Yahya Snow comments: ‘James White really needs to sit down with a scholar and have these polemics he got from wild-eyed Christians he used to associate with ironed out. Learn from scholars, not from wild-eyed Islamophobic Christian polemicists who are looking to earn a few bucks out of the Islamophobia industry.’
Categories: Islam, Islamophobia, Missionaries, Scholarship
Blogging Theology 
Dr. White did an excellent job of answering this today on the Dividing Line program, from around the 38 minute mark to the 1 hour and 24 minute mark.
Dr. White quoted straight from the Tarikh of Al Tabari تاریخ الطبری (The History of Al Tabari) and Surah 33:37-38.
And he said it would be a great subject to have a discussion with Dr. Yasir Qadhi on.
LikeLike
The Tarikh al-Tabari quote on Zaynab and Muhammed is deemed by classical scholar Ibn al-Arabi to be a FABRICATION and “LIES”:
IMAM ABU BAKR IBN AL-ARABI said,
“‘THEY ARE ALL LIES which should not be depended upon, for she used to be with him everywhere and time and there was not anything to prevent him from marrying her. Besides, they grew up together and he would always see her every now and then. Despite the fact that Zaynab did not hide her wish to marry the Prophet right from the beginning, he did not seize that opportunity to marry her, then what for Allah’s sake would have given birth to that unusual love which had not existed before! Allah forbids! THAT IS NONSENSE!” (Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, volume 3, page 1543).
Here are three article we have written on this subject analyzing this verse and the so-called pseudo reports used by some proponents:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/18/zayd-zaynab-and-muhammed-fabrications-and-lies/
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/25/muhammeds-marriage-to-zaynab-closer-read-of-surah-3337/
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/09/11/revisiting-surah-3337-muhammeds-marriage-to-zaynab/
LikeLiked by 3 people
And it was weird to me that Dr. Yasir Qadhi did not mention the Tarikh of Al Tabari, which is a very important Islamic source and text for the history and tradition of Islam.
LikeLike
Have you not read Imam at-Tabari’s own disclaimer at the beginning of his work? He basically says “look, I put everything but the kitchen sink in here. It’s your job to figure out what’s what.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
In fact, Dr. White read 2 versions of the story, both are in Al Tabari’s Tarikh (history). (both versions he read confirm what you guys and “Flying Pir”s article calls Lies and fabrications. )
Why would an Imam put these in an official history?
Why is Al Tabari’s History considered one of the most important sources for Islamic history? (After Qur’an, Hadith, Sira . . . ?)
It seems kind of arbitrary, like when Muslims don’t like so many embarrassing Hadith, they start saying things like, “NO, LA! Those are Zionist Hadith!!” ( Lol )
LikeLike
Why why why lol. Ask him! He’s pretty dead, so good luck. Lol “official history” like that’s a thing now. And I’ve never heard of a “Zionist” hadīth. You must talk to some real nutters. Anyway, goober, what I said stands whether you like it or not.
LikeLiked by 3 people
the Muslims who said “those are Zionist Hadith” were 2 Muslims who used to come to Paul Williams old blogs, before he deleted them. I don’t see them anymore.
LikeLike
Maybe they’ve been committed 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
why Al Tabari doesn’t have the other sources that Flying Pir is quoting?
Yes, why?
We can demand this, just like you guys demand exact words and ask questions about the Bible, like “I demand that John’s “I am” statements had to repeated in Mark and Matthew and Luke in order for me to believe they are historical, etc. and Like, “If He is the God, why He don’t make the fig tree bring fruit?”
Why didn’t Al Tabari include the other stories about Zaynab Bint Jahash, if he was throwing everything but the kitchen sink, but doesn’t have the other stuff that later commentators came up with, doesn’t that show they are very historical.
And Shabir said we have to go with the earliest strand of traditions, so it seems Al Tabari is more correct, since those other guys came later and are embarressed about the story and have to claim that it is a fabrication.
How come Al Tabari doesn’t have the other stuff, if he is including everything but the kitchen sink?
LikeLike
Apples and oranges. Anyway, he included any and everything he himself came across (no matter how mangled or full of liars the chain of transmissions).
You’re just… not very smart. Bye 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“own disclaimer at the beginning of his work”
I believe every Islamic scholar puts that disclaimer in their work. Think about how nonsensical such a statement is. Muslims, historians etc… depend on Scholars and histories like Al Tabari to “figure out whats what”. LOL
Muslims just don’t think
LikeLike
Boring
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, they really don’t put that lol. Nice try, kiddo. You think Imām all Bukhārī called his entire collection “sahīh” and then added a “reader beware” disclaimer about the chains he included?
What a joke.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yes Paul, logic, reasoning, discernment, all these things are boring to a Muslim.
LikeLike
Lol a stupid and childish comment
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fine if it were just childish… my own comments so far have been a bit childish. But that dude’s just plain wrong lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abu wrote…
“You think Imām all Bukhārī called his entire collection “sahīh” and then added a “reader beware” disclaimer about the chains he included? ”
My response: Oh so Bukhari has no disclaimer, so can you tell me what allah is going to look like since your going to see him just like you see the sun and the moon?
And please tell me what is the Shape of allah since he is going to appear just like you picture him in your mind.
Are you going to prostrate to the SHIN, on the Day of the Shin?
LikeLike
I was careful to specify “chains” rather than information.
LikeLike
Abu responded to my question on what does allah look like with this…
“I was careful to specify “chains” rather than information. ”
My response: Well thats good since I did not ask you about “chains” or “information” I asked you since Bukarhi did not put in the Islamic disclaimer and since his work is SAHI then “can you tell me what allah is going to look like since your going to see him just like you see the sun and the moon?
And please tell me what is the Shape of allah since he is going to appear just like you picture him in your mind.
Are you going to prostrate to the SHIN, on the Day of the Shin?”
Now dance puppet dance lol
LikeLike
“Islamic disclaimer” 😂 waste someone else’s time, you worthless little troll.
LikeLike
Ha ha ha @abu
Wow that was to easy. Man you started out talking big about Al Tabari and his disclaimer to not trust what he wrote down, and now seem to have given up on Sahih Bukari lol.
Man you guys are to funny do what we call Ishnad Shuffle. The truth is that Islam is pick and choose, like this hadeeth and that one goes. lol
What a pathetic religion you have with your half solid half empty man-god and his bare naked shin that he is going to show to you like stripper with a pole lol
LikeLike
Abu
Is this what your god is going to look like on the day of the Shin
LikeLike
Idiot said “I believe every Islamic scholar puts that disclaimer in their work”
Then just like your pagan religion what you believe is wrong.
At least you’re consistent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems like just like their own bible these pagans seem to have overlooked the very first page that basically says “I am not the author here is some stuff I collected good luck”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course James didn’t answer ! He said it’s mentioned in Tarikh Al Tabari!
What is this supposed to mean?
Has he read the introduction of Al Tabari in his magnificent book? 10 Vol!
Al Tabari himself mentioned his methodology in that big book. He wrote in the introduction – I’m paraphrasing- that
” my job as a historian to write everything I heard. However, that doesn’t mean I adopt these narrations, so if the reader happened to read something so questionable, that is not me. I’m just a reporter” .
Many scholars of Islam know & adopt this methodology that as long as he mentioned his Isnad ( the chain of men), he is free from the responsibility.
This is the page
In sum, he was saying that his job right now is not to question rather to collect. Scrutiny is another step.
However, because christians have no idea to question their narrations, and they have an easily susceptibility to adopt any narration to be the word of God himself even though they don’t know who wrote those narrations, methodology of Al Tabir is metaphysics for them .
============
Regarding that narration,
In short, that narration is WEAK. Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi said :
“why would the prophet needed that long time to fell in love with Zaynab as if he had not known her while that incident ( i.e divorce of Zynab) happened before Hijab. She is allegedly his daughter in law”.
Even if that narration were authentic, the prophet didn’t do any thing in intention! He was telling Zaid to not divorce Zaynab. I’ve no idea what the problem would be with christians if that narration were authentic which is NOT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good historian does not just throw every thing out there – that’s like taking things like Tabloid rumors as historical fact.
A true historian documents his sources and makes sure the sources are good.
Dr. White read from the English. it would be nice if someone gave the exact English translation of what Abdullah but up there in Arabic. (from Al Tabari’s History, Tarikh تاریخ الطبری
LikeLike
” A true historian documents his sources and makes sure the sources are good”
He did!
Al Tabari wrote what he heard with his Isnad. Isand is his documents. When he told us form where he heard that, he gave his sources. He told that in his introduction.
You will not find any writing like this in all historians before this age (i.e modern era). You judged that brilliant man based on our modern culture. Man, your bible and writings of Paul are not like this 🙂
We see that you’re so happy with Josephus, but what did he write? What were his sources? Nothing!
Al Tabari was a brilliant scholar no doubt. He was an encyclopedic man.
I’m not familiar with the English translation for his magnificent book. However, this page in Arabic is 7-8.
It’s in his introduction.
Again, that narration which I don’t think it’s a problematic is WEAK.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lol. I find it funny that Ken Temple of all people is lecturing Muslims on good historical analysis.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree! Such double standards
LikeLiked by 1 person
White @ 58 seconds “He (Muhammad) destroyed the beautiful institution of adoption in Islam”.
On the contrary Mr White. It was here that God sealed the institution of adoption from corruption. An adopted son is not your blood, no matter how much we make believe. The adopted son is the son of his father, good or bad name, inheritance or no inheritance. What greater crime than to rob a child of his true identity by calling him/her by your name? Nay, muslims who thereafter adopted children preserved the rights of these children, doing only the duty of safeguarding them until maturity. How unselfish an act is muslim adoption then? One’s motives are not corrupted in any way.
LikeLiked by 3 people
PS. Those who ‘rename’ the child to their own family name have basically ‘killed’ the lineage of the father. Perhaps it is his only son and through whom the family name is continued. Are we allowed with one simple stroke of a pen to wipe the name of an entire family tree out of existence?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Musa,
You are right.
The western form of adoption is really detrimental to the child, who has no choice in a decision to adopt which results in the loss of the child’s true self identity, lineage, original familial ties, historical knowledge of family, and even sometimes ethnic, cultural, and lingual ties.
In U.S. we often see children from Asian (or other) countries adopted into American families and subsequently being raised and taught to adopt the religion (usually Christianity), language, and name of those families. As a result these children are cut off from the ethnic culture that they were born into, their roots have been cut, and have absolutely no connection with or knowledge of their own family of origin. it is a tragedy, that the child does not fully comprehend until later in adulthood when it may cause extreme psychological pain, trauma, and conflict with the adoptive parents as the child questions everything in their life.
The Islamic form of adoption helps to avoid these types of problems, by honoring and respecting the child’s own lineage and not seeking to erase it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Al Tabari wrote what he heard with his Isnad. Isand is his documents. When he told us form where he heard that, he gave his sources. He told that in his introduction.
Is Al Tabari’s source the same one that Dr. Yasir Qadhi named in the video?
I read over “Flying Pir”‘s first article – from what I can tell; all of them are commentators who come much much later after Al Tabari – and all they do is assert – “lie and fabrication!” – anyone can say that, “no, you are wrong!” Hardly any real argumentation or documentation.
LikeLike
“anyone can say that”
That’s not true. We don’t just say that narration is not authentic. We can discuss the narration from Hadith perspective,and you will see it’s not authentic. There are at least 3 issues.
When James and other christians were using that narration which I think it’s not problematic , they didn’t use it to discuss the adoption matter. They wanted to attack the character of the prophet pbuh.
And here I like to quote Bassam Zawadi who cuts this mentality from its roots,yet it only works if the christians are honest with themselves.
He said:
“Christians have attacked the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) by claiming that he is a murderer, rapist, pedophile etc. They charged him with all these disgusting things and they have all been soundly refuted. However, only for sake of argument let’s assume that their arguments against Prophet Muhammad are true. Does that disprove his Prophethood?
The Prophets of the Old Testament have done countless acts of horrible things. Things ranging from getting drunk, having sex with their very own daughters, murdering women and children, worshipping idols, sleeping with prostitutes etc. Yet the Christians acknowledge this and still believe that these people are Prophets. But when Prophet Muhammad does something wrong (allegedly) that means he is not a Prophet. You see the hypocrisy?
The criteria that Christians use to disprove and attack the Prophethood of Muhammad can be used even more forcefully against the Prophets of the Old Testament. So even if Christians were able to prove these arguments against Muhammad (if true, are still no where as bad as the acts of the Prophets of the Old Testament), they still do not disprove his Prophethood. If they insist that this disproves his Prophethood then they also need to insist that the Prophets of the Old Testament are not Prophets as well. Therefore, they should renounce their faith in Christianity. “
LikeLiked by 4 people
You make a good point; if it was not for the fact that new revelation in the Qur’an – Surah 33:36-37 is given and commanded by Allah for Muhammad to take her and marry her, and Allah says “no one can question what Allah has commanded” etc. (verse 36), and it says “you were hiding in yourself that which God was to disclose” (verse 37)
and “So when Zayd had no longer any need for her” ( ?*!!# !!!!) – that is especially ugly.
It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.
Surah 33:36
And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah ,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.
Surah 33:37
, whereas the OT passages of Abraham lying, David’s adultery and murder, and Solomon’s polygamy and idolatry are NEVER condoned. Allah approves of Muhammad doing this and yet God in the Bible does not approve of the sins of the prophets. God is recording their sin in Scripture, but never approves of it. By the way, we don’t consider Lot a prophet. Lot is called “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7, but I have never heard of anyone considering Lot a prophet. He gave no prophesy and wrote no book. He was a weak character, and did several really strange and sinful things. Maybe somewhere in Genesis he is called a prophet, but I don’t think so.
It seems obvious that even the Qur’an is embarrassed about this, but it is justified by a new revelation, and even says, on top of the new revelation, “no one can question what Allah has commanded”.
LikeLike
You have a problem with professional hadīth graders doing their actual jobs? On a text that pretty much invites them to do so? Yeah, anyone can say anything they want, but you’re in a mood because people who have the necessary skills and training do so authoritatively…
You need to quit throwing these tantrums. Grow up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Allah approves of Muhammad doing this and yet God in the Bible does not approve of the sins of the prophets”
Why would Allah disprove the prophet pbuh? He didn’t do anything wrong!
Listen to Dr. Shabir at (1:15′)
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is wrong because Zayd should not have divorced her and Zaynab should quit nagging and complaining and manipulating. The only legitimate reasons for divorce are 1. continuous hard-hearted adultery (Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 19:8-9) and if an unbeliever desserts the spouse because of the spouse’s faith ( 1 Cor. 7:15).
Words are put into the mouth of Allah in order to justify the sin of marrying her.
The true God would never do such a thing.
LikeLike
Ibn Arabi came just over 100 years after Tabari, and he called that story a LIE:
IMAM ABU BAKR IBN AL-ARABI (b. 1165) said,
“‘THEY ARE ALL LIES which should not be depended upon, for she used to be with him everywhere and time and there was not anything to prevent him from marrying her. Besides, they grew up together and he would always see her every now and then. Despite the fact that Zaynab did not hide her wish to marry the Prophet right from the beginning, he did not seize that opportunity to marry her, then what for Allah’s sake would have given birth to that unusual love which had not existed before! Allah forbids! THAT IS NONSENSE!” (Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, volume 3, page 1543).
If you’re going by using fabricated stories to attack the Prophet Muhammed, would you like me to show you early apocryphal writing from your religion, some dating earlier than some books of the NT, where a woman circumcises the pen*s of Jesus with her mouth?
Would you accept the above report, going by your standards we should accept it because it is early as your standard is against Muslims?
LikeLike
Ken, if a husband beats his wife,is she allowed to get divorced according to the criteria you gave, because you only included adultery and faith. What about if she isn’t being treated right, and if neither of the husband/wife are happy with their relation?
LikeLike
If the culture and churches functioned well, the couple would seek and get counseling at the church and seek to work out their problems with commitment to Christian principles. Violence against one’s wife is not acceptable. There can be legal separation and police action against violence until they get some counsel and the man gets healing from anger and violence.
The problem with “I am not happy” or “I no longer love him or her” or “I want out of this marriage” is that almost anything and everything is interpreted within these modern ideas.
God commands holiness, not our emotional concepts of what we think happiness is. True happiness comes after holiness and commitment is established. “The mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace” Romans 8:6
LikeLike
Brother Hashim, believe me, those people just like to talk with slogans.
In the reality, their life is miserable. There’ no divine guidance for their life.
This life which includes many complicated situations away from utopianism has nothing to do with slogans.
Yes, we like to hear “love your enemies”, yet in the reality no one would do that by that sense that christians talk about although muslims are the closest to these meanings in the real life from christians. We know what Saladin did with the christian captives, for example.
In marriage, sometimes the issues are beyond our control. Even in the level of spirit. Sometimes you cannot be friend with someone for some reason you don’t know
In Sahih Bukhari
Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet (ﷺ) as saying:
“The spirits are in marshaled hosts; those who know one another will be friendly, and those who do not, will keep apart”
It has nothing to with your status of being righteous or not. Many couples are righteous, yet they cannot keep going with the their marriage, so it would be better for them to divorce as a final solution since the divorce is very discouraged in Islam.
The lion Ahmed Deedat
Steven Anderson 🙂
Even you can watch how many videos made to respond to Steven :)!
All of od this just because a man got married from a divorced woman, and this is how life would be if you left the divine message https://quran.com/20/124
LikeLike
The only conclusion i can get from your response is that you are very naive in this regards. We all know violence against women is not acceptable, but it is something that people still do. You have to take that into account. Many women don’t want to live with their husbands because of the way the husbands treat them.
Divorce is discouraged in Islam as well,but nonetheless it is an inevitable reality in our world, and Islam acknowledges that. You can’t change every person just by telling them what’s right and what’s wrong. Holiness also comes from modesty,which is why many muslim women cover themselves,but you’d be quick to call that oppression.
LikeLike
we agree with modesty.
Christianity acknowledges the reality of the world also, the reality of divorce; that is what Jesus is referring to by “because of your hardness of heart” – Matthew 19
People do it anyway; agreed.
LikeLike
Here’s the page in English
LikeLiked by 5 people
Nice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a great summary of the Koran!!!
LikeLike
Paulus, you realize that Al Tabari was talking about his book which is a book of history.
Do you have that sense for your scripture? Do you have a half of that sense for Paul’s writing? 🙂
You can imagine the answer from christians who believe that the KJB is the words of God !
LikeLiked by 2 people
Abdullah,
Thanks for the English of that. I am not sure exactly what Al Tabari means. But he seems to be saying that people can “disapprove” or “find detestable” of what he has written as history, but Al Tabari does not seem to be saying it is not history, nor that history can be changed; nor that those things maybe are just rumors or lies or fabrications.
We disapprove of what David did in 2 Samuel 11 and what Solomon did in 1 Kings 11, and what Abraham did in Genesis 20, and what Abraham did in Genesis 12:9-20 and what Lot did in Genesis 19:8 and 19:30-38 – those actions are sinful and disgusting and we disaprove of them and find them detestable, but they are still historical fact – they happened. God records the sinful actions of people; and exposes the sinful hearts of mankind.
LikeLike
It’s amusing to see the fundamentalists insisting all that is in Tabari must be authentic and true are not Muslim.
LikeLiked by 3 people
lol they just don’t get it
LikeLiked by 1 person
are they so willing to embrace the hadidths that speaks well of the prophet and speaks against them?
LikeLike
Another problem is that the reports in the sources that “Flying Pir” ‘s first article gave, it seems clear, that according to that view and those sources that Zaynab was complaining all the time about being married to Zayd, because Zayd was poor and an adopted slave and that was beneath Zaynab’s dignity as she was a woman of the upper class. That is very arrogant and ugly of character on Zaynab’s part. It is not impressive – she is like a selfish, spoiled rich girl who is nagging Muhammad, especially after he is winning more wars after 625 and becomes more and more famous as a prophet, warrior and political leader – seems like she is the one who manipulates and keeps nagging him until he comes up with a new revelation.
If the Bible, after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires to work on love and righteous character – love is a commitment of the will to do good and right to the other person. She was also nagging Zayd and “killing” him with her nagging. wow. . . so either one of the sides of the story is a big problem, whichever one is right.
LikeLike
So pathetic!
“after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires”
Ashley Madison has proven these slogans more than you can imagine, Ken.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Muhammad, Zayd, and Zaynab, either of the 2 scenarios, do not seem very righteous at all. In one, Zaynab is the one manipulating and orchestrating and complaining, and in the other Muhammad was struck by her beauty and came up with new revelation to get her. The psychological pressure on Zayd was tremendous. “keep your wife and fear God” sounds pious, like a slogan (as you accused my statement of principle from the Bible.). it was just a slogan, because he did not obey. Why didn’t Zayd obey Muhammad? Muhammad had to come up with a new revelation in order to contradict the principle of “keep your wife and fear God”. that statement was right; but since they did not do it; it became an empty slogan in the story.
LikeLike
The apostle Paul and the other NT writers are always backing up what they wrote with OT Scripture quotes and allusions and phrases.
LikeLike
Whereas the Qur’an shows no real knowledge of the OT nor the NT in its content, except for basic things like monotheism and some of the 10 commandments, that there will be a judgment day at the end of time, and that one quote from a phrase of the same concept from Exodus 21:24. (“eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”) known as the lex talionis. (in Surah 5:45); and also it does have that God created everything in 6 days 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59), but as I recall, at least one verse says 8 days. (Surah 41:9-12)
LikeLike
?
“after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires”
how is that pathetic?
Ashley Madison has proven these slogans more than you can imagine, Ken.
what do you mean? are you approving of Ashley Madison and adultery ?
After thinking about what you are trying to say, I think you mean this:
Ashley Madison has proven THAT these ARE JUST slogans more than you can imagine, Ken.
You are saying that what I wrote is just a slogan that western culture does not live by, because of all the hypocrisy of secret adulteries.
Even so, that is the world and hypocrites.
How is that pathetic though?
LikeLike
Sorry! I know my English is not that good, yet you got it. I’ll improve my English by time insha’ Allah.
It’s pathatic since you try to judge those righteous people by the eye of your culture. Those were the most righteous people after the prophets of God.
LikeLike
“after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires”
It is still true no matter how much the west has abandoned the Bible and left the faith and gone after their own idols made in their own hearts – selfish desires.
LikeLike
Sorry! I know my English is not that good, yet you got it. I’ll improve my English by time insha’ Allah.
That’s ok, no problem; you are doing good; it just took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say; and believe me, when you look at western culture, I completely understand why many in your countries and cultures would see that as “empty slogans”, except that our culture does not show the small believing Christian community. the movies and TV shows make fun of us; and most people from your area of the world don’t even know we exist. They only know about the Pope or Benny Hinn, 2 very bad examples of Christianity.
It’s pathatic since you try to judge those righteous people by the eye of your culture. Those were the most righteous people after the prophets of God.
They honestly do not seem very righteous, especially Muhammad getting special revelation and justifying things and putting words into Allah’s mouth.
and what was that other Hadith when Aisha said, “wow, it seems Allah comes fast to give you your heart’s desire!” ?
It does not pass the smell test.
LikeLike
//////////and what was that other Hadith when Aisha said, “wow, it seems Allah comes fast to give you your heart’s desire!” ?//////
That has been responded here:
http://icraa.org/aishahs-statement-lord-hastens-in-fulfilling-your-desires-explained/
LikeLike
“They honestly do not seem very righteous, especially Muhammad getting special revelation and justifying things and putting words into Allah’s mouth”
Rather they were the most righteous men which history has ever known even if you don’t like this fact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Apostle and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (Surah 33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311
the context of Surah 33:15 is just a few verse later after the Jaynab Bint Jahsh story . . . hum . . . Surah 33:50 shows the immediate context where Muhammad gets special revelation to have more than 4 wives, etc.
Interesting . . .
” . . . a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort.” part of Surah 33:50
“only for you, not for the other believers”
This is put into the mouth of Allah; the true God would not say that.
LikeLike
The Prophet also got special revelation where it was obligatory for him to pray certain prayers at night whereas this was NOT for the Muslims. What is your point?
There are certain things a Prophet is allowed and is permissible whereas the normal people it would not be permitted too. Are you now trying to equate because a Prophet got a certain right, that right MUST be extended to other believers?
I think you have a bigger issue at hand, Jesus who is god in flesh was touched by a woman sexually but didn’t rebuke her, but instead told her she could do it another time:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/27/did-jesus-have-a-wife-a-look-into-the-gospel-of-john/
LikeLiked by 4 people
“So when Zayd had no longer any need for her” (from Surah 33:37) – that is especially ugly.
the True and living God would never say that.
LikeLike
Really? Why do you think he had no longer need of her? The Hadith explains because they “QUARRELLED” and complaining of her behaviour:
Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya:
“She (Zaynab) remained with him (Zayd) close to a year, or longer but then THEY QUARRELLED. Her husband COMPLAINED ABOUT HER to the Messenger of God (SAAS), and he would say to him, ‘Keep your wife for yourself and fear God.’” (The Life of the Prophet Muhammed (‘Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya’) [Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing – Copyright 2000, The Center for Muslim Contribution To civilization], by Ibn Kathir, volume 3, 198)
Jami` at-Tirmidhi:
“Narrated Anas: “When this Ayah was revealed: ‘But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest… (33:37)’ about Zainab bint Jahsh, ZAID HAD COME TO THE PROPHET COMPLAINING, and he wanted to divorce her, so he consulted with the Prophet. The Prophet said: ‘KEEP YOUR WIFE TO YOURSELF, AND HAVE TAQWA OF ALLAH (Fear God) (33:37).’” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3212 (Sahih Darussalam))
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/18/zayd-zaynab-and-muhammed-fabrications-and-lies/
LikeLike
seems to be treating her like an object rather than a human being.
LikeLike
either way, both versions of the story are embarrassing.
LikeLike
I have a friend who is a former Muslim and it was when he first read this section in the Qu’ran (Surah 33:36-37 and the surrounding verses, as in verses 50 and 51 – he started crying, because he could not believe what he was reading. it was the beginning of him questioning Islam; later he became a Christian.
LikeLike
I think you have a bigger issue at hand, Jesus who is god in flesh was touched by a woman sexually but didn’t rebuke her, but instead told her she could do it another time:
Gnostic gospels are false writings – they are not revelation.
But your stuff is both Qur’an, that you believe is Allah’s eternal speech, and Hadiths that are mostly true if Sahih and Hasan and you honor those.
No Christians ever honored the Gnostic gospels. They are flat out lies by heretics, written much later than the first century.
LikeLike
Read the whole article, we quoted directly from your own NT. The Gospel fo John:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/27/did-jesus-have-a-wife-a-look-into-the-gospel-of-john/
We mainly relied on the New Testament that Jesus was sexually touched but did not rebuke the woman. But instead told her that she could continue what she did at a later date.
Shouldn’t you god who is Jesus know better not to allow a woman to sexually touch him and egging her on to do it at a later date?
LikeLike
Gospel according to Philip is a Gnostic and false gospel, not written by Philip, and full of lies and fabrication and heresy.
the other stuff in your article – you are taking a Greek word and applying a possible meaning to other contexts that do not have that meaning.
In 1 Corinthians 7:1 – it has that sexual connotation because of the context of everything around it and the subject matter at end of chapter 6 and 7:2- end of chapter.
But the other contexts it does not mean that, “touch” has no sexual connotation in those other contexts.
It is a very ugly accusation you made on the Gospel of John and other passages.
LikeLike
Every single Greek lexicon/dictionary says that the word is sexual. If Jesus wasnt touched sexually why did he stop her from touching him at that moment, while at the same time allowed other woman and men touching him?
Jesus was touched sexually here is a FACT. Even the Christian scholar James Gray has a very hard time understanding why Jesus didnt allow her to touch him at that moment whilst letting other woman and men touch him, in his words:
“WE MUST CONFESS INABILITY TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS SATISFACTORILY. (James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary on John 20:17 – online source)
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/27/did-jesus-have-a-wife-a-look-into-the-gospel-of-john/
MORE EVIDENCE Jesus was touched sexually:
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”.
More here:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/27/did-jesus-have-a-wife-a-look-into-the-gospel-of-john/
LikeLiked by 2 people
you don’t know how to read a Greek Lexicon. Lexicon entries give all the meanings with different contexts. You are not doing intellectual or scholarly work by that stupid article. and those Lexicon entries you gave only have 1 Cor. 7:1 as that meaning. You didn’t give the best Lexicon, the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker standard Greek Lexicon. Anyway, the only Biblical contexts for that meaning are 1 Cor. 7:1 and in the lxx Genesis 20:6 and Proverbs 6:29.
It does not have that meaning in any other context. Jesus, in John 20:17 is telling Mary to stop clinging to Him as if to stop Him from disappearing and leaving permanently – it is a time for joy and going and sharing about the good news of His resurrection – “go and tell My disciples about My resurrection and that I am ascending to heaven with the Father. “
LikeLike
As I already wrote, you are being irresponsible by assigning a meaning to a Greek word in a different context a meaning that it does not have in that context. And you deceptively used a Gnostic false gospel to start your stupid article.
Your entire article is discredited because you don’t understand basic level issues of context, proper word studies, the way a Lexicon / Dictionary entry functions. You butchered the context of all the passages.
Shameful.
LikeLike
Dr. White did an excellent job of answering this today on the Dividing Line program, from around the 38 minute mark to the 1 hour and 24 minute mark.
Dr. White quoted straight from the Tarikh of Al Tabari تاریخ الطبری (The History of Al Tabari) and Surah 33:37-38.
LikeLike
What was the excellent job that he did exactly? Nothing. He got refuted as you see in the comments above.
LikeLike
BTW, all the prophet’s wives are mothers of the faithful ones and the believers since that what Quran states clearly.
It’s not a sunni matter! It’s what Islam teaches.
It’s just twelver Shia have nothing to do with Quran, and they don’t consider its teachings.
LikeLike
“You can imagine the answer from christians who believe that the KJB is the words of God !”
We believe that inspiration and providence go together and that the KJB is the fruit of this. A situation comparable to the hadith is unthinkable given God’s promises in scripture to preserve the purity of his word and the self-authenticating testimony of the bible to own it’s truth. This is a proof to me that Islam is a false religion.
Perhaps there is more than a little irony if White doesn’t recognize the right of Muslims to pick and choose what is true from their extant scriptures if he does the same with his.
Apart from that I would agree with everything he believes and he is a great apologist with perhaps an unrivalled all round knowledge of the faults of most of the false religions out there which use the bible falsely.
LikeLike
Sorry. I used the word false or closely related word three times in one sentence.
How’s about that for awful english 🙂
I am definitely not inspired in contrast to the writers of the bible 🙂
LikeLike