومت سعيه إلى قتلك بقتل مثله، أو سابقته إلى ذلك كي لا ينال منك غرة.

      The verse [Q. 9:29] commands qitāl (قتال) and not qatl (قتل), and it is known that there is a big distinction between these two words … For you say ‘qataltu (قتلت) so-and-so’ if you initiated the fighting, while you say ‘qātaltu (قاتلت) him’ if you resisted his effort to fight you by a reciprocal fight, or if you forestalled him in that so that he would not get at you unawares.

      3) Finally, as with every ruling, one doesn’t base one on a simple verse while ignoring the rest. To discuss when war is legitimate according to Islam you’ll have to compile every verse on it, as well as the countless verses on religious freedom, here’s a start: https://np.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/4s2n8j/serious_is_the_qurʾān_from_cover_to_cover_full_of/?sort=old

      Like

    • AOL comes right out of the gate with an error.

      “1) The term “Sharia law” is an oxymoron, 2) non-Muslim are not ruled by the Shariah, in point of fact, they are allowed to retain their own judicial system according to their own beliefs, the Qur’an states, “Let Christians judge according to what We have revealed in the Gospel” 5:47.”

      My response pay attention here, If some one believes in allah, and the last day and FORBIDS what Allah and his MESSENGER FORBIDS what does that make them?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “… attention here, If some one believes in allah, and the last day and FORBIDS what Allah and his MESSENGER FORBIDS what does that make them?”

      An unbeliever. But that has nothing to do with my point which was that non-Muslims had to freely choose their legal system, and that the term “Sharia law” is a terrible name since as Wael Hallaq says in his monumental work “Sharīʿa: Theory, Practice, Transformations” (pp.2-3),

      It turns out that Islamic law’s presumed “failure” t o distinguish between law and morality equipped it with efficient, communally based, socially embedded, bottom–top methods of control that rendered it remarkably efficient in commanding willing obedience and–as one consequence–less coercive than any imperial law Europe had known since the fall of the Roman Empire. **Thus the very use of the word law is a priori problematic**; to use it is to project, if not superimpose, on the legal culture of Islam notions saturated with the conceptual specificity of nation-state law a punitive law that, when compared to Islam’s jural forms, lacks (note the reversal) the same determinant moral imperative […] Closely related to the issue of state coercion, and its homogenizing effects, is the attribution of failure in the applicability of “Islamic law” to the realia of social, political and other practice, a failure to assert the integrity of the law’s order and its sovereign will. Yet this alleged failure represents in fact another modern misreading of history, i.e., of the hands-off approach adopted by the Sharıˉa as a way of life and as a matter of course. The notorious and extraordinary diversity of fiqh, or legal doctrine, is ample attestation to this approach, although juristic diversity was only one of many other forms of pluralism, all of which, even in their extreme forms, were recognized by the so-called “law” of fiqh. These conceptual conflations lie at the root of Western misjudgment of the relationship between legal doctrine and real practice, a problem that continues to plague the field today.

      Like

  5. The hadīth narrated by Abū Hurayrah in which the Prophet says, “I have been ordered to fight against the people [emphasis added] until they say: There is no God but God,”56 refers only to the Arab idolaters, according to “the majority of the Muslims,”57 including the Hanafīs and Ibn Hanbal, while for the Mālikīs, it refers only to the tribe of Quraysh.58 […] More importantly, this hadīth means, as Ibn Taymiyyah explains it, that if non-Muslim enemy combatants during the conduct of war accept Islam, the war must cease, but this does not mean that all people have to be fought until they accept Islam.60

    56 : Ḥadīths numbers 1335, 2786, 6526, and 6855 in al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‛ al-Ṣahīh al-Mukhtaṣar, Vol. 1, p. 507, Vol. 3, p. 1077, Vol. 6, pp. 2538, 2657. See also al-Bukhārī, The Translation of the Meanings of Ṣahih al-Bukhārī, Vol. IV, p. 124.

    57 : Shalabī, Al-Jihād wa al-Nuẓum al-‛Askariyyah, pp. 61 f.; al-Zuhaylī, Al-‛Alāqāt al-Dawliyyah, p. 97. See also Peters, “Djihad,” p. 287; Mir, “Islam, Qur’anic,” p. 209.

    58 : Al-Shaybānī, Al-Siyar, p. 222; Ibn Qudāmah, Al-Mughnī, Vol. 9, p. 173; al-Māwardī, Al-Ḥāwī, Vol. 14, p. 153; al-Nawawī, Al-Majmū‛, Vol. 21, pp. 45–47; Peters, Islam and Colonialism, p. 36; al-Qaraḍāwī, Fiqh al-Jihād, Vol. 1, p. 328.

    60 : Ibn Taymiyyah, Qā‛idah Mukhtaṣarah fī Qitāl al-Kuffār, pp. 95 f.; al-Zuhaylī, Āthār al-Ḥarb fī al-Islām, p. 107; Zahrān, Al-Silm wa al-Ḥarb, p. 42; Darwazah, Al-Jihād fī Sabīl Allah, p. 72; Āl Mahmūd, Al-Jihād al-Mashrū‛, p. 32; al-Qāsimī, Al-Jihād wa al-Ḥuqūq al-Dawliyyah, p. 167; al-Ghunaimi, Qānūn al-Salām fī al-Islām, p. 57; ‛Afīfī, Al-Mujtama‛ al-Islāmī, p. 151; Ṭabliyyah, Al-Islām wa Ḥuqūq al-Insān, p. 74; al-Qaraḍāwī, Fiqh al-Jihād, Vol. 1, pp. 335–337.

    Ahmed Al-Dawoody – The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations – p.79.

    Like

  6. I forgot. Let further humiliate flyingibnmuta for shamelessly butchering even his own wicked, immoral religious sources. The fact is that even your own vile sources prove that the Quraysh DID NOT VIOLATE THEIR TREATY WITH YOUR VILE PROFIT. MUHAMMAD DID!

    http://answeringislam.net/Muhammad/hudaybiyya.html

    Like

    • richard carrier thinks jesus was a dick

      quote:

      Let’s face it. Jesus is a dick.

      The Gospels portray him as a cruel, sociopathic asshole who gloats over millions being horribly tortured for billions of years at his command (Mk. 9:43-49, Mt. 13:40-42, Mt. 13:49-50, Mt. 18:7-9, Mt. 24:51, Mt. 25:40-46, Mt. 5:22, Lk. 13:23-34, Jn. 15:6, etc.) and to whom he shall never ever show even the minutest mercy (Lk. 16:22-29); who calls racial minorities dogs (Mk. 7:24-29); who murders thousands of pigs (Mk. 5:12-13), and doesn’t even say he’s sorry to the town that in result just lost its livelihood and the better part of their food supply; a guy who is so horrifically disgusted by sex he tells people to cut off their own limbs, eyes, and genitals before even so much as thinking a sexual thought (Mt. 5:27-30, Mt. 18:7-9, Mk. 9:43-49, Mt. 19:10-12); who endorses the legal execution of anyone who divorces and remarries (Mt. 5:31-32, Mt. 19:3-10), even of children who talk back to their parents (Mk. 7:7-13), and, let’s be honest (Mt. 5:17-20), even gay men and raped women (and countless others; Jesus loved killing, and was in fact convicted of the very death penalty offense he himself supported—an irony lost on pretty much every Christian then or since); who not only never condemns slavery but actually endorses it as a moral model God should be admired for following (e.g. Mt. 18:23-35, Mt. 24:44-51, Mt. 25:14-30, Lk. 17:7-9, Lk. 12:36-48); who has scary paranoid rage issues even with his closest friends (Mt. 16:21-23, Mk. 8:31-33)—even to the point of committing mass public violence (yes, Jesus is literally a criminal; and not because he was falsely convicted, but because he actually committed felony assault: Jn. 2:13-16, Mk. 11:15–16, Mt. 21:12, Lk. 19:45); and who arrogantly commands you to abandon and hate your family in order to follow him instead (Lk. 14:26, Mt. 10:34-37, Mt. 8:21-22, Lk. 9:59-60)—literally boasting that he shall tear families apart (Lk. 12:51-53, Mk. 10:29-30, Mt. 19:29). He never unites or reconciles any family. Not a single intact family ever follows or befriends him. He even tells his own family to fuck off (Mk. 3:32-35). And despite being able to eradicate all disease, he eradicates not even one of them—despite visiting a planet where more than half of all children die of one. Like I said. A total dick.

      http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11828

      yet i never seen a chicken like you go and comment at carriers blog

      you fukin pussy

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Muslim bothers: I beseech you once again. Our religion is religion of morals and manners. We can only defend our religion and our prophets ( and yes that is everyone , Jesus, Moses, ibrahim and off course Muhammad , peace be upon them all) only when we follow their morals. I am not aware that any of the prophet ever used foul language. When Allah ordered Musa and Haroon, the best among men, to talk to Pharaoh, the worst man in history, he asked them to talk to him in kind way ( qawlan layyinah).

      Similarly when Allah took covenant with Musa (pbuh) one of the term of covenant was “speaking well with people” (quloo linnas-e-husna).

      There are so many verses of Quran and Hadeeth about speaking well. So when we respond foul language with foul language we are doing injustice against our-self, our religion and our prophets.

      If Sam or Wood want to use that type of language that is their prerogative. We as Muslim can never stoop to that level.

      Then using such language with Jesus, it is simply kufr, I understand you are using Biblical description of Jesus, not Quranic one, but still it is important to dialogue in civility. What if what you write about Jesus ( even in sarcasm in biblical reference) is actually word of Allah in Bible that you unintentionally questioned or misinterpreted? Do u really want to be questioned by Allah on it in Akhirah?

      So i advice myself and my brothers to take notice of these facts. You have more knowledge about these matters, but i felt compelled to chime in with my two cents.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Sam & Kmak,
    It seems you’re so excited after the celebration that your almighty god came out from a va**na!

    Take it easy, boys!
    You don’t need to be afraid! It’s just an objective article which has nothing to do with Islamophobes’ interpretations for Islamic texts. That’s it!.

    Like

  8. What was that about rape? You again have Jesus confused with your satan Allah who possessed Muhammad:

    Some Muslims claim that the following passage from the Holy Bible condones rape:

    “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated (anah) her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

    There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs.

    Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the Scriptures a strong case can be made that this citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it being written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author’s intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction that a rapist marry his victim.

    With this just said, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:

    taphas –

    # 08610
    1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

    a) (Qal)
    1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
    2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
    b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
    c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

    AV – take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)
    Here is one example of how this word is used:

    “The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols.” Jeremiah 2:8

    shakab –

    # 07901
    1) to lie down

    a) (Qal)
    1) to lie, lie down, lie on
    2) to lodge
    3) to lie (of sexual relations)
    4) to lie down (in death)
    5) to rest, relax (fig)
    b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
    c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
    d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
    e) (Hophal) to be laid

    AV – lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)
    As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

    “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—” Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

    Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn’t forced into having sex. Again:

    “If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.” Leviticus 15:18

    These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

    If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

    If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

    When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

    When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

    “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

    If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

    If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

    If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

    If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

    If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

    If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

    Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

    Like

    • Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

      “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

      Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. “and THEY ARE found out.” This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

      Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn’t use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

      This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas with anah. Rather, the authors use the word chazaq (or some similar word) with anah to convey this notion:

      “Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing must not be done.” Genesis 34:1-7 ESV

      And:

      “Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah) her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, “Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. And her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom’s house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar … But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king’s sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’” 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV

      Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas, providing additional support that this word in of itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It also demonstrates our point that if the inspired author had rape in view he could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had occurred.(1)

      The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

      “If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.” Exodus 22:16-17

      Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines pathah as:

      # 06601
      1) to be spacious, be open, be wide

      a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
      b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
      2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
      a) (Qal)
      1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
      2) to be enticed, be deceived
      b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
      c) (Piel)
      1) to persuade, seduce
      2) to deceive
      d) (Pual)
      1) to be persuaded
      2) to be deceived

      AV – entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
      (Source: Blue Letter Bible)
      As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

      “‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me “my husband”; you will no longer call me “my master.” I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’” Hosea 2:14-20

      It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn’t forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.

      As the following Study Bible puts it:

      22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman’s father. It is assumed that the bride’s father’s rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price. (The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha [Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2003], pp. 278-279; underline and capital emphasis ours)

      Or, as the late renowned Bible expositor John Gill explained it long ago:

      If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed…
      That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

      and lay hold on her, and lie with her,
      she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as (Deuteronomy 22:25) WHERE A DIFFERENT WORD FROM THIS IS THERE USED; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in (Exodus 22:16,17) but not without her consent:

      and they be found;
      in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy. (The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible; online source; capital and underline emphasis ours)

      And this is what the late great Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen wrote concerning this issue:

      … “If a man finds a girl who is an unbetrothed virgin, an he lays hold of her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.” [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]

      This is the literal translation of the Hebrew. Unfortunately, some commentators and Bible translations … make the mistake of interpreting these words as referring to the use of force and thus to raping a virgin. Such a view is quite unacceptable, for a number of reasons. (1) This would lay a burden and penalty on the woman who had no part or consent in the act, which is as unfair and senseless as punishing the victim of attempted murder.

      (2) The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. I Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17). People are “caught” (I Kings 20:18), even as cities are “captured” (Deut. 20:19; Isa. 36:1). An adulterous wife may not have been “caught” in the act (Num. 5:13). In all of these instances it is clear that, while force may come into the picture from further description, the Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.

      This verb used in Deuteronomy 22:28 is different from the verb used in verse 25 (chazak, from the root meaning “to be strong, firm”) which can mean “to seize” a bear and kill it (I Sam. 17:35; cf. 2 Sam. 2:16; Zech. 14:13), “to prevail” (2 Sam. 24:4; Dan. 11:7), “to be strong” (Deut. 31:6; 2 Sam. 2:7), etc. Deuteronomy 22:25 thus speaks of a man finding a woman and “forcing her.” Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply “take hold of” her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25 (viz., rape).

      (3) The Hebrew word anah (“humble, afflict,” emphasized above) used in Deuteronomy 22:29 can sometimes be used for forcing a woman (Gen. 34:2; Jud. 20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11) but need not indicate a forcible rape, which is clear from the Deuteronomy passage itself at verse 24. It can simply mean to dishonor, mistreat, or afflict (e.g., Ex. 1:11; Gen. 16:6; Ex. 22:22; Deut. 8:2; Ps. 119:67), and in sexual settings can denote other kinds of sin than rape (Ezek. 22:10, 11).

      We can agree with the reasoning of James Jordan: “At first sight, this seems to allow for rape of an unbetrothed girl. In Hebrew, however, the verb ‘seize’ is a weaker verb than the verb for ‘force’ used in the same passage (v. 25) to describe rape. This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11). Implied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion that she fought back with anything more than a token resistance. Modern random rape would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under the death penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 149).

      Accordingly, one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape. For instance:

      Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

      Matthew Henry: “… if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

      J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).

      In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

      Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was “their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

      Like

    • Even if one has some question about the applicability of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the clear and decisive command from God when a man has seduced a virgin is found in Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay her dowry to make her his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out money according to the dowry for virgins.”

      In this text there is no question whatsoever of forcible rape. The Hebrew verb used to describe the sin (italicized in the quotation above) is patah, used elsewhere for “coaxing” (Jud. 14:15), “luring” (Jud. 16:5; Hos. 2:14), and “enticing” (Prov. 1:10; 16:29). When a man gets a virgin to consent to have sexual relations with him, he is morally obligated to marry her – as the following commentators indicate:

      John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

      J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

      Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible … with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

      Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: … he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

      James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

      Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged …. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).

      (Bahnsen, Pre-Marital Sexual Relations: What is the Moral Obligation When Repeated Incidents are Confessed?, PE152, Covenant Media Foundation, 1992)

      In light of the foregoing, we feel the following rendering best captures the intended meaning of the passage which has nothing to do with a woman having to marry her rapist:

      “Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.” Contemporary English Version (CEV)

      This concludes our exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. We prayerfully hope that by the grace of our risen Lord and eternal Savior Jesus Christ, this short paper will be of great help to those Christians who have been confronted by Muslims with the accusation that the Holy Bible condones the raping of women. Hopefully, both Christians and Muslims will see that the Holy Bible nowhere condones rape.

      In the service of our great and eternal triune God forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We will always love you, risen Lord of eternal Glory.

      Like

    • quote:
      “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

      Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent.
      end quote

      [maybe he is covering her mouth you rapid dog]

      quote:
      Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man.

      [you rapid dog, read the response below ]

      quote:
      This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. “and THEY ARE found out.” This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

      Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn’t use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

      //////

      quote:

      Thanks for commenting. Allow me to save you the trouble. Tapas means a forceful seizure, and since Potiphar’s wife is seizing Joseph after repeated attempts to get him into bed with her (all rejected), it’s clear that’s how she’s seizing him here. The fact that he escapes her grasp shows quite clearly that this is a seizure against his will. That’s what the word meant, as I’ve shown quite exhaustively above. Please save yourself the trouble of kicking against the goads.

      As for “Copan’s argument such as condemnation in the plural,” here’s my response to this strained and ridiculous argument:

      They were not “condemned” in the plural. They were discovered in the plural, as any two people discovered in a sexual act (consensual or otherwise) would be. And the text itself makes it clear that only he is being punished and that only he is at fault. Shall I quote it? OK.

      “The man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives” (Deut 22:29).

      And as I said in the review, the word tapas quite plainly denotes a violation of the will; therefore, Copan’s attempt to make the woman culpable here is already disallowed by the language used by the text. I’m sorry; you have no case to make.

      Like

    • happy new year

      //////////////

      http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/04/is-god-a-moral-compromiser-a-critical-review-of-paul-copans-is-god-a-moral-monster/

      Tyler McNabb, a Reformed seminary student, has posted a first in a series in which he’ll review Copan’s book alongside my response. His first post criticizes my critique of Copan’s reading of Deut 22:28-29. The text says:

      If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
      Copan argues that this is speaking of the seduction of a woman, not a forcible seizure. But the word for “seduces” is pathah. The Hebrew word used for “seizes” here is tapas. I said (on p. 116) that whenever this word is used for seizing a human, it is always used in a manner that implies the human is seized against his/her/their will. I cited two passages from the selfsame book (Deut 20:19 and 21:19) where it refers to the capture of a town by military force and the capture of a rebellious son to take him off to be executed.

      Now Tyler claims to have found two passages which clearly contradict my understanding of tapas. He cites two passages which, he thinks, clearly indicate that the word just means “grabs” without implying the seizure is against the will of the one seized. First he cites Isaiah 3:6. Here’s the portion he quotes:

      For a man will take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying: “You have a cloak; you shall be our leader, and this heap of ruins shall be under your rule.”
      According to Tyler, this is a clear indication that tapas doesn’t imply a seizure against the will of the brother. Au contraire! Let’s look at the passage in its context. Be sure to read the whole passage carefully:

      The people will be oppressed,
      everyone by another
      and everyone by a neighbor;
      the youth will be insolent to the elder,
      and the base to the honorable.
      Someone will even seize a relative,
      a member of the clan, saying,
      ‘You have a cloak;
      you shall be our leader,
      and this heap of ruins
      shall be under your rule.’
      But the other will cry out on that day, saying,
      ‘I will not be a healer;
      in my house there is neither bread nor cloak;
      you shall not make me
      leader of the people.’ (Isa 3:5-7)
      As is painfully obvious, tapas is used here to refer to the seizure of a brother against his will. The context is one of strife within families, and as an example of this strife, it is said that a brother will seize his brother and try to set him up as a leader. But the very next verse states clearly that this is against the brother’s will. He refuses. “You shall not make me leader of the people.”

      The second verse Tyler cites is Gen 39:11-12, where Potiphar’s wife seizes (tapas) Joseph to try to get him to have sex with her:

      But one day, when he went into the house to do his work and none of the men of the house was there in the house, she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me.”
      Once again, let’s look at this verse in its context:

      And although she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not consent to lie beside her or to be with her. One day, however, when he went into the house to do his work, and while no one else was in the house, she caught hold of his garment, saying, ‘Lie with me!’ But he left his garment in her hand, and fled and ran outside. (Gen 39:10-12)
      Funny that Tyler only quoted the first part of verse 12, and not the second part, which clearly shows that Joseph was being seized against his will, as indicated by the fact that he ran away.

      Tyler accused me of being either lazy or deceptive. Sorry, Tyler. Three fingers are pointing squarely back at yourself.

      To these examples I’ll add the following:

      and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught [tapas] in the act. (Num 5:13)

      Then it will be when you have seized [tapas] the city, that you shall set the city on fire. You shall do it according to the word of Yahweh. See, I have commanded you. (Josh 8:8)

      But they captured [tapas] the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua. (Josh 8:23)

      He captured [tapas] Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. (1 Sam 15:8)

      Saul went on one side of the mountain, and David and his men on the other side of the mountain ; and David was hurrying to get away from Saul, for Saul and his men were surrounding David and his men to seize [tapas] them. (1 Sam 23:26)

      Now when the king heard the saying of the man of God, which he cried against the altar in Bethel, Jeroboam stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, “Seize [tapas] him.” But his hand which he stretched out against him dried up, so that he could not draw it back to himself. (1 Kgs 13:4)

      Then Elijah said to them, “Seize [tapas] the prophets of Baal; do not let one of them escape.” So they seized [tapas] them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. (1 Kgs 18:40)

      When they come out of the city, we will capture [tapas] them alive and get into the city. (2 Kgs 7:12)

      He killed of Edom in the Valley of Salt 10,000 and took [tapas] Sela by war, and named it Joktheel to this day. (2 Kgs 14:7)

      So the king of Assyria listened to him; and the king of Assyria went up against Damascus and captured [tapas] it, and carried the people of it away into exile to Kir, and put Rezin to death. (2 Kgs 16:9)

      Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and seized [tapas] them. (2 Kgs 18:13)

      Then they captured [tapas] the king and brought him to the king of Babylon at Riblah, and he passed sentence on him. (2 Kgs 25:6)

      Then Joash king of Israel captured [tapas] Amaziah king of Judah. (2 Chron 25:23; 2 Kgs 14:13)

      In pride the wicked hotly pursue the afflicted ; Let them be caught [tapas] in the plots which they have devised. (Psalm 10:2)

      God has forsaken him; Pursue and seize [tapas] him, for there is no one to deliver. (Psalm 71:11)

      Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and seized [tapas] them. (Isa 36:1)

      I will spread my net over him, and he shall be caught [tapas] in my snare; and I will bring him to Babylon, the land of the Chaldeans, yet he shall not see it; and he shall die there. (Ezek 12:13; also 17:20)

      The nations sounded an alarm against him;
      he was caught in their pit;
      and they brought him with hooks
      to the land of Egypt. (Ezek 19:4; also 19:8)

      But to them it will seem like a false divination; they have sworn solemn oaths; but he brings their guilt to remembrance, bringing about their capture. Therefore, thus says Yahweh God: Because you have brought your guilt to remembrance, in that your transgressions are uncovered, so that in all your deeds your sins appear—because you have come to remembrance, you shall be taken in hand. (Ezek 21:23-24)

      Then all the inhabitants of Egypt shall know that I am Yahweh
      because you were a staff of reed to the house of Israel;
      when they seized [tapas] you with the hand, you broke,
      and tore all their hands;
      and when they leaned on you, you broke,
      and made all their legs unsteady. (Ezek 29:6-7)

      And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people seized [tapas] him, saying, ‘You shall die!’ (Jer 26:8)

      And you yourself shall not escape from his hand, but shall surely be captured [tapas] and handed over to him. (Jer 34:3)

      But Irijah would not listen to him, and arrested [tapas] Jeremiah and brought him to the officials. (Jer 37:14)

      All your wives and your children shall be led out to the Chaldeans, and you yourself shall not escape from their hand, but shall be seized [tapas] by the king of Babylon; and this city shall be burned with fire. (Jer 38:23)

      Then they captured [tapas] the king and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah in the land of Hamath, and he passed sentence on him. (Jer 52:9)

      You set a snare for yourself and you were caught, O Babylon, but you did not know it; you were discovered and seized [tapas], because you challenged Yahweh (Jer 50:24).

      Kerioth has been captured And the strongholds have been seized [tapas], So the hearts of the mighty men of Moab in that day Will be like the heart of a woman in labor. (Jer 48:41)

      How Sheshach is taken, the pride of the whole earth seized [tapas]! How Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations!
      Those last three from Jeremiah show that the Hebrew word for “captured/taken/caught” (lakad) and the Hebrew word for “seized/taken/captured/caught” (tapas) are synonymous, sharing a semantic range. Again, tapas and pathah (“seduced”) are not synonymous.

      Here’s another important use of tapas:

      Or I shall be full, and deny you,
      and say, ‘Who is Yahweh?’
      or I shall be poor, and steal,
      and profane [tapas] the name of my God. (Prov 30:9)
      There it means “profane,” which is an extension of the same semantic domain, indicating a violation.

      And that about does it. That’s all the examples where tapas is applied to the grabbing of a person or population, and every time, as I said (correctly), and I’ll reiterate, every single time, it refers to the seizure of a person or population against their will.

      Tyler concludes with what he thinks is a knockdown argument against my reading of Deut 22:28-29 as a rape law. He writes:

      If Exodus [22:16; a law about a man who seduces a woman] and Deuteronomy [22:28-29] were not to be read in light of each other, then why would being seduced lead to the ability to marry or not to marry the male party, but the one being raped by a man in the dark ally [sic] is forced to be married to him. There is a clear inconsistency, an inconsistency that may have grounding in say the code of Hammurabi, but not within the Law of Moses.
      First, I must laugh at this halfhearted attempt to incriminate the Code of Hammurabi. Based on what? Which law in the Hammurabi Code gives ground to this? This is a standard apologetic maneuver—assume (without citing evidence) that the other ancient Near Eastern laws were worse, and claim—contrary to the evidence—that Israel’s laws were better.

      But I’ll answer his question. Why is the father permitted to refuse to give his daughter as a wife to the seducer, but not permitted to refuse to give his daughter as a wife to a rapist? For precisely the reason I stated in my original review: because rape victims were the more stigmatized, making it impossible for them to find a husband. One can’t first assume that the Laws of Moses must be moral, and then dispense with an immoral law by saying that it can’t be immoral because the Laws of Moses must be moral. Tyler will easily allow for the Babylonian laws to be less than moral, but not the laws of Moses. That’s called a double standard.

      A nice attempt, but no dice. The fact remains that “seduces” (pathah) and “seizes” (tapas) are not the same word; they do not share a semantic domain. All the wishing in the world won’t change this.

      Like

  9. Unlike Yahweh, Muhammad’s god permits his murdering thugs to not only rape women but to also murder their family members completely free of charge! Enjoy:

    BEGIN
    For instance, the following verse permits Muslim men (which includes Muhammad himself) to sleep with married women whom they have taken captive:

    Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali

    Tragically, this did not remain a mere abstraction but was readily put into practice by Muhammad’s sexually craved jihadists:

    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

    And:

    Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

    This same narration is found in all of the major hadith collections:

    Chapter 36. What Has Been Related (About A Man) Who Captures A Slave Woman That Has A Husband, Is It Lawful For Him To Have Relations With Her?

    1132. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri narrated: We got some captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the following was revealed: And women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess. (Hasan) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith No. 544 to 1204, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 2, p. 502; underline emphasis ours)

    And:

    1137. Jabir bin ‘Abdullah narrated: “We practiced ‘Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” (Sahih)

    (Abu ‘Eisa said:) The Hadith of Jabir is a Hasan Sahih Hadith. It has been reported from him through other routes.

    There are those among the people of knowledge, among the Companions of the Prophet and others, who permitted ‘Azl. Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for ‘Azl, while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.” (Ibid., Chapter 39. What Has Been related About ‘Azl, p. 507)

    Finally:

    (3) 3016. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “On the Day of Awtas, we captured some women who had husbands among the idolaters. SO SOME OF THE MEN DISLIKED THAT, so Allah, Most High, revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….’” (Sahih)

    [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

    (4) 3017. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “we captured some women on the Day of Awtas and they had husbands among their people. That was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah so Allah revealed: ‘…And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….” (Sahih)

    [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

    This is how it was reported by Ath-Thawri, from ‘Uthman Al-Batti, from Abu Al-Khalil, from Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri from the Prophet and it is similar. “From Abu ‘Alqamah” is not in this Hadith and I do not know of anyone who mentioned Abu ‘Alqamah in this Hadith except in what Hammam mentioned from Qatadah. Abu Al-Khalil’s name is Salih bin Abi Mariam. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, Chapter 4. Regarding Surat An-Nisa’, pp. 331-332; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    Thus, Muhammad and his deity condoned and encouraged men to virtually rape their female captives whether they were married or not.

    Now unless this taqiyyist wants us to believe that such women whose families had just been murdered and (in some cases) whose husbands were still alive would actually consent to having sex with their captors, it should be apparent that the Islamic deity is actually permitting, and even encouraging, rape and adultery in his so-called holy book!

    How truly sad and tragic for these women that Muhammad and his god did not share the shame and concern of the jihadists regarding the highly unethical nature of raping captives whose husbands were still alive. Instead, Allah and his messenger rushed to justify such a perverted and heinous crime!

    Contrast this filth with what Deuteronomy teaches concerning the issue of female captives:

    “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

    Here we see that, instead of permitting men to rape captive women, the Holy Bible forces the Israelites to marry them if they wanted to have sex with them, and then letting them go free in case of a divorce. This means that the Holy Bible is actually dignifying these women by not allowing them to be treated the way Allah and his “messenger” had them treated, namely like animals. Now this is a command which predates the Quran by approximately 2200 years!

    To say that such an injunction was truly shocking and revolutionary for that time period would be a wild understatement, just as the following commentaries illustrate:

    “The law focuses on the rights of the woman by stating that the man who marries a female prisoner of war and subsequently becomes dissatisfied with her, for whatever reasons, is not permitted to reduce her to slavery. Such a woman had legal rights in ancient Israel, and moral obligations ensue from the fact that the man initiated a sexual relationship with her. Perhaps the most significant conclusion to draw from this text is the respect for the personhood of a captured woman. A primary concern in the laws of Deut 21–25 is for protecting the poor and vulnerable in society from exploitation on the part of the powerful.” (Duane L. Christensen, Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12 [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2002], Volume 6b, p. 475; bold emphasis ours)

    “Throughout the ancient Mediterranean world, captive women of vanquished peoples were assumed to be the due sexual prerogative of the victors. This law exceptionally seeks to provide for the human rights of the woman who falls into this predicament… the verb ‘inah is also sometimes used for rape, and its employment here astringently suggests that the sexual exploitation of a captive woman, even in a legally sanctioned arrangement of concubinage, is equivalent to rape.” (Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary [W. W. Norton & Company, 2008], p. 982; bold emphasis ours)

    “The instructions given for the treatment of female captives in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 take it for granted that a conquering army have the right to dispose of the conquered population in any way that it wishes. It is hard for those coming from a different cultural context to see this as anything other than appalling, but this approach would have been unquestioned within the ancient Near East, and we have to see these instructions within that setting. What is remarkable is that although the woman may have had no choice in the matter–the soldier who fancied her has every right to make her this wife–nevertheless her identity as a human being is at least to some extent recognized. She is not to be thrown into the new situation but must be allowed time to mourn for her parents and her past life… Within these oppressive situations the laws are geared to provide at least a level of protection for the women involved… Women who were bought as wives or captured in war and taken as wives could not be sold as slaves or even neglected (Ex 21.11; Deut 21.14).” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger & Mary J. Evans [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2002], pp. 100, 102)

    “The space given for weeping is not primarily a period of mourning (though it is perhaps to be assumed that the woman’s father has died in the herem; 20:13, 15). Rather, it is given in compassionate consideration of the large adjustment she must make, and the accompanying trauma. It is an acknowledgment, too, that her former life is ended and a new life is to begin (cf. Ps. 45:10). The hints of compassion breaking through the brutality of the age reflect an awareness of divine compassion, however limited by the thought climate of the times.” (Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the book of Deuteronomy (International Theological Commentary), [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI 1992], p. 189; bold emphasis ours)

    For more on the humanitarian nature of this OT passage we recommend the following article: A note on the humanitarian character of Deut 21.10-14.

    Unfortunately, there’s more to the story. The so-called sound ahadith report that Muhammad taught that Allah has predestined the amount of adultery a person must necessarily commit:

    Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
    I did not see anything so resembling minor sins as what Abu Huraira said from the Prophet, who said, “Allah has written for the son of Adam his INEVITABLE share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not: The adultery of the eye is the looking (at something which is sinful to look at), and the adultery of the tongue is to utter (what it is unlawful to utter), and the innerself wishes and longs for (adultery) and the private parts turn that into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 609)

    Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he OF NECESSITY MUST COMMIT (or there would be no escape from it). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421; see also Number 6422)

    In other words, these Muslims were only carrying out the very sexual filth which their god had predestined for them!
    END

    Like

    • BEGIN
      To now further add insult to injury, let me further break down Deuteronomy 21:10-14 to show how this passage condemns Muhammad as an adulterer and rapist:

      “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and attracted to her, YOU MAY TAKE HER AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband AND SHE SHALL BE YOUR WIFE. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her (innitah).” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

      The word innitah comes from anah. Now let us see how other versions render this word in v. 14:

      “But if you aren’t pleased with her, you must send her away as she wishes. You are not allowed to sell her for money or treat her as a slave because you have HUMILIATED her.” Common English Bible

      “It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go [c]wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not [d]mistreat her, because you have HUMBLED her.” New American Standard Bible

      But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have DISHONORED her. New Revised Standard Version

      And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast HUMBLED her. Jewish Publication Society 1917

      And it will be, if you do not desire her, then you shall send her away wherever she wishes, but you shall not sell her for money. You shall not keep her as a servant, because you have AFFLICTED her. Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary

      The reason why these versions rendered the word anah as dishonored, humbled, afflicted etc. is because the word is not being used here in the sense of forcing the captive woman to have sex, but of dishonoring or humiliating her by divorcing her and sending her on her way. That this word can and does mean refer to dishonoring someone, and not forcing them to have sex, is easily seen from the way this word is used in the following verses:

      “This shall be a perpetual statute for you so that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall HUMBLE yourselves, and do no work of any kind, whether it is the native citizen or the stranger who sojourns among you. For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you to cleanse you, so that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It shall be a sabbath, a solemn rest for you, and you shall HUMBLE yourselves. It is a perpetual statute. The priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as a priest in the place of his father, shall make atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, the holy garments. And he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, for the tent of meeting, and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.” Leviticus 16:29-33

      “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation to you, and you shall HUMBLE yourselves, and offer a food offering made by fire to the Lord. You shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whoever is not HUMBLED on that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whoever does any work in that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no manner of work. It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be to you a sabbath of complete rest, and you shall afflict your souls. On the ninth day of the month starting at the evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.” Leviticus 23:16-32

      “You will have a holy assembly on the tenth day of this seventh month, and you will AFFLICT yourselves. You will not do any work on it.” Numbers 29:7

      “You must carefully keep all the commandments that I am commanding you today, so that you may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to your fathers. You must remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to HUMBLE you, and to prove you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. He HUMBLED you and let you suffer hunger, and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man does not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your feet swell these forty years. You must also consider in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you… who fed you in the wilderness with manna, which your fathers did not know, that He might HUMBLE you and that He might prove you, to do good for you in the end. ” Deuteronomy 8:1-5, 16

      Thus, this text doesn’t permit Israelite men to rape captive women like Muhammad’s god allowed his profit and jihadi thugs. Rather, it is telling them they can only have sex with women whom they have taken captive BY FIRST MARRYING THEM! Even the very translation used by this demented liar AFFIRMS THAT THE ISRAELITES HAD TO MARRY THE CAPTIVE WOMEN, AND WERE TO SET THEM FREE AND NOT SELL THEM AS SLAVES IF THEY ENDED UP DIVORCING THEM, UNLIKE YOUR WICKED PROFIT WHO NOT ONLY RAPED THEM WITHOUT MARRYING THEM BUT THEN SOLD THEM OFF AFTER HE GOT DONE VIOLATING THEM!

      10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like AND WANT TO MARRY HER. 12 take her your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, YOU MAY MARRY HER. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. since you forced her to have intercourse with you, YOU CANNOT TREAT HER AS A SLAVE AND SELL HER.

      OUCH!

      MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU CANNOT QUOTE A SINGLE VERSE FROM THE BIBLE WHICH SAYS THAT ISRAELITES OR BELIEVES CAN RAPE MARRIED WOMEN THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CAPTIVE, UNLIKE YOUR WICKED PROFIT!

      DOUBLE OUCH!!!!

      You could only wish that your profit had shown the same decency and civility towards captive women that this passage from Deuteronomy does, a passage which predates your filthy Quran by approximately 2200 years!

      Like I said, keep producing your trash and filth and keep watching hundreds of thousands leave your wicked and filthy deen and turn to the glory of Christ, Muhammad’s God and Judge!

      With that said give me a time and date when you can come to my paltak room so we can compare Deuteronomy 21:10-14 with the filth of Quran 4:24 and your profit’s implementation of it so all can see how well you do defending your garbage.
      END

      Like

  10. Now Omar what was that about limping? Thanks to you guys I just published this article proving your profit was a murdering terrorist and thief according to his own admission: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/the-prophet-of-terror-and-mayhem-pt-1/

    Now if you or flyingibnmuta really think that your garbage responses which make the Quran sound reasonable by comparison are any good then please man up and debate me in my paltalk room and put me shame and defend the honor of your demonized profit. Here is my email if any of you muster up any courage to defend your murdering, women raping and enslaving terrorist you call a prophet against me.

    In the meantime, may the God and Judge of Muhammad, the Father’s beloved Son, the Lord Jesus, save you from the filth, lies, immorality and terrorism of your false prophet and antichrist. Amin!

    In the meantime, you guys can keep barking here pretending you are refuting us and defending a self-professed thief and terrorist, as I return to writing my articles and rebuttals exposing Muhammad by the grace of his Master and Judge Jesus for the world to see. 😉

    Like

    • with such a charming and gracious invitation as that Sam what Muslim could possibly resist?

      Like

    • Williams, when you teach these vile Muhammadans to stop being so vile and nasty towards Christians, and stop butchering the Scriptures to their shame and humiliation, then you have a right to complain about my attitude towards them.

      And don’t use the lie that I bring this on since these guys are nasty and vile with virtually every Christian commenter here, including Ken who bends over backwards to be kind to these nasty vile thugs and trolls. And what makes this more disgusting is that you not only DO NOT rebuke them, you even have the audacity to like and laugh at some of their vile vitriol. So remove the beams from your eyes my friend before whining about the splinter in mine.

      With that said, I still love you since you will always be my favorite apostate and heretic. 😉

      Like

    • What vile insults and language from such a “good” Christian….what a loving example he sets.

      It seems that Sam is trying to cause an outrageous affront by insulting our sensibilities in a sad attempt to goad someone into debating him.

      Like

    • If Sam Shamoun wants to debate with Muslims, he can use the donations he is having from Christians to speakers corner and he will find a lot of Muslims willing to debate him. No body wants to debate him online for a very long time because some of his arguments like “Allah deceive” is childish because there are so many Jesus deception in the Bible.

      He is feeling the heat of this post as it destroys most of his arguments against Islam, hence trying to change the topic with all his database of cut and paste to change the topic.

      If even God deceives His enemy and the enemy of his prophets, and so what? It is desperation for any apologist to say;

      When Allah said to Moses “What is in your hand” means Allah did not know what is in Moses hand. That is what is left with Sam Shamoun to attack Islam, after getting the truth such as the abobe post and others.

      Thanks.

      Like

  11. Revisiting ‘I Have Been Commanded To Fight…’ Hadith [Part 2]

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/01/09/revisiting-i-have-been-commanded-to-fight-hadith/

    This is a Part 2 on this Hadith report under discussion. Please share the article so others benefit from the information and get guided InSha’Allah

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: